You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘homosexuality’ category.
This is a really smart comment:
The man made an arena full of Republicans stand up and cheer as he pledged to protect the LGBTQ community.
The Republican party voted for a former Democrat liberal businesses man as their candidate.And the Democratic party picked a neo con big business backed hawk.
Indeed – and that just goes to show what a failure the US is as a country and as a political system. But you must be getting tired of hearing me saying it. Still, I find it rather bizarre. So again it’s this weird center that congregates most of the American voting public. Whether it’s more neocon (Hillary) or more anti-globalist but pro-military (Trump), you see that all the candidates that were very left on geopolitics/Wall Street (Bernie and Stein) or very right on culture war issues (Cruz, Carson, Rubio, etc.) lost badly.
Although Pence is really conservative and Kaine is somewhat conservative.
My comment left at Lionel Media’s video on Trump’s 60 minute interview:
Lionel is to his stupid support of LGBT “rights” what Hillary is to Wall Street and war. Shills who don’t have any decency or knowledge about what is a world with human rights. Just as we can’t expect Hillary to be honest about the damage that her agenda brings, we can’t expect Lionel to realize the problems with his homosexual agenda. He mentions he deplores the fact that today language has become crude and vulgar, along with the ideas expressed (or maybe he’s jumped on the “vulgarity is OK” bandwagon) – and who do we have to thank for that? Liberals (which includes the LGBT) – the people normalizing homosexuality, porn, and promiscuity, abortion on demand, adultery, and who are responsible for a lot of sexual harassment and sexual violence in society – as it couldn’t be otherwise.
In an exchange with a liberal troll the other day, he kept asking why Christians “hate women” because of the several passages in the Bible where women are mistreated, raped, etc. And I told him his question was rich given it came from a liberal that supports pornography (and I’m sure many more evil things), since there is nothing that contains more material that degrades and does violence to women than porn. Not just to women, because it’s one of the main venues for homosexual pigs to present themselves. The Bible is particularly tame compared to the extreme debasing of sex and women that all kinds of porn present. In short, that’s what the two sides of American society give us – either they are war perverts or sexual perverts – or both, such as the Clintons and also Trump, although I do agree with Lionel that Trump seems like a Clinton lite. My prediction is he will act quite similarly to Clinton if elected though.
All these idiots who are saying, “We know how repugnant Clinton is, but we don’t know what Trump will be like” are leading themselves into playing the role of Charlie Brown in Lucy holds the football.
And to this comment from One Man 1970:
From prostitution (and porn and homosexuality) promoter magazine Vanity Fair: an article promoting prostitution for young people – especially with older adults. Surprise.
Daddies, “Dates,” and the Girlfriend Experience: Welcome to the New Prostitution Economy
“Basically every gay dude I know is on Seeking Arrangement,” says Christopher, 23, a Los Angeles film editor. “And there are so many rent boys,” or young gay men who find sex-work opportunities on sites like RentBoy, which was busted and shut down in 2015 by Homeland Security for facilitating prostitution. “Now people just go on RentMen,” says Christopher.
“We talked a lot about agency” when conceiving The Girlfriend Experience, says producer Steven Soderbergh (who directed a movie of the same name in 2009), “and the idea that you have this young woman who is going into the workforce and ends up in the sex-work industry, where she feels she has more control and is respected more than she is at her day job,” at a law firm.
[So since prostitution is a horrendous kind of activity – this really is just underscores how disgusting law firms in a grotesque capitalist society like the US are! ]
Meanwhile, sugaring has its own extensive community online—also known as “the sugar bowl”—replete with Web sites and blogs. On Tumblr, babies exchange tips on the best sugaring sites and how much to charge. They post triumphant pictures of wads of cash, designer shoes, and bags.
Really – designer shoes and bags. These young women are debasing themselves and sexuality for some designer shoes and bags – and they call this agency. They couldn’t be more daft, they couldn’t have more of a perverted understanding of what’s important in life and in themselves, they couldn’t be cheaper – and here they are desperate, desperate for some crap with some label on it. Just to feel valued in the grotesque peer environment they live in.
Agency for patriarchal sluts is like this. As I would say to them – patriarchy has you where they want you. Imagine this! Women brain-washed to prostitute themselves to men (who can care less about them and who have a deformed view of relationships and sex) and who tell themselves this is agency – and feminism. Agency starts with the capability to think critically and to have a healthy mindset. No ability to think – no agency. Just another brainwashed slut serving patriarchy (or its homosexual variant). Because you know what garbage of people LGBTs are.
