You are currently browsing the monthly archive for October 2013.
As society degenerates more and more regarding its norms and attitudes about sexuality and relationships, and liberal ideology becomes more dominant, I have come to increasingly like the public speech actions of the Westboro Baptist Church.
One, because they symbolize a group that will not capitulate, they refuse to be colonized by liberals, they do not sell out, and they stay firm concerning their principles. Second, because they are ingenious when it comes to conceiving of public protest tactics. Third, as a bonus, because basically no other group irks liberals as much.
I’m not saying that being so strident is the best; they could also engage in other types of protest and send out other messages. Nevertheless they have a very nice sense of independence. Each time they protest, they affirm that they are not interested in submitting to current liberal overlords.
And that makes liberals incensed with rage. The reaction from the latter to any ideological insubordination is obviously the old trick of demonizing and calumniating as much as possible. I also find the very type and degree of demonization of the Westboro folks sort of funny, because it is so exaggerated, overblown, and hysterical.
The other important point is that the demonization of the Westboro folks is primarily done by a large number of people, many of whom are profoundly shoddy, perverted, or violent, and who use their condemnation of the Westboro folks as a way to keep public attention away from their own doings. This starts with constantly maintaining their complete lack of self-awareness regarding their own lack of character.
Which brings us to the question: Who does more violence and crime in the world: liberals (and especially for this comparison, LGBTs) or the Westboro folks?
The answer is clearly liberals (including LGBTs). In the US alone, there are millions and millions of liberals perpetrating all kinds of violent and non-violent crime in the area of sexuality and relationships – and they all believe that homosexuality is normal. LGBTs in particular compose the group that does the most violence to other LGBTs, and that’s when they are not doing harm and violence to heterosexuals (including children and adolescents).
The Westboro folks, on the other hand, as far as has been reported, do basically no violence and no crime. Where have you seen a Westboro member sexually harass someone of the same sex? Or commit date rape? Or produce child porn? Nowhere. But you can find plenty of liberals (including LGBTs) who think homosexuality is normal who constantly do all these horrible crimes and many other harmful acts.
Given this striking difference, which group do liberals consider as good, ideologically normal, middle-of-the-road – that is, non-extremist? The group that contains millions of violent and degenerate individuals, and who share a particular ideology that normalizes homosexuality, among other warped ideas! Very curiously, the group that does no crime or violence is framed and demonized as evil and extremist.
Interesting, isn’t it?
It was following this line of thought that I made a remark in a recent thread at “The Other McCain,” regarding another case, of date rape (The Drunk Sluts Rights Movement). McCain had written in another previous post on the subject:
Date rape is an apparently common campus crime that usually involves two drunk young people, one of whom has an erect penis, and the other of whom is unable to avert what the erect penis typically does.
I commented that I never see liberals speaking of these young men rapists (or even older ones) who are perpetrators in date-rapes involving alcohol as evil. I mean, they call them rapists, but never evil, never ideologically extremist, never really that bad. And certainly, hell will freeze over twice before liberals will call LGBTs who rape, batter, abuse, or sexually harass “extremists.” These are just ideologically normal people for liberals.
However, liberals certainly cannot stop screaming that the Westboro folks are “evil.” Simply because the latter say that “God hates fags.” The Westboro folks don’t go around raping anyone – as far as has been reported at least. So why do liberals hate the Westboro folks so much?
The WBC folks impose and demand morality and they state outright what is perverse in terms of sexuality. For a liberal, that is a crime of the most horrible nature – much, much worse than raping, sexual harassment, molestation, etc.
This is why when liberals today talk about ideological groups in society and they want to reach for an example of “evil” – it’s basically Jim Crow/KKK or Westboro.
Here is a recent example. It was written by your typical shoddy homosexual pushing their shoddy homosexual agenda, talking about the most horrible groups in society – in the context of groups that the government shouldn’t imprison, but everyone should speak out against:
Linus: “This includes a spectrum: at the most extreme end you’ve got the Westboro assholes, Nazis, Klansmen (except when they’re actually committing crimes of course), NAMBLA types (ditto), terrorist sympathizers, Stalinists, Maoists, etc.”*
See? At the MOST extreme – the Westboro folks! For merely saying “God hate fags”? Westboro is now equal to NAMBLA? Westboro is now equal to Stalinists? And consequently, rapists are ideologically normal compared to Westboro? This is utterly laughable.
