Things that make you go hmmmm…. *UPDATED*

A matched quartet here, but only for the over 18 crowd, because the tie that binds these four is the disturbing issue of the Left and childhood sexuality:





UPDATE:  Mike suggested a Fifth.

You know, I’m thinking that, quite possibly, there’s the germ of an American Thinker article in here.  If so, you guys know I’ll draw heavily on your comments for the insights they offer.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Ymarsakar

    The Left always like going after weak prey. For some ass to kick even.
    They’d wet their pants going up against equally strong opponents. Not to mention their fear at going up against those stronger than them: Islam and Dark Lord Cheney.

  • Tonestaple

    I don’t think it’s quite a matter of prey.  I think it’s more a matter of collective ownership.  Once a child individuates, he becomes aware of being his own self, and as I said before on the subject of the left’s fondness for public transportation, lefties can’t allow that.  All must be part of the common whole.  The most basic thing one can own is one’s own self, and not letting others touch that self in ways you don’t like is an exercise in self-ownership.  Of course a kid doesn’t think this way, but lefties do.  That’s why a kid can’t be left to think his own body is inviolate.

    If you’re going to think about sex as something political, and it’s the left that makes everything political, then lefties are always going to come down on the side of the collective rather than the individual, and if you want to hook someone, it’s best to start young.
    Nice to see that, in some of the cases mentioned in the Spiegel article, it didn’t always work.

  • Ymarsakar

    This is why Europe is decadent. It’s also why they kept having wars and then losing them to the most extreme forces around.
    It’s also why a boat load of people left Europe for America. It wasn’t just the class hierarchy, but something not quite right about the land itself, the ideas that were coming out from underneath the ground, from Hell itself perhaps.

  • Ymarsakar

    The revolutionaries of the late 1960s are still a long way from confronting this part of their history. When questions about the activities of members of the movement of 1968 were raised in connection with the abuse cases at the Odenwald School, the apologists for the movement were quick to give themselves a carte blanche.
    If you look at the evidence for how Communist party agencies infiltrated various Communist agents into the Catholic Church from 1930 onwards, you would see that there are many justifications for why such agents would rise to the top of the Catholic hierarchy and render aid or directly influence the child abuse scandal that recently deprived the Church of a significant part of their legitimacy in the eyes of America.
    You see, the Left caused it, and then they reaped the rewards. And they’re doing it under Obama too. They’ve been doing it for decades and Americans were too busy calling George W. Bush stupid and a Nazi to realize it.

  • Tonestaple

    “If you look at the evidence for how Communist party agencies infiltrated various Communist agents into the Catholic Church from 1930 onwards…”

    Ymarsakar, do you have a source or sources for this? 

    I would be very interested in reading more about this. Thank you.

  • Ymarsakar

    Sure, I do. I even wrote some research comments on this exact subject some odd months ago at Villainous Company.


