You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘liberals’ category.
I haven’t seen the garbage of people who think homosexuality is normal demand answers from Milo on this: Which pedophiles did Milo expose? What are their full names? And what is the full name of the priest he says abused him? Let’s hear the stories.
Here’s betting a hundred quid, as they say over the pond, that no names will ever be produced, nothing that could identify anyone. Just totally made-up claims.
BTW, The Federalist, of all people!, actually published a good article, “good” as far as today’s sick American society standard goes, about homosexuality and child/teen abuse.
“In the gay world,” Milo said later, “some of the most important, enriching and incredibly, you know, life-affirming, important, shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys.” “Provided they’re consensual,” he added, “provided they’re consensual.”
During a different interview, with Joe Rogan, Milo talked approvingly of an alleged sexual encounter he had with a priest when Milo was around 14 years old. Milo also described attending Hollywood “boat parties” and “house parties,” where he saw things that “beggar belief.” As Milo put it: “some of the boys at [these parties] were very young. Very young.” Later, he reiterated for the third time: “There were some very young boys around at that time.” In spite of Rogan’s prompting, Milo refused to name anyone at these parties.
But wait: the perversity does not stop there. In a 2006 audio clip that resurfaced in the midst of the Milo debacle, Star Trek alumnus and liberal activist George Takei, who, like Milo, is gay, spoke fondly with radio host Howard Stern (and co-host Robin Quivers) about his sexual experience as a 13-year-old boy with an “eighteen or nineteen” year-old camp counselor.
At one point Stern asked Takei: “Were you molested in a sense, because you were 13?” Takei replied: “No, no…I thought he was pretty attractive.” Stern and Quivers seem captivated and delighted by the story. Quivers prompts Takei for details—“Ahh! Was he gazing into your eyes the whole time? Was he saying anything?”—while Stern cracks wise: “Who wants a hand job without kissing?” Takei describes the experience: “It was both wonderful and scary and kind of intimidating, and delightful.”
Reflect on that for a moment: two adults were listening to a third adult describe an instance of genuine child sexual abuse, and were both happy and jocular about it.
There are two deeply appalling aspects to these sordid interviews. The first is the possibility that, as Milo put it, sexual relationships between young boys and adult gay men occur “very often.” At the Huffington Post last week, “gay conservative” Chad Felix Greene described his own experiences in this regard, having his first sexual encounters with adult men at age 14. As Greene put it, reflecting on the negative effect such behavior has had on his life and the need to stop this “generational pattern of abuse”: “As much as the LGBT world seems to ignore [older gay men having sex with young teenage boys], it seems fairly universal and unfortunately not time-bound to a period when young gay men had fewer options.”
Nevertheless, these revelations are unnerving and profoundly troubling, and the implications of these revelations are terrible, especially combined with many years of research showing disproportionately high rates of child sexual abuse against young gay males. Should we not consider the possibility that something both brutal and endemic is going on here, and that we’re simply ignoring it?
Yet there is another, even more troubling idea at work here: the possibility that these stories have been around for a long time, that many people have known about them for a long time, yet nobody has done anything about it, or even cared.
Consider: Milo’s interview with Rogan took place in September 2015, nearly 17 months ago. His statements on the livestream occurred more than a year ago, in January 2016. Yet his remarks and beliefs did not come to wide attention or constitute a scandal until very recently, when they were publicized by a conservative group opposed to his appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference.
If a grown male celebrity had spoken approvingly of having sex with 13-year-old girls, including having attended a party where “very young girls” were being used for sex, the reaction would have been swift and ruthless. It would not have taken the man in question more than a year to suffer any consequences, as it did for Milo.
Takei’s own tacit approval of child sex, meanwhile, has been on record for more than a decade, and he has suffered no professional or personal fallout for it.
Author: Daniel Payne is a senior contributor at The Federalist. He currently runs the blog Trial of the Century, and lives in Virginia.
