How many times have we seen it? “Progressive” priests and prelates (what I think about their motivation is here) organise a schismatic event in that most schismatic of Countries, Germany. The homo event is promoted by the Diocese. How many people show up? Frankly, it was clearly only the perverts and their closest accomplices.
This must be atrociously embarrassing, at least for people who are still capable of embarrassment. In fact, it is the natural consequences of Catholic thinking still being, in some way, still present among Germans.
Consider this: the Germans are an extremely, atrociously gregarious people. They don’t really “do” independent thinking. They will, as a whole, go with what other people think, or with what they are told by people they see as in a position of authority. The inability to accept a position that makes one isolated in the group is quite scary, and – besides having been encouraged since the time of the Denazification – has a strong tradition in Germany. Your average Georg Zimmermann has a very, very strong dislike for being, on a hot issue, the only one with a contrary opinion in the room; which is what, for example, would greatly please many Italians.
So, let us look at the ingredients here: the German government, the local parish, even the local Diocese tell you that perversion is good and must be supported if you want to be a good Christian/good human/part of the group. Still, German Catholics refuse to take part to this game. If you have lived in Germany, and know how scarily gregarious Germans are, this gives you all the measure of how much Catholics must feel betrayed by their own priests and Bishops.
Now please mind this: whilst both the parish priest and the bishop might well be homosexuals themselves, in Germany there might be a simpler explanation for this pandering to the public opinion: the notorious Kirchensteuer. These prelates might, as a rule, simply be looking for a paying public for their impious, godless circus, thinking that by being godless more people will want to pay the price of admission. However, it can also be easily said that a priest, or prelate, that reduce himself to such a state is clearly giving Satan a huge opening, and who knows where that will end; in many cases, methinks, it ends in sodomy.
Still, what we keep seeing is this: that even the atrociously gregarious German Catholics refuse to follow their “betters” (the civil and religious authorities) and do not collaborate with the worst of the anti-Christian propaganda pushed by both.
I don’t know how long this will go on. But boy, it is good to see that, as we write the Year of the Lord 2021, the homo agenda of the German Bishops is going absolutely nowhere.
You see them more and more often: “family” ads where the “family” is constituted by two fags, or two dikes. Tesco has them, and TalkTalk. No doubt there are others I have forgotten or not noticed.
I don't think it has to do with ideology. I think it more likely that it has to do with the gender terror imposed on UK corporations, with the Gaystapo threatening retaliation if they do not help them to smuggle themselves as normal, grow the children in an atmosphere or perversion and get near the “vulnerable” youth. Those companies, probably run by people largely indifferent to religion, prefer to cave in and let the perverts be perverts.
Theresa May's so-called Conservative Government does not seem to care. No one, in fact, apart from perverts, seems to care for the fact that an entire generation of British children is growing in a world that wants them to see sexual perversion as something normal.
It truly is a quest for self destruction, a cupio dissolvi of the Christian West that already sees a Muslim mayor in London and Mohammed as the most popular name for a child, even as those who are supposed to be Christian regress into the habits and the abomination of heathen.
When all this ends, only God knows. In the meantime I thank God for my strong faith, and let's hope I manage to give some strenght to others.
The Evil Clown has expressed the desire to meet the mother of the Italian homo murdered by another homo because of his – real or alleged – relationship with a Trannie.
There is enough material here to vomit for a quarter of an hour. Still, this cretin has it known that he wants to meet the mother of the victim.
Notice here that there is nowhere any trace of condemnation of sexual perversion: not from Francis and not from the mother. Therefore, Francis does not want to meet her as a heroine of the fight for mental sanity, but far more likely as a part of the normalisation of sexual aberration this non-judging nincompoop seems to be pushing all the time.
There is something extremely disquieting and decidedly creepy in the attitude of this man towards perverts. It is as if he would surround with as many of him as he can (besides Ricca we can easily mention Martin, Rosica, Paglia and “Tucho” Fernandez as very easy suspects; I leave it to you if you want to add Coccopalmerio, too) and, when he cannot, he would try to be as near as he can to them by proxy, like the young man in love who likes to chat with the mother of the beloved one.
This man is truly creepy, and it might be even creepier that not many seem to notice anymore.
We live in times in which a Pope seeking the vicinity of perverts is not even news anymore.