    After outlining some of Bella Dodd’s personal recollections, some other things were very insightful from my view. I’ll summarize a bit of it, since quoting it from the source is rather time intensive.
    She noted that the Communist organization notably worked to advance a Soviet international agenda. This was remarked in how anti-war the Communist Party propaganda was in the 30s. When the Fascist-Communist pack was signed and announced, things got a little bit weird. The Communist Party was dumped by many Jews and haters of both Communists and Fascists. The pack caused a stir and downgraded the status of the Communists because the Communists had advertised themselves as an alternative, a better alternative, to German fascism. And here was German fascism allied with Soviet Communism in carving up Poland and elsewhere.
    When the pack was broken, the Communist party moved to push America towards a pro-war pro-Soviet position. They ended up succeeding, due to a sort of mutual interest with leaders like FDR and the impact of Pearl Harbor. The entire nation united, which just meant that they accepted the CPUSA as ‘honest brokers’. Of course, they weren’t honest brokers at all. They used the good will and patriotism of most Americans in order to destroy all that which secured the benefits of Americans. Pretty cool, in terms of subversion.
    The remarkable aspect Bella noticed was how the party was so all encompassing, all consuming, and with total control of the perception of its members via propaganda, that it can get them to switch policy from anti-war to pro-war simply because the Party said so. Some idealistic students had signed no-war statements, so couldn’t easily be swayed, but even they weren’t immune. After all, didn’t FDR promise not to bring America into the war with Europe, yet when Japan attacked the US, FDR suddenly decided to focus on the European theater. People are easily swayed, by events as well as by emotions. But still, the ability of any organization to substitute human free will and conscience with the party line, is still a bit too much for American sentiments.
    In recent years this latter quandary in particular has emerged from the realms of much derided “conspiracy theory” to become a plausible contributory explanation for the otherwise inexplicable levels of corruption, negligence and indifference within Western episcopates. The fact that we will never precisely quantify the degree of infiltration and only rarely identify “plants” beyond all doubt, is no reason to ignore the reality. Besides, it’s not as if we hadn’t been warned. Ex-Communist and celebrated convert Douglas Hyde revealed long ago that in the 1930s the Communist leadership issued a worldwide directive about infiltrating the Catholic Church. While in the early 1950s, Mrs Bella Dodd was also providing detailed explanations of the Communist subversion of the Church. Speaking as a former high ranking official of the American Communist Party, Mrs Dodd said: “In the 1930s we put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within.” The idea was for these men to be ordained and progress to positions of influence and authority as Monsignors and Bishops. A dozen years before Vatican II she stated that: “Right now they are in the highest places in the Church” – where they were working to bring about change in order to weaken the Church’s effectiveness against Communism. She also said that these changes would be so drastic that “you will not recognise the Catholic Church.”
    Mrs Dodd, who converted to the Faith at the end of her life, was personally acquainted with this diabolic project since, as a Communist agent, part of her brief was to encourage young radicals (not always card-carrying Communists) to enter Catholic seminaries. She alone had encouraged nearly 1,000 such youngsters to infiltrate the seminaries and religious orders! One monk who attended a Bella Dodd lecture in the early 1950s recalled:
    “I listened to that woman for four hours and she had my hair standing on end. Everything she said has been fulfilled to the letter. You would think she was the world’s greatest prophet, but she was no prophet. She was merely exposing the step-by-step battle plan of Communist subversion of the Catholic Church. She explained that of all the world’s religions, the Catholic Church was the only one feared by the Communists, for it was its only effective opponent. The whole idea was to destroy, not the institution of the Church, but rather the Faith of the people, and even use the institution of the Church, if possible, to destroy the Faith through the promotion of a pseudo-religion: something that resembled Catholicism but was not the real thing. Once the Faith was destroyed, she explained that there would be a guilt complex introduced into the Church…. to label the ‘Church of the past’ as being oppressive, authoritarian, full of prejudices, arrogant in claiming to be the sole possessor of truth, and responsible for the divisions of religious bodies throughout the centuries. This would be necessary in order to shame Church leaders into an ‘openness to the world,’ and to a more flexible attitude toward all religions and philosophies. The Communists would then exploit this openness in order to undermine the Church.”
    This conspiracy has been confirmed time and again by Soviet defectors. Ex-KGB officer Anatoliy Golitsyn, who defected in 1961 and in 1984 forecast with 94% accuracy all the astonishing developments in the Communist Bloc since that time, confirmed several years ago that this “penetration of the Catholic and other churches” is part of the Party’s “general line [i.e. unchanged policy] in the struggle against religion.” Hundreds of files secreted to the West by former KGB archivist Vassili Mitrokhin and published in 1999 tell a similar tale, about the KGB cultivating the closest possible relationships with ‘progressive’ Catholics and financing their activities. One of the leftist organs identified was the small Italian Catholic press agency Adista, which for decades has promoted every imaginable postconciliar cause or “reform” and whose Director was named in The Mitrokhin Archive as a paid KGB agent. Interestingly, just prior to the Mitrokhin expose it was little Adista that ultra-Modernist Cardinal Martini utilised to diffuse his dissident rant at the 1999 European Synod, where, among other things, he called for a “new Council”.

    Next up: sourced from School of Darkness by Bella Dodd (also mentioned here by suek)

    “I now saw that with the best motives and a desire to serve the working people… I and thousands like me, had been led to a betrayal of these very people…. I had been on the side of those who sought the destruction of my own country.” (229)

    “This is the key to the mental enslavement of mankind. The individual is made into nothing … he operates as the physical part of [a] higher group intelligence… he has no awareness of the plans the higher group intelligence has for utilizing him.” (158)
    TO THE New York newspapers the story of the expulsion of a woman Communist was merely one more story. It was handled in the routine way. I winced, however, when reputable papers headlined the Communist Party charges and used the words “fascism” and “racism,” even though I knew these words were only quoted from the Party resolution.
    I braced myself for further attacks from the Party, and they came soon in terms of economic threats. Some of my law practice came from trade-union and Party members, and here action was swift. The union Communists told me there would be no more referrals to me. Party members who were my clients came to my office, some with their new lawyers, to withdraw their pending cases.
    Reprisals came, too, in the form of telephone calls, letters, and telegrams of hate and vituperation, many of them from people I did not know. What made me feel desolate were the reprisals from those I had known best, those among the teachers whom I had considered friends. While I was busy with Party work I sometimes thought proudly of my hundreds of friends and how strong were the ties that bound us. Now those bonds were ropes of sand.
    What I had failed to understand was that the security I felt in the Party was that of a group and that affection in that strange communist world is never a personal emotion. You were loved or hated on the basis of group acceptance, and emotions were stirred or dulled by propaganda. That propaganda was made by the powerful people at the top. That is why ordinary Communists get along well with their groups: they think and feel together and work toward a common goal.
    The New York Post asked me to write a series of articles on why I had broken with the Communist Party, and made me a generous offer. I agreed. But when I had finished them and read them over I did not want to see them published and found an excuse for refusing the offer. When a weekly magazine made an even more lucrative offer, I refused that, too. There were several reasons for this, as I now realize: one was that I did not trust my own conclusions, and another that I could not bear to hurt people I had known in the Party and for whom I still felt affection. Some I knew were entrapped as surely as I had been.
    It was a strange and painful year. The process of completely freeing oneself emotionally from being a Communist is a thing no outsider can understand. The group thinking and group planning and the group life of the Party had been a part of me for so long that it was desperately difficult for me to be a person again. That is why I have lost track of whole days and weeks of that period.
    But I had begun the process of “unbecoming” a Communist. It was a long and painful process, much like that of a polio victim who has to learn to walk all over again. I had to learn to think. I had to learn to love. I had to drain the hate and frenzy from my system. I had to dislodge the self and the pride that had made me arrogant, made me feel that I knew all the answers. I had to learn that I knew nothing. There were many stumbling blocks in this process.