On Facebook, there are private pages where babies find support for their endeavors as well. On one, members proudly call themselves “hos” (sometimes “heaux”) and post coquettish selfies, dressed up for “dates.” They offer information on how to avoid law enforcement and what they carry to protect themselves (knives, box cutters, pepper spray). They give advice on how to alleviate the pain of bruises from overzealous spanking and what to do when “scammers” refuse to pay. They ask questions: “How do you go about getting started in sex work? I’m honestly so broke.”
And here is where really begins to intrude the “sex work is just another kind of work” lies. Tips on how to protect themselves from violence? What for? Could it be because they are putting themselves at risk by being alone with some grotesque stranger? Tips for “alleviating the pain of bruises”? Bruises?
“Agency” for the most ideologically enslaved women is like this: bruises. Knives. Calling themselves “hos”. Look at the respect, the freedom, the “agency”.
Throughout this article, I also wondered how much of it was made up. Because you know, Vanity Fair. In any case, they tell us this about the profile of some of these young people:
They were squeezed by college tuition, crushed by student loans and the high cost of living. Many of their parents were middle- or upper-middle-class people who had nothing to spare for their children, derailed by the economic downturn themselves. And so they did “cake sitting”—a specialty service for a fetish that craves just what it says—or stripping or Webcamming or sugaring. Some beat people up in professional “dungeons”; others did “scat play,” involving sex with feces. They did what they felt they had to do to pay their bills.
Is this a complete fabrication from Vanity Fair? I mean, their description doesn’t seem to make any sense. If the parents are upper middle class, how can they have nothing to spare for their kids? The only way I see that happening is if the parents hate their own children, and are stingy – which happens with a certain frequency – but there’s no mention of that. They speak of upper middle class families as if they were living under a bridge.
“Being in the L.A. atmosphere, and at the age of 16 or 17 going out in nightlife—it’s all very based on appearance,” Alisa says. “Out here, as long as you’re wearing Saint Laurent and the newest items, that’s all people care about, so my friends and I were obsessed with fashion. I think with our generation, Instagram also has a lot to do with it—people are constantly posting what they have.” She’s explaining that she became a sugar baby in order to buy luxury goods.
You see why Fidel Castro is cool? Because he has a vision for young people to become doctors, engineers, social workers, to build a society together. I’m dying to go to Cuba to see “sur place” what is it like. Just how bad are the problems? Just how much have they been able to achieve despite the US having done everything to destroy them?
This is what the US has to offer to the world: a society of prostitutes and johns – with girls and boys who do it so they can have some designer bag! It’s enough to make you weep. But for Americans, it’s normal! And it wasn’t like that a couple of generations ago – but things are changing. For the worse.
And look at all that agency here:
“I haven’t done it [prostitution] in a really long time,” she says, “solely because of how it made me feel. Like it just makes you feel worthless ‘cause they don’t pay attention to your brain, they don’t care what you have to say. They just care that you’re attractive and you’re listening to them. I don’t want to ever have to look back and think, like, I made it to this point just because I used my body to get there.”
Huhoh! Couldn’t get more patriarchal than that, could it? And capitalist.
And look at the heaps of “feminism” here:
Jenna says that a friend of hers was sexually assaulted by a man she met on a sugaring site. “She didn’t want to report it,” she says, “because she didn’t want her parents to know what she was doing.”
Keeping quiet about being sexually assaulted is so feminist!
And look at how much respect they really get:
But it wasn’t real dating, and after a while it began to bother her, as she realized the men, although “generally nice,” didn’t actually respect her. “I think the sugar daddies just see the sugar babies as whores,” she says. “They would never consider a monogamous relationship with someone who would need to do this to survive. It’s like a class thing. They see you as beneath them, desperate.
No, idiot – prostitution is not dating. And here we can see how these young women have to create a completely fake persona, and can never be themselves – because agency!
Miranda is 22 and has the wavy bobbed hair and clipped mid-Atlantic accent of a 1930s movie star; she grew up in a Texas suburb. “I’ve learned how to look like this, talk like this,” she says. “I work hard at being this,” meaning someone who can charge $700 an hour for sex.