I saw him during my lunch pause, in a busy business district of a city that shall remain unnamed.
Very, very long hair parted in the middle, and almost completely white. A big, manly face signed by time and weather. No delicate lineaments, he. Big nose, big jaw, scorched skin. You get the type. Corpulent, but not obese.
Two huge breasts, probably a patent from DuPont, emerged from under a purple shirt. They weren't “men boobs”. No. This was the work of DuPont all right. A scaffold, attempting to be a bra, kept the things in place.
The man walked along the street with the grace of an elephant, and was the very epitome of a freak show. Not a bit shy about it, though. Just walking the “boys” out a bit, I suppose. The poor wretch was a pathetic sight, and filled my heart with pity and disgust at the same time.
I could not avoid thinking that the shock I had will be reduced in the years to come, as such freak shows, now so openly “celebrated”, become more and more common, and the taxpayer provides for the expenses of self-mutilation, hormone-driven-deformation, and all the rest demanded by the poor wretches.
A society celebrating perverted freak shows, and making of them the very symbol of a new era, represents a scale of rebellion comparable to the one of the inhabitants of Sodom. But this XXI Century Sodom will soon engulf a great part of the West (yes, Italy and the other traditional Catholic Countries too: can't you see how your own pope loves to surround himself with them?), and will “celebrate” his own man made goodness and tolerance as it does so.
This is the world in which your children and nephews will grow. Perversion as normality. Christianity as oppression.
Prepare yourself for the daily freak shows. And pray that you and your loved ones may never become so perverted that you see perversion as normality.
I stumbled upon a rather good article about the obscene celebration of sexual perversion to which St. Patrick's Day Parade has been, well, perverted by, oh well, perverts and those who are accomplices in their sin crying to heaven for vengeance.
However, it seems to me that in this way no battle will be ever won. The way I see it, this article and the many contributions like this have one serious shortcoming, that should be addressed.
You will notice that the “P” word is never spoken. Sexual perversion is a serious matter, which, by its own very nature, cannot be reduced to simple “immorality” as the one caused by the weakness of human nature. I wonder how many would write that child abuse is immoral and, well, premarital sex is also immoral. Some sins cry to heaven for vengeance, and some not. Some sins go with our nature, some sins go against it. We must make this distinction, or we will give the impression that sexual perversion is just on the same level as common human weakness, or that all grave sins are much of a muchness. They aren't. Hell isn't a common room, either.
Words convey messages. If the message is to be strong, the words used to convey it must be strong, too. I do not expect a priest to write “faggot” in his article, but if words like “gay” and “LGBT” are used in in implicit acceptance that they are the proper way to describe perverted people, then I do not see how we can persuade anyone that is not already persuaded.
The garden variety homo (or dyke, trannie, and all the circus tools of the sort; perverts all of them) never hesitates in employing a very emotionally charged, inflammatory language against you; and if you answer to his accusations of “homophobia” without telling him that he is just a pervert who would, in better times, have gone to jail for his perverted scandal*, then we are going to go absolutely nowhere; because we will be perceived, and rightly so, as people afraid of their own argument, and therefore unable to oppose more than a meowing to the roaring of Satan's lions.
They insult us. We answer by adopting their own language, and being oh so attentive not to hurt their feelings. No battle was ever won sounding the trumpet of the enemy.
The “P” word must come back in the debate about… perversion. There is no other way of tackling the issue than by saying loud and clear what the issue is. Similarly, the word “gay” and expressions like “LGBT” must be refused legitimacy and be used only in an ironic or mocking way (yes, mocking; mockery wins wars), never calling perverts the way the want to be called, but always calling them what they are.
Refuse to do so, out of a misguided sense of “charity” or politeness, and it will not be long until the very use of the word “pervert” will make you persecuted. A persecution which you will have called on yourself out of your own desire to be polite with people with no desire at all to be polite to you.
The Italian says: “chi agnello si fa, il lupo se lo mangia”, or “he who makes himself a lamb, the wolf eats him”.
Perverts are wolves. Be a lamb with them, and you will be eaten.
*In some European Countries the homosexual scandal, not sodomy in itself, was a criminal offence.
