A point made by Christopher Booker in The Telegraph: “Two years ago I reported on how Simon Danczuk, the Labour MP for Rochdale, disclosed in the Commons something of the horrors that had been going on in his constituency, where social workers had encouraged the mass-rape of underage girls in “care”, on the grounds that it was merely their “life choice” to become prostitutes.”

At 11, 12, and 13 years of age! Having come from broken homes and de-stabalizing environments, and all sorts of abusive histories.

These workers are the same garbage of people who think homosexuality, pornography, and loveless sex is normal and who want to shove this horrendous liberal ideology down everyone’s throats. And who now control most social work and psychology/psychiatric institutions. They are corrupt to the core. It is a disgrace how degenerate and smug and snotty they have become at the same time.

And let us not forget England’s favorite homosexual pedophile activist, Peter Tatchell, who has fervently  campaigned, along with all his other monstrous homosexual and liberal pals, for lowering the age of consent laws in the UK to 14, before they eliminate limits all together. And why? Because he says that’s “how society will protect children from abuse.”

Look at what this liberal discourse has done to lives of hundreds of children: it’s profoundly contributed to and often ensured their neglect, their abandonment by workers and police when they were being terrorized, exploited, and abused, who dismissed it all as these kids making “choices” and having greater “sexual freedom.”

What kind of a society even listens to such a grotesque individual as Tatchell? Why isn’t he branded and shunned for what he truly is? A vile, homosexual pedophile piece of crap.

We have all heard about many sexual abuse scandals involving children. But the Rotherham one was shocking to me. It’s shocking because of its size (the number of victims, families, perpetrators, and professionals involved) and the depth of the collusion and cover up – every government body and institution involved to protect the children in the case colluded and abetted with abusers – for years and years. And it seems this includes government officials in the highest echelons. So sad.

And, there was also the UK media. The media that is now churning out article after article, report after report, time-lines, interviews, opinion pieces – where were they for the past 16 years? Where were the media institutions who call themselves “progressives”, like the BBC and the Guardian, who attack social conservatives as horrible people? In silence. In their ugly, collusive, criminal silence. They were silent all over England, because the UK media just can’t investigate the subject and bring public attention to it. They must remain in silence until after thousands of children are abused. It’s disgusting.

And finally there is England herself, I mean, the people. While there are people who are truly disgusted and do not want to see such things happen, who really cares in England? The English come across as an ugly, spineless, degenerate people, constantly preoccupied with material affluence and celebrity and royalty issues, having adopted every destructive liberal attitude and behavior possible regarding sexuality and relationships, and being corrupt, corrupt to the core.

So now we discover that the UK has no mandatory abuse report laws. And, if I remember correctly, the same is true still in many places in the US and in so many other countries. The rot is extensive.

Then we also find out that except one or two officials, every other single corrupt and collusive British official, policeman, and care worker related to this scandal is still working in their positions, after having ensured the horrible abuse of hundreds of children. None have been sanctioned in any way. No disciplinary actions have been taken. There are calls for resignations, but how can people sit there calling for such monsters to merely resign? The punishment in England for letting children be terrorized and sexually abused is resignation? For halting police and other investigations, for destroying evidence, for threatening or dismissing the victims? The only thing people demand is for these monsters to lose their freaking job? No, any garbage of politician, councilor, police staff, community worker, or child care worker who neglected or covered up child abuse MUST go to prison. For a long time.

It’s the only way to break the cycle of cover-ups and collusion.

If you don’t know about them, then here they are:

citizengo and HazteOir (in Spain)

Thanks to the liberal twit who put together an article on organizing by conservatives in Europe to tell us about many exciting new international developments.

 

The Rise Of Europe’s Religious Right

“For too long a time in Europe, pro-life people did not really say clearly and directly what they believe.” After years on the margins of European politics, social conservatives are learning to fight back. posted on July 28, 2014, at 4:36 p.m. -J. Lester Feder

And look at this great idea for a picture:

Hungary’s ultranationalist Jobbik Party, for example, printed posters featuring a blond woman with a Hungarian flag standing opposite drag Eurovision champion Conchita Wurst with an EU flag, along with the caption: “You Choose!”