Then she adds:
Now, she says, she has a rotation of three regular “clients”—”a top Austin lawyer, a top architect, and another tech guy,” all of them married. She adds, “Their relationships are not my business.”
Well, I’d be curious if their families felt that way as well. You know, I mentioned this article to some married women I know, and I was surprised they all said they thought the wives of these three guys would certainly not agree if they knew. I rather had imagined them differently. I had imagine their wives to be quite the prostitutes themselves – only they are married to only one guy. In other words, I imagine them to want the designer bags and shoes – and that they would put up with these men and their affairs and use of prostitutes just so they could live an upper class life.
I can’t know – but there would be nothing better than to throw the names of these guys into the public light and find out. And that goes for all the men and women using these sites. Nothing wrong? Than do it openly.
Lastly – there’s a lot to say about the language used to embellish prostitution and to hide the violence and degradation inherent to it – but the use of the word “daddy” is particularly sick given its incestuous connotation.
It’s simple. People, once conditioned to follow a system, have an incredibly difficult time in re-thinking the system, especially its premises.
Why did people in so many European cultures, decade after decade, generation after generation, century after century, think of no alternative to the autocratic, violent, and undemocratic systems they had? Why did no one think of an alternative system to the strong-man rule cemented by a notion of “royalty”?
Likewise, Americans are on display for being incapable of thinking of any alternatives to their sham of a system, including the most important lies they have developed and hang on to.
For example, one of my favorites is the lie that you can separate government from religion, that it is possible not to have a state-sponsored religion. Americans love this lie. They have hung on to it fiercely. Part of this lie is the notion that Americans concretely separated religion from government and were able to create a satisfactory society.
As I have been saying, one must understand that an ideological system, whether it includes a notion of god (or gods) is irrelevant. Therefore, liberal ideology and Protestantism are both ideological systems – since every religion is an ideological system. At the same time, all ideological systems function as a religion does. What’s the main difference? Liberalism merely does not include the notion of a god.
When liberals say they have a government that has set religion apart, it merely means they have increasingly instituted their godless religion as the state-sponsored and enforced ideology, i.e., the state-sponsored religion.
But, given the stupidity and hypocrisy of liberals, they will refuse to admit that all they are doing is playing with labels, pretending that their liberal ideological system doesn’t function the very same way as any state-enforced religion.
Why this hasn’t been particularly obvious to most Americans, especially the religious ones, I cannot understand. I find it so obvious. But I rarely hear religious folks mention the above. Everyone remains so hung up on the label “religion” that they don’t look at the dynamics of both political ideologies and religion – wisely forgetting the labels.
That’s why I was very happy to see one comment, lone as it was, on The American Conservative, from a conservative, who seems is getting closer to seeing the light:
Dommerdog says July 2, 2016 at 4:28 am:
I’m no lawyer, and I’m certainly no constitutional scholar; but it seems to me that this ruling and all the other laws requiring people who run businesses to violate their own religious principles in order to accommodate consumers runs dangerously close to state establishment of religion.
I’m a layman myself, but you don’t have to be a scholar to see what is taking place. People are not blind. The pagan sex cult of the rainbow has just finished wrapping up its holy month with parades, politicians in tow, celebrating genitals and orgasms. It is the civic religion, the very thing that the founding fathers sought to avoid. Consolidation will be incremental but inexorable, and once the first amendment has been nullified (as advocated by Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet) the established state religion of sex and power will seek to ruthlessly crush its rivals, as has been broadcast in the NY Times and elsewhere.
Indeed, the now dominant US liberals are saying, “Convert or be damned (and damned in this case means: suffer the state-enforced punishments for not following our liberal ideology-religion).”
As an aside, you also have to wonder about the American higher ed system. While it can be the world’s best in its most elite establishments, it fails completely to form a minimally intelligent populace. Or maybe this is because the percentage of people who finish college is dismal in the US (only 20%, and I speak from memory). And I don’t even know the percentage for those who go through grad school, obviously much tinier. And when I say “elite establishments”, I’m not speaking of fame (such as the myth of the superiority of Ivy League schools, or expensive private colleges), but of actual quality of teaching and learning.
And then, there is little a school can do if a person has firmly decided to cling on to a lie.