    In the days that have gone since we enunciated these statements so confidently I have had many occasions to see that this cataloging of people as either “right” or “left” has led to more confusion in American life than perhaps any other false concept. It sounds so simple and so right. By using this schematic device one puts the communists on the left and then one regards them as advanced liberals -after which it is easy to regard them as the enzyme necessary for progress.
    Communists usurp the position of the left, but when one examines them in the light of what they really stand for, one sees them as the rankest kind of reactionaries and communism as the most reactionary backward leap in the long history of social movements. It is one which seeks to obliterate in one revolutionary wave two thousand years of man’s progress.
    During my thirteen years of teaching at Hunter I was to repeat this semantic falsehood many times. I did not see the truth that people are not born “right” or “left” nor can they become “right” or “left” unless educated on the basis of a philosophy which is as carefully organized and as all-inclusive as communism.
    I was among the first of a new kind of teacher who was to come in great numbers to the city colleges. The mark of the decade was on us. We were sophisticated, intellectually snobbish, but usually fetishly “democratic” with the students. It is true that we understood them better than did many of the older teachers; our sympathy with them was a part of ourselves.
    I knew how devoted he was to the South and its people and after our marriage we went to visit his home. I had never been South before, but I now realized why so many of its children went to Northern cities for a livelihood.
    John’s people were not plantation owners nor did they have share croppers. They owned a lot of land and they worked it themselves. The women worked as hard as the men. I visited some of the Dodd children at the Martha Berry Schools near John’s home and I was struck by the independence and sturdiness of these people. Never after that first visit did I read morbid literature on the South without a sense of resentment at the twisted picture it gave of a section which has great reservoirs of strength, based not on material wealth but upon the integrity of its people.
    I did not become a Communist overnight. It came a little at a time. I had been conditioned by my education and association to accept this materialistic philosophy. Now came new reasons for acceptance. I was grateful for communist support in the struggles of the Instructors Association. I admired the selfless dedication of many who belonged to the Party. They took me into their fraternal circle and made me feel at home. I was not interested in any long-range Party objectives but I did welcome their assistance on immediate issues, and I admired them for their courage. Most of all I respected the way they fought for the forgotten man of the city. So I did not argue with them about the “dictatorship of the proletariat” which they talked about, or about its implications.
    Of course some of my friends were unhappy about my new course. One day when Ruth Goldstein and I were walking down Sixty-eighth Street she spoke bitterly about my new affiliations.
    “You are getting too involved, Bella,” she said. “You will get hurt. Wait and see!”
    I laughed at her. “Oh, Ruth, you are too concerned about promotions and tenures. There are other things in life.” “What about this one-party system that they favor?” she demanded.
    “Well, you know we really have only a one-party system in America right now,” I retorted. “Remember the Harvard professor who says that both political parties resemble empty bottles with different labels?”
    Ruth continued arguing and I finally said: “Oh, Ruth, I am only interested in the present. What the Communist Party says about the future is not important to me. The sanity of the American people will assert itself. But these people are about the only ones who are doing anything about the rotten conditions of today. That is why I am with them, and,” I ended truculently, “I will stay with them.”
    Of course I was not the only American who thought one could go along with the good things the Communists did and then reject their objectives. It was a naive idea and many of us were naive. It took a long time for me to know that once you march with them there is no easy return. I learned over the years that if you stumbled from weariness they had no time to pick up a fallen comrade. They simply marched over him.
    The saddest situation I saw in the Party were the hundreds of young people eager to be used. And the Party did use this mass of anonymous people for its immediate purposes. And so young people were burned out before they could reach maturity. But I saw, too, how inexhaustible was the supply of human beings willing to be sacrificed. Much of the strength of the Party, of course, is derived from this very ruthlessness in exploiting people.
    Since 1932 the Communist Party had publicized itself as the leading opponent of fascism. It had used the emotional appeal of anti-fascism to bring many people to the acceptance of communism, by posing communism and fascism as alternatives. Its propaganda machine ground out an endless stream of words, pictures, and cartoons. It played on intellectual, humanitarian, racial, and religious sensibilities until it succeeded to an amazing degree in conditioning America to recoil at the word fascist even when people did not know its meaning.
    Today I marvel that the world communist movement was able to beat the drums against Germany and never once betray what the inner group knew well: that some of the same forces which gave Hitler his start had also started Lenin and his staff of revolutionists from Switzerland to St. Petersburg to begin the revolution which was to result in the Soviet totalitarian state.
    There was not a hint that despite the propaganda of hate unleashed against Germany and Italy, communist representatives were meeting behind the scenes to do business with Italian and German fascists to whom they sold materiel and oil. There was not a hint that Soviet brass was meeting with German brass to redraw the map of Europe. There was no betrayal of these facts until one day they met openly to sign a contract for a new map of Europe — a treaty made by Molotov and Von Ribbentrop.
    preview doesn’t really work, so I’m throwing the dice that the format is alright.

