A Brave Woman

Moira Greyland is a very brave woman to have written this bookThe Last Closet: The Dark Side of Avalon (especially considering when asked how she’s doing, she says “I am not good”)I do not think I have the stomach to read the book.  Reading about the book is hard enough.  LifeSiteNews interviewed Ms. Greyland (Read the whole thing here)

This section deals with a very un-PC view of homosexuality and its genesis, sheds some light on the whole Milo episode, and illustrates how critical it is to protect children (and how incredibly evil this whole thing is).

LifeSite: The homosexual movement has a long history of association with organizations and groups that are sympathetic to pedophilia or promote it outright. Your father was a homosexual activist and an open advocate of pedophilia. For decades the “North American Man-Boy Love Association” (NAMBLA) marched in homosexual “pride” marches, and major homosexual organizations, like the International Gay and Lesbian Association, used to have NAMBLA as a member. Do you see the embrace of pedophilia as a natural outgrowth of the homosexual movement?

Moira Greyland: In my father’s book, Greek Love (J.Z. Eglinton, 1962), he explored at length the fact that pedophilic and pederastic relationships are the historical norm, and peer-to-peer gay relationships are a modern phenomenon. Where I completely deny my father’s contention that pederastic relationships do anything positive for young men, I do believe that nearly all gay men were initiated in this fashion as boys by older men.

Attempts to sanitize these “initiations” of younger boys by older men are ongoing, including in the recent movie “Call Me By Your Name” which Hollywood gushed over, despite its appalling content.

Since the reality of gay culture depends on these initiations, there are only two choices: keep the reality of the genesis of a gay identity secret, or yank it out of the closet and risk the outrage and hatred of the general public.

Here is the trouble: screaming “homophobia” at anything which has a problem with homosexual conduct will only go so far.  As soon as our children are endangered, and their seduction praised, the torches and pitchforks rightfully come out.

After all, this is the Big Secret, and the truth behind a gay identity.  Father-son porn is the number one topic of all gay pornography.  Why is this the actual reality?  In male nature, there is the need to pursue, to vanquish, to conquer.  This is much easier with a young, vulnerable, hairless and helpless male.  They can be manipulated into adoring an older male, putting up with darned near ANYTHING for his love and approval (read: fathering) and they submit.  Always in male homosexual relationships, there is the top and the bottom, the giver and the receiver, and these roles are predicated on age and the ability to project masculine dominance.

This is the conclusion I reached, not only from knowing far too many young boys seduced by my father, but also reading the words of former gay men like Joseph Sciambra and Robert Oscar Lopez.

Male homosexuals know, and count on the fact that a young man who does not have a present, protective father in his life will be much easier to seduce than either a masculine boy who obviously has a strong father, or an older man who might well beat or kill them for a sexual overture.  They seek out boys who are unsure or effeminate, precisely because of those qualities.

How can they persuade those they persuade?  Boys tend to be perpetually sexually frustrated, and know that vanishingly few girls will go along with their advances at that age.  Predatory male homosexuals take advantage of this knowledge, and offer porn and intoxicants to lower the inhibitions of their target.  Once the sexual assault has taken place, even involuntary arousal on the part of the male victim is used as “proof” that the boy is actually gay.

This attitude assumes that being gay is a physical, inevitable reality which other gay men can “see.”  But the truth is that the first sexual experience will usually create an indelible impression, a longstanding change to a male fantasy life, deliberately imposed.  These raped and molested boys are not “gay,” they have been forcibly imprinted with a sexual act meant to permanently alter their fantasy life.

Claiming the involuntary arousal suffered by the boy “proves” they are gay is like claiming that bleeding as the result of a stab wound proves the victim wanted to be stabbed.

In any case, the raped boy is destroyed three times.  Once by the betrayal of the sexual assault, even if they end up going along with it, once by the permanent alteration to their fantasy life, and once by the forced imposition of a “gay” identity which is made to seem inevitable and indelible.

Without pederastic relationships, there would be no adult gay men.  But as it is the Big Secret, don’t expect any admissions about this.  When Milo joked about his own initiation at thirteen, he was demolished in the press.  Shortly thereafter, he admitted on video that he actually had been raped, and it actually was a horrible experience.

It is no joke. When I see a man who identifies as homosexual acting out in a flamboyant way, I see the thirteen year old boys in my house screaming with rage: “I meant to do that!  You did not hurt me, I am no victim, and you will not own me, you BASTARD!”