- click on link to the article to see the picture.

Another nice observation in the Linker article comments – see two previous posts.

is anyone else seeing a shift in the language from ‘liberal’ to ‘progressive’? and what if it’s not just a shift in language, but also in political identity? that could eliminate the ‘hypocrisy’ of the left’s intolerance of the intolerant.

  • ===========================================
     My reply:

    Nicely pointed out. Yes, I’ve noticed. Their other ridiculous label “the reality based community” never really caught on much – maybe it was too long. And conservatives have nicely succeeded in making “liberal” have an association to a morally degenerate, irresponsible person, so I guess liberals must move on to new labels.

    Like “evolved” or the “right side of history” refrain – sounds like a Mao-like kind of propaganda phrase – but in an obscenely affluent capitalistic consumerist perverted context. It is a bizarre mixture. What human beings become when they become affluent and lose all send of morality: junk of people.

    As liberals prove, in an echo chamber, everything is possible. The Nazis also always underscored how much progress they were bringing to society.

So I went down to the “Internet saloon” to have a little “saloon” type exchange today in the comments to this article from Damon Linker on why he is now speaking in defense of religious liberty.

And in response to:

Wait… so aren’t you being intolerant of the intolerance that liberals are displaying towards the intolerance of conservatives?

I came up with:

Intolerance against the intolerable is tolerance, that is, tolerance of our tolerance which is not intolerance because it’s just tolerance of our most evolved liberal selves or something

Just having fun :-D

Which leads us to the question, as a result of the culture wars, can anyone use the word “tolerance” with its correct meaning, or has it now been forever disfigured by liberals? Like the rainbow also – marred and tainted by this recent association to homosexuality. It used to be such a pretty symbol. Now it’s just a tool of the ugliest of propagandas, used to cover up a nasty sexual sewer.

 

How social conservatives became a minority in need of protection
During the Bush era, the religious right was ascendant and scarily intolerant. Now the same can be said of the secular left.
By Damon Linker | July 25, 2014

================

I came across the above article because Rod Dreher (TAC) was wailing about something related on his blog.

Damon Linker writes:

“Thirteen years ago, I was a committed social conservative, recently hired as an editor at First Things, a monthly magazine devoted to bringing traditionalist religion into American public life for the purpose of overthrowing the liberal secularism that had been growing in power and influence since the 1960s.”

I don’t know what FT was like it then, but just a few years ago, FT was and continues to be a profoundly morally corrupt publication, who is sturdily pushing for the normalization of homosexuality – and has that as a priority – while constantly censoring voices that sustain a real traditionalist – and healthy – view of sexuality (social conservatism).

After I got banned at FT for expressing traditionalist views, I created a blog to log a few of the censored comments (“Censored at First Things“) – which then turned into a repository of my continuously censored comments all around the Net, including on many so-called traditional religious blogs and sites.

Linker continues delineating his “evolution”:

Though I was skeptical about some aspects of the magazine’s agenda, I was broadly sympathetic with its goals. At least until I saw them guiding White House policy. I opposed the Iraq War before it started and found particularly outrageous the theologically tinged arguments the magazine published in support of it. I dissented from the sexism that pervaded the magazine’s offices and permeated its pages. I changed my mind on same-sex marriage, eventually becoming persuaded by Andrew Sullivan’s conservative case for allowing gay couples to marry — and feeling disgust at the Bush administration’s support for a constitutional amendment banning such arrangements.

FT is currently ruled by an ugly gay mafia, and given that the author was “persuaded” to adhere to the repugnant Andrew Sullivan, and his nasty homosexuality agenda, no surprise he was at FT – surely he was never much of a social conservative to begin with.

He’s the kind of “conservative” that hears a perverted way of thinking about sexuality and is immediately “persuaded” of its “truth”!

You have to laugh at these people calling themselves social conservatives…

Hasn’t anyone else noticed this? These “conservatives” who become so easily persuaded when they hear liberals pushing their homosexuality agenda, their porn agenda, their prostitution, adultery, hook-up agendas…

Doesn’t anyone realize there weren’t any socially conservative or religious fundamentals there to begin with?