Which leads us to this other wonderful comment, also on TAC:
David Olm says:
July 2, 2016 at 12:46 pm
I think it was Jonathan Swift that said you cannot reason a man out of what he was not reasoned into in the first place, and that is what is scary about the society we are devolving into. You can demonstrate the patent nonsense of the left all day long (sexuality is as fluid as the ocean in transgenders but as fixed as Mt. Everest in homosexuals; the Bible actually condones homosexuality with the proper gnostic understanding of Hebrew and Greek translation) but it doesn’t matter with them at all. Because it is propaganda, not reason. And, as always, THE enemy of the Left is Christianity.
And since the enemy of Christians is big, bad Russia and Putin – which everybody knows is just like Stalin; totally exaggerated threats from terrorists and ISIS; “communists”; or whatever 1950’s Cold War notions the commanders of the Right manage to twist around to manipulate the populace’s fears with in 2016, you could say that the stupid Right deserves the stupid Left in America – if it all didn’t have horrifying consequences for the world.
Barney Frank, the nasty homosexual pig and darling of the homosexual agenda honchos of the Democratic Party, and former Massachusetts Rep., has attacked Sanders in an interview especially designed for this purpose by Bloomberg Businessweek, since Sanders has refused to become another corrupt Clinton minion. At least, we are told, until next week. MSM, and you know how reliable they are, are already announcing that Sanders is scheduled to get behind the putrid Clinton machine as early as next week! Et tu, Sanders? Is it really the end? A few more days and we will see.
But back to Frank.
“He’s not bending backwards and licking Hillary’s boots, like a good Democrat (or homosexual slime)!!!” Frank screamed in the interview. “He’s making MANY of us corrupt, perverted, sold-out Democrats angry!!” “He is still going on about integrity and social justice!!” “He continues to care about the little people, the working class!!”
“Like, it’s time for him to shut up and endorse Clinton, the corruption, the wars, the mass murders, her mafia-like Foundation, and the glory of the most sexually perverted minds around – like myself, Bill Clinton and his pal Jeffrey Epstein, and the whole LGBT ‘community’ of sexuality turds!!!”
“The Democratic Party is a cesspool but he’d better get behind it – because otherwise, otherwise there’s… Trump and the Republicans!”
If it weren’t for homosexual turds like Frank, however, it could have been between Trump and Sanders.
Let us remember that Sanders has foolishly and ignorantly normalized homosexuality. So, if, in the end, he must compromise every shred of principle he has managed to hang on to so far, because the corrupt Democratic Party will now move into Sanders Demolition Mode Phase 2, it will be also thanks to all the grubby and putrid LGBTs like Frank that swarm the Party.
And in that respect, and only in that respect, I can say, it serves you right, Sanders.
‘I cried all the way back’: sexual harassment on public transport
How does it feel to be subject to unwanted sexual attention on your morning commute? Or on your way to school? We asked readers to tell us their stories of sexual harassment on public transport
I thought this article in the British newspaper “The Guardian” was very well written. Really, it is a model for such approaching such topics. The article was helping a campaign against sexual harassment:
Transport for London launched a hard-hitting campaign against sexual assault and harassment on its services. Accompanied by a harrowing video of a woman experiencing sexual assault on the Tube, the campaign urged anyone who experienced unwanted sexual behaviour to report it to the police. A year on since its launch, with the video boasting more than 4m views, 36% more people have reported such incidents on the London underground.
More excerpts below:
We asked our readers to tell us about their experiences. Some told us about being followed off trains. Others told us about men trying to sneak a feel of their breasts between shopping bags. Then there were those who witnessed public masturbation, or were just teenagers when they were first subject to unwanted sexual attention.
Being glad to have found a seat amidst the full carriage after a stressful day at work, I took off my coat and acknowledged the people sitting around me with a smile. I was listening to music and reading a book in English for a while, when I felt the man sitting diagonally opposite of me looking over intensely. He was in his 40s.
I was listening to music and reading a book in English for a while, when I felt the man sitting diagonally opposite of me looking over intensely. He was in his 40s.
Although I was wearing a buttoned up shirt, showing no cleavage whatsoever, I loosely wrapped my scarf around my neck, also covering my chest. I kept reading, and he kept staring. At the next stop a lot of people got out and even more came in. In between he quickly came over and took the newly empty seat opposite of me.
Only inches away he started grinning at me. I felt very uncomfortable, my eyes glued to the page. One stop before mine I had to get my coat on again and got up to make my way through the packed carriage.