  • 11B40

    Has not our own revolutionary President Obama brought Kevin Jennings, a NAMBLA aficionado, into his administration as School Safety Czar or some such?  Changing the nanny state into the NAMBLA state?

  • Ymarsakar

    Forgot this new word editor thing needs double space to show up as single space.
    The School of Darkness is available online, can be found through simple search terms.
    I researched this issue from various points. The Left were the ones who trained me to spot deception, manufactured lies, propaganda, and so on. And they were trained by the KGB once in a long time past.
    The process is simple. Paranoia is called for. You have to figure out a way to cross check the background of people’s stories on top of their own personal character and beliefs. That means you need a second opinion, at least, and then another opinion on the second opinion, and so on and so forth. Until you get to the point where your network of informants and sources are so complex that it would take the resources of 5 superpowers to handle the espionage resources for it.
    The stories about Bella Dodd on the net are numerous and they use quotations though they never say where it comes from. However, Bella Dodd existed as a person. Not only due to observer witness accounts, but also her own book, which is consistent (cross referenced through numerous methods) with the accounts of witness and news accounts. Now that check point is crossed off. Now you know she exists. But do not yet know whether her words are true. To ascertain that, we use a fundamental “gut” check that is useful in exposing lies or fabrications. Simply check the consistency of other parts of her story at random. On this note, we have Neo-Neocon and Bookworm’s personal testimonies on how the Left treated them. Did the Left treat Bella Dodd, in her own words, the same way? Yes. So did Bella Dodd somehow know this ahead of time and fabricated a consistent lie using information from the future, so that some future reader could read back and then say “she is telling the truth because I know people today have the same experiences”? You see, that’s called paranoia. But it is required to truly comprehend the fine line between fabricated reality and true reality.
    This is just some of the things I personally go through to research. I describe this to you and others here because I want to make a distinction between how I do things and how other people, say scholarly researchers, do things. They seek to find the truth. I seek to determine which humans are telling lies. They can end up with the same result, but aren’t the same path. It’s why intellectuals and professors, ostensibly good at research and academic standards, inevitably get taken by cons and politicians (Obama). It’s simply predictable. They were never trained in what I learned.
    Concerning the infiltration of the Catholic Church, de-classified KGB records already show that they had a spy operation working on the Pope. They would listen in when the West informed the Pope of certain operations before hand during the Cold War. Thus also informing the KGB and Russia. As for the result of the operation Bella Dodd described, things get a little fuzzy here. It is not yet known exactly how the operatives sent into the Catholic Church started doing their work. But I have some suspicions and educated guesses.
    1. Sleeper cell organizations designed to become promoted, then use Church policy to promote such things as gay priests or female priests or what not. Any priest that protested that child abuses were being covered up, got silenced by high command. This would mean that it was an indirect consequence that the child abuses weren’t reported until now. Because the high ranking operatives of the Church were working on several other things to cut Catholicism off at the knees and didn’t want any of it reported or known in the public or by the Pope.
    2. Direct action. The operatives themselves were interested in boys and thus combined with their Communist ideology combined hobby with career.
    3. Indirect action: agents found out about the child abuses by priests, and decided to cover it up and save it for “blackmail” material later on. Or perhaps they used it to get ahead in the Church hierarchy, leap frogging off whatever patrols or favors were available. This would lead to the surmise that the information about sexual abuses decades ago were “leaked” because it was now an appropriate time for the Left to knock the Church down a few pegs. That would be consistent with the fact that the media ran with it like they were conspiring on “JournoList or what not” when they could not have known ahead of time that it was so. It would also be consistent with the “wave” of previously unknown child abuses. A mighty convenient time for these things to become known all at once, I would say.
    4. Cultural anachronism. Some reports claim that gay or pedophilia were so socially and culturally abhorrent that the parents of the children involved cooperated with the priests and ranking clerics in question to simply cover up the entire issue. This would be the victims and the bosses of the molester priests working hand in hand to save the children from a life of permanent social ostracism. And it just so happened that Communist agents got a hold of such information and kept it in supply or a rainy day. Such rainy day came about during the unveiling. Perhaps they held it back, in part, because they were working with gay activists in promoting the Gay Image and didn’t want the priests to interfere. Course, when gay activists took to the secrets and demanded marriage and the CHURCH refused, then it might have looked like the Church had to be taken down.
    Hey, maybe if American voters had done 10% of what I did here with Obama, they might have just voted for Sarah Palin!

  • JKB

    No need to look to the past for bad mixes of the left and childhood sexuality.  Here’s a story of a progressive school in England that has introduced students 6-9 giving massages to each other:
    Parents furious after school introduces daily body massages for six-year-olds

  • Ymarsakar

    For those that think I’m going off on a limb thinking that even Communists would resort to rape or sex with children, just remember a name you should know of.
    Roman Polanski
    If you attempt to tell me the Left is “above” such things, I’d just think the person with such claims is a fool. Proven by their own thoughts and actions. The Left defends their own. Whether it’s Duke false rape case. Tookie Williams. Jihadists. Obama. Black Panthers. Or child rapists.
    This is the enemy in control of America and it is a fantasy to believe that this all came about because somebody made a “mistake”. That this was “new” and hadn’t been going at least from the start of the last century.
    (Liberal Whine Voice): Oh, Obama didn’t mean to do that. He has the best interests of America at heart. It isn’t his fault that Bush and Cheney made the corporations rich and corrupt.
    Oh he sure did mean to punish the Gulf States. He sure did order his lackeys to reject skimmers and hold them up, preventing them from cleaning up the spill. He knew exactly what he was doing.

