gojam on Twitter
- @Zoompad @ciabaudo They never disappeared, they just went underground. This after 10 years from 1974-84 of being a legal organisation 2 hours ago
-
Recent Posts
- Lester’s Story
- Love Actually
- Leon Brittan and the Paedophile Information Exchange
- CPS Considering ‘Elm Guest House Child Abuse’ Charges
- Hilda Murrell: A death in the private sector
- Walls Come Tumbling Down
- On John McKeague, “Friends In High Places”, And Black Masses
- After Dark: British Intelligence
- The Unsavoury Boom in Child Grooming revealed by Oxford gang
- From The NAYPIC Log: Elm Guest House
- The Azimuth Trust paedophile ring: TV news reports
- ‘After Dark’ Secrets
- ebay: ‘The Dust Has Never Settled’ by Robin Bryans
- Wording Of The Ancient Orange Order Toast
- Police And Social Workers Apologise… Again!
- Daily Mail 14/11/84
- Duke of York’s Royal Military School: Shocking Social Care OFSTED
- ‘The Spy Within’
- Tonya Lee On Rolf Harris
- Police abandon investigation into child sex abuser Sir Cyril Smith MP
Archives
Categories
Meta
theneedleblog · Bursting Inflated Egos and Pricking Dulled Consciences
Who are you and what have you done with our Gojam ?????
Hi,
gojam still here but now very relaxe.
Drunk gojam has left the building. Sober gojam is not so sure.
I’m entitled to a day off.
Sophie, you’re in charge
I’m falling apart in public. Sorry you must think I’m a terrible person
I think we all understand entirely – my suggestion if I’m in charge… go to bed, go directly to bed, do not pass go and we will see you again when you are feeling up to it.
Bon Nuit xx
You’re charge Sophie.
I’m going to take your advise
Relax and chill dude.
19 charges apparently.
And one child rape.
When i was 16 he took me and my 2 friends home in a limo once, it dropped him off first and his wife went crazy, shouting and screaming in the street she pushed him through their hedge. Fact.
I know where you’re coming from mate. Look after yourself
Much love and support
Respect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gig_WCfm3qs
Peace.
Thinking of you at this sad time Gojam x
It figures… I long thought Corrie was a crime against humanity. This just proves it.
Unfortunately the way both authorities and media pounce on this is grossly and disproportionately greater and more high profile than if it were boys that were involved and the perpetrator were either a celebrity gay or a closeted establishment figure. Savile proved that… Lots of reports about his interference with ‘up fer it’ teenage girls, few reports of his pederastic poofterism or his habit of feeding children to queens. The message it sends is that the two are a wholly different class… That the violation of age of consent for females is a rightful protection of their ‘supposed virtue’ by society, while the gay lobby push for the age of consent to barely protect toddlers because somehow queer pedophilia is implied to be more normal, more sophisticated, more intricate.
We’re rapidly reaching the place where justice in this country will only be acheived by something representing an exploitation movie, and the victims take revenge themselves on these serial perverts, and unfortunately for them the gay crowd will have stood in close protection around their pedo-brothers for so long, they’ll be indistinguishable. All these fads and cultural movements have a backlash. Its inevitable. Society will sift itself conservatively.
I was abused.I am heterosexual and I find your continual small minded homophobic opinions offensive. They are also illegal, I hope the authorities come knocking on your door. Keep your backward opinions to yourself, fool.
Oh no. The abused defending the abusers. I’m so sorry for your Stockholm Syndrome.
Speech is still, thankfully, free and not all of the abused have succumbed to the politically correct redefinition of what the perverts call normal. Most in my circles haven’t anyway.
I’m curious, however, as to your justification for associating sexual perversion with ‘open mindedness’, after all the closed-mindedness that fought the normalisation of the homosexual deviation on society is the same one that fights pedophilia in all its forms, bestiality and the like. I’m endlessly fascinated, as my comments here reveal, by the sheer hysteria and the neo-fascist reaction to free speech which surrounds anybattempt by anyone to regard homosexuality the same way objectivity – the natural order – does, the evidence of social engineering and Orwellian thought-policing.
For example just days ago the media was reporting that a tell-tale forewarning of domestic violence is the predilection of an individual for causing harm to animalsnfor personal gratification. Think of that… Establishment psychologists consider that individuals who calculatedly inflict harm upon natural order for personal gratification and who gain greater pleasure by shocking their peers while they do it and effectively bullying their way to being unchallenged in their peer group as being highly likely to escalate their offences and become worse. It was acceptable for these people to be labelled ‘sickos’ and treated as pariah.
Why is sexuality any different? Why is beating an animal with a stick less acceptable than perverting natural biology and inflicting actual biological detriment on another, so that the former can be boo-ed out of society as a crime and the latter can be applauded and celebrated by the unthinking and the irrational?
Why is it ok to view a person with a predilection for violence to natural order as a likely threat on an escalating scale, but then we whistle and look the other way when someone suggests that individuals with a history of sociopathic moral redefinition and violation of socially accepted biological boundaries might continue to overstep the lines intonsuccessive taboos, having previously shown no regard for established moral boundaries and even less regard for the opinions of their peers?
Clarence,
Though, I respect your command of the English language, your ability to express yourself in an erudite manner, and the vocabulary reserves that you can draw on. I’m never distracted by that. I read what you write and see exactly what you are trying to convey.
I see the false premises on which you build your arguments.
Legion is a friend of mine. Back off.
Gojam,
In order for me to correct myself can you explain on what basis, and which aspect of my thought and speech require correction?
I didn’t realisebthe terrible impact of objective free speech upon a select few, and thenfine line between intellectual liberty and hypocrisy. I trust that you appreciate that allowing censorship on the basis of a ‘heterosexual’ being offended at materially substantial objective criticisms of homosexuality means that the same. rights should be given to any non-Jew who wishes to claim offence at anti-semitic gestures, and thus my right to scream ‘Holocaust’ every time a site like this names a person who can be deemed to be Jewish in order to protect that individual from any form of criticism.
I regret that I mistook your site for a space that allows a spade to be called a spade. I apologise for that, startled by the irony that the freedom sites like this hope to use to defend what are arguably published defamations do, in turn, capitulate to mock offence claimed by the hysterical.