Well, you know something is official if it happens on Facebook. And so here it is: the Bible has been declared hate speech and banned from Facebook – at least temporarily.
Elizabeth Johnston, an Ohio homeschooling mother of 10 who runs the popular conservative blog “The Activist Mommy,” told The Christian Post on Tuesday that Facebook suspended her account earlier this month because she wrote about how Leviticus condemns homosexuality as “detestable” and an “abomination.”
Johnston said the comment in question was posted over six months ago in a long thread of comments that was in response to another Facebook user who claimed that Christians are hypocrites for condemning homosexuality but being willing to eat shellfish and pork.
The post was removed on Feb. 9 and Johnston’s public “The Activist Mommy” Facebook page, which has over 76,000 followers, was frozen for a period of three days. She was alerted that her comment on homosexuality was removed because “it doesn’t follow the Facebook Community Standards.”
“Someone had commented underneath one of my videos and were commenting under the thread and said something about how Old Testament law prohibits the eating of pork — one of the homosexuals’ favorite arguments to make. I responded with just scriptural commentary and that is considered ‘hate speech’ by Facebook,” Johnston explained. “It was just very intellectual and it was just a commentary on what the Bible says. There was no name calling or anything like that.”
After her account was unfrozen on Feb. 12, Johnston said that she re-posted her thoughts on the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality only to have Facebook remove the post again and freeze her account for an additional seven days.
The community standards state: “Facebook removes hate speech, which includes content that directly attacks people based on their: race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, sex, gender, or gender identity, or serious disabilities or diseases.”
Johnston’s post only cited Scripture and did not directly attack any person.
The Ohio mother contended that with the way the Facebook algorithm is set up is that all that is needed for her account to be frozen is for liberal trolls and LGBT activists to report her account.
Well. It was amazing. It was mind-blowing. Nobody thought it could happen. Yet he pulled it off.
What a lesson, what a beautiful example of “nothing is impossible”.
I went to bed early on Tuesday – why torture oneself with the slow incoming counting of a Clinton win? – and fully prepared for the awful news of Hillary’s win the next morning, already detaching myself from the whole election affair. Life goes on and all that. Millions of errands and things to do the next morning, the election will be over, back to the normal drudgery of everyday life, let’s think about other things already.
Of course, when I got up the next morning, I went to check the news for the awful acknowledgement of Hillary’s win and just to see how bad it had been.
And then I was speechless. Stunned. Overjoyed.
And even though the witch keeps flying around, circling on her broom, still meddling obviously in the high circles of power that she has attained, she lost.
She lost like no one could, crashing from the highest pedestal that she had built for herself, with her mountains of lies and all that corrupt money the Clinton crime syndicate has amassed.
And every little tiny tinsy bit of news about her loss, her disappointment, the knife in her stomach, her resounding vertical crash was just savored. How it came from nowhere and just whipped her repugnant smug face. A lifetime of grotesque crimes, all that highest level corruption, a billion thrown to oil that horrible Hillary electing machine, and Trump just grabbed the win right out of her slimy hard clutching hands. Without much effort, it can also be added.
Trump was very smart – we all have to hand it to him. Talking to millions of dumb Americans, selfish and low-info as they are, takes talent. I never thought he had it, but he does.
Now, don’t misunderstand me. Trump means more of the same horrible criminal US of A – wars, torture, horrendous foreign policy, arms sales to barbarians abroad to commit relentless repression and mass murder, just to mention a few of the gravest international issues. He is not ethical and his number one priority is himself. I think he is poised to become richer than the Bushes and the Clintons. Only time will tell.
But he won. And that means Hillary lost. Her only chance and he smashed it.
And that is a lesson.
I’m still savoring that she lost her only chance and I’ll be savoring it for some time. What she most wanted and No. You can’t have it. Hard to know how many people the Clintons have gotten rid of, how many careers they have destroyed, how many people in Haiti are suffering because the Clintons robbed them of their resources (including Hillary’s brother and that Haitian gold mine plunder of his), how many masses of human beings have been murdered or starved because of the arms sales and foreign policies and deals orchestrated by Bill and Hillary, but she lost. In this world without justice, this is about the only thing we can get.