  • Indigo Red

    I think only the most blind Progressive kool-aid drinker can or would deny that Michele is the sexual and sexually dominant partner. Although, Barry does wear the granny pants in the family.

    But overall, hmmmm…

  • Ymarsakar

    What I can’t forgive are people like David Brin and John Scalzi, who lambasted Bush, Palin, conservatives, and Republicans during the lead up to the 2008 elections.
    Everything was going to be better, they said. It was all our fault. They said. They used the written word as their weapon and their aggressive taunting was indicative of their warped psyches and all too privileged writing skills.
    They didn’t want to hear anything that would challenge their views, because everybody else was “responsible” for the debt so obviously they wouldn’t “know how to get out of it”. Yeah, and that’s why Brin and Scalzi, those two plutocratic frackers, voted for Obama and made blog posts campaigning for him.
    Now they’re making money while Americans in the Gulf and elsewhere suffer, are jobless, and are getting their ass kicked by Obama. And do they feel a shred of guilt, of shame? Hell no. They’re being gleeful about their personal successes, in the case of Scalzi becoming President of the Geek club.
    Wannanbe fake liberal arrogant tree parasites. These “science fiction” writers are a bunch of wannabe aristocrats. They think because they can “create” fictonal words that they have any idea what is going on in the real world. They think, just because they have the power to write the English word, that they can use it however they will against perceived “dumb” political opponents.
    Right. We’ll have to see if their pen is really mightier than my sword. You see, while there is Obama, Soros, and all the rest to hate, Brin and Scalzi operate a special place in my heart. I have actually written to them on their blogs and they have spoken to me, in the case of Brin. Nothing they wrote impressed me as having any special wisdom. So let’s see if their martial ability is as feckless.

  • Mike Devx

    11B40 wrote in #7:
    > Has not our own revolutionary President Obama brought Kevin Jennings, a NAMBLA aficionado, into his administration as School Safety Czar or some such?

    Kevin Jennings is currently the Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools at the U.S. Department of Education.

    For the life of me I don’t understand how Kevin Jennings has survived the exposure of his involvement with outrageously lurid pornographic material that his instition(s) have been associated with.  This material is intended for distribution to junior-high and high-school classrooms, and has been used in workshops.

    Most important, in Kevin Jenning’s case, is the “GLSEN reading list”.

    Gateway Pundit publicizes it well as this link:

    This link is incredibly informative and shocking.  I think, Book, you should add it as item 5 concerning Obama in your post.  I’m not nearly as concerned about the ambiguity surrounding Frank Davis, as I am the obviously pedophiliac interest shown by Kevin Jennings.

    Via Book this GLSEN reading list information was discussed some months back, and many of you found it horrifying then.  How has Kevin Jennings managed to remain in the government???

  • Mike Devx

    After finishing reading item 1, I both wondered about the extent of that movement in the USA, and recalled a book I read many years ago.
    In that book a far-left “educational thinker” was proposing solutions for “Why Johnny Can’t Read”.  He suggested that his (prototypical) female teacher should encourage Johnny by unzipping his pants and gently performing fellatio on him.  Johnny would do much better with his reading, this, ahem, education philosopher was certain.
    Now, if you imagine yourself as a fifteen-year-old student, and the teacher in question as the Little Missy Babe from Van Halen’s “Hot For Teacher”, you could be forgiven for thinking “Yeah baby! I’ll take that reading assistance any day!”  Yes, you’ve got it bad, so bad, so bad.  You’re hot for teacher.
    (And isn’t Van Halen German?  They seem to have absorbed some of the far-left German excesses in this case…)
    But if the teacher in question is 64 year old, 250-pound Mrs. McGillicudy, with three moles on each lip and frazzled graying hair, it’s not so appetizing a thought, I would think.  And what should she – or the Van Halen Hot Babe – do about female students struggling with *their* reading?  Let alone a male teacher with his female students?  Or his male students?  Don’t gloss this over; what does our far-left educational philosopher think about those situations?  He did not describe them in his book.  One wonders, why not?
    Actually, one doesn’t wonder at all.  It doesn’t fit into his fantasizing, is all.  Same as what likely goes on in Kevin Jenning’s head when he’s promoting his NAMBLA-ish agenda among his compatriots.

  • Spartacus

    “The most basic thing one can own is one’s own self, and not letting others touch that self in ways you don’t like is an exercise in self-ownership.  Of course a kid doesn’t think this way, but lefties do.  That’s why a kid can’t be left to think his own body is inviolate.”
    Tonestaple, it’s difficult to describe how perfectly two pieces of the puzzle in my head known as The Left just clicked into place and fit perfectly.  Thank you!  (Next task:  to understand more fully their insane obsession with crushing the individual…)
    “How has Kevin Jennings managed to remain in the government???”
    Mike — It’s a measurement of the extent to which the system is broken, and also the extent to which we simply *cannot,* iin the long run, allow these people to govern us.  Hope for true and radical change in November of ’12, courtesy of an electorate that has finally woken up and will no longer be lulled back into trusting complacency by empty promises from all the same useful, careerist idiots… the alternatives could quickly get nastily out of control.