I regret that the experience of one individual who chooses to be a voice for the moral good and integrity of the homosexual community is worth more than the experience of one whose dear relative was convinced through grooming by a serial pederast homosexual that gayness was normal and all their relatives were ignorant squares who couldn’t “knock it if they haven’t tried it.” He was also convinced by his queer handlers that trips to the emergency room to have his arsehole sewn back together while stoned on horse sedative and champagne was a normal thing that even straights do, and was even indoctrinated by being told that the anally injected death sentence his grooming agent gave him was a straight conspiracy against gay fun. Yes, I’m reminded of how wonderful and positive homosexuality is in our culture every time I look at his photo in the family album. Its a lifestyle that should come with a government health warning and an injunction to prevent any involvement with or ‘re-education’ of minors. I’ll welcome a prosecution for the words I use, because in my experience the gay lobby backs its way into out of courtvsettlements when faced with exposing the filthy truth.
And Andrew? Oh… He was just another teen who wasn’t coerced, wasn’t compromised and wasn’t violated. He was in a ‘homosexual relationship.’
Thanks for caring.
Verbose replies doth not an argument make.
I’ll reply to you in time.
I’m sorry… First I get attacked because my experience of abuse led me to a different conclusion to someone else’s experience of abuse. Then I get attacked because I tell the objective truth, not a whitewashed myth. Then I get attacked because someone decides to feign offence at what I said even though it has nothing to do with them. Now I’m getting attacked because I have a brain and know how to use it, and actually bother to explain and argue my views rather than relying on hit and run slurs based on predictably typical manufactured language intended to invoke political correctness. I can’t win. I seemingly can’t be allowed to exist either, thus proving the point that a 2% demographic and their agenda has fraudulently and violently ridden roughshod over six thousand years of advanced civilisation, intellectual development and democratic liberty.
It is self evident that this indivdual’s aim is to promote the government’s distorting agenda that the investigation of elite paedophiles is nothing more than a ‘gay witch-hunt’. It may be dressed up as erudite, scholarly even, but it is a definite misdirection of the debate on this blog, and would, to a casual observer, confirm the very same misdirection given by Cameron on national television. Don’t be fooled by the wordy sophistry that is spilling across these comment boards- at the very worst, this individual is a professional troll working to disrupt what is going on here- the evidence is on your screen, at best he is an extreme-rightist who likes to think of himself as an ‘intellectual’ claiming ‘democratic’ credentials, though his language is more redolent of the paranoid fascist right (the sort of beliefs you’d find in the Monday Club or higher echelons of the establishment)- with talk of ‘the natural order’,'deviation’, ‘perverting natural biology’ and ominously ‘Society will sift itself conservatively’ .
This terminology is awfully similar to the language of Adolf Hitler who talked about ‘the iron laws of nature’, the natural order’. ‘applied biology’ and the ‘sifting’ of populations for ‘deviance’. The same conspiratorial paranoid ideation is also at work, turning groups of people into pervasive ideological enemies, where he uses ‘poofterism’, you could easily substitute ‘jewry’ or ‘jewification’, where he says ‘Establishment psychologists’, Hitler would have said ‘jewish science’…
Now this individual references nazism in his verbose meanderings, and claims he belongs to a culture of ‘six thousand years of advanced civilisation, intellectual development and democratic liberty’ in the exercise of ‘objective free speech’ there is nothing ‘objective’ about any of it (ironically the ‘six thousand years’ is also like that genocidal maniac Hitler who had his own obsessive claim to an ‘eternal’ cultural-biological heritage) and there is nothing civilised or democratic in his argument as most of us would recognise or understand it. The distinctly less-than civilised, hate-filled terms such as ‘poof’ and ‘shirt-lifter’ belies an ugly, visceral hatred for all gay people. As I said, this is either deliberate or the expression of a particularly revolting ideology, and I would humbly submit Gojam, that it has absolutely no place here, acting as a misdirection or pushing a profoundly vile and subjective agenda at the expense of the victims of abuse.
Incubus,
You’re so far up a tree with that dismal attempt at psychoanalysis that you should be careful not to fall out of it lest you break your neck.
As for your rebuttal of my objectivity, I speculate you have not the remotest clue what objectivism is.
I haven’t once referenced Nazism. But the fact that you intricately read ‘Nazism’ into every objective criticism of homosexuality tells me how indoctrinated by hysterical establishment propaganda you are, and how complete the efforts by that select fractional demographic and their political lobby to bow the world to their perversion and cause so many to fraudulently equate any and all opposition to their meddling in the collective thinking of society with ‘Nazism’ and even draw equivalence between people who choose a sexually perverse lifestyle with those who were born Jews. Politically correct fraud.
Homosexuality is legal. Paedofilia is illegal just as homophobia is. No more time to waste on you, fool.
Homosexual sex between males was once illegal, neither paedophilia or homophobia are illegal.
Paedophilia is a mental disorder, a paraphilia, sexual activity with a child is illegal (at the moment).
Homophobia is an irrational fear of homosexuals/homosexuality, it isn’t illegal to fear anything on either rational or irrational grounds.
Clarence is undoubtedly able to defend his own position, however, I contend that he has views that you appear to disagree with, that is not a definition of irrational fear on his part.
He rightly points out that homosexuality, which was once openly and publicly pronounced by the majority to be abnormal and abhorrent, has been transformed by a vociferous lobby which is able influence policy and legislation into a normal mainstream lifestyle choice at minimum and the pinnacle of human enlightenment and creativity at best !
Sex between adults and minors will never be legal will it?
P.I.E and similar organisations managed to get the ball rolling with the liberal establishment, Ms Harman once championed their cause.
Elements of the ‘Gay Lobby’ were at the forefront of the ‘push for progress’
Pedantic and also unhelpful.
Sabre,
Respect. You get it. You see where it’s at. Kudos.
Legion.
Blowing your pet dog is also legal. Licking a public toilet bowl is legal. Self-decapitation is legal. Legality does. not preclude something being disgusting, dangerous, stiupid or perverse.