Waiting for the train door to open I saw in the corner of my eye the man was still sitting down. I jumped out of the train and walked quickly upstairs, almost running. I still had a bad feeling, so instead of walking the rest of the way home, as I usually did, I turned the corner and went downstairs to another line to catch a different train for one more stop.
On reaching the platform, the man suddenly turned up next to me, walking along with the same, fast pace.
“Hey, wait!” he shouted at me in English. I realised ignoring him would no longer work, so I took out one of my earphones. Without stopping I said to him: “You make me feel uncomfortable. I’m sure you are a nice person and mean well, but can you please stop following me?”
“Hey, you speak English? It’s not a bad thing. We can talk.” he said with a dirty grin.
“Sorry, but I do not want to talk to you. Please leave me alone!” I replied slowing down next to two ladies in their 50s chatting. He was stood in front of me.
“You take this train, too? What direction? We can meet some time.”. He touched my arm. I answered: “No, I do not want to meet or talk to you. Leave me alone now!”
The train came rattling in. With my heart pumping I firmly walked around the intrusive man, followed the two ladies into the carriage and sat down with them next to the window.
When the train left the station I couldn’t tell if the man was still on the platform. For a while I was afraid he might be in a different carriage. When I got out at the next stop, I stood next to a group of young punks and only then I was brave enough to wait and see if the man was still following me. He wasn’t – I was alone again. Shaky and sweaty I walked home.
The next day I told my mostly male co-workers about the incident. They all said: “You shouldn’t have smiled at him when you first took off your coat.”
I never reported it nor told anyone else about it. They made me feel like it was my fault and that I should be ashamed.
It was not my fault and I no longer feel ashamed.
=====end of excerpt=======
Good for you, Kira. Here’s the first problem – girls like Kira are brought to be polite and civilized – but they live in a violent world. You notice that Kira’s response is mostly very polite – when confronted with a harassing, potentially violent, man. Given his behavior, one can only guess at how deeply the turd goes in his head regarding sexuality. I’m sure his reading of her smile was she must be fishing for a sexual encounter with a stranger, or maybe he thought she was a prostitute. Or maybe he thought that there wasn’t anything meant by her smile, but he thought he might be able to exploit her sexually or to bully her someway into talking to him. In any case, he decided to target her.
Obviously, through no fault of her own, Kira has lived in a very sheltered world. We can see this by her reaction here:
“I’m sure you are a nice person and mean well, but can you please stop following me?”
What?! Was this her head going into denial or did she really think an older man who is harassing and following her with a dirty grin is a “nice person who means well”? Did she think this because she had never had an experience of a threat or harassment from someone? And the fact that she is so polite!
I’m glad, albeit she was overly polite, that she repeatedly told the guy to leave her alone.
Then, not surprisingly, she tells of her co-workers’ reaction, blaming her.
“The next day I told my mostly male co-workers about the incident. They all said: “You shouldn’t have smiled at him when you first took off your coat.”
Well, it’s true, she shouldn’t have – because she was in a public place full of strangers. However, it was not her fault that she did. Had she been living in a decent society, she could have smiled without worries. But when you live in a world where people let others live “as they want”, that’s what happens. All the predators, harassers, LGBTs, and perverts live “as they want”, doing whatever they want, as long as they get away with it.
What consequences will this guy ever face over what he did? None. Especially now that such a long time has passed and whatever security video there might be of the incident has long been erased. And even if there was a video, and she denounced the man to authorities, what would they do? And if she went on national TV with her story, what retaliation could she expect later in life?
The silver lining in this case is that the newspaper offered a space and an opportunity for people like Kira to tell and therefore re-examine their harassment experiences. Now she has broken her silence and, most importantly, she was able to realize that it was not her fault. She herlself did nothing bad, starting with her innocent smile. But it’s just not something you can do.
Now, as a post-examination exercise, let’s imagine for a second that this man is bisexual and goes after young men and women. He’s a member therefore of the LGBT community who cries over and over again about how mistreated and discriminated they are in society. Really, oppressed people, are they? Let’s suppose he is heterosexual, but his perversion extends from having a dirty mind about women to also endorsing homosexuality. So he is a gay-friendly sexual harasser, potentially a rapist. A gay-friendly rapist! Were he to present himself as a candidate for a job, and mention he was gay-friendly and compete for the job against a person who was against normalizing homosexuality, most liberals would hands down give him the job. See, “equality” for sexuality turds is like that!