  • Al

    Tonestable is right. The Left’s sexual destruction of children is the modern equivalent of Herod’s killing the little boys in Bethlehem. They can not tollerate the chance that a new ruler could emerge. And of course, the Left denies the possibility that something could be evil, or that the Devil acutally exists. \

  • expat

    There are still plenty of people in Germany who find these leftists cool, although they don’t buy into the whole agenda and wouldn’t advocate the child sex stuff. It has to do with being intellectual and different from their Nazi parents. I get annoyed when they project their own stuffy restricted history (pre-Hitler, I mean) on the US and accuse us of being prudes, as they did after the Superbowl wardrobe malfunction. There is so damn much hypocrisy here about the left. Yet the whole country is in an uproar about Benedict. I’m not sure Germany has completely emerged from feudalism. They are still in awe of their betters who sport a Her Professor Doctor title or have a von in their names.
    This doesn’t apply to the whole population, but it’s not rare among the chattering classes.

  • Danny Lemieux

    YM, these aforeposted comments are some of the best that have ever provided. They certainly helped many pieces fall into place for me in understanding the pedophilia scandals of the Catholic Church, which was a worldwide phenomenon. I just returned from Belgium (more on that lately), where police investigations are revealing just how thoroughly infiltrated the Catholic Church was with this demonic (is there another word for this?) conspiracy. For a really gross and detailed insight into the conspiracy within the Church to deliberately destroy the faith and individuality (thanks for that insight, Tonestaple) of children,h, see this hair-raising accounting at
    In Chicago, the priest and novelist Andrew Greeley (an ardent Lefty himself) detailed the rise of the gay-pedophile “priests” (which he termed the “Lavender Mafia”) within the diocese under the protective wing of Cardinal Bernardin. I could understand why pedophiles would be attracted to professions such as the priesthood and, up until YM’s revelations, was willing to attribute it as such, but now I begin to see how all this was part of something much, much bigger and far more evil.
    Tonestaple, thanks for your insights. I have long wondered why the Left was so obsessed with sexual promiscuity and depravity (I remember in my college daze days how many guys affected a Lefty perspective just to get access to the promiscuous girls of the Left). These things make so much more sense now.

  • Danny Lemieux

    I see that I really, really do need editorial help:
    …the best that you have ever provided.
    Lately later

  • Danny Lemieux

    And only on a slightly unrelated note (we are talking about sexual perversions, here), don’t you wish that all of our news casts could be as clear and to the point as this “sex poodle” story?

    Spread it far and wide.

  • jj

    Mike (#13) – Jennings has survived the exposure of his involvement because he hasn’t been really been exposed yet – same as most of the others in the roomful of clowns and jackasses that is the current administration.  Brian Williams and Katie Couric haven’t said anything about it and it hasn’t appeared on the front page of the New York Canary Cage Liner. This translates to: no exposure.
    It isn’t hard to survive anything if no one puts your name up in lights.  That’s the entire secret of this whole administration of self-propelled offal.  That’s how they all get away with it, from Geithner to Jennings to Obama himself.

  • suek

    >>I could understand why pedophiles would be attracted to professions such as the priesthood>>
    Actually, according to the lawyer who has represented a great many of these cases, most of them are _not_ pedophilia, but pederasty.  The difference is that pedophilia is defined as sexual activity with a child who has not yet entered puberty.  Pederasty refers to sexual activity with a person who _has_ entered puberty.  There may not be a lot of difference in ages, but there is a definite difference in the likelihood of willing participation.  Most of the cases were male/male, and since most were with male juveniles,  they actually should have been condemned as homosexuality, not pedophilia.  The issue is, of course, that homosexuality is “ok” by most of the liberal press, but they wanted to condemn the Catholic Church, so the incidents had to be tagged as pedophilia which is unacceptable to most, even on the left.  Or at least, it has been up to recent times.
    One of the puzzlements (if you assume they’re actually genuinely disturbed by the events) has been how they could be so shocked at these incidents, but still support homosexuality generally, NAMBLA, GL…(whatever) and sexual education and activity for/by children.  Somehow, it’s ok for everybody – except priests.  Which _could_ be logical, since priests are supposed to forswear all sexual activity, but violating their oaths isn’t exactly the “shocking” part – it’s the condemnation of the Church for their “predatory” priests.  I guess only leftists are allowed to predatory.

  • Tonestaple

    Just a note from the 60s:

    “The only position for women in SNCC is prone.”  Stokely Carmichael, I believe.  SNCC = Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, for the kids out there who aren’t old enough to remember.

    Lefties, being interested in power, have never had any respect for women and children, who generally tend to be less powerful.