It is illegal for a man to wait in a women’s toilet in order to make lewd comments and have an inappropriate ogle. It is not, however, illegal for a homosexual representing the ‘other’ sexuality to lurk in same-sex toilets and make a pass, or have an ogle in respect of same-sex persons. We segregate based on gender and we do so on the basis of two things: first, we presume the worst case scenario of sexual predators taking available opportunities, and second we respect the privacy and comfort of people using the toilet to not be in the presence of those who view them as a sexual object in their most vulnerable state. Such segregation is considered common sensical and pre-eminent over arguments of theoretical liberty and equality. What kind of fuss do you think it would cause to logically and rationally extend that segregation to the second and third sexuality people?
Homosexuality is legal. So is fantasising about depraved sex with children and animals. The fact that it is legal doesn’t preclude the fact that the people who do it are mentally defective or willfully deviant and potentially hugely dangerous. If the inside ofntheir mind is incapable of processing andnaccepting thebsocially unacceptable nature of their behaviour or its biological errancy there is no reason to presume that their behaviour will inevitably succeed in living within objectively defined boundaries where their minds failed to such alarming degrees.
I remain concerned that such a bulk of abuse cases exist where the process of therapy for the abused revolves around completely normalising the profound and evident sexual deviancy of their abuser with psychological sleight of hand, so as to confuse and obfuscate very basic issues which would be immensely simplified by allowing the victims to see their abuser as a lifelong deviant waiting to happen and allowing the enforcement of the segregation between two very distinct sexual lifestyles.
But we can go further…
Pedophilia was, for six millenia at least, far more legal, far more normal, and far more objectively, scientifically acceptablthan homosexuality. The fact that no objective scientific or moral reason exists for this inversion should be enough to tell you several things… First the line between legal and illegal is barely thin and can be altered by the tiniest minority with a powerfully established lobby of people who are proud lawbreakers; second, pedophilia could be legalised at any time, based on the example of the legalisation of homosexuality, without consulting the people at all; third, why are we surprised that the homosexual community is almost the exclusive advocate for the reduction of the age of consent (legalisation of pedophilia) and for the promotion of dangerous sexual deviancy as part of the ‘rich tapestry’ of sex education to the young. Such laws are changed not by the democracy of objective social order but by the agendism of power-enabled criminals to indulge and seek the legitimisations for their indulgences, the natural order of moral and social decay.
I might be wrong but I bet we’ll eventually discover the child abused was his own daughter/ daughters. Their ages were very carefully kept out of the press at the time of the original reporting and his wife divorced him very swiftly after 25 years. I might well be wrong – only putting two and two together
Sorry but it has to be done;
What is blue and full of Haribo?
Kevin Websters overalls.
Who’s betting that the guy is a sex addict who likes em barely legal, not an uncommon trait, who was duped with a 15 year old, and the police and media are conveniently ‘finally’ addressing the allegations because of the value of insinuating that another ‘high profile’ media pedophile has been apprehended, this time at ITV.
My bet, he’s a randy opportunist who enjoyed teenage attention, not a serially calculating predatorial nonce. Idiot all the same.
I agree with Clarence J Boddicker, he should be able to say anything that he believes in on this blog – but make his comments `user friendly` – too many words and long winded in my own opinion (but all speltt correctly)
just checked my dictionary – I believe spelt – one t – `should` be inserted between `but ` – and `make`
No spelling police here. You may have noticed strange characters inserted between words instead of spaces… Curse of tablet computers over “real” keyboards.
As for verbosity, unless otherwise restricted I was always taught that an argument worth presenting was worth arguing and defending properly for the objectivist, else all that is left is a war of opinions or emotions – the very embodiment of subjectivity.
write for the `masses` my friend – make it user friendly – not all as `clever` as you – bigger market the uneducated (but want to learn – if we agree)
I stopped reading CJB about twelve posts back. No pun intended, but that guy is up his own arse.
This is correct.
not really its called intelligence – but he has to learn to transmit to fools like me but bigger fools than you
The charges cover from 2001 to about 2010 so that would be an ongoing situation, not a one-off ‘mistake’ with a 15 year old
KnobHead,
I was in no way downplaying the seriousness of the allegations. It was my understanding that the three counts of offence against a ‘child’ were three counts against the same child, possibly relating to the same singular incident, and I speculated that there was a convenient air of the ‘statutory’ to the legal use of the term ‘child’ with an ambiguous suggestion that it could be a schoolfriend of the actor’s own child, and that the 16 other allegations across a decade carried some ambiguity typical to cases of groupies or local clubbers filing complaints against a local celebrity for various forms of unwanted (or ill-conceived) sexual attention. It was my suggestion that in the current atmosphere more was being made of this than was perhaps warranted in respect of media reporting, and that some of the charges may only stand on the merit of the substantiation of a handful of allegations but are given credence as part of a presumed pattern in establishing form. A court could yet throw out a number of the charges for anorexic and dubious evidence. But like everything else, that’s pure speculation.
bit sad gojam about the intellectual fight between CJB -and incubusblog both should explain to the `masses` – before this `intellectual fight` – both parties should spend a day in Birkenhead Merseyside, if one (any) survive I will agree totally with the survivor – as should the rest of the UK/World
No troubles mate, since my dad was a Woolyback, and I’ve ‘survived’ Hackney too…and battles with NF, BM and BNP skinheads, so…
I would rather prefer the term intellectual debate John, although if it indeed does degenerate into mud slinging and name calling then it is a fight. I personally have enjoyed reading this sparring between two writers of a high standard in intellectual ability. However in order to understand where either of them are coming from, I will have to put all of these comments – in order of writing – somewhere else and then sit down with a strong cup of coffee to read through them about 20 times each. Then and only then will my mind possibly comprehend their opposing viewpoints. ;)
Well, in plain language, the homophobic scumbag is a f*cking troll plain and simple, cleverly pushing his own, or the Establishment’s, agenda using language to dazzle and impress, as a method of persuasion. His hatred is all too obvious though, as the mask falls all too often- the man’s a pig, pure and simple. Without a doubt he has nothing but egotistical contempt for those who don’t ‘get’ his message, being an intellectual snob to boot…
Sounds like projection on your part incubus.
You claim to have ‘survived’ Hackney, not difficult really when you are secure in your own self contained revolutionary ghetto.
Squatting properties on the Pembury and Kingsmead (unless you can find a nice commune in Dalston Lane or Amhurst Rd with a big garden) helping to ensure that the local homeless remain homeless.
Drinking away the benefits, disproportionately funded by the taxes of the working classes, in ‘The Pembury’, ‘The Amhurst’, ‘The Three Sisters’ and ‘The Shoe’.