It was interesting and awful to see how each political faction in the US tried to spin the Orlando attack to blame whatever group they hate.
Amusingly, liberals were on a roll with their gay victim media fest when the news came out that maybe Mateen had a homosexual problem himself. A little Mastercard moment, you have to admit. For a moment, the shouts of “We told you! We told you! Conservatives are all evil and homosexuals are all darlings” hushed down a bit and were replaced by “It doesn’t matter if he was a homosexual, snap, it matters that homos were killed, we must always ignore when homosexuals perpetrate violence and just scream about them being victims”.
Trump seized the attack to inflame the fears and racism of his supporters, “I told you we need a Muslim ban, I told you, I told you, we need to protect our borders, the wall, the wall, and the Mexicans, Afghans, Paraguayans, Kurds, whatever, ban, ban, ban” – completely overlooking the fact that the alleged shooter is American and was born in the US.
Trumpinites were yelling off their heads about the evil Muslims and ISIS and terrorists attacking innocent Americans on American soil – you know, the fatherland, I mean heartland – when all of a sudden the news came out that at least three of the homosexual victims were illegals. Oops – a little wrench right into the Mexicans and the wall and the terrorists.
Right-wingers were screaming hysterically “Ahhh! Terrorists! Terrorists! Be afraid, afraid, be very afraid! We need more bombings, more wars, more arms sales, more killings, more destruction of other countries so our corrupt political puppets can be instituted in a corrupt democratic system or we can put in place a nice old fashioned dictator that we control”. Well, they didn’t actually say the second part and just screamed “Terrorists! Terrorists!” hysterically – the rest will follow so naturally, why waste one’s breath telling the truth to the sheeple?
There was a lot more shouting and spun angles. Every political faction in the US though ignored what I found the most important thing Mateen declared to the media (if true): he did this shooting to avenge and to call attention to US’ mass killings of women and children in Afghanistan – apparently where his family came from.
So this isn’t just some evil person who is killing others because of no reason – he is very much protesting US warfare and the killing of thousands of innocent people and the protracted destruction of an entire country (just one of many).
But you wouldn’t know this from many of the comments to several news articles on the shooting. One that stood out to me was a guy asking: what makes an individual pick up a rifle and just go out and kill people? What sort of an deranged person would do that?
He was genuinely puzzled and asking the question.
One could also ask: what makes a group of Americans get on a plane and just go and kill and kill people? Thousands and thousand of men, women, and children. What makes the US, the UK, and France, among others, go terrorize millions of people abroad, to destroy their families, their homes, their countries, their lives, their psychological structure, their hopes and dreams?
Well, we know – evil greed and the desire to make a buck, in other words, savage capitalism, the US’, the UK’s, and France’s specialty. At this time, it’s the desire to rob other people of oil, gas, minerals, and other sought-after materials, control markets abroad, use international financial systems in the most corrupt ways, turn everyone into mindless consumers, in short, old neo-colonialism now covered with a high-tech face.
I had seen this movie before. I remember being speechless when I heard Pres. Hollande proclaim on national television after the November attacks that “France is now at war.”
Really? And what was France in before – when it took its military aircraft and all its other vicious weapons and joined the US and the UK in multiple killing sprees of thousands and thousands of innocent people – the poorest of the poor – in Africa and in the Middle East? Is now mass murder a form of peace for France, the UK, and the US?
The arrogance, the sheer Nazi arrogance that is needed to think that when Americans and Brits and the French kill other people, this is a non-event, and it’s not terrorism either – even though millions of innocent people are forever terrorized and traumatized by this – that is, those who survive the barbarity of war.
How many days have gone by when the US, the UK, and France killed 50 people in some
region of the world? We don’t even know, it’s so frequent in all these wars. But these are
nameless people because they are poor people. They are of color in many ways, not just regarding their skin. The most important is not having the current Nazi citizenship du jour – therefore their lives are completely dispensable and their killing is not to be even accounted for. Americans have no feelings when they murder people abroad. Neither do the French. Murder, especially mass murder, is a seen as a right.
