When I first saw the tweet on Youtube, I thought exactly the same as the author of this article: the allegations about Hunter Biden’s computer are of such gravity, that Chanel Rion would expose herself to the risk of ruinous criminal and civil suits if they were baseless, and therefore libelous.
It seems to me that there is a certain category of politician (mainly Democrats), who develop such a disdain for common rules that it destroys them when their quest for power, or pursue of depravity, or greed gets out of control. Anthony Weiner is a good example. Hillary Clinton (though she, sadly, never went to jail) is another. Rod Blagojevich (who had his sentence reduced by Trump, but is still guilty of his crime) is a third one. Power goes to one’s head. Particularly after many years. Particularly if you are a Dem. Particularly if you are uncommonly arrogant.
But what if you are all these things (with the power by proxy), and you are, in addition to all that, a drug addict?
Not trying to be a Sunday psychologist here, but it’s not difficult to imagine a drug addict as a person who loves the forbidden fruit; who is extremely eager to taste what is illegal and dangerous; who desires to go where normal people don’t; who, at some level, loves to defy them by doing what disgusts them, and enjoys it.
So, Hunter is not very smart, a crack cocaine addict, and he is allowed by “Pop” (perhaps in exchange for monetary kickback; I have written about this) to be a very powerful man by proxy. What other boundaries might he decide to smash? And is it absurd to think that, drunk on power and desirous to excite himself with his own depravity, he would be not only so dumb as to keep videos of his own perverted antics, but so stupid as to send the laptop to repair with all the material inside, and forget to retrieve the laptop afterwards? You might say that this is something only a crackhead would do; but this, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly what we have here!
Mind, I want to be fair: it is not inconceivable (though difficult to believe) that compromising material was planted in Hunter’s laptop when the laptop was not in his control. It is also possible that the material was such that Hunter Biden was put, perhaps profiting of his drug addiction, in a position allowing the Chinese to blackmail both him and “Pop” (which would still be fatal to “Pop’s” career, even without monetary implications, as the man is so China-friendly it’s embarrassing). Still: if the alleged videos have Hunter on them, then it’s game over, as there is no technology in existence which would allow to counterfeit a video in a manner that cannot be recognised.
I don’t know what will come out of this. But when I read articles like the one I have linked to, it seems difficult to me to believe that “underage”, in this context, means “17 years and 11 months old California Girl stunner”. I think it means something much, much more sinister.
This would be, of course, merely in addition to the pay-to-play schemes involving son, brother and son-in-law; probably with “Pop” putting some of the money in his oh so folksy pockets. Come on, man!
The gift that, sadly enough, might keep on giving.
And so President Putin did what everyone knows, but it is slowly becoming one of the biggest taboos in the otherwise almost completely taboo-free Western societies: linking homosexuality and pedophilia.
You can now make some popcorn and wait for the immancably incensed reaction of the liberal troopers, most of whom would never be as stupid as to allow their own child to spend time alone – not occasionally, much less regularly – with an homosexual.
The figures concerning the unspeakable scandal of pedophile priests speak a clear language: the evidence available, like the Murphy report, indicates the vast majority of those involved (you will have to do your own googling yourself for exact details if you are so inclined) were homosexuals. Now, many of these cases were of consensual sex with adolescents considered “children” in some Countries, but again the numbers are generally clear in creating a strong link, and indicating that a homosexual priest is far more likely to be a pedophile than a heterosexual one.
Putin poses, therefore, an implicit question that the West refuses to answer: how much higher will be the probability of being the victim of pedophile adoptive parent for an unfortunate child “adopted” by an homosexual “couple”, compared to the child adopted by normal people?
Let us reflect: if priesthood is an attractive way for a pedophile to get – at least in the past – near children, isn't adoption the safest way for him to reach his objective? How much easier will it be for him to create an environment favourable to both the crime and its impunity? What more can a pedophile wish than being the adoptive father of his own child, manipulating or terrorising him in all possible and impossible ways?
I dare to make here the very easy prediction that in three or four decades' time the phenomenon of the children abused by homosexual “parents” (parents? Really?) will explode, as the “parents” slowly die or become harmless and the victims slowly realise what was done to them, and why. At that point, either society will have become so rotten that it will ignore or even “celebrate” the matter, or – more probably – an awful lot of people will start to realise that the devil, once he has taken a stronghold in a soul, will use this wretch to make as much damage as it can.