Did you ever lay siege at the locally known kids homes?
You seemed to be ‘active’ around the Kingsmead, the stamping ground of Sidney Cook and his paedophile killer gang (murderers and rapists of Jason Swift among others), not much local revolutionary justice dispensed there eh?
The local Labour Party’s protection of Mark Trotter didn’t seem to bring the black and red flags to the barricades !
Too interested in organising LGBT revolutionary cadres perhaps?
Wouldn’t want to alienate the pink faction?
Intellectual snobbery on your part, if it is possible for the alma mater of south bank poly sociology dept to be intellectual, when the ‘ignorant hoi polloi’ failed to rally to your call?
Those whose argument has no fibre, no substance, no objectivity and no truth must seemingly resort to hysteria, propaganda and when all else fails personal attacks and hate-filled rhetoric. It meets the definition of ‘ironic’ given the degrees of humanitarian enlightenment claimed… Tolerance for everything and everyone… With notable exceptions. Bravo.
Those whose argument has no fibre, no substance, no objectivity and no truth must seemingly resort to hysteria, propaganda and when all else fails personal attacks and hate-filled rhetoric. It meets the definition of ‘ironic’ given the degrees of humanitarian enlightenment claimed… Tolerance for everything and everyone… With notable exceptions. Bravo.
.
Show me one personal attack on my part as a balanced contrast to the following :
# intellectual snob
# egotistical
# the man’s a pig, pure and simple
# hatred
# f*cking troll
# homophobic scumbag
# the guy is up his own arse
# less than civilised
#, like that genocidal maniac Hitler
# conspiratorial paranoid
I’ll take a pause here… Someone tipped me to take a look at Incubus Blog, and in doing so I found myself descending into an alternate, yet apparently familiar, dimension.
From what I could gather from a cursory glance, the Pope is and will always be, by role, ‘fuhrer of pedophiles’ and Catholics are a rabid bunch of child molesters.
Now, attempting to be fair minded I presumed that Incubus did not mean that all Catholics are pedophiles and that the Pope commands a pedophile army, lest anyone perceive Incubus to be a raving paranoiac lunatic incapable of a shred of balance. Rathe I perceived that Incubus was spouting the more heated edge of ‘guilt by association’ having deemed that a large, powerful, wealthy demographic who elevate and harbour and cover up those who sexually abuse behind institutions which demand trust, and wield a PR machine, and do not disassociate or publicly single out the perpetrators, the innocent members being seen to identify with and defend the guilty.
I must say I did find this ironic.
It seems that it is OK to berate and abuse the religious, guilty only by association.
According to the “gay lobby” and Incubus:
# Heterosexual adults who sexually abuse children are heterosexual pedophiles who prove that gay parents would have been safer.
# Apparently heterosexual adults who harbour homosexual curiosity are closet gays or bisexuals.
# Apparently heterosexual adults who homosexually abuse children are heterosexual pedophiles on a strange power trip that has nothing to do with sexuality.
# Homosexual adults who homosexually abuse children are misunderstood and enjoying a perfectly natural relationship which would be legal if it wasn’t for the damn age of consent which, incidentally, we’re campaigning against.
# A closet homosexual with power, money and political influence who homosexually abuses children is a poor victim of vile homophobia and we must stop gay witchunts.
Curiously it is considered causal that priests take vows of chastity and shun sexual licence, and this makes them inevitable abusers hiding behind Catholicism which is whitewashed to appear moral.
No mention of the homosexual lifestyle being famously and statistically promiscuous, habitually risk-taking, notably deviant, secretive and sociopathically defiant of social and moral convention, consistently in contention with the law in respect of the legalisation and legitimisation of its own activities, hiding behind a new social demographic institution, whitewashed to look moral and normal.
Curiously on all other issues homosexuals claim they can ‘do’ or ‘be’ anything at all but that defining sexuality is foundational, compulsive, undeniable and almost biological, therefore should not be subject to restrictive laws.
Incubus says that this underlying foundational identity has no part in this debate, only philosophy and opportunity creates and enables abusers whose underlying sexuality plays no part in what they do.
Hence you can hate the religious, but don’t dare expect perversion from a demographic who major in perversion. Or, don’t look for jihadists in jihadist mosques.
CJB (Clearly Just Bigoted) apart from being a pompous ass, you must be a stupendously emotionally deprived individual, like your heroine Ayn Rand, who denied the neccessity of ‘society’, love and human empathy, compassion and altruism in her ridiculous ‘philosophy’, sorry, cult of ‘objectivism’, spurning other people for the heroic stand of emotional and economic ‘rugged individualism’ and with selfishness as the very height of human achievement- who died an embittered and lonely woman, having contradicted her entire body of work, by living off the welfare state and pining for the loss of her lover damned herself and her stupid ideas forever…Her supposed ‘rationality’ was a shallow crock of shit, and no doubt her rampant hatred af gay people and her aspirant social darwinism is where you get your second-hand ideas from-
A blend of Randian dross and paranoid nineteenth century conceptions of normality- the ‘poofterisation’ of the world sitting well with the equivelant anti-semitic memes of the day. The ‘Natural Order’ you speak of would have us shun anti-biotics, contraception and consensual sex, clubbing your neighbour over the head for a scrag of meat and a reversion to the Stone Age. Gay people have been part of the human species since time immemorial, it’s only since we rejected the Natural Order’, rejected being reduced to primitive animals, and became civilised that most people have accepted this biological fact…
It’s a mark of your desparation that you ascribe views to me which I do not hold, whereas I can easily make logical connections with your ragbag of reactionary thought, despite the veneer of intellectuality.
But look out, legions of ‘poofters’ are marshalling their forces as we speak, marching in camp lockstep down every high street in the land, looking to bugger any straight man who will not conform to the ‘Gay Will’- and they’re coming for you CJB, clench those cheeks hard, better still, sew up your fundament- although that may impede your ability to speak…
You really do know cock all. Or maybe just cock. Never read Rand. Never cared to. Objectivism doesn’t need a movement or a philosophy, only intelligence and the understanding that natural order tends toward simplicity. Yet another false (lying) attribution you make. Are you reading this crap off wikipedia?