  • Ymarsakar

    I could understand why pedophiles would be attracted to professions such as the priesthood and, up until YM’s revelations, was willing to attribute it as such, but now I begin to see how all this was part of something much, much bigger and far more evil.
    What was probably not apparent at the time was why they were organized. Why did they have patrons and protectors, especially for homosexuals who tend to be in the closet and not have much in the way of political capital for either elections or religious politics. Communist and KGB resources would supply the answer to that question.
    Conspiracies are seen by the common people as wack, crazy, etc. That’s because they can’t tell the difference between truth and fiction. Nobody in public school told them a damn thing about it and they never learned after they graduated from college. They believe in conspiracies or disbelieve them based upon what They Are Told to believe by the MSM, their parents, their social circle, etc.
    I developed a different criteria in analyzing what is or is not the truth. I began to see that objective standards, such as time, money, resources (manpower), provided great insights into what is or is not feasible. Combined with motivation, it is enough to develop a network or organization designed to infiltrate and subvert nations. Pieces of knowledge from tradecraft (spycraft), Sun Tzu, military strategy, martial kings and feudal spies, all fed this process like a furnace.
    In a nutshell, if you ask fantastic questions like “can fire melt steel”, then you will get fantastic and out of this world conspiracy theories. Ask some plainer questions like “does the KGB have the motivation, time, manpower, and money to create, fund, and maintain this operation” and you will get a different type of answer entirely.

  • Ymarsakar

    Thanks Danny.
    If you notice, Bella Dodd didn’t want to hurt her friends in the CPUSA (Communist Party USA) even when they threw her out, ostracized her, and attacked her at the party’s behest. Why didn’t she go on a revenge fest and uncover all the secrets she knew about the CPUSA, which would have done a great amount of good politically (if only temporarily)? Because. Because while she was a poisonous plant, she still had a heart.
    The Left has no heart. They’re the ones who push people around, knowing that they need fear no retaliation. I’m the kind of person that is likely to brutally escalate the conflict should somebody push me. I am not likely to use “equal force” or “proportionate” force. Extreme violence, brutal damage, and asocial parameters would be more likely.
    To fight evil, one must overcome one’s own internal fear of hurting others, even those you care about and even those that might be innocent. Because nothing is going to change if people sit around worshiping the Left just because they fear what Obama will do to his American hostages if they anger him.
    They count on their victims not being ruthless enough to obliterate them. And they have been successful in doing so because their victims are, for the most part, unable and unwillingly to defend themselves.
    I got a couple of videos I found online showing predators in action. Won’t link to them here because they’re both family unfriendly and socially unacceptable. I don’t know the victims in question, but if I did, I know I wouldn’t want to be spreading the videos around to more people.
    The fact is, evil prides itself on their ability to escalate a situation beyond the tolerance level of their victims. Such is the SHock and Awe tactic that disables their victim’s defenses before the victim even realizes that they are in danger. And they use the fear of reprisal and retaliation in the mind’s of the victim to control the victim in hostage negotiations or similar situations.
    The only real defense against this, is to attack. To escalate the matter beyond even the limits of evil and their thugs. To do it faster, to do it NOW becoming the same as doing it faster, and to reach a height of violent efficiency that not even they are familiar with. It doesn’t matter if they are members of the Communist party, priests, politicians, jihadists, or anybody else really. They are still human and just as vulnerable as anybody else to death and fear.
    Truly dangerous people in this world aren’t the screaming hysterical idiots like Prof Gates. Or the tough talking arse speaker named Obama. Truly dangerous people are those that can teleport (not escalate) from polite smiles and friendly exchanges to murderous intent in the flick of an eyelash. That has been my model of excellence for several years. I have learned much from observing such people and moments. And there’s still plenty more to learn.

  • Mike Devx

    I agree with Y in #25.  I recall from the incidents on Flight 93 on 9-11 that one of the early actions of the murdering Islamic Jihadist terrorists (yes, folks, let’s NAME them, every time!) was to slit the throat of an attendant.  Escalate – and shock the hostages, immediately break their will to resist or fight back.
    I, like many, would probably respond to the shock as expected.
    But the truth is, in almost every hostage situation, if all the hostages immediately rushed the perps, some might be injured, but the hostages would win immediately.  If they went for eyes, groin, knees, and when they have them down on the ground, to stomp, smash, eviscerate, break the neck, end the threat.  Studies of immediately escalating violence in a gun-situation reveal that most people are wildly inaccurate when firing, so while there is fear that you will die by a shot to the head in rushing the hostage-taker, there’s a decent chance you won’t.
    Especially if EVERYONE were to rush them at once, hurling anything and everything in reach at them as you run at them.  A gut shot is dangerous; a shot might hit an artery; but the odds are in your favor, if all were to rush them.
    One thing I am certain of as an instrinsic truth about myself: Under no circumstances could I allow myself to be bound during the hostage-taking.  I’d rather die fighting than become a truly helpless victim.

  • Mike Devx

    On Kevin Jennings and the GLSEN reading list:
    The key paragraph – or at least, the key paragraph that avoids lurid details – is this in the GatewayPundit article:
    Let it be clear: This issue has nothing to do with gayness or straightness, which is irrelevant to this report. The point proven here is that the GLSEN reading list promotes the sexualization of children in general, regardless of the “orientation.”

    The reading list certainly has its homosexual elements, but it’s mostly heterosexual.  Jennings’ efforts in this case *is* the hypersexualization of children in every way, not specifically homosexual.  In that manner he fits in perfectly with the German 60’s liberal efforts described in Book’s item 1.   Jennings is a completely unreconstructed 60’s liberal in this fashion.