No one that has a good grasp on healthy and wholesome frameworks for sexuality and relationships can be persuaded by the trash that the Sullivans of the world put forth. How can anyone who has a decent mind be “persuaded” by arguments produced by a perverted and dysfunctional homosexual like Sullivan?

Linker and others like him weren’t persuaded. They never had a grasp on what healthy and wholesome is in terms of sexuality. It’s only when you have a combination of shaky, corrupted, and ignorant views and misunderstandings of sexuality in addition to not having much of a clue of the real problems related to homosexuality in the world that you can jump on the homosexuality agenda bandwagon.

Linker was only persuaded in the sense of being duped. And maybe he was enthusiastically duped, maybe he was all to eager to be duped, obviously not for the best reasons. Quite a possibility there too.

The Kremlin’s Favorite Anti-Gay Hate Group is Coming to Utah

The very lame Jay Michaelson over at the Daily Beast – the sad liberal site pushing homosexuality as normal – has a recent article where he does his best to demonize healthy and wholesome social conservatives – including an image of a conservative family photoshopped as  “devils” – I kid you not.

The target of his hateful rage this time is various Russians, like the oligarch Konstantin Malofeev,
who have prominently worked to foster healthy families and a wholesome conservative sexuality ideology.

Why this now? Because there is a conservative conference on the agenda: “the World Congress of Families, an umbrella group of forty-odd ‘traditional values’ organizations, announced earlier this month that their 2015 conference will be held in Salt Lake City, thanks to the financial patronage of the Sutherland Institute, a far-right think tank based there. Among the attendees: some of the leaders behind the Hobby Lobby battle in the United States and Russia’s anti-gay laws.”

WCF was going to hold their 2014 conference in Moscow, but because of the Ukranian crisis, changed plans. Then it was rescheduled for Salt Lake City, “representatives of the Human Rights Campaign insisted that “the values of the people of Salt Lake City are ones that promote inclusivity,” and noted that WCF has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. ” In other words, liberal smearing and slander went into full gear.

“Paul Mero, President of the Sutherland Institute and former vice president of the WCF’s parent organization, The Howard Center (also labeled a hate group by the SPLC), fired back in an op-ed that it was “false and dangerous” to call either organization a hate group.”

Jay lists his hate targets:

There’s Komov, who simultaneously represents WCF, FamilyPolicy.Ru, and the St. Basil Foundation. And then there’s Komov’s deputy, Pavel Parfentiev, who compared the ban on LGBT “propaganda” to a ban on toxic chemicals in baby food.  Komov and Parfentiev have played host to American right-wingers including Lively, the Holocaust Denier turned anti-gay crusader famous for his Uganda exploits; Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage; and Allan Carlson, the founder of WCF itself. There are also the funders.: the oligarch Malofeef, who made his money in private equity and now spends his spare time running the St. Basil the Great Foundation and hosting secret meetings to combat the “satanic gay lobby” in Europe – and Vladimir Yakunin, a major funder of WCF projects and the founder of two far-right Russian foundations, as well as a notorious America-basher (a small disagreement set aside by WCF’s leadership). And I wouldn’t want to forget the legislator Mizulina, … WCF and its Russian counterparts are funded by right-wing heavy hitters, including oil executive Jerry Fullinwider, a member of the Koch brothers’ inner circle; the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, one of the leading funders of the Heritage Foundation, climate-denying Heartland Institute, and the brain trust behind the Hobby Lobby case; and its parent institution, the Howard Center. And its ‘partner organizations’ include Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, Alliance Defending Freedom, and Americans United For Life.

=========================

We, as conservatives, need to join forces and work together all around the world. Thanks to Jay for informing us about some of these people. These are the people we must support and with whom we must work together.

Lastly, the great promoters of homosexual violence, degeneration, disease spreading, irresponsibility, and lying – those homosexual activists like GLAAD, the APA, HRC, etc. and their shoddy supporters wasted no time to hurl their smear declarations to the press:

“We’re looking at a number of options to expose the World Congress of Families and their vicious brand of anti-LGBT bigotry in the months ahead,” Jason Rahlan, HRC’s Global Press Secretary, told the Daily Beast.  “This is not a group of people who simply hold deeply misguided personal opinions: they are having a profound impact on the lives of LGBT people all around the world.” “

What the WCF needs to do is to expose the vicious brand of anti-conservative bigotry from these garbage of LGBT people.

