the battle for our children

An important recent post at The Knight and Drummer raises an issue that I’ve been concerned about for some time now. It is now obvious what the ultimate objective of the homosexual lobby is. It is unrestricted access to children for male homosexuals. This has always been the final objective, the only difference now is that they’re no longer making any secret of it.

In fact they have been pursuing this objective for decades. The sexualisation of children has been aggressively pushed in schools over a period of many years. Children have been exposed to sexual concepts at wildly inappropriate ages. And the sexual concepts to which they have been exposed have become steadily more sinister.

Over the past few years the gender identity nonsense has been used as a way to further advance this process. Extremely young children who have absolutely zero understanding of sex have been persuaded that they can change their gender. In many cases the parents have been pressured to go along with this. Most worrying is that many parents have been happy to do so – in our modern world a transgender child is a major status symbol.

A sexual interest in young boys has been a key part of the male homosexual sub-culture for at least two thousand years. We should not be surprised that they now intend to find ways to satisfy this interest without the inconvenience of being sent to prison. The homosexual lobby has taken an extraordinary interest in the education system and it’s no coincidence that they have done so.

Sceptics might object that they could not possibly get away with this. In fact they are getting away with it. And they have strategies which will help them to do so. The most successful is likely to be based on the idea that current age of consent laws are oppressive to children and repress childhood sexuality. It’s an evil strategy but that’s not going to stop them. We can also expect to hear sob stories (all of them phony) in the media about thousands of homosexual children committing suicide because their sexuality has been repressed.

It will be interesting to see which way women jump on this issue. Lesbians don’t share the obsessive sexual interest in children that male homosexuals display but they are always keen to make converts, and the best way to do so is to get them young. I imagine lesbians will mostly support male homosexuals on this issue.

But what about heterosexual feminists? Surely they won’t go along with any of this?

Much depends on whether heterosexual feminists are prepared to confront the homosexual lobby on this subject. These days very few people have the courage to stand against the homosexuals so I’m not hopeful. I do expect some major splits among feminists though, with many older feminists being appalled by the idea of children being turned into objects for the gratification of sexual lusts. Younger feminists will fully support the homosexuals. They’ve been thoroughly indoctrinated in homosexual and gender identity propaganda.

Christians as usual will wring their hands and start mumbling about fairness and equality and love and will do nothing of any consequence.

So far every single battle in the culture wars has been lost by Christians and social conservatives. We had better hope they don’t lose this one.

Advertisements

censorship and the sexualisation of pop culture

The process of dismantling censorship began during the late 1950s. It gathered stream during the 1960s and by the beginning of the 70s it seemed like most of the barriers had come down. There was resistance but at the time it didn’t seem likely to be all that disastrous. It was a classic example of the workings of the slippery slope.
In 1967, President Johnson established the National Commission on Obscenity and Pornography. The commission came to the conclusion that pornography was pretty much harmless. Given the amount of pornography around at the time, and the type, this conclusion might well have been quite reasonable. I’m inclined to think that girlie magazines and similar material really were pretty harmless. The trouble is that old slippery slope. The commission could not have predicted the explosion of hardcore porn in the US from the early 70s onwards, the rise of home video at the end of the 70s and the later advent of the internet, all of which changed not only the type of pornography that was around but much more crucially led to dramatic increases in both the quantity and the ease of access.
While I admit that pornography today is a problem I’m actually much more concerned by the ways in which porn has seeped into the mainstream popular culture. The relaxation of censorship allowed pop culture to become incredibly sexualised. While you still have to make a conscious effort to seek out pornography pop culture is inescapable. This has consequences when it comes to children. The average 13-year-old girl is very very unlikely to go looking for internet porn but she is going to be exposed to pop music, to popular movies, to TV, to the social media culture. All of which are awash with sexuality, mostly of a fairly unhealthy variety. Take your daughter to a Disney movie and she’ll be exposed to homosexual imagery, and this in a movie clearly aimed at children.
It’s not so much the explicit content that is the problem, it’s the attitudes. Young women are being encouraged not just to behave sexually like men, to behave sexually like homosexual men. As explained in a recent horrifying post at The Knight and Drummer Teen Vogue is encouraging your teenage daughter to explore the wonderful world of anal sex. Sexual perversion is being normalised and while porn has played a part in this it’s the mainstream pop culture that is doing the greatest harm.
I do have some sympathy with the idea that maybe censorship should not have been relaxed anywhere near as much as it was but any attempt to reintroduce meaningful censorship will be futile unless it targets that mainstream popular culture. 