Putin sees this obvious connection, and throws the question – implicitly, but clearly – in the arena. The West keeps ignoring it, basking in the smug feeling of the maddest blindness for the sake of the celebration of its own “tolerance” and “inclusiveness”.
Putin will, of course, not obtain much in the short term, at least not in what concerns the West. But in the long term he might cause one or five people to wake up, and his sterling work in keeping Russia Christian – Schismatic, but Christian – can only be praised.
Oh for someone, only one, leading a great Western Democracy, able to think and act like him…
Ah, the brave new world of liberal thinking: completely God-free, and with as much Satan as you can eat.
Read here about a new “sexual orientation”: the “minor-attracted”.
Makes sense, doesn't it?
If sodomy is only a matter of orientation, one does not see why this “orientation” should be condemned when it is directed towards children, dogs, or one's own relatives. Either a society decides that certain grave sins are forbidden for the simple reason that they go against natural law and God's precepts, or hell is the limit.
Yet, some people – many people, in fact – are now so ignorant and stupid that they espouse the mantra of “if there is no violence, people should be free to do what they want”.
Say hello to a world where homosexuals – and some heterosexual, presumably – have sex with their own adopted children, obviously within the framework of “love” the liberal society knows so well. As for the case of euthanasia, and so slimy itself, the work of “persuasion” of these monsters will at some point make abomination seem normal, and there will be no lack of subtle and less subtle ways to pervert little innocents. One can hope the phenomenon will – horrible as it is – be at least limited to the sons of the liberals themselves, but I fear much for the orphans. And then of course the perverts will try to pervert your children already at school. Isn't this exactly what they are trying to do with sodomy already?
This stupid society does not understand that one cannot be satanic by half. If one is ok with sodomy, it will only be a matter of time until he – or his children, or grandchildren at the latest – are fine with every other sort of abomination under the sun. Then the sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the children, as it is supposed to be.
Naturally, give it a couple of decades and every expression of opinion against such abominations will be accused of being intolerant, bigoted, hypocritical, & Co. “Phaedophobe!”, will the same people yell at you who now call you “homophobe”, among the applause of liberal journalists and self-appointed “intellectuals”.
As we have just seen, it works.
And it came to pass that only six days before the General Elections in Germany – and only one day after the very important regional elections in Bavaria, which was a great disappointment to them – the Greens and their head candidate Juergen Trittin are in the middle of a storm.
It turns out Mr Trittin supported himself the Green Party's electoral programme for the local elections in 1981, which called for the decriminalisation of at least some “non violent” sexual relationships between children and adults. It was apparently only in 1989 that such calls disappeared from the green party's agenda.
Yours truly would like to – beside not hiding from you his satisfaction at the events – make a couple of considerations.
1. Mr Trittin says he is sorry he has not done enough against this objective of his party, with which he always felt “uncomfortable”. I wonder if in all these years he showed the Church the same kind of understanding he now asks for himself and his political affiliates.
2. Funnily enough, there is now vague talk of the Green Party asked to pay to those organisations caring for the victims of pedophilia. I do not have the details, nor do I know how the legal frame for this is in Germany; but boy, I do hope that they are made to pay for decades, are criminalised as a category, and their name is never mentioned by the press without reference of their support for pedophilia. Do to them what they have done to the Church, say I.
Some tries now to take refuge in “the times”. Yes, they say, we supported such demands and calls, but “those were the times”. It is not clear to me why a politician who supported perversion in perverted times should feel authorised to tell us what is right and wrong a couple of decades later. It is obvious that such people – including Trittin – should look for their vocation elsewhere: gardening, say, or collecting stamps. There is such a disgusting entitlement mentality in saying to us we should cope with whatever past these people have, as if the doctor had prescribed to have a Juergen Trittin in politics at the highest level. Besides, “those were the times” is never heard when a bishop is accused to have been too naive or too lenient with his own priest. I am not justifying the bishop here, at all. I am saying that the leftist politician should not get any discount due to “the times”.