Notice that the only type of sexual perversion decried above is against (small) children – this is what homosexuals mean by “NAMBLA.” Promoting pederasty is certainly OK for turds of homosexuals. As well as predatory female sexual behavior towards adolescent girls (if you want a recent example, see the reaction to the movie “Blue is the Warmest Color” or the Kaitlyn Hunt debacle). For LGBTs (and a large number of liberals), adolescents are not children and are routinely sexually preyed upon, being considered fair game – and that is considered legitimate. If it is legitimate, it’s certainly not extremist, and certainly not evil.
Concerning adult sexuality, notice that any violent, grotesque, exploitative, or perverted individual or group is excluded from this (fake) ideological “extreme.”
Linus, this guy with a major homosexuality problem above, didn’t say: “at the most extreme end you’ve got all the LGBTs who think homosexuality is normal (and are exactly the people who rape, batter, abuse, or sexually harass); all the pornographers and porn consumers who love to degrade human beings and sexuality; all the liberals who think getting plastered and then either committing date rape or being a victim of date rape is pretty normal; the APA, who proclaims that homosexuality is normal and not a profound psychological problem; the KKK; the Nazis; etc.”
In short, according to liberals, all the people who are deformed, dysfunctional, exploitative, and even criminal but who uphold liberal attitudes and their homosexuality agenda ideology are pretty “normal.” Even when they are criminals, they are never called “extremists.” However, anyone who disagrees with dominant liberal ideology is “evil” and “extremist.” Do you think liberals malign and demonize much?
As we can see, the words “normal” and “extremist” lose all sense when employed by liberals. It becomes clear that much of what is called “normal” by liberals is profoundly destructive and harmful in the area of sexuality and relationships.
Conversely, what liberals deem to be “extremist” regarding the Westboro folks is nothing of the kind, and it’s simply the latter’s refusal to submit to this very harmful and lacking in ethics ideology that liberals uphold in the sphere of sexuality and relationships.
*Example taken from the Volokh Conspiracy blog – varied sexually sleazy law professors on a crusade for their homosexuality agenda – which evidently attracts many homosexual “extremists” in the comment section.
I recently had a reply to a commenter with a parasitic mind about torturing animals censored on “Patterico’s Pontifications” blog – article on the book “Dominion” and Matt Scully.
There was recently another incident involving the cheap and repugnant Rihanna, where she demonstrated once again what a sexuality parasite she is. She is just one more, like Madonna and Lady Gaga, in this long line of liberal entertainers who endorse violence and degradation related to sexuality, beaming their destruction from their obnoxiously privileged experience of life.
Rihanna went to a “sex show” where a woman expelled different things (creatures?) from her vagina.
Obviously, for grotesque and perverted liberals, all that is involved in the above is a normal activity, both for the “performers” as for the parasitic audience.
The grotesque incident was reported in the Guardian, a very liberal UK newspaper.
I was surprised to see a comment that showed a minimal sense of humanity among this junk of liberals:
ID9845712 15 October 2013 12:18pm
Two women… one degrading herself to keep from starving… and another wealthy enough to degrade herself, in a different manner, and dumber than a sack of hammers…
At least the commenter above recognized how oppressed the context of the life of the “performer” is. What they didn’t do is to point out that Rihanna is enjoying the experience of degrading poor women for her own perverted amusement.
The fact that Rihanna is dumb is immaterial here; what needs to be highlighted is how parasitic she is. This has nothing to do with being dumb as the main problem here – it’s clearly her profound lack of character that is the matter. She will gladly exploit another human being in the most grotesque way for her perverted amusement. Just like Madonna and Lady Gaga and the rest of this junk of liberal entertainers.
Who cares if they can sing? These are junk of human beings.
Modern society encourages people to be parasites and to only think of themselves. Only their individual pleasure counts and must supersede everything else.
This is a recipe for a very violent and repulsive world. And thanks to liberals, it’s what we have in terms of sexuality.
Please say a prayer for this little girl and what she went through.