Stop the hate against decent, healthy, social conservatives. Denounce it, expose it, attack it. Expose how violent, corrupt, and dishonest liberals pushing a homosexuality agenda are.

 

Saw some good comments at Patterico’s blog this week (and one from a TAC/Dreher thread). Some of the comments are from “retire05“, who’s new to me at least. He raises several points that I usually raise, but few other people do too. Nice. If you follow my blogs, you know that I have been banned on both these blogs. My crime was to create awareness that must never happen on such blogs.


Josh McGee
says:

“We can disagree on the answers, but can we at least approach the questions without presuming the other is acting in bad faith?”

Unfortunately for you and others (like myself), that is not the way Progressivism works. The nature of Progressivism is to close debate at the earliest feasible opportunity. This is done, mostly, by convincing a large number of people that everyone who did or still does hold the older view is narrow, stupid, and/or evil (bigoted, racist, homophobic, misogynistic, etc.). There could have been no good reasons for any other model than the one being proposed today, so debate is unnecessary. Never mind if aspects of prior civilizations may have towered above our own.

We have been transitioning to that stage for the last year or two on LGBT issues, with the heat increasing significantly in recent months.

One of the most idiotic things conservatives do is work to negotiate with Progressives, given those terms. This is true whether dealing with LGBT issues, feminism, economic policy, or any other thing. The reason is that every time a conservative compromises or concedes on one issue, a new demand is made that will only weaken him further. Therefore, nothing is ever conserved. The conservative position, rather than moving forward, only dies a long, slow death. It can only definite itself in opposition to today’s Progressive.

Progressivism is incapable of negotiating in good faith, towards some sort of equilibrium possibly acceptable to both sides because it doesn’t operate in that way. Every ‘achievement’ only unleashes the next ‘issue’ of ‘our time’. There is no objective end they are aiming for, other than, perhaps, power. Calls for ‘justice’ are merely the sugary topping to make today’s demand (whatever it happens to be) go down a little more smoothly. There is no debate nor compromise that will satisfy their thirst. There is no state-of-affairs where contentment could be found.

And, lastly, its victories are, in truth, standing on such shaky foundations that its position of power is best maintained via coercive regulation of speech***. Those few who perpetually continue to truly resist Progressivism’s victories must be declared guilty of hate-speech and culturally silenced or mocked or otherwise vilified and ostracized from ‘polite’ society.

***It is not surprising to find that the highest concentration of Progressives, the university, also has some of the most stifling views towards speech. Where Progressivism is most rampant, free (controversial) speech will be most threatened.

[Alessandra adds: this explains why I get banned at so many blogs, obviously the liberals ones, but especially the liberal conservative kind or the conservative hiding a gay mafia kind]

=========================

http://patterico.com/2014/07/02/why-does-it-matter-whether-judges-twist-the-constitution-to-uphold-gay-marriage/#comments

We’re past a tipping point; the State has self-awareness, now, and exists only to feed itself. Our fault is in failing to see that we have nothing left to rely on but each other, in whatever internally organized communities we can muster for self-defense – be that in militias or terrorist cells or town hall meetings or book clubs or blogs or simple, loyal family units. But it’s a mistake to think that the Constitution was ever anything but a beautiful mask placed over the face of Power, which is the only thing that has ever or will ever decide what can or cannot happen in human life.

==========================

There are those who consider homosexuality a normal human condition, few bother to research the etymology of the modern day movement for same sex marriage. But the beginnings are important, if you want to understand what is happening today.

The term “homosexual” was never used until the late 1800′s in Germany. Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, a sexologist and homosexual himself, first wrote about same sex activities. His purpose was to normalize it and to force the elimination of laws that made homosexuality illegal. Four years later, another German, Karoly Maria Kertbeny, coined the phrase “homosexuality” in letters to Ulrichs. Yet, homosexuality was still considered a clinical disorder, with the best hope being the elimination of judicial prosecution for those activies.