children, marriage and society

A couple of days ago I wrote a post on our looming aged care crisis and I made the point that a society that values nothing but hedonism, autonomy and freedom is not going to be capable of (or willing) to deal with the problem of caring for the elderly. It should also be noted that such a society is not going to be well equipped for the task of raising children. A society that cannot adequately rear children is hardly worth describing as a society at all.
A society that thinks that sex is purely a recreational activity is also not going to be child-friendly. A society that sees marriage as a vehicle to satisfy the selfish desires of two people rather than a basis for a family is not going to do too well raising kids. A society that thinks that homosexual marriage is normal and healthy is a very poor environment for children. 
It’s terrifying to think that we are actually allowing homosexuals to raise children. This is not going to end well.
It’s not just homosexual marriage that is a problem. Heterosexual marriage is not a satisfactory arrangement for child-rearing unless it is accepted that marriage is permanent.   If people think it’s fine to get a divorce because they’re bored, or they’ve met someone younger and hotter, or they’ve decided that marriage no longer satisfies their need for freedom and autonomy then children are going to suffer. Half a century ago people understood this. Why don’t people today understand it?
Single mothers cannot raise children successfully. It’s not just that they can’t raise sons, they can’t raise daughters either. Both girls and boys need fathers. Of course it goes without saying that single fathers cannot raise kids properly either – both girls and boys need mothers. Homosexual couples certainly cannot raise children, for this very reason.
A society awash with pornography is also a terrible environment for children.
De facto relationships cannot form a successful basis for raising children. They are by their very nature temporary arrangements. if you can’t handle the idea of making the commitment involved in marriage you have no business even contemplating children.

It should also be obvious that children need to grow up in a society that understands, accepts and celebrates the differences between men and women. And accepts that biological sex is not something that can be altered by surgery. It’s not like getting a nose job. Children need to learn to accept their biological sex and to be happy with it. If they don’t they’re just going to add to the numbers of unhappy and confused adults.
Children are a massive commitment. We have to accept that. But children are the only reason for having a society in the first place. We have accept that as well.

the addiction myth

One of the more all-pervasive myths of modern society is addiction. You can not only get addicted to cigarettes, booze and drugs but also to gambling, sex and the internet. 
The only problem with all this is that there’s no such thing as addiction. We’re not dealing with addictions, we’re dealing with moral choices. We live in a world in which the idea of moral choices is not very popular. Not only is it not PC, it also makes life seem like hard work. If bad things happen to us not because we’re addicted but because we make poor choices then that means we have to take responsibility for our own lives. It’s so much easier to  believe that addiction is a disease, or that some people are born with addictive personalities. 
If we’re sick or we were just born that way then it’s up to the government to do something about it. It’s a problem that requires funding. It requires an army of doctors and nurses and counsellors and social workers.
The truth is that an alcoholic is someone who chooses to drink more than he should. A problem gambler is someone who refuses to face up to reality and to adult responsibilities. A heroin addict is someone who chooses to use heroin. A sexual pervert is someone who chooses to indulge in perverted sex. These are all moral choices. 
Of course the society in which a person lives can make things easier or more difficult by either encouraging good moral choices or bad moral choices. When Christianity was still a force in the western world it encouraged good moral choices. When parents still knew how to raise kids properly they taught kids that moral choices were part and parcel of life.
If we have much bigger problems today with drugs, alcoholism, homosexuality and other self-destructive (and socially destructive) behaviours that’s a reflection of the decline of our society but moral choices still come down to individual choices. You can choose not to drink or take drugs or indulge in homosexual behaviour. To pretend that these things are illnesses or that some people are “born that way” is to delude ourselves. It also encourages foolish people to continue destroying themselves.
For a thorough demolition of the heroin addiction myth see Theodore Dalrymple’s Junk Medicine which I reviewed here quite a while back.