3. Lastly, allow me to make a prediction. These arrogant Greens and assorted liberal politicians who prostituted themselves to the pedophile mentality of past times are the same kind of people who today prostitute themselves to the lobby of the sodomites. In twenty or thirty years' time, they will tell us that they “deeply regret” having supported perversion, and that “the times” did not allow them to see reason, or they – Trittin's pathetic excuse – did not “oppose” the ideology as they should have, though they felt “uncomfortable”.
I truly hope this scandal leads to the destruction of a couple of ill-gained political careers – starting with Mr Trittin's – and that this becomes a first alarm bell to all those who continue to support sexual perversion, only of a different kind from pedophilia.
Make no mistake, if the “uncomfortable” Trittin had been told in 1981 that the party programme on sex with children would one day be seen as gravely perverted, he would have laughed, pointing out to the enlightened times that have taken the place of old Christian bigotry and the irreversibility of the evolution process now started and helped by the progressive Green Party. “You can't put the clock back”, and all that jazz.
The clock was, in fact, put back, or better said the madness was stopped. One day, it will happen in the matter of sodomy, too. I hope it will be soon enough, and hard enough, to destroy the careers of all those who have prostituted themselves to Satan for the sake of their own political advantage.
This story is very young, and it is for me difficult to see whether it will develop in the Green Sledgehammer the enormity of the facts justifies, or whether it will (more probably, I am afraid) rapidly disappear once the elections are over. On the one hand, it is alarming the core facts were already known and have been brewing for some time before making the national headlines in this way; on the other hand, Germany is possibly still healing from their liberal pedophile madness of the Eighties, and at some point the awareness must reach the level where head rolls. There are social processes that grow slowly for many years (whether rightly or wrongly) and then suddenly develop their own dynamic and jump at the centre of the attention in a relatively short time. The new religion of global warming is, I think, a good example.
Let's enjoy this for now, and let us hope this matter teaches a couple of professional electoral prostitutes that their satanic support for perversion today can catch up with them not only in years, but even in decades.
If we had a halfway decent clergy rather than too many little Bergoglios, this message – “we are going to try to demolish every politician who supports sodomy, even if it should take two generations to do so” – would be sent from the pulpits every week, and would have the little prostitutes trembling and wetting their trousers in no time.
Alas, we live in time when to criticise is allegedly a crime. This mentality, too, will come back to haunt its supporters one day, or the day they die.
Children, we are informed today, as young as nine.
The country is, understandably, shocked.
Now let me think…
Wasn't there another famous chap who also screwed a little girl of nine?
How was his name?
Ah, now I remember!
We are informed in a place like Connecticut it is possible for a couple of perverts to adopt nine children. Since when have fags been so motherly? Or are they perhaps chasing the transfer payment? What about having at home material to satisfy their pedophile perversion? Who on earth allowed them such adoptions? Are they straight? Are they pedophiles themselves? How were such decisions motivated?
It seems to me that here something utterly tragic is brewing. Let us think of the homosexual priests’ child abuse scandal. What has happened on that occasion? It happened that homosexuals were allowed to enter the Seminary and become priests in droves. Now, we must understand that there is a univocal (as opposed to biunivocal) correspondence here: whilst it cannot be said that the vast majority of homosexuals are pedophiles, it can comfortably be said that the vast majority of pedophiles are homosexual, as are of course the totality of ephebophiles. The statistical basis provided by Catholic priests involved in sexual scandals is in itself a crushing evidence of this, but if you have any doubt you only need to look at those behind the calls to remove the age of consent to have any possible doubt dispelled.
The same mistake – only with much worse consequences, as it puts the intended victim in a much more vulnerable position – is happening with the so-called “gay adoption”. In the Seventies and Eighties homosexuals were allowed to enter the seminary in droves, either because the deciders were homosexual themselves or because their homosexuality was seen as harmless and anyway irrelevant in their dealing with children. Only many years later the devastation appeared in all its tragic scale, as it took a decade or two to individuate a pattern of behaviour, particularly given both the obvious reluctance of priests to admit they are homosexual (which is supposed to cost them their job) and the disgraceful episodes of cover-up all too known to all of us.