You can’t even answer the question, you pitiful fraud, waffling on with as much wild, hysterical opinionation that you attempt to pass off as insider knowledge. Why is it that you’re entitled to berate, accuse and weave conspiracy theories elaborately, intricately and fraudulently against people who exercise their freedom of religion in the most vicious terms in the style of any number of militant mass murdering demagogues, then cry like a baby because someone dared to suggest that homosexual sodomites might be at the root of abusive homosexual sodomy.
You’ve not got a single credible argument except to tell everyone that they should believe every word of every myth and propaganda that the homosexual community utters in promotion or defence of their scientifically deviant ‘way of life.’
You can’t answer questions. You can’t debate. You can’t be remotely objective. You can’t relate rationally to anyone you can’t psychoanalyse and categorise on the basis of your own approval. You can’t even psychoanalyse for s@it. Yet your entire demeanour is that you don’t want to engage, you want to narrate. You want to dictate. What is it? Someone made you go to sunday school once, and now you hate the religious? Is this hateful atheistic crusade really hurting anyone, or just satisfying your catharsis? Is this hysterical treatment of Catholics actually rooted in some experience? Is it ok for you to viciously hate a group that harbours abusers but no one else can? Why do you have such a problem with the fact that priests who bugger little boys are not acting on their priestliness, nor their heterosexuality, but rather their homosexuality, and that whatever else they might be, they are homosexuals nurturing a foundational dysfunction which causes them to cross lines of acceptable behaviour by nature, as part of their identity, regardless of whether they’re a priest, a janitor, a bus driver or a dad?
Why can’t you answer basic questions without violent outbursts or resorting to a carefully constructed politically correct whitewash stacked with mythology? Why don’t your comments on these subjects read like a logical, objective thought process, rather than a sequence of violent, deranged reactions?
To address some specific points…
First, it is the twenty first century. Homosexuality is not universally accepted and held in high regard. That’s a phenomenon exclusive to nations where the gay lobby has influence. Homosexuality remains an emotive subject where the legal threats against a majority population for voicing their true feelings are significant. You can’t claim that a 98 to 2 majority wholeheartedly approves of the influence of the 2 when the 2 wield violent coercion over the 98 and enough political power to negate the democratic riight of the 98 to majority representation. Since victorian times nothing empirical has changed to affect this debate, only the scale of the propaganda and effectiveness of the agendism.
Second, you clearly don’t understand natural order and are mistaking it for a neo-hippy non-interference, non-interventional primitivity. Inventing medicine to promote survival has nothing to do with violating natural order. These are tools for utility. Nor is ‘clubbing your neighbour for a scrap of meat’… Again, a violation of natural order – anti-social, terminal behaviour. Ingenuity for utility is again a solution to problems. Sodomy is no solution to anything. It is a perversion of natural biology, physiologically and biochemically damaging, psychologically impactive (which is why it is used in torture and as a threat), biologically fruitless, socially uneasy, materially pointless. You can make the same case for bestiality as you can for homosexuality. I don’ t understand the logic of your including contraception or consensual sex in your statement. A postponement or intervention of natural order can be socially and biologically advantageous. Homosexuality, however, is a violation not a postponement or intervention. You aren’t seriously arguing that men hump men because they’re biding their time before procreating, are you? If so, then why do we need to legislate in favour of a ‘gay lifestyle?’ Why not just use a poodle?
Third, saying that gay people have been part ofbthe human species for time immemorial is a non-sensical argument. If you’re sayingbthat homosexuality should be authenticated because it is ancient, well so also is the social objection andnrejection of homosexuality, so we can safely assume that the wisdom ofbthe ancients is the right response. Disease and genetic mutation has also been around as long. Psychosis has. Murder has. Rape has. Bestiality has. Pedophilia has. Each successive civilisation and tribe has adjusted its laws and provisions for all these things according to the whims ofbthe leading influences. On that basis all human vices have all been subject to moral relativism. You make the statement like gayness is inevitable. It isn’t. It is neitherbgenetic, nor biological and is not a life and death compulsion and like any moral issue is entirely subject to self control. It is a terminal lifestyle, it does not reproduce, and tribes have been found where it is utterly unknown. And unthinkable.
You comment that we have chosen not to behave like primitive animals. Yet the principle argument for the natural occurrence of homosexuality is that it supposedly exists in the animal kingdom (actually it doesn’t, since sexual orientation and lifestyle is a purely human sociological construct).
Which views did I ascribe to you that you do not hold? I’ll be happy to discuss my misperceptions with you.
As for the big gay army, well maybe you’re right and maybe they don’t exist. But then again why is it that these sexual deviants who make up 2% of the population dictate what I can say, what I can think, what my children are being taught in school and through the media, what laws will be made, and which of their number can be hidden and protected from their vile sexual abuses? For a bunch of people that don’t exist and aren’t demanding anything, they seem to make a lot of noise and have a lot of influence to go far beyond rational objectivity, beyond equality, and into the realms of social engineering.
Incidentally… Your glib dismissal of the notion of homosexuals rampagingbthe streets looking for heterosexuals to ass-rape doesn’t do much sensitivity to those heterosexuals who have been raped by homosexuals. Oh… I forgot… You sucked and swallowed the gay lobby fact book… You don’t actually believe that any gays have ever done such things.
Here’s a fast fact for the argument.
The NHS can restrict treatment and give lifestyle lectures to the obese, smokers, alcoholics, drug abusers, diabetics who reject treatment plans and the sexually promiscuous IF their medical conditions are the result of lifestyle choice which proves detrimental.
NHS staff cannot associate gay lifestyle conditions with the gay lifestyle. As a result they must treat escalating rates of STD and HIV/AIDS, shredded ar#eholes, foreign objects jammed in rectums, fecal ingestion, ketamine overdose, anal incontinence, ruptured lower colon, increased cancer risk, alcohol & drug abuse, depression – all a calculated hazard of the male homosexual lifestyle – without ever suggesting that it is the lifestyle that is no good for human beings.
If a 14 year old girl arrives in hospital with sexual injuries accompanied by a man who is not her father, it can be flagged for police orvsocialnservices intervention on the discretion of the consulting hospital staff.
If a 14 year old male arrives in hospital with sexual injuries consistent with homosexuality accompanied by a man who is not his father, the staff don’t dare make any suggestions or interventions. It is, as the pederasts would like, considered consensual and a lifestyle hazard.