The defence of Catholic teaching in matters of homosexual perversion – heard from many corners since October – is certainly encouraging. Still, one cannot but notice one feature typical of all or almost all the interventions: the extreme reluctance to call homosexuality a “sexual perversion”.
Whilst there are not a few prelates who would use words like “intrinsically disordered” – which amounts to the same but said in a way most people will not fully understand – when it is about really making an impact, most of our prelates balk at the “p” word.
This leaves the public in a strange limbo, as they are told that homosexuality is wrong, but they aren’t really told why. Not, at least, in a way that drives the point home.
I am sure a lot of Catholics begin to think the Church condemns homosexuality for some reason that we will never fully grasp, but register it (for now at least) as fact. Apart from the perversion of healthy thinking such a thinking betrays, it makes dissent not all too difficult; actually, it invites it, because when things are not properly explained trouble can never be far away.
Perversion is a simple concept to understand: the thinking of someone whose sexual desire goes in the wrong (per; as in perjury) direction (versio; as in conversion). This is so, as every simple mind understands, irrespective of the person acting on his perversion, or not. The pedophile is a pedophile because he lusts after children; he does not begin to be a pedophile only when he rapes a child. The perversion is there before the action. The action – or the mindset – is particularly grave because it goes – other than, say, gluttony – against what the natural desire should be. Gluttony is the result of a god-given desire gone out of control. Perversion is a desire that must not be there in the first place.
When you put the issue in these simple words, it becomes easier for the faithful to understand the intrinsic depravity of homosexuality. If you keep talking of something “God does not want” without qualifications you are muddling the waters, because gluttony or fornication do not go frontally against the way we are built, but homosexuality, incest or pedophilia do. We also know that even mortal sins have different degrees of gravity; therefore, to invoke the fact that gluttony can induce a man to mortal sin does not help, either.
Clarity is the only way. Pussyfooting around doesn’t help anyone. Let the church abandon the concept of homosexuality as perversion, and your children will be – when sufficiently perverted in their reasoning – unable to understand what the fuss is all about. Hey, they remember when they stole from the cookie jar. That can be a mortal sin too, no?
We need more prelates and simple priests able and willing to pronounce the “p” word instead of using more or less indirect expressions, lacking in clarity and forcefulness even when they do not lack in meaning. We must not allow political correctness to prevent us from clearly expressing what the Church believes. Our shepherds should be the first to tell the truth whole, lest the real message (it’s a sexual perversion) goes lost in the pussyfooting (“God says he’d really like you not to; why it is so beats me, but hey…”).
Clarity creates clear alternatives and demands clear choices. “The Church says homosexuality is a perversion. No, really. This is what the Church believes. What do you say?”
Ten years of this, and things will change radically.
Nothing of this, and I see persecution coming.
More examples in the last days showing the indescribable stupidity of liberals.
The first one is a mother whose young son – only four years old, poor child – tells her that he wants a tutu. Promptly the mother seizes the moment, writes a book with the telling title my princess boy – a contradiction in terms of course, but liberals don’t let logical absurdities come in the way of their ideology – and embarks in a, no doubt, remunerative and sales-promoting tour with the poor child, explaining to all of us how bigoted we are. Chances are that this boy will, notwithstanding his perverted and exploiting mother, still grow up to be a healthy adult male utterly ashamed of his embarrassing mother (if you have seen the film “Laurel Canyon”, Christian Bale gives a very good portrait of such an adult); but make no mistake, mommy will do all she can to make of her son a pervert, because she now has an emotional investment – and a financial interest – in it.
The next level of parental perversion is shown by a Canadian couple (remember: Canada is a country able to put a Catholic bishop in front of a human rights tribunal because he’s Catholic) who, now expecting a child and not wanting to wait a couple of years before starting the perversion work, knows whether it will be a boy or a girl but doesn’t say to anyone, in order to stress that the child should be able to select his “gender” of choice. No you idiots, he won’t. Note that these parents already have two young boys going around dressed as girls. God bless all three of them, poor children.
No amount of liberal madness can ever justify playing with one’s children’s lives to satisfy one’s ideological stance. These people are seriously threatening the future of their children, either giving a substantial contribution to them growing up with sexual perversions (remember: God doesn’t do perversion; humans do!) or saddling them with a huge amount of confusion and uncertainty which will not be easy to throw away as they grow up; particularly considering that in this case perversion is not even seen with a kind of resigned detachment, but clearly encouraged and provided with parental approval. Which, by the way, is another very strong argument (if such were needed) against adoption by perverts.