LGBT pigs also didn’t waste a second to trot out the “Oh look, the terrorist is from one of those evil conservative countries where they throw off gays from buildings.” Yes, and the LGBT pigs are from countries where they use high-tech to commit mass murder, including of children. Glass houses and all that.
Who is the greater evil?
Then we had a large number of pols and pundits solemnly declaring, “Sheeple, the ignominy, this was an attack on America – what America stands for!” I would have paid money for someone to add, “Yes, an attack on sodomy – the cornerstone of America, what our forefathers fought and died for.” Alas, all I heard was, “The gays, the gays, stop the hatred, victims, victims, crying, crying, the evil terrorists, it’s all so awful.”
This site reports that “about 92,000 people have been killed in the Afghanistan war since 2001. More than 26,000 of those killed have been civilians. Nearly 100,000 people have been injured since 2001.”
Almost a hundred thousand Afghan dead. Contrast that to 50 homos in Orlando.
And what are Americans wailing and grieving about?
Then, in total American mode of let’s hear all the measures we shall take after another horrible crisis, the corrupt US media invited all these “experts” to tell the public how terrorism can be prevented – which everybody knows in a country of 320 million is impossible. Never mind that. “Experts” were in overdrive telling us that we need more surveillance, more police, more spending, more intel, more this, more that. Not one suggested that maybe, just maybe if Americans didn’t go murder other people then other people might not want to murder Americans. Not that difficult.
And this is why, the most brilliant political phrase that I came across recently was Henry Adams’ “politics, as a practice, whatever its professions, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds”.
Et voilà, and here we have another grotesque episode of it, in overkill fashion.
Look at this case (Gay parents fight for custody with surrogate in Thailand – – The Telegraph UK). Not only at the case, but also how it’s framed by Western media.
It’s about two grotesque homosexual pigs who wanted to use a Thai woman as a mule for carrying a baby that they were then going to take away from the mother at the end – that is, surrogacy:
“The gay couple went to court today in a high-profile custody battle in Thailand with a surrogate mother who is trying to keep the child after discovering their sexual orientation.
Gordan Lake, an American and Manuel Valero, his Spanish husband – both 41 – have been unable to leave the country with Carmen, the baby girl, for over a year because the surrogate has refused to sign the documents that allow the infant to obtain a passport.”
She claims she was never told the baby was to be given to two homosexual pigs. Quite possible if you ask me. What’s my position on surrogacy? There may be some very unusual case of surrogacy where I may even consider it perhaps acceptable. But anything involving homosexual pigs is not it.
So, without more info, here’s my guess. Since all of this surrogacy business is about money, I can well imagine the “agency” lied to the Thai woman (or never told her, which amounts to the same) about who the baby was for.
Then that mother, who does not have the mind of a pig, discovers to her horror that her beautiful baby girl is to be given to two deformed and perverted men, who hate having a healthy relationship with a woman, and who would deprive the girl of her real mother and of a step-mother as well.
The Telegraph then reports that the Thai mother gave birth, but now thinking of the well-being and the human rights of the baby, refused to sign off the baby.
So the homosexual pigs stole the baby from the surrogate mother and went into “hiding” – whatever that means. An underground Thai network of baby smugglers?
The couple has been living in hiding with Carmen and Alvaro, their two-year-old surrogate child for 14 months fearing the baby will be taken from them.
They criminally stole the baby from its real mother. Who did not want to part with the baby. But the case is even more complicated, because this Thai woman just carried the baby, since the egg for the baby came from an anonymous woman!
All because these turds of homosexuals refuse to go deal with their profoundly deformed psychologies and treat their sexuality problems.
But there’s more:
The case is complicated by the fact that Thai law does not recognise same-sex marriages and also by a new law that bans commercial surrogacy, which took effect after baby Carmen’s birth.
Thailand had been a popular destination for foreign couples seeking surrogacy services, partly because of loose regulations and low costs compared with some other countries.
In other words, as other people have remarked, the rich West has now gone beyond treating third world people like dogs merely for cheap labor, they must now colonize the wombs of these unfortunate women, and make them into mules for carrying the babies that they are too perverted to conceive through a healthy man-woman relationship.
Lastly, look at the framing by the wealthy Western media – who’s portrayed as the victim? The two privileged homosexual pigs.
The paper reports Gordan Lake alleges they never lied to the surrogate mother. Lake said:
…he and his husband were always the “intended parents”.