Notice, then, how the pattern is repeating here. Homosexual or ideologically perverted officers allow perverted couples to have small children at their disposal in an environment that is the most favourable for them to act on their perversion; and whilst many of those perverts will not be paedophiles, the worst paedophiles among them will be motivated to seek adoption. You can imagine from this the scale of the problem that is being created; and this, completely irrespective of the other massive problem of the raising of a child in a sexually perverted environment.
Some might say that heterosexual couples may hide a pedophile too, but this does not address the issue. A family made by a man and a woman is the only possible family in a proper sense, and therefore the normality; disfunctions in the normal setting of things do not negate the appropriateness of normality as a working model. On the contrary, the experience among the huge statistical pool of Catholic priests shows us with blinding obviousness that homosexual perversion is a huge factor in the incidence of pedophilia.
The only possible conclusion that can be drawn from past experience and common sense is that the incidence of sexual abuse among children adopted by homosexuals will be a big multiple than among those adopted by heterosexuals. It also tells us that many years will pass before the incidence of such devastation – literally, the satanic work of pedophilia building upon the satanic work of homosexuality – becomes apparent, as both the cover-up of the statistical reality and the insisted denial that homosexuality be a factor in the episodes of pedophilia will slow down the discovery of the ugly truth by the population at large.
This is where we are now. Common sense and a huge statistical basis already tell us where things are headed; but the deluded and perverted – or outright minions of Satan favouring the adoption through pedophiles – will be allowed to accomplish their devilish work by an electorate drunk on “equality” and “sensitivity” to the point of senselessness.
We are in a bad way, and as Christianity slowly but surely fades away from the collective consciousness of once Christian countries our clergy is mainly focused on misinterpreted “social issues”; or content to feed the sheep with insipid waffle about going out of church with a smile on their faces and give witness of their “joy”.
But again, we got where we are largely because we have the clergy we have, and we got the clergy we have largely because we haven’t reacted strongly enough to them for now 50 years, and counting.
Jim will not be able to fix this, and rather probably the BBC will fail, too.
Every day brings new accusations, anecdotes, episodes, some of them shocking, some of them “too graphic to be printed in a family newspaper”, as the generally rather “uninhibited” Sun writes.
In all this, the BBC looks and more like an Anglican bishop caught groping the valet, and they have today releases a very embarrassed statement blabbering about helping the police who is knocking at their door anyway, and being oh so solicitous in launching an internal investigation now that the entire country knows.
Sadly, it appears their own team of Newsnight had investigated rather well, but had been silenced for reasons the BBC still has to explain, and which will probably revolve around “we do not care to say that Jesus had a wife without a shred of evidence, but if one of ours is tought to be a paedophile we’ll only talk when others have proved it beyond reasonable doubt”.
Also please think what the oh so concerned people at the BBC would have said if a Bishop had told of one of his priests that the diocese will collaborate with the police… after the police is investigating him and there’s no real alternative to collaboration.
The situation is now surreal: the BBC (Buggers Broadcasting Communism, I am told it means) now claims there is “no record of complaints”. Really? What have they done with them, then? Or were they unable to write?
Today there was also a dramatic change in the tone used: “horrified” if the word used at the moment; which is a marked, police-induced improvement already. The claims of “no records” also lasted (thinking logically) just a few hours, as it is now openly admitted allegations were there from the Seventies.
Ah, all baseless rumours, must our heroes at the Beeb have thought. “Where will it end” – they must have said to each other – “if we start doing something serious after only ten or twenty years of allegations”. And they accuse of cover-up… the Church, with the Vatican hierarchy often sitting thousands of km away?
Yes, “horrified” is truly the word; but referred to the BBC, too.
What the Daily Mail calls an humiliating U-Turn looks with the hours more and more like a rout. The simple fact is that the BBC was caught with their pants down just in the matter by which they most love to pretend they have caught the Church with theirs. Most worryingly, it seems that this was not the action of one or two isolated friend of Savile making some cover-up for him, but something many had to know. How the BBC can even think of pretending they are not involved up to their chin is beyond me.