    (Thank you, suek, for identifying pederasty as the word I was looking for, not pedophilia.  I never can remember that word…)   What Jennings probably has in mind for Grades 1-6 is a psychological normalization of the hypersexualized environment for the kids, not explicit sexual acts.  It’s in the reading material for grades 7-12 where sexual acts become explicitly described in widely varying detail.  And we’re not talking soft-core porn or acts of love; what we have in most accounts is that psychologically brutalizing emptiness of frequent anonymous sex.

    That is what Kevin Jennings wants to normalize for your kids and grandkids.  That is what he sees as normal.

  • Ymarsakar

    Mike is right about that.
    Most people don’t even die from single gun shots to the torso or limbs. You either have to be in poor health, it has to hit your heart, or it has to rip out one of your tiny little primary arteries. What people die of is mostly blood loss from having major tissue hemorrhaging from multiple gunshots of small calibers. Humans have a good chance of surviving single gun shots. This isn’t something from me, but from trusted sources that have analyzed medical reports, trauma, ER stats, etc.
    Popular culture has made it seem like somebody gets hit once by a bullet and it’s all over. It isn’t over. That’s important to know if you are the shooter and it’s important to know if you are the one being shot at.
    The same is true of knives. People get cut all over their arms and hands because they try to use them to “defend” against knife attacks. But they’re perfectly fine afterward with even sub-standard medical care. There’s a lot of blood, but it comes from the surface veins and arteries. It takes a heavy blade to cut deep, to the bone, and get at the rich inner arteries. What causes a high chance of death is deep puncture wounds. Multiple deep puncture wounds. There are arteries or veins that can be used to bleed people out, with the easiest ones to access at the throat. The neck, however, has muscles and it takes force to cut through them. So unless you’re held down, they simply cannot apply the force long enough to cut through to the main aorta or jugular. That goes double if they are using tiny blades that don’t have a lot of mass.
    The better technique was always to stab someone in the neck and then slice downwards now that you have good leverage and can apply your entire arm, torso, body to the job. Most people aren’t trained to this level. They think knife fighting is about applying precise cuts to locations. Really, death doesn’t care how your blade work looks like ice sculpting. It really doesn’t.
    Hollywood violence wouldn’t be so bad if it had any relationship to real violence. Then people could get educated even if they aren’t entertained by it. But all they get now is pap and fairy tales.
    I will write one thing more. The ability to stare your own death in the face yet still act, can be artificially trained or induced with some prior mental and spiritual preparation. You can still get yourself locked up if in the moment you begin to doubt yourself or start thinking of extraneous things, or you can’t seem to decide to run or fight, or you don’t trust your lizard brain to take over and think only of survival. But preparation before hand to raise your chances is possible. The samurai of feudal Japan produced much poetry and philosophy on this subject. The poems were death poems. Sort of like the French and European love poems, but about different subjects heh.
    The samurai of long past Japan were very interested in this subject. They came up with the phrase “death is lighter than a feather, duty heavier than mountains” after all. It’s hard to truly comprehend what this means if all you know in life was taught to you by the Left’s indoctrination programs based upon nihilistic self-loathing, avarice, and lust-gluttony.
    The samurai were able to achieve skills in battle above the average by disregarding the preservation of their own life. By that I mean given a choice between defending themselves from an attack or attacking, they were always taught to attack: to cut. That eliminates the threat by destroying the opponent. Such forms as Iaido and Iaijutsu focus almost solely on this aspect of kenjuts, sword techniques.
    In American terminology, it may be said to be that to attack is to live. Thus in order to truly preserve your own life, you must disregard consideration for your own life and focus everything on making sure your attack is swift, immediate, efficient, and most importantly, inflicts critical damage upon the foe.
    Americans already know this in war. They feel it. They may not know all the Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, or military theories behind it. But they feel that it is the right way to go, in war. But they can’t translate it to their own personal lives. Nor can they apply it to crime or other aspects, because they weren’t trained to. They do not have a conscious understanding of violence, simply an emotional understanding based upon American culture. And not all Americans have even this basic “common sense”. Some are nihilistic. Meaning, they not only worship self-suicide, but they will make sure you suicide too.
    Live by the sword, die by the sword. In these days of creature comforts, people normally think that means it is a warning not to live by the sword, because you will die by the sword. To the crusader knights, it just meant that they would die an honorable death rather than be hanged as criminals. Honor was very valuable to them. That’s like saying to the Japanese that they shouldn’t be samurai because samurai cut open their stomachs. Plenty of samurai preferred that death to many others.

  • suek

    >>What Jennings probably has in mind for Grades 1-6 is a psychological normalization of the hypersexualized environment for the kids, not explicit sexual acts.>>
    The goal is addiction.  Sex can be like drugs in demanding constant satisfaction, and this type of sex is something completely separate from what we consider an act of love – in fact, it probably serves to make the emotion and complete dedication that we call love an impossibility.  In other words, it serves to destroy the family…because love and dedication to someone other than self is a prime requirement for family.  It also serves as a desperate need that can be used to control actions and loyalties.

  • benning

    Robin of Berkeley – at American Thinker – has a few posts that are germain. :)

  • Pingback: Children, the State, and Sexuality: The Slavery of “Sexual Liberation” | The Political Hat()

  • Pingback: Sex and State Power | Living in Anglo-America()