How’d that happen?
I’ll never forget watching my grandmother fade away in the A&E amongst about a dozen people in a queue while the available team went to the aid of a loud, screaming group of queens, one of whom was bleeding his arse out, and listening as they loudly explained to the doctor exactly what they’d been doing in the VIP room of a gay club, all the champagne, all the horse sedative (it relaxes arses so you can get something big up there), and the viagra that all of them were still under the effect of. That is not, in any country, on any planet, normal, sane, healthy behaviour. Yet according to the doctor ‘we see this all the time.’
Erm, can anyone explain where lesbianism fits into this equation and why legislation wasn’t made against this behaviour when male “gross indecency” law was changed in Section 11 of the Criminal Amendment Act 1885 more commonly known as the Labouchere Amendment and which Oscar Wilde came a cropper to?
My understanding is that the law as it stood was unworkable which required the death penalty for offenders therefore the amendment was made and did not include lesbianism. Even in Nazi Germany lesbianism wasn’t illegal and has never suffered the same attraction from any religious organisation, except for some Muslim states, or authority (to my knowledge).
A common misconception is that Queen Victoria didn’t believe it existed or that no-one would explain it to her whereas it is more likely that, “the male establishment avoided legislating on lesbianism for fear of drawing attention to its existence”. In reality they do of course exist and I frequently pass a pub mainly attended by very attractive lesbians who enjoy themselves unhindered except for the occasional bigot who can’t get his leg over.
So, is the problem in question about sodomy which is not only practised in some homosexual relationships but also in some heterosexual relationships? Is it not the case that what goes on in the privacy of consenting adult relationships should remain private even though sex between consenting adults remains legal in public, as long as exhibitionism isn’t included, in the UK.
It is worth noting that the Kinsey Reports (although controversial, which most are in this field of research) amongst others find that sexuality is shaped and changeable. Perhaps we should all be sterilised at birth in order to prevent what may happen or employ the Orwellian ‘Thinkpol’ or Thought Police, just in case. Why is it that predominantly it seems to be ‘heterosexual’ males that brood over this subject which apparently has nothing to do with them where lawful behaviour is in question?
Just wondering.
Males are typically more subjective than females and less easily swayed by waffle about feelings and emotions and who loves who. On that basis most real men have quite a strong reaction when confronted with the details of the typical practices of the gay community in respect of males. It is equally disgusting whether considered consensually or in the context of abuse. There is a general sense of dis-ease about anyone who would voluntarily subscribe to those practices. Male homosexuality is the the cess pit of sexual expression. There’s nothing socially or relationally redeeming about someone who wants to live in the cess pit.
In a biological sense, our genetics dictate what ‘male’ and ‘female’ are, and what the biological order is. Those who deviate from that on a biological level are by nature anti-social and social. order as well as biology seeks to prevent them thriving or replicating themselves.
Men are typically those who direct social order and typically societies don’t like to see their majorities, their democratic processes subverted, dictated or overruled by the fringe minority demands of social upstarts or special interest groups. They react badly to such situations at the best of times, doubly so when they are usurped by a group so dysfunctional as the ‘gay lobby’ which takes pride in being defiant toward social order. When that democratic and social majority then sees the fringe upstarts dictating legislation, throwing weight around, acting beyond the law and being celebrated for it, inverting the moral order and behaving obscenely inpublic while protected under a banner of ‘gay and proud’, engineering society, pushing political correctness and doublespeak, indindoctrinating children, ridiculing established values and traditions and making a perverse mockery of social order, is it really such a surprise that heterosexual males as a majority take such exception, even the ones who have been culturally bullied into resigning to the ‘I don’ t care as long as they’re not in my face’ position.
As for lesbianism, the answer is very simple indeed.
First, the numbers are far less than those for sodomites. Much smaller minority altogether. The first myth to dispel is that because lesbianism is not historically legislated against, it was accepted. False. Every major civilisation equated all forms of homosexuality with the indulgence and perversion of religious ritual and elite society debauchery. Society in general retched at the idea. In the accepted order of the ordinary people women were homemakers and mothers, needing the support of husbands, following the traditions of their parents and their religion. Temple hookers might be lesbicious, the local senator or governor or the royal family’s moonbat wives might have swung both ways… But those were still perversions in society at large, with no place or need in the culture. Laws governed men amongst themselves, anthen men governed the women in their families. It was frauds like Kinsey who turned perverse sexuality into household social constructs called ‘lifestyle’ and the ‘perfect storm’ of feminism and the ‘sexual revolution’ which began the era of psycho-sexual social engineering. Prior to that all homosexuality was for the perverse, the indulgent and the mentally ill. All it took for an errant wife or daughter to be incarcerated in a looney bin was the say-so of the leading male, doubtless responsible for horrific injustices, but nonetheless a part of the prevailing social order.
Same with ‘teenagers’ living in defiance of parents and authority figures, formerly the domain of the serially criminal and anti-social. Actually all you need to create civil war or cultural revolution is to invent some new demographic groups, mythologise them as downtrodden and deprived and then emancipate them as a special interest group above the accepted social order.
To answer the last sentence, society does not merely rise and fall on what is lawful. It responds to what it feelsnconviction about. Something disgusting, somethingndangerous, something insidious, something abusive. Law is a manipulable technicality. War in Iraq was legal. That did not stop it being immoral and greatly opposed by thebpeople.
You majored on ‘sodomy’ in your consideration. Then you attempted sleight of hand deflection to the idea that this was also a heterosexual practice. We’ll forget for a moment that most women I know consider ‘anal’ to be a demeaning, painful concession to fulfil a bizarre pornography – fuelled fetish in their men and keep men happy by subjecting themselves to endless sexual variety. Or that most men I know consider anal to be then domain of porn addicts and homosexuals. None of that detracts from the fact that the very act is biologically detrimental. Semen does not belong in the colon, rectums do not take well to a good pounding from outside. Soft tissue tears and discomfort may, for some, be so close to pleasure but it arguably takes a perverse character to get off on playing in the sewer pipe.
Once upon a time we could be objective and call these things weird and perverse. The pressure of the gay lobby has engineered redefinition and acceptability into sodomy in its own defence.