At 23.10 tonight, ITV will broadcast an investigation with the shocking and graphic revelations. Whatever it is, it is difficult to believe the BBC did not have a vast hint, if not a detailed knowledge, of what had been happening for decades within their own walls; that is, before ITV first went on the scent. I think it is now very appropriate to ask that the silenced Newsnight report be also broadcast in full and without censorship. We could see if the product was so unsubstantiated and below the BBC “professional” standards, as it is more or less vaguely hinted at.
It appears the BBC were if not the accomplices, at least the willing enablers of Savile’s perversion not for one year or two, but for decades, and I am really curious to hear how they will really explain how is it that nothing serious was ever done.
I do hope the name f the BBC will in future not be mentioned in any other TV or newspaper without mentioning the name of Jimmy Savile, and that a lot of mud will deservedly stick. Is this not what they have done with the Church (the entire one: the Church as an institution) for too long?
If you want to know whether they knew, just read Savile’s BBC Obituary: (emphasis mine)
His eccentric personality, unconventional lifestyle and irrepressible self-belief all defied convention, invited personal speculation, and bemused many an interviewer over the years.
Some questioned the motivation of the man behind such a singular public persona, but his energy and ability were beyond doubt.
What a very British way to say a lot of people inside the Beeb knew, and pretty much everyone was afraid of being the first to talk.
If I were a BBC journalist, I’d now suggest they introduce BBC employees’ celibacy as I would see in it the root of their scandalous involvement in decade-long child abuse and/or child rape.
From the Deacon’s Bench, a barely believable story about a priest suspected of pedophile behaviour and, subsequently, the object of a letter written by the school’s principal to the bishop.
Apparently, Bishop Finn never read the letter. Instead, he appears to have received a “brief verbal summary” about it from his vicar general.
Following questions arise:
1) How can the vicar general have given the bishop a “brief verbal summary” without mentioning words related to the word a bishop must dread most: pedophilia. The details mentioned on the letters are from alarming to sickening (and certainly so in the big picture that emerges from all of them together) and would have put every sensible man, let alone a priest (or a bishop, see below) in a state of maximum alert.
2) Who is this vicar general: a priest (in this case, appointed by the bishop himself) or an auxiliary bishop (possibly not appointed by the bishop; at least not freely so). In the first case, bishop Finn must still be considered accountable in certain measure for the people he puts in position of great responsibility; in the second, we still have a bishop – though not bishop Finn – directly responsible for the blunder.
3) How can a clergyman (whether bishop, or not) not have all alarms bell ringing when he reads or hears something even remotely similar to the word mentioned above. We are in 2011, not 1951.
This seems to me a history of extraordinary incompetence, or laziness, or bad faith at some – not yet entirely clear – level. Which is a double pity, as bishop Finn seems to have his theology in order and not to be one of the progressive and cowardly shepherds. A short google search has given this, the like of which I have never read from any English bishop, (whether reading his letters or not) and will probably not read in my lifetime.
Still and as much as it pains me to say this, it beggars belief that in 2011 we must still read such stories of utter failure of most elementary control mechanisms.
I really do not know what has become of these people, the post V II “progressive” religious. It would seem that if you aren’t a pervert, or a bastard, or both you can’t make any career or be given any serious responsibility in one of those orders that have embraced V II so enthusiastically. I have posted just a few days ago of the Jesuit for whom praying in the name of Christ is an optional, and now this……
When one reads such people (notice, here, the huge effort I am making not to say anything worse than that; I leave it to your imagination) one truly thinks that the scale of naivety – particularly during the years of JP II – in having allowed these people to stay among children must have been immense. I say naivety, because to think otherwise is to me utterly impossible.
We have now from Rorate Caeli the translation of an interview to the Dutch Salesian Superior, a man called Spronck. A chap who has tolerated and allowed to operate a confrere of whom he knew, (let us say this again: of whom he knew) that he was a pedophile. A chap who keeps a pedophile priest in contact with children after the man has been caught twice flashing because hey, “this is not a serious offence”. A chap with such a diabolical mind, that he dares to make to the interviewer the example of a boy who “suffered” because his pedophile priest was taken away from him. A chap who says that things between his own Salesian and children can become sexual as if this was something natural, and normal. A chap who says that if he had his way, sex with children of 12 would be legal.
This is pure evil, this is Satan himself talking out loud in defiance of every Christian rule. The man was probably not even aware of the trouble he would get in, so deeply evil, so entirely corrupt is he.