God, how I wish we could mobilize worldwide to get her monster of a father suffer the death penalty for what he did to her.
Everything in this case is so atrocious, it’s enraging. The level of torture, the youngness of the child, the fact that the mother is completely disenfranchised (poor, uneducated, etc.) and so willing to take this grotesque “blood money” instead of demanding the death penalty, etc.
NY Daily News: A court found Muslim preacher Fayhan al-Ghamdi guilty of beating, burning, crushing, and raping his daughter Lama. The father’s sentence was lightened after Lama’s mother agreed to accept $276,000 for the daughter’s death.
Fayhan al-Ghamdi, who often preached on television, was convicted of beating his daughter Lama with canes, burning her with electrical cables, crushing her skull and tearing off her nails. She was also raped repeatedly and died months later in a Saudi hospital.
The kingdom follows a strict interpretation of Islam under which murder, drug trafficking, rape and armed robbery are capital crimes, with execution mostly by firing squad. The case of Lama caused a public outcry and brought to light sensitive issues surrounding the ambiguity of punishment for Saudi fathers found guilty of murdering their own children.
Much less serious crimes often receive heavier punishment. Earlier this week, a Saudi court gave four young men sentences of between three to 10 years prison and 500 to 2,000 lashes for dancing naked in public in the city of Buraydah, north of Riyadh.
The Egyptian mother, who acquired Saudi nationality through her ex-husband, was quoted in Arab Gulf-based media saying she is a poor single woman with no income. By accepting the money, she waived the right to demand retribution, or “qisas,” against al-Ghamdi for the death of their daughter. It was not immediately known if she was pressured to accept the deal.
Lama’s mother told broadcaster Al-Arabiya that al-Ghamdi took their daughter from her for a two-week visit in 2011 to his home with his second wife and other children. Months went by and he refused to allow the mother to see her daughter.
“I saw her and I swear to God I didn’t recognize her,” the mother told the news channel, describing the moment she saw her daughter’s disfigured face and body in the hospital. “I felt there is no mercy among humans.”
“She was beaten from the head to the toe, all black and blue all over her body,” the mother said.
He was sentenced to eight years in prison and 800 lashes.
800 lashes is nothing. He should be lashed to death.
Any ideas how we can start a petition for demanding the death penalty for this monster? Write it in the comments.
I recently discovered this poem from Clement Marot from 1574. It’s a translation from the same poem from Virgil. Every time I read Marot’s poem, I am transported to the place he describes so beautifully. Without a translation, I wouldn’t have been able to understand and appreciate Virgil’s original.
J’ai à soupper assez passablement:
pommes, prunaux, tout plein de bon fruictage,
Castaignes, aulx, avec force laitage.
Puis des cités les cheminées fument.
Déjà le feu pour le souper allument.
Il s’en va nuit, et des hauts monts descendent
Les ombres grans, qui parmi l’air s’épandent.
All excited, I looked up this poet on the Internet, seeking to discover more beautiful poems of his. Found nothing like the above! Maybe he just got lucky on this one! Or… it has something to do that the ideas in the poem weren’t his to begin with…
Sunt nobis mitia poma,
castanae molles et pressi copia lactis;
et jam umma procul villarum culmina fumant,
majoresque cadunt altis de montibus umbrae.
We have mellow apples,
Chestnuts soft and ripe, and plenty of curds and cream.
And now the high tops of the villages at a distance smoke,
and larger shadows fall from the lofty mountains.*
Such a feeling of peacefulness.
*I found this translation here:
The Works of Virgil: Translated Into English Prose, as Near the Original as the Different Idioms of the Latin and English Languages Will Allow, with the Latin Text and Order of Construction in the Same Page, and Critical, Historical, Geographical, and Classical Notes, in English, from the Best Commentators Both Ancient and Modern; Beside a Very Great Number of Notes Entirely New, Volume 1
from 1770! By Joseph Davidson. Princeton University. Notice that Davidson capitalized all the nouns, which I changed.
Addition: after posting this, I went back to read more of Davidson’s translation of Virgil, and discover the context of the story where these lines were written is nothing more than one of pederasty and slavery!
A beautiful thought surrounded by what is most vile in the world.
Some of these are really lovely and I love how clever some are as well!