We’ll take it and savor it.
Of course, I could be wrong.
Of course, everyone could have overestimated Sanders as a leader that stands firm, myself included. Of course, he could have just sold out and merely folded to Clinton after working his behind off competing against her, not only abandoning his supporters and most things he fought for, but literally throwing them all under the Hillary neocon Wall Street bus. Of course, this election could have been just a game to him, a nice little ego trip, a symbolic medal for all the years he has fought for his ideals as a minority in Congress. Finally public acknowledgement and support – a chance to be heard and to lead. A chance that came to what still feels like a very abrupt end today.
But why am I getting the feeling, now, after all this, after nominating Hillary, that he is up to something?
Wishful thinking? Definitely. But he might know something he ain’t telling. Just setting it up for now. I turned off youtube in the middle of the DNC roll call today because it was just too awful to watch. It was about 1100 votes to 700 then, Hillary-Sanders. And yet Sanders wanted the roll call. He set his foot down to have it happen today. He also organized with his brother, of his utmost trust and confidence, for the latter to nominate him. Then, after all this, he hands it over to Hillary, folding.
Now it had occurred to me in the past the simple fact that if anything were to happen to Hillary, it’s him for the Dems. Anything as in an indictment or wikileaks. With the Clintons having bought off the Justice System and the FBI, wikileaks is all that’s left.
And now I am getting the feeling that Sanders’ plan isn’t just to ride off into the sunset, head sunken, and write his little book on his (defeated and deflated) revolution, as he has announced. He looked almost ebullient as he announced his nomination of Clinton. Does that make any sense at all? What’s all the happiness about, just the symbolic fact that he still got many delegate votes?
For the life of me, I can’t find the final tally of the DNC’s roll call today anywhere on the Net. I suppose tomorrow it will be easier.
To finish, then, are all these little tidbits and clues about Sanders just mirages in the current political wasteland of American politics? Was Sanders bought off, did he quit, fold, or is something actually up?
Updated August 1st, 2016:
OK, so I read that Sanders didn’t give Hillary his database of millions of supporters! And that he hasn’t denied he might run for president in 2020. Aha. So I think that’s his game. Fold now to work the bases so that he can run in 2020.
In any case, shameful. He could have run now. It doesn’t do much, but he’s helping Canova beat Debbie in Florida. Ha.
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.
Here is the best article so far on the Sanders’ sell-out to criminal, vile Clinton:
The worst disservice Sanders has done to his supporters, other than to lead them on a wild goose chase for real change, is to virtually ignore his rival’s vaunted “experience.” He need not have mentioned Hillary Clinton’s Senate record, since there was nothing there; her stint as law-maker was merely intended to position her for a run for the presidency, according to the family plan. But there was a lot in her record as Secretary of State.
As she recounts in her memoir, she wanted a heftier “surge” in Afghanistan than Obama was prepared to order. Anyone paying attention knows that the entire military mission in that broken country has been a dismal failure producing blow-back on a mind-boggling scale, even as the Taliban has become stronger, and controls more territory, than at any time since its toppling in 2001-2002.
Hillary wanted to impose regime change on Syria in 2011, by stepping up assistance to armed groups whom (again) anyone paying attention knows are in cahoots with al-Nusra (which is to say, al-Qaeda). In an email dated Nov. 30, 2015, she states her reason: “The best way to help Israel…is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.”
In her memoir she criticizes Obama for not doing more to oust the secular Assad regime. She has repeatedly stated during her campaign that she favors a no-fly zone over Syria, like the one she advocated for Libya. That means conflict with Russia, which is bombing sites in Syria, with the permission of its internationally recognized government, under what Russia’s leaders (and many rational people) consider to be terrorists’ control.