The text of the interview is the most open admissions of diabolic agenda I have ever read as an official declaration of a religious.
The stunning revelations concern here three families of abominations:
1) that the superior knew, and did nothing besides giving some warning that one must abide by the law, when in front of a clear case of pedophilia. He prides himself that he always stood by the pedophile priest. Unbelievable.
2) that the man abandons himself to shocking affirmation as to sex with minor, up to saying that sex between a boy of 12 and an adult would, if he had the choice, not be forbidden. This is, purely and simply, satanic. I wonder how one can read such things and not suspect that the man is a pedophile, or a homosexual, or both himself. Again, this is pure evil.
3) that the man seems to consider premarital relationships (irrespective of their circumstances) something he has nothing to say against. Now we all live in the same planet and we are all aware of the temptations of the flesh; but this is different, this is just putting God’s law out of the equation. Towards the end of the interview, he even “explains” how these things happen: hey, there were no women around…….. .
Our chap has in the meantime said that he was misrepresented, but frankly I am sick and tired of such sickos hiding behind one finger. If you read the entire interview (if you can, and I understand you if you don’t) you’ll see that the one or other word might have been mistranslated, but the tone and mentality behind the entire interview cannot have been misconstrued entirely.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this man were soon to be arrested himself, as it seems to me that here a diabolical intent is at work, a scale of evil thinking that clearly reveals the darkness of the soul behind it.
After the interview, you’ll find an update of the Salesians with the clarification that the Salesians never condone pedophile behaviour, which is exactly the contrary of what transpires from the interview. Well of course they would say it, wouldn’t they? But this is the Dutch Superior, not a quisque de populo.
I truly hope that there will be further consequences than a press release. This Spronck is pure evil.
Below, just some of the stunning answers given by Mr Spronk. I am very sorry, but whatever “clarification” would now come is rather too late.
Please keep this post away from children and if you can, say a prayer to St. Michael the Archangel.
What do you think of Father Van B., who was twice convicted [for indecent exposure], did he obey the law?
I repeatedly told him what he should do. He was warned several times for flashing, which is, of course, not a serious offense.
But to a pedophile priest to work in churches where he comes into contact with children, without their knowing it, is that really a good idea?
I have always told Father Van B. that he had to obey the law and nothing has ever really happened. So I saw no reason to doubt Father Van B..
Father Van B. says himself that it is necessary to watch him near children. If not, then the pressure increases and he is afraid that things go wrong. What do you say?
I have never seen a reason why he could not work with children. Only in 2007 – after the incident when he worked in the parish of St Luke in Amsterdam – I decided it was sensible that he no longer work with children. I got him sent to Nijmegen. He takes care to older brothers.
How do you feel about sexual relations between adults and children?
Of course there are certain social norms that everyone has to comply with. But one wonders if that is not going too far. Formally, I always say that everyone must obey the law strictly. But these relationships are not necessarily harmful.
You believe that relationships between adults and children are not necessarily harmful?
I have an example. I was once approached by a 14-year-old boy who had a relationship with an older priest. He was sent away, and this boy suffered immensely, he suffered because [the priest] had been sent away. He told me, “Father Herman, why did you send him away?” And, now, what should I say to a boy like this?
So, then, relationships between adults and children are fine?
Personally, I believe that relationships between adults and children are not necessarily wrong [Persoonlijk wijs ik relaties tussen volwassenen en kinderen niet per definitie af.] Do you know Foucault? The philosopher. Do you know his writings? No, you should read that once again, especially the introduction to Part 4. It does depend on the child. You should not look so inflexibly at age. You should never enter into the personal space of a child if the child does not want it, but that depends on the child himself. There are children who themselves indicate that it is admissible. Then, sexual contact is possible.
At what age do you think that sexual relationships are possible?
Saying the age of 18 years is, I think, too inflexible.
Do you think that from the age of 12 years then is fine for sexual relationships with adults?
If it were up to me, they should be.
Will there be in the Salesian Order any more relationships between older people and children?
Just imagine that in the 50s/60s all lived together in ‘s Heerenberg. We were all away from our family and had only each other. Adults and boys – there was no woman to see – then lived together and some things bloom.