Add to that the Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci, who, a devotee of Karl Marx who had his finger on the pulse of movements in Germany, believed that Marxism could be achieved through non-violent means by changing the culture. Part of those changes included the destruction of the family unit and the normalization of abnormal sexual behavior. Gramsci concluded this could be achieved by first destroying the Church, secondly destroying the family unit, third destroying any belief in morals. Once this was achieved, human nation being what it is and humans wanting something to believe in, would turn to the government for all their needs. Gramsci also believed that children would have to be indoctrinated (in public school settings) before the age of 12 because after the age of 12, children were forming their own opinions and would not totally accept Marxism.

Jump to the days of Harvey Milk and the Gay Liberation Front. Perhaps Mr. Happyfeet can tell us when, ever in the history of medical progress, a mental disorder ceased to be a mental disorder simply because some said it no longer existed. Because that is exactly what happened when psychiatrists from the APA were threatened, intimidated, and had death threats lobbed at them from the California Gay Liberation Front. The Gay Liberation Movement adopted the tactics of Marx, knowing that fear (of retaliation) would prove to be greater than a person’s personal, or even professional, opinions. Hence, the threats against the psychiatrists during their San Francisco convention.

But the claim back then was simply that homosexuals merely wanted the rights of “privacy” and used Lawrence v. Texas to push that goal (the truth be known, Lawrence was the result of a gay lovers spat). Once that was achieved, the movement then turned to same sex marriage, although early homosexual activists have subsequently admitted that same sex marriage was never the goal. The goal is to be declared a “privileged” group. Tolerance is not what this is all about. It is about forced acceptance. By any means possible.

One other thing: Mr. Happyfeet links to a Wikipedia article about marriage licenses. It leaves a lot to be desired. Marriage licenses were first granted in the colonies for one reason; the Common Law protection of a child’s right to inheritance as we became a propertied society. It was to avoid litigation when a man had more than one family. I suggest Mr. Happyfeet find a more reliable source than Wikipedia.

retire05 (163c58) 7/2/2014 @ 1:48 pm Leviticus (1aca67) —

==========================

#54, Mr. Happyfeet, check your own source which says:

During the early 20th century, the number of women diagnosed with female hysteria declined sharply. Many reasons have been attributed to this decline. Many medical authors claim that the decline was due to laypeople gaining a greater understanding of the psychology behind conversion disorders such as hysteria.[6]

It was a gradual reduction in diagnosis. Not just removed, over night, from the DSM as homosexuality was. If doctors get together and claim that TB is no longer a disease, does that make it true if there was no cure found to eradicate TB? Because that is exactly what happened in the DSM.

retire05 (163c58) 7/2/2014 @ 2:33 pm

========================
Libbtarrds like cheap suited lawyers are only interested in THEMSELVES.

My greatest problem with most liberals is they believe their biases imbue them with great compassion, generosity, tolerance and sophistication. If they at least sensed — or were honest enough to admit — their liberalism was simply predicated on cheap emotions,

Mark (cb6333) 7/4/2014 @ 8:04 am

========================

Dr. samuel johnson said it best when boswell asked him what he thought about the american revolution going on at the time. I observe those who scream the loudest about freedom and liberty are the slave holding southerners!

vota (411118) 7/5/2014 @ 12:40 pm

Isn’t it funny when you are walking down the street or just sitting at home, doing nothing special, and a thought that you had come across a long time ago, or even repeatedly at different points in your life, but that you didn’t think too much about simply hits you like lightening and creates a searing awareness?

Well, a few days ago I had just one such experience. I was reading an article about bitcoin and this image materialized with such force in my thinking. Not only bitcoin money but most of our money today is nothing but little bits, little electronic signals that someone has fed into a big machine. It can light up on your screen and this glitzy machine can say that you have X amount of money, but in the end, all that is is a little light signal, completely immaterial. Should someone turn the machine off, poof! There goes all your “money.” And it’s not that this wasn’t just as true for currency bills, because as it often happened at certain chaotic times in history, bundles of what were valuable bills turned into worthless pieces of paper from one day to the next.

This is the thought that really struck home to me: money can only function on the basis of a profound convention between all involved. Should one party say “All you have is a bunch of little papers or electronic signals,” the other party is really left with nothing.