Sanders–sorry, I cannot call him “Bernie” anymore, since he has become precisely as avuncular as Dick Cheney–could have effectively attacked Hillary the Skjaldmær (Old Norse for “Shield-maiden,” referring to an often berserk warrior-woman) for her role in the destruction of Libya. But no! Always referring to her deferentially as “Secretary Clinton”—as though her actions in that role merit respect—he rarely alluded to her greatest crime at all. That’s unforgivable.
(Yes, in one debate he mentioned Libya in passing—timidly, and with no follow-up. While he repeatedly mentioned how The Secretary had voted for the Iraq War and he hadn’t, he hardly exuded moral outrage about that or any other Clinton decision. His campaign was all about her Wall Street ties and well-paid, secret talks, the transcripts of which he once wanted to see but has now apparently lost interest. It was never about “foreign policy,” which is supposedly her forte. He may call himself a “socialist,” but he’s no anti-imperialist. He has voted in favor of every “defense spending” bill, supported the NATO assault on Serbia in 1999, supported Israel’s attack on Gaza in 2014, etc.)
He could have attacked Clinton savagely—with the savagery of mere matter-of-fact honesty—by citing those emails exchanged between Clinton and her vicious confidant and former adviser Anne-Marie Slaughter, in which the latter—under the subject line “bravo!”—congratulates her on engineering Obama’s agreement for the bombing of Libya. (On March 19, 2011, as the bombing of Libya began, Slaughter wrote: “I cannot imagine how exhausted you must be after this week, but I have NEVER been prouder of having worked for you. Turning [Obama] around on this is a major win for everything we have worked for.”
He could have quoted that email from Sidney Blumenthal, that Svengali figure who has long been Clinton’s unofficial mentor (along with Henry Kissinger and others): “No-fly! Brava! You did it!” (Brava, if you’re interested, is the feminine form of Bravo.)
He could have repeatedly used that damning clip that reveals Hillary’s joy at the grotesque murder of Moammar Gadhafy—-who had become a friend of Tony Blair, Silvio Berlusconi, and the CIA as of 2011—at the hands of Islamist thugs, who rammed a stick and knife up his anus on camera just to make it more humiliating. His ads could have started with some appropriately edited version of this. And ended with this. And left the people to draw their own conclusions.
He could have asked, “Why the hell did you appoint Dick Cheney aide Victoria Nuland as Under Secretary of State for Eurasia, and support and fund that coup in Ukraine in 2014 in your goddamn ambition to expand NATO?”
But no. He didn’t have it in him. And now he wants his youthful erstwhile followers to transfer their support to someone who is not only the embodiment of Wall Street, with all its blood-sucking and all its crookedness, but the personification of U.S. imperialism in an era when its depth of crisis has produced a state of perpetual war.
Savvy people in Syria and elsewhere surely understand what the Sanders endorsement means: Syria is the next Libya.
Hillary in the Oval Office, Binyamin Netanyahu at her side, will laugh as Assad gets her knife up his ass, chaos deepens, the draft is re-instated, and boys and girls—of all ethnicities, gay and straight together—march off to fight the Brava Wars drastically reducing youth unemployment and making legions more eligible for the GI Bill.
Even if Sanders doesn’t vote for the war (and why should there be a vote, after all, in this post-constitution era?), he will share responsibility.
Shame! And shame on any once “Bernie” supporter who follows him into his moral morass.
* * *
Feel the burn. The burn of the rigged system. Why be drawn into it—the object of Hillary’s praise, for switching so readily from him to her (for the sake of “unity”)?
What is there to unite with, but more corruption, exploitation, and wars based on lies?
The votes that matter are the votes on the street. Either Trump or Clinton will provoke mass upheaval. The key contribution of the Sanders campaign has been to lay bare for idealistic youth the magnitude of the rot in the system itself, while raising (however dishonestly) the prospect of “political revolution.”
It’s the hope Sanders has sold out. But yes, that’s what we need. Social, economic, and political revolution. Too bad he’s chosen the other side.
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.
‘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!