the ruling class in Sweden, and in the US, plus crazy scientists

Firstly, a superb interview with Dr Tino Sanandaji, an economics researcher at the Stockholm School of Economics, Sweden. He blows the lid on Sweden’s insane immigration policies and their fatal consequences. Dr Sanandaji can get away with saying things no ethnic Sweden would dare to say. He puts the blame squarely on the shoulders of Sweden’s elites, and also points out that there has always been a majority of Swedes totally opposed to mass immigration but the elites have simply ignored them.
There’s also a good (and rather long) article by Angelo M. Codevilla at The American Spectator on America’s ruling class.
Of course there are people even dumber than our elites, like the team of scientists who want to spend half a trillion dollars adding ice to the Arctic. That’s actually just the start – what they’re really hoping to do is to spend five trillion dollars adding ice to the whole Arctic.
And in Britain apparently it’s OK to beat up six women, as long as you’re a lesbian. Lesbian violence, and especially lesbian domestic violence, is one of those dirty little secrets that we’re not supposed to know about.

The decadent West – is it in terminal decline?

A Political Refugee From the Global Village quotes an article from the state-controlled Chinese news agency Xinhua claiming that the decadent West is in terminal decline. One of the commenters asked why things like out-of-wedlock births and homosexual marriage should be considered to be evidence of decadence. I’ve thought about it and I’ve come up with answer.
Homosexual marriage is sterile. Sterility is a hallmark of decadence. Recognising homosexual marriage means recognising a marriage that cannot produce children. It means voting No to the future. It is a vote for death. Cultural death, national death, even spiritual death. A society that embraces its own death is most assuredly decadent.
As for out-of-wedlock births, if a couple takes on the responsibility of having a child, the biggest responsibility there is, and they can’t even be bothered to make enough of a commitment to each other to get married, they are also voting No to the future. It is an indication of a lack of belief in the future. They are not creating a real family, merely a collection of individuals in a temporary association, an association that can be terminated at any time on the grounds of boredom or inconvenience or mere whim. This is the endgame of liberalism – a vote for cultural death.
The argument can be applied to just about every feature of our modern society. Stupefying oneself with drugs is saying No to the future. 
Our frighteningly low birth rates are an obvious sign of our culture’s embrace of a death cult.
Feminism, an ideology of women who hate themselves for being female and an ideology that seeks to encourage men to hate themselves for being men, is ultimately sterile, negative, self-pitying and self-destructive. Decadent.
The idea of men who think they’re women and women who think they’re men inevitably leads to further sterility. There people are not going to vote for the future by having children. Decadent.
I remember many years ago watching Kenneth Clark’s television series Civilisation. Lord Clark made the point that the transition from barbarism to civilisation could be traced in the buildings they produced. The European Dark Ages produced virtually no buildings that have survived because a society that has no belief in its future produces buildings of a purely temporary nature. There was a huge change around about the twelfth century. Suddenly Europeans were creating buildings, the medieval cathedrals, that are still standing today. They are still standing today because they were built to last. They were built by a society that had confidence that it had a future. In other words, a civilisation. Even more significantly, these cathedrals could take a century or more to be completed. The men who began their construction would never live to see them completed but they built them anyway because they had absolute confidence that the cathedrals would be finished by the following generations. This shows an extraordinary level of faith in the future.
A society that has not developed sufficiently to have confidence in its future is in a state of barbarism. A civilisation that has lost its belief in the future and has embraced its own death is in a state of decadence.
Families are like cathedrals. They require faith in the future. If you have that confidence you will want a real family built on the foundation of marriage. You are building something for future generations.
Feminism, homosexual marriage, out-of-wedlock births, pornography (the ultimate in sterility), the drug culture, celebrity worship, disastrously low birth rates, the voluntary submission to population replacement through immigration – this is serious death cult stuff. These are unmistakeable signs of a decadent society, if not in its terminal stages then certainly in serious danger of entering the terminal stages.

homosexuality is a learned behaviour

Another story the mainstream media will do its best to ignore – an interesting scientific study by Lawrence Mayer and Paul McHugh on sexuality and identity. 
Here are the key quotes. 

“The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings — the idea that people are ‘born that way’ — is not supported by scientific evidence.”

and

“The hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex — that a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ — is not supported by scientific evidence.”

Which is pretty much what I’ve always suspected. Homosexuality is a learned behaviour. Transgenderism is unscientific nonsense.
This is of course why the LGBT lobby is so anxious to spread its propaganda far and wide – they know that if homosexuality can be learned then it can be taught. And they would very much like to teach it to our children.