But be more honest… Add faeces ingestion, watersports, rimming, fisting, felching, the frenzied ramming of large objects into small exit holes and gay or straight, the majority of people get a mental picture of an irrational, pornographically minded unstable person showing bad judgement.
We warn people about smoking and drugs and obesity and lack of exercise. Why are we afraid to add sodomy to the list along with unprotected sex? Why, the gay lobby of course. And yes, it is all in the privacy of someones bedroom… until you incorporate it as a lifestyle and sell it to society as a virtue and start socially engimeering and legislating the culture around those who do it. Teach kids in school that letting someone screw your jacksie will result in severe medical conditions and they might think differently about their sexual choices and learn to respect women as more than domestic porn stars.
Lolz!
Detailed and well explained. Hit and run cyber-twattery at its best.
Can you scientifically and rationally disprove or counter a single word? No? Didn’t think so. Epic fail.
Uber lolz! Science? Rationality? Surely all a ‘Gay Plot’- all ‘poofterised’ like any psychology you disapprove of, ya NutJob. MWAHAHAHAHA!
Point proven. Now go hunt a Pope like a hippo-crit loon. Change the world one hysterical anti-religious rant at a time, and then be astounded that males who will abuse in order to get a bit of male on male ain’t the monopoly of the religious… Just the homoerotic.
The irrational rationalist defending the irrationality of religion! Boy, they just keep a coming- you really should be in vaudeville!
Ain’t ‘defending’ nuffink. Simply pointing out that I’ve not read a single word to fall out of your brain which demonstrated that you were capable of enough objectivity and rational intelligent thought process to know the difference. All you’ve demonstrated is that you roll from one irrational, hysterical subjectivised assault to another.
I’m intelligent enough to know that whatever religion is or isn’t, philosophical pro-active atheism, ‘organised, consensualised atheism’, is the most irrational, hysterical, hateful and fearful anti-religious religion of all. Never in the history of the world have so many people who believe so much about nothing gotten so heated about everything and been so intent on spoiling life for everyone else over a subject that carries no consequence. And you prove my point in this context… You could go chase religions like a rabid dog. Kill every adherent. And then one day in your atheist utopia you will notice that boys are getting sodomised and that will be the sole domain of sodomites, h-o-m-o-s-e-x-u-a-l-s and b-i-s-e-x-u-a-l-s, and they’ll all be flagwaving members of your atheist party. When you spend your life looking in the wrong direction for offenders, you’ll always be taken by surprise when you trip over one in your own neighbourhood. Don’t worry about where they hide, worry about the warm, damp sewer where they breed. The bi-partisan deflection and waffle over which is the cleanest party in Parliament tells you that. Lowest common denominator, not what colour sash they wear.
Honestly, look at the litany of pornographic language you use with positive relish, reeking of a wholly subjective, intensely personal and emotive revulsion:-
‘have his arsehole sewn back together’
‘anally injected death sentence’
‘shredded ar#eholes, foreign objects jammed in rectums, fecal ingestion
bleeding his arse out’
‘(it relaxes arses so you can get something big up there)’,
‘Semen does not belong in the colon’
‘a demeaning, painful concession’
‘rectums do not take well to a good pounding from outside
playing in the sewer pipe’
‘faeces ingestion, watersports, rimming, fisting, felching, the frenzied ramming of large objects into small exit holes’
‘the warm, damp sewer where they breed’.
‘homosexuality is the the cess pit of sexual expression’
You incorporate vivid graphic details of so-called ‘biological deviance’, betraying a deep fascination, with supposed sexual activity you apparently object to, doubtless you’ll say you are merely appealing to the gutter instincts of others so that they associate being gay with all things ‘dirty’,like a good propagandist should, using an inflated biological rhetoric to evince disgust, to demonise, and despite saying;-
‘most real men have quite a strong reaction when confronted with the details of the typical practices of the gay community in respect of males’
But these descriptions are so visceral (in both senses of the word) that they can only be seen as the products of a pathological individual consumed with a morbid pre-occupation with faeces, decay, suffering, disease, violence and ‘biological decomposition’, laying bare some of your underlying issues- because it is obvious, that at some level you really are enjoying sharing all of your revolting prose, revelling in it- Basically you love it. Secretly you dread being seen for what you really are- a repressed, dirty old man, who can barely contain his violent urges towards the ‘other’ where all the ‘excrement’ is, outside himself.
You really should be ashamed of yourself, and wash your filthy mouth out with soap and water…
I have also noticed this knowledgable fascination and agree with the need for sterilisation of this persons vulgar orifice.
If you can’t stand the truth, stay out of the spotlight of the dissemination of factual information. You have a duty to know fully what you vote and advocate for, or else you become complicit in propagating lies.
Incubus,
It is apparent that your righteous indignation re Elm, North Wales,Saville etc is in fact a faux indignation.
Your anger at the abuse of vulnerable children by those members of the ‘Ruling Class’ protected by the Establishment is shared.
You seem to be less exercised by those elements of the ‘ Gay Lobby ‘ that campaign for lowering or abolishing the age of consent ?
Perhaps you take the view that children should be autonomous sexual beings, The State having no role in protecting/regulating/repressing/oppressing them?
Perhaps you are exercised by ‘ The Ruling Class faction of the Gay Lobby’ ?
A survey carried out in South Africa found that 1 in 4 men admitted raping at least 1 person (male or female, adult or child)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8107039.stm
As an amoralist do you condemn the above or perhaps you take refuge in some ‘ brutalisation of society’ argument, perhaps you prefer a valid societal and cultural difference argument, condemned only by racists and xenophobes?
It is interesting that in the last paragraph of your post you imply that Because CJB has the temerity to describe homosexuality in a clinical manner, he must be repressed.
You imply that he must be deviant for cataloging the actions of those that you assert are part of the normal or full spectrum.
You really must make up your mind.
The security services and those that wish to acquire leverage over prom norms have allowed these atrocities against children to continue or even possibly set these things up in some cases.
You seem to have a similar outlook to the latter a case literally of ‘bugger the kids’ as long as we achieve our ends.
Until you understand the difference between homosexual and padophile, your argument lacks substance or credibility
Nice attempt at sleight of hand Legion. But yet another dishonest diversion.