Private Baldrick was never so right.
On Crisis Magazine there is an interesting contribution from a US sociologist and – interestingly – Democratic politician, David R. Carlin. I’d like to start from his article, and develop a bit.
Mr Carlin has spent 25 years of his life arguing against so-called homosexual “marriages”; but, in the typical lack of clarity – or of courage – of the politician, he has carefully avoided to solidly base his arguments on their natural basis: the religious one.
This strategy is never going to work, and now Mr Carlin himself admits that he has seen the light. In fact, you can’t argue against homosexuality without even indirectly calling religious values at your defence. Every “non-religious” argument (he mention a long list of them, like the one that marriage was instituted for the begetting of children or that if everyone can “marry”, marriage loses significance) becomes totally devoid of logic is the religious basis of the reasoning is disregarded.
If marriage is not a religious institution, there’s no reason on earth why marriage should not be modified to comprise, say, the raising of cats and dogs, or the marriage between men and goats. If marriage is not based on religion, it has no importance whatsoever what “significance” marriage has, as every significance with which the voters are OK should be good enough. That a child needs a father and a mother will be questioned by those who think that a man can be a woman, and it will also have to be explained how it is that widows aren’t forced to remarry; and so on. In short, there’s no argument against homo marriage that can avoid the only argument against homosexual behaviour: namely, that it’s a perverted behaviour condemned by God.
Mr Carlin honestly admits that the fear of being called “homophobic” was a motive in his avoiding to play the only real card – remember, this is a politician! -. But this is also a non-argument, as the homo mafia will call “homophobic” everyone who doesn’t completely agree with them anyway. Already the idea that one should go into an argument afraid of how his opponent might call him shows all the ineffectiveness of such approach.
Just as ineffective and, in the ultimate analysis, naive is the argument that one doesn’t want to upset relatives or friends who are perverted. One can’t pick relatives, but one can pick friends. I ain’t one of those with the “some of my best friends are homosexual” argument because if one is an unrepentant homosexual, he has as much of a chance of becoming my friend than he had if he were openly pedophile, or given to bestiality. As to the relatives, it is clear that the “sensitive” Mr Carter is putting his own comfort before the soul of people he loves; which might be convenient (before one dies, that is), but is certainly not charitable.
It is time, then, for every opponent of homosexual behaviour to get at the root of the problem: that homosexuality is a perversion, and homosexual behaviour cries to heaven for vengeance. And why it is so? Because God says so. And why do you say that God says so? Because Scripture and Tradition both say so. Because it has always been the teaching of the Only Church. Because for all these years not only Catholics, but even Protestants had enough sense to get it.
The idea that a pervert should be persuaded that he is wrong by the sheer force of logical arguments fails in front of the simple fact that perversion doesn’t listen to logic. The idea that you can point out to a pervert that his behaviour is a perverted one without offending him is just as naive.
We as a society must simply get rid of this cretinous idea that everyone has the right of never listening to anything by which he may be offended.
Until we do this and start to assert the Christian basis of our values, our arguments will be – as Mr Carlin has discovered – ultimately ineffective.
I have written some time ago about the great potential for trouble coming from perverted “relationships” and the utter failure to deliver on their promises of “normality”.
This here – (taken from the excellent site of John Smeaton, though the real link is from a disgusting “poof & lesbian” site) may be only an isolated case, but I think it is rather indicative of a mentality. A drunk lesbian punched her pregnant ex-girlfriend with a view – as she, according to the site, herself admits – to kill the baby. She was drunk, apparently (what a lady, btw); but as they say, in vino veritas.
I might be biased or naive here, but I can scarcely imagine a concluded heterosexual relationship in which the man punches her ex-girlfriend in her stomach with an aim to kill the baby she is now having from another man. I also cannot remember ever reading of a thing like that.