 

 

Advertisements

Alfie Evans and the Death of Britain

The tragic case of Alfie Evans, similar to that of Charlie Gard, illustrates the abuse and massive over-reach of Government power and control over people’s lives in Britain.

How anyone with any conscience (or the ability to think things through) can do anything other than condemn what happened and recoil in horror and disgust at the details surrounding this case baffles the mind.  If the once great nation of Britain crumbles to dust and ruins, is overrun by barbarians never to recover, it will have gotten what it deserves.  Britain as a nation has killed its soul.  I pity the believers left living there.  But where could they go?  The rest of the world is following (or preceding) Britain on the road to hell.

One can almost understand how materialistic atheists can support such things as killing innocent children as to it is compassionate to relieve society of the burden of suffering, imperfect people and if they think of the victim at all, it is to commend themselves for sparing the person “unnecessary” suffering and pain.  However, these people have no excuse for not understanding what precedent cases like this set for government control of people’s lives and personal freedom and how that could affect them in the future — apparently along with their souls and consciences, these people’s brains have also atrophied through lack of use.  The atheists do not fear God because they do not believe in Him, but what about the Church leaders and lay people who supported the hospital and government’s choices for little Alfie?  If I were them, I would be trembling in fear for my soul.  But UK Bishops defended the decision of the hospital and government, and also removed the priest who was ministering to Alfie and his family, and then apparently ran the Italian priest out of the country!  (See: Priest Denied Permission to Attend Alfie’s Funeral)

Many articles have been written about Alfie Evans.  Here is just one:  When the State Condemns a Disabled Child to Death

 

Imagine your own beloved child was lying in a hospital with a mysterious brain disease. Should you, as the parent, be allowed to decide whether to continue treatment for your son or daughter? Or should the state have the power to overrule you and cut off life support over your objections?

The vast majority of Americans say the final decision should be left with parents. That’s because, under our system, the purpose of the state is to protect our inalienable rights to life and liberty. But in Britain, it seems, the state has the power to trample life and liberty and condemn a disabled child to death.

That is precisely what the British High Court of Justice did in the case of Alfie Evans, a little boy who suffered from a rapidly progressive terminal brain disease. Doctors at London’s Alder Hey Children’s Hospital concluded that further treatment was futile and asked the court — over his parents’ objections — to order the removal of his ventilator. Alfie’s parents pleaded for permission to transfer him to Bambino Gesù Pediatric Hospital in Rome, where doctors had agreed to take over his treatment at no cost. Pope Francis had arranged free medical transport, and the Italian government had granted Alfie citizenship to facilitate his transfer. A hospital in Munich had also offered to relieve British doctors of the burden of caring for Alfie.

But the court ruled that it was in Alfie’s “best interests” to die. Doctors had told the court he might “be able to muster just a handful of breaths and survive just a few minutes if ventilation were completely stopped.” In fact, he kept fighting to live for five full days without life support. A phalanx of police officers was posted outside his hospital, holding the child hostage in order to ensure that his mom and dad did not try to take him away while the death sentence was carried out.

This is, quite simply, tyrannical. It is one thing for a judge to decide that British taxpayers should not have to bear the cost of what doctors in its national health service have concluded is futile treatment. Under a single-payer system, resources are limited and care is rationed (which is why we don’t want socialized medicine here in America). But where does a British court get the right to deny the child life-extending treatment abroad when someone else is willing to pay for it? Who gave the British state the right to determine what kind of life is worth living and for how long?

Diabolically, High Court Justice Anthony Hayden actually cited the pope in justifying his decision to end Alfie’s life, quoting out-of-context a speech Francis gave in which he warned against “the temptation to insist on treatments that have powerful effects on the body, yet at times do not serve the integral good of the person.” But Francis also declared in that speech that decisions about whether to continue treatment “should be made by the patient.” Nowhere did he say such decisions should be made by the state. And indeed, the pontiff made clear he stood with Alfie’s parents, tweeting, “I renew my appeal that the suffering of his parents may be heard and that their desire to seek new forms of treatment may be granted.” For the British High Court to twist the pope’s words to justify killing a little boy is monstrous.

The culture of death is on the march across Europe. CBS News recently reported that Iceland was on the verge of “eliminating” Down syndrome, not by some medical miracle but because the country’s abortion rate for Down syndrome babies is close to 100 percent. Now, with Alfie Evans and previously Charlie Gard, British courts have ordered the death of disabled children over the objections of parents.