“We’re the people that wanted to have a child,” he said. “We just want to go home and we just want to be a family. A normal boring family.”
Well, we have news for the homosexual pig. A normal, boring family doesn’t use poor women in Thailand as mules to carry their fabricated babies. A normal, boring family doesn’t rip off a baby girl from the woman who carried her. It doesn’t engage in criminal activity in a third world country to steal babies.
And look at the argument they are presenting:
The couple’s lawyer, Rachapol Sirikulchit, said he was confident they will be awarded custody and take the baby with them to Spain, where they live.
“Baby Carmen has the right to be with her biological father, who supports her financially and has cared for her since she was born,” Mr Sirikulchit said. “The priority is to consider the benefit for children and that they have the right to live with their biological parent.”
In other words, money. Come buy children from the wombs of poor women and take them away to do whatever your perverted mind decides.
I hope the Thai government will not be bought by these two gay turds. Alas, as we all know, money does speak loudly in a poor country. And women and children have no fundamental human rights if there’s a gay or lesbian pig wailing about something they want. In Western liberalism, is there a right for a baby girl to have a mother? Never if homosexual pigs are involved. All that matters is that she be given things (money), which the two homosexual pigs have.
A new chapter of how nasty neo-colonization is: now at the level of a poor woman’s womb.
The government issued a new set of regulations in December, though they weren’t widely circulated until recently.
The regulations state that “No television drama shall show abnormal sexual relationships and behaviors, such as incest, same-sex relationships, sexual perversion, sexual assault, sexual abuse, sexual violence, and so on.”
The new rules appeared a week after a controversial show called Addicted Heroin, about gay teenagers, was pulled from video streaming sites in China. The show can now only be viewed on YouTube, which is blocked in China. Several other shows featuring gay characters have also been pulled in recent months.
Yay! My kind of country. See, China has leaders that actually care about having a healthy people and a healthy society.
And given that they are the new rulers of the world, all the better.
I went to see Spotlight.(Spoilers ahead).
I liked the pace and the rhythm and the way they treated the subject without being lurid. One of the strongest aspects of the film is that it succeeds in putting a simultaneous spotlight on the pain of the victims and on the collective negligence and cover-up by the Church, the police, the lawyers, society – and, most importantly, the press.
Part of the conscience crisis that members of the Spotlight team face is the fact that the team members begin to see and acknowledge they never investigated, printed, or followed up on several denunciations, clips, stories, and reports during a long time, including from members of their very own “star” investigative team that finally broke the story – this was very well done. They had also been part of the cover-up, even if their cover-up had been due to their disinterest and neglect, and due to not being as aware – unlike the Church, who had been outright criminal. As one critic put it, the film doesn’t lionize and idealize its heroes, showing how the media was often in cahoots with the monstrous Catholic Church.
But… since the movie was written by liberals – who else? – it was replete with propaganda about homosexuality. The most god-awful lie is that these priests just abused male victims “because that’s who was available”. These people are doing a film about the most infamous male sexual abuse scandal in modern times and they want to insist that a 15-year-old male adolescent was sexually abused by a homosexual priest because the priest couldn’t get his hands on a young female adolescent?
What a disgrace. They also never mentioned how many homosexuals there were and are far up in the Catholic Church who aided and abetted the pedophilia and ephebophilia crimes because they were threatened with being outed by the homosexual priests and bishops doing abuse. In the movie, it was all explained away as “these priests are emotionally stunted, that’s why they are pedophiles”. No mention of how many of them are perverted homosexuals and that’s why they abuse.
And Father Shanley, described as “a hippie”, not as the homosexual activist that he was! The movie writers denounce one scandal while continuing to engage in the cover-up of another – the homosexual abuse of minors!! Just as the Catholic Church tries to cover up any truth about its priests, liberals try to cover up any truth about how abusive its homosexuals are.
As we can see, any information that presents the truth about how perverted homosexuals involved in the scandal are and were was purposely scrapped.
On the other hand, it’s very good that the movie won the main Oscar, since this gives it visibility, and that means it gives worldwide visibility to the subject. The importance of this film is that it centers its attention on the societal cover-up, while also touching upon the gravity of the damage done to the victims.
And the ending with the bit about the fact that Cardinal Law is now living in high style in the Vatican was well done. Like Nazis who escaped to Argentina after the war and lived a comfortable life until their deaths.