It seems to me that here the extreme selfishness so typical of these perverted relationships plays a role; that the hugely inflated “me”-attitude that persuades one that whatever he does – and is – is right, even if it is perverted to the extreme, is the same mentality which then considers utterly consequential to strike in order to kill whatever would come between one’s ego and the attainment of one’s desires. The drunkenness is here, I would say, rather what let the woman forget the legal implications of her act, that what formed her evil intention in the first place. Rather, the evil intention must be the obvious consequence of the extreme self-centredness of people with such behaviour.
It is no less than astonishing that the woman’s treatment has been so mild. In my book, this is an attempted homicide. I also wonder whether a man would have been treated, in the same situation, with the same mildness.
Thankfully, we are informed that the lesbian in question wants to “put this matter behind her”. How very kind of her.
I should now quote the one with the hell and the woman scorned; but I’m afraid lesbians go beyond that.
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!).
By all the disgust about the astonishing feat of these last days (two perverted children “adopting” – or something like that – a third child, this one very young) we have somewhat overlooked the fact that in this case, astonishing behaviour is shown on several levels.
Let us take, for example, the mother. I mean by that the rightful owner of the uterus considered fit enough for an aging rock star and his chosen boy toy. No doubt the lady can use the cash as, for what I know, the physiological process of pregnancy is neither of little consequence, nor entirely pleasant, nor devoid of some (residual, nowadays) health risk. This without considering the bikini shape, as I am risking the assumption that one able and accustomed to have almost any whim satisfied will choose to have his boy or (more importantly) daughter as pleasing to the eye as technology and money can make possible.
The mother, then. I can hear all the circle of friends and acquaintances emitting various rumours and hushed cries of faked joy swearing about how “beautiful” this is. How “sweet”. How very “exciting”. By the money probably involved, the word “remunerative” might also have fallen in; though of course not in the presence of the sweet angel bearing the new life romantically injected into her after the documentation was finalised.
What is more to the point is that the lady prostituted her uterus for the well-paid pleasure of a strange royal family composed of two queens, and that all those who have helped in doing so (the doctors and medical personnel; or the lawyers caring for the, no doubt, ponderous legal side of the matter) have abetted this prostitution.
Think of it: in most Western countries the law does not allow to organise an establishment so that men can have an hour of (sinful, but humanly rather understandable*) pleasure, but in the same countries it would be allowed to rent a woman not for an hour of pleasure but for nine months of a complex biological process; not to satisfy an extremely common human craving, but to satisfy the extraordinary whim of a very rich person; not to satisfy a sexual attraction whose existence (even if wrongly directed in this case) is preordered by God and considered holy, but to satisfy a perversion God has never made possible in the first place and only a perverted use of technology in Mengele-style has made achievable. The madame of the establishment which Elton John might have visited to get a whim out of his system (if he had been a man; which he isn’t) would have risked jail, but the doctor who implanted a baby on the uterus of his choice doesn’t.
Funny world. Where are the feminists when they could, for once, be of some use.
The mother, then. Methinks, she reasons that this is only a biological exercise; that once the child has been given away he will be soon be if not forgotten, at least not remembered as her own lost child; that by all the money received in the process (I can’t really imagine her having financial cares, ever again) she’ll be able to go on with her life, have her own children, give them better chances than this would otherwise have been possible, & Co. Doesn’t work that way, though. Volens nolens, she is the mother. Nature is stronger than rationalisation and clever thinking. Nature doesn’t care for the content of legal documents. Nature will claim from her, one day, that motherhood that she has sold, prostituted away.
We see it happening in these tragic era, with female suicides on the rise largely because of abortions committed several decades before. We have seen it happening in all ages past, with mothers forced to give their babies to the care of an orphanage pining for their lost motherhood (involuntarily lost, poor souls) for the rest of their life. We see it happening even in men, developing an extremely keen sense of loss after divorce and partial isolation from their children. Think of the sorrow of the woman discovering one day (a day far away perhaps, but a day that will invariably come) that this was her child, made by her and sold. Wouldn’t want to be her, not for all money in the world.
Far less tragic appears in comparison the position of the other accomplices and one can’t exclude that they will live and die in utter disregard of the evil they have contributed to create. Still, even for them the day will come when account must be given. I hope and pray that for them awareness and repentance may come before it’s too late.
I wish everyone a happy, prosperous and spiritually fruitful 2011.
* Before the usual idiots and feminists come out saying that “Mundabor approves of prostitution”, let me make clear that I don’t.
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.