I remember watching a Galbraith documentary on money eons ago, sitting in our living room where he discussed the history of money. And I remember finding it quite interesting. But then it just subsided among so many others things to think about. I can’t remember today what he said then although I am pretty sure he did talk about how money came into existence, first bartering, then finding a common substitute that symbolized bartered goods. And I can still see the image in my mind of us sitting around the living room watching this most interesting documentary on the history of money (having more than one part?).

And now, so many moons later, this thought about the frailty of the concept of money and the whole system just struck me with such force. It’s all based on a very intriguing way to establish a convention that many people don’t think about at all or give very little thought.

 

Snowden

Just watched NBC’s Brian Williams’s interview with Snowden. Oh how this is dragging on and on. I seriously underestimated how long it would take for anything to come to light. Greenwald is promising some new revelations in the next three months or so. Let us forecast that into another year of waiting. Anyways, it makes for a great circus to see government officials who are defending a surveillance and undemocratic state try to smear Snowden in every way they desperately set their minds to. It’s sad that no mass media outlet has the courage to ask tough questions when interviewing Kerry, Clapper, et al. Such puppets. And then they point fingers to their equivalent puppets in Russia. Seriously, you would think the world could produce more intelligence than this.

DSK and “Welcome to New York”

I’ve been delighted every time I look up the news and see one more article on the new DSK (Dominique Straus Kahn) film “Welcome to New York,” detailing how grotesque and putrid he is. Well, allegedly the film is not about him, that’s the beauty of it. And it will be interesting to see if DSK can sue the filmmaker about it, given that French defamation laws have as a primary objective to protect any and all corrupt French rats from exposure. How nice if he failed and it just brought more publicity to the film and to DSK and his wife’s respective sordid minds. Even more delightful is that the filmmaker had the savviness to portray DSK’s wife as fully supportive and collusive with her criminal husband. My thoughts exactly. I was also immensely amused about all the clamoring from the French press about what a horrible film this is. Yes, it may be – I haven’t watched it because I read it was sleazy soft porn half of the time – but it shows what a horrible man their French president-to-be was and is. And that is what irks the French the most: exposure of their rotten selves. So they all rally behind the criticisms that this isn’t great movie-making. It’s great morality making but most French with a media voice are too corrupt to appreciate the fact.

The other thing that took me completely by surprise is Depardieu’s participation in all of this. First, given that I don’t follow any French movie making topics, I had no idea such a movie was in production. Much less with Depardieu. Second, I don’t know much about Depardieu, but I would have never imagined he would attack a sex criminal. First, because most of French movie/television people (and their counterparts elsewhere, Hoolywood, heh!) is composed of a bunch of sexually perverted and corrupt individuals. Second, because I remember being disgusted by reading an article on Depardieu discussing the alleged fact that Depardieu either took part or went along to passively witness a gang rape in his youth days. To see a French person, and not only that, but a major movie actor, who was involved in a rape, attack Dominique Straus Kahn for being sordid was very surprising. The French are generally so tremendously corrupt in their attitudes and behaviors about sex – and they are smug about it. They all go along with the game and get their attitudes reinforced by their society – they are usually so disgusting.

Nevertheless, it was reported Depardieu did the movie because he specifically dislikes Straus Kahn. Why, one wonders? And the Ferrara guy, that’s surprising too. I also don’t know anything about him, but I quickly read an interview and he speaks with such a potty mouth. Potty-mouth Holywood director makes film attacking French sex criminal? Everything is so surprising about the context of this film.

By, the way, I loved the poster for the movie, the idea for the photograph and its result, and the text “Do you know who I am?”

Elliot Rodger

I was surprised and dismayed with the news and blog coverage of the California killing spree by Elliot Rodger. Again, loads of demonization of the young man. But no one that I saw bothered to ask what was done to this boy to make him develop such deep and grave psychological and emotional problems. Children that are treated well don’t develop such problems. My question: was Elliot emotionally (and otherwise) abused by his parents or others around him? What happened all along his history?

How sad that no one is capable of asking these simple but fundamental questions.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 58 other followers