As with the gay lobby you frame ‘pedophile’ and the same sentence as ‘homosexual’ in such a way as to imply they are mutually exclusive. The leading pederast lobby groups for four decades have been almost exclusively stocked with homosexuals and the gay lobby at large has failed to cut off association or to disown members. This is because as much as you attempt to paintbthe illusion of an honest, moral, orderly, structured association of ‘decent’ homosexuals pitted against the deviants, you can’t, because the lines are impossibly and deliberately blurred in order to create smokescreens of sexuality around vice and create a larger and more inclusive demographic for activist purposes from a mishmash of confused and abused people whose only common denominator is their deviance from biological and social natural order.
I’m not sure why you’re so invested in covering that up.
Did you know that if a married man goes out and has a gay affair or seeks a same sex liason, the gay community class that person as one of two things: a repressed bisexual (which many exclusive homosexuals class as a bit of a joke in itself, bisexuality beingbthe ‘who are you trying to fool’ branch of deviantbsexualityl) or a poor repressed homosexual living in denial and waiting to clamber out of the closet. In fact the gay lobby will frequently attempt to gather into their number anyone who has even entertained a homosexual thought and use it to paint a picture of a big open ‘everyone is a little bit gay society.’
But
When a married man sodomises a boy, when a gay man sodomises a boy, when married or gay women force girls into sexual submission, all of which make up a massive number of abuse cases and an even bigger number of predictably unreported and undiscovered cases, the homosexual community distances itself, not by disowning and speaking out, and not by honest addressing of the deviants in its own camp and a call for homosexuals everywhere to start turning their own camp inside out andnreporting abuse and abusers to the authorities… But instead by circling the wagons as much as possible andbchanging the rhetoric to divert attention, wherein we’re frequently told that child sexual abuse has nothing at all to do with sexuality or orientation, and is instead just a bunch of morally relativistic sexually neutral power trippers.
You don’t have to say ‘all homosexuals are pedophiles’ but to attempt to create such a disconnect between the two that the implication is ‘pedophiles are not homosexuals and homosexuals are not pedophiles’ is ten times as dishonest and materially dangerous.
Go swivel, you linguistic hypocrite. By all means give lectures in acceptable verbiage when you can demonstrate consistency and sincerity. Since the use of strong offensive terminology doesnot bother you when you’re using it I can’t believe for a moment that you’re offended
Now… You can probably imagine that I anticipated the infantile attempt at playing Sigmund Fraud to imply that so much graphic detail equates with a deep and perverse fascination with A depraved sexual subculture. I can deal with that, you intintellectual midget, because you hung yourself and your argument with the noose…
If all those things I posted are disgusting, depraved, pornographic, disturbing, demonstrating a fascination with a mentally twisted underworld of civilised society… Then how much more perverse must be the people who live in that world, do those things, find comfort in those moraL sewers… And then there’s the people like you, who turn aside from the graphic truth and scream like babies that we must not listen to such propaganda and unkindness, or the activists of the gay lobby who whitewash this pornographic, deviant, dark set of behaviours and sell them to a clueless general public. Lift the rock, and the insects go scurrying in the light.
That’s why I use graphic descriptions. Its why I don’t hold back. Because I’m representing unadulterated truth. I’m shining a light on the depths to which this homosexuality goes. I’m looking beyond the PR image of happy husband and husband, and into the underground warrens of behaviour and psychology which begins with promoting homosexual psychological deviancy as ‘lifestyle’ and then takes off into the amoral Wonderland of the ‘Gay and Proud’ world of nightclubs and bars, drugs and alcohol to kill inhibitions and seduce the wary traveller into depths so deep that they are impossible to come back from unscathed.
I used language like this because liars like you don’t.
I used language like this because the reality over the PR conjured fantasy DOES makenmost people want to retch and to shy away from it. It makes them want it out of civil society.
See, while people feel safe believing the spin they become passive and easily convinced that equality is the issue and they should be led where they are told. But equip them with the truth and the conspiracy of information becomes apparent. They might decide they don’t want this dark ‘pornographic’ fetid lifestyle promoted as ‘normal.’ they might not want marriage redefined by it, they might think twice when politicians and celebrities advocate and agitate for this group demanding its agenda in society and when they hear the words ‘lower the age of consent’ as they inevitably will now that gay marriage has been steamrollered through they might question the moral judgement and objective capability of those pushing it.
There are all kinds of things that seem like a good or harmless thing until you have exposure to the truth behind them.
Even now, your pre-emptive dismissal of this technique is already laden with defensive politically correct rhetoric… ‘inflated’, ‘appeal to gutter instincts’, ‘rhetoric to evince disgust’, ‘demonise.’ Pull the other one you apologist for perversion. Truth doesn’t need inflating, and not a single word of what I wrote was inflated. It was blunt, accurate, factual and materially, objectively real. Truth doesn’t need propagandising, unlike the lie you’re defending which so evidently needs a whitewash having seen how inconvenient the truth is to maintaining the illusion and thus how violently you react against simple statement of fact without sugar coating.
Why is truth such a fearful thing to those who incorporate these practices into their lifestyle? After all, what goes on in the privacy of bedrooms etc. The reason is simple. Armed with the truth the public would never listen to another word or trust the judgement, or accept the re-education, or allow social conditioning at the hands of another homosexual agendist again. They would rightly form an opinion of a demographic that is quicknto harmonise, collectivise and create the appearance of homogeny while harbouring such filthy, psychologically deviant, indecent, sometimes criminal practices and mindsets. They would begin to see an amoral, relativistic, agitant, sociopathic, pornographic, nihilistic lifestyle posing as the zenith of modern civilisation.
As for the repressed, dirtyz old man bit… You couldn’t be further from the truth. In every aspect.But then again, since you’ve been so far from the truth in everything else you’ve posted on this subject, it comes as no surprise.
As always your propagandic defence falls flat on its backside and shows you as cluless, complicit or deceitful.
You haven’t mastered the spelling of paedophile yet !
Oh plas, bing pdantic again! My kyboard is knackrd as is your argumnt.
It would appear that gays and paedophiles are confused as to the differences between themselves, The Elm Guest house was advertised as being ‘Gay Friendly’ yet it attracted paedophiles, sadly none of the ‘Gay’ guests saw fit to report the paedophiles !
Bored now (exclamation mark) No more time for you either. Just not as sharp as you think you are, Sabre. (exclamation mark, exclamation mark, exclamation mark)
Displacement behaviour on your part.