That is barbaric. Nikolaus Haas, a German physician who had offered to take over Alfie’s care, told the court, “Because of our history in Germany, we’ve learned that there are some things you just don’t do with severely handicapped children. A society must be prepared to look after these severely handicapped children and not decide that life support has to be withdrawn against the will of the parents.” Hayden declared this “inflammatory.” In fact, the comparison is spot on. London survived the Blitz to stop the advance of a regime bent on the eugenic killing of, among others, the handicapped. Now Britain has such a regime anyway, by self-imposed judicial fiat.

Unless Americans are vigilant, it is only a matter of time before it happens here.

Ban Guns, Then Knives, Then…

In Response To Growing Number Of Fistfights, London Mayor Bans Hands

LONDON—In response to a recent outbreak in fistfights, London mayor Sadiq Khan announced Monday a sweeping ban of hands in the city, effective immediately.

“No excuses: there is never a reason to have hands in a modern, civil society. Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law,” Khan said at a press conference announcing the new policy during which he revealed that he has had his own hands surgically removed as a good-faith move to jump-start the new regulations.

Along with the new hand-control measures, Khan announced a new task force focused on purging the city of hands, as well as an expanded police presence focused on stopping and searching citizens who they think may have failed to have their hands removed from their person.

At publishing time, rumors were swirling that the mayor was planning on banning feet after two handless men got into a quarrel and began kicking each other.

Facebook Censors Christianity

It’s no surprise by now that Facebook is censoring and throttling all sort of people, groups, and content they deem “problematic.”  Their most recent target?  An image of the crucifix.

‘He was despised and rejected’ … by Facebook

Facebook rejected a Holy Week ad placed by a Catholic university featuring a picture of the San Damiano Cross because of its “shocking, sensational, or excessively violent content.”

The Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio, responded:

The San Damiano Cross. Jesus in glory, reigning from his cruciform throne. This is what the monitors at Facebook consider excessively violent, sensational, and shocking.

And indeed, the Crucifixion of Christ was all of those things. It was the most sensational action in history: man executed his God.

It was shocking, yes: God deigned to take on flesh and was “obedient unto death, even death on a cross.” (Philippians 2:8)

And it was certainly excessively violent: a man scourged to within an inch of his life, nailed naked to a cross and left to die, all the hate of all the sin in the world poured out its wrath upon his humanity.

“But we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews, an absurdity to Gentiles. But to those who are called, both Jew and Gentile, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 1:23-24)

As Father Mike Schmitz points out in today’s #ShareJesus message, it was not the nails that held Jesus to the cross: he was God, he could have descended from the Cross at any moment. No, it was love that kept him there. Love for you and for me, that we might not be eternally condemned for our sins but might have life eternal with him and his Father in heaven.

This is sensational, this is shocking. This is only possible because of the excessive violence that he endured for us.

“He was despised and rejected of men.” It was ever thus and will ever be, for those who do not see with the eyes of faith, and love with a love unquenchable.

The San Damiano Cross is actually quite mild as crucifixes go.  The Censors at Facebook are either very ignorant or very deliberately coming up with dumb reasons to keep Christian content off Facebook.

The Facebook-banned San Damiano Cross, while perhaps foreign and jarring to Facebook censors, is an iconic image well-known and venerated by hundreds of millions of Catholics around the world for close to a thousand years.

Censoring Christian messaging is nothing new among social media and tech giants, and in fact, the tyrannical suppression of Christianity’s presence on Facebook may well be growing.

When Facebook adjusted its algorithms earlier this year in order to ensure the promotion and dissemination of what it deems “quality news,” websites purveying “conservative”  news — including LifeSiteNews — noticed a precipitous drop in traffic and reach.

Last year, Facebook blocked a traditional marriage campaign page. Sky News reported, “This is bullying. Respectful debate is being shut down; Facebook has taken sides (in the same-sex ‘marriage’ debate).”

Facebook also blocked or removed more than two dozen pages belonging to conservative Catholic organizations and individuals, affecting many millions of devoted followers of those pages. While the pages were eventually restored, Fox News’ Todd Starnes, author and host of Fox News & Commentary, said, “You might recall that Facebook has a dark history of blocking conservative and Christian pages.”