The slow descent

We’ve been through much of this before and won’t agree.  While Christianity does not have a monopoly on the moral underpinning of a society, it does create a literature which is a stumbling block for those who would oppress and debauch – debauch can also mean aesthetically and simply refer to reduction in quality.

The measure of how far Christianity must be stamped out is in the effort expended to do so, from advertising on the sides of buses to the Winterval garbage and the locking away of chapel crosses at universities, before we get into the papal and Rowan Williams interfaith “understanding and relativism in all things.

There are those who are no friends of Christianity but they would prefer people like Williams to actually stand up for that to which he has been appointed and do not respect him for singularly failing to do so.

Like the EU, the UN and other enemies of man, these people never rest, never stop in their efforts to remove this obstacle to their global plans.  I don’t support Christianity just for its political efficacy and yet it is most efficacious, along with nationalism, the family of one natural father, one natural mother and kids, property, free enterprise and other goodies which stymie the global socialism currently being pushed.

Which is why this was an interesting post.  Not religious in any way, it draws attention to something that’s been going down for some time now and to understand the mindset of those pushing it, you need only read about Belgium.  This is precisely the mindset which is attempting to inure the populace against any sort of horror at what they are pushing –  a horror people would have felt quite keenly some decades back.

From tattooed women to gays forced down our throats to bestiality and paedophilia, which is precisely what is happening in schools with those five year olds shown that porn the other day, the idea is to create a reaction from adults which is bemused, worldly, tolerant and largely approving, under the guise of libertarianism.   Is it libertarianism to condone atrocities and out-and-out abuse, on the grounds that we have no right to step in and we’re all grown-up and “tolerant”?

Ed Driscoll on the push to normalize deviancy in cinema:

At Big Hollywood, John Nolte  wonders why, as the Associated Press would say, everything is seemingly spinning out of control — and into, John believes, bestiality as an advertising device:

You can laugh and say it’s just a joke, but through a war of inches, Hollywood continues its assault to define deviancy down and to normalize destructive behavior. Humor is an excellent way to get us used to and to take the shock value out of something hideous and immoral.If you don’t think there’s an agenda behind this, you haven’t been paying attention the last 40 years. And if you don’t think that there are those who hold the levers of power in our popular culture that would like to remove the stigma from bestiality, you don’t understand the depths of sexual depravity the human animal is capable of.

I used to laugh at loud at the term “slippery slope.”

Then I grew up.

For someone who knows the minds of the vermin above, the PTB – see the Belgium post again – who has read the testimony of dozens of children, including Paul Bonacci and Alisha Owen [the only person to have won a case over it] and then reads the Belgium post and sees exactly the same motifs in play, motifs also found today in gaming, films, music and on television, especially through soaps which are now nothing like what they were some decades ago – none of this is any surprise.

John Nolte is no kook in making that observation – the only problem is the guy who’s never thought about it and auto-mocks it.   There is much grounding in Nolte’s remarks.   Do you honestly not see the normalization by degrees of what was once seen as aberrant behaviour or perhaps you yourself are caught up in it.  Hands up if you spent any time in the last few days in front of a computer screen, watching porn?

It’s an intergenerational, slow, boiling frog principle.   I don’t think anyone saying this is kooky enough to claim that the Princess Leia/Jabba commercial, in itself, will instantly corrupt and is the devil’s work but it’s a tiny step on the way to realization of an agenda which is basically the debauching of the underpinnings of society.

We accept it on more orthodox topics such as the erosion of democracy but shy away when it is extended to a nation’s moral compass.  I’d suggest that both are part of the overall push and should be resisted.   In fact, whilst there are many now, quite commendably, who treat anything whatever that the government involves itself in as anti-citizen. so I treat anything stemming from the PTB, Them as worth opposing.

So if they push climate science, I’m going to oppose it.   If they push gay “marriage”, I’m going to oppose it..   If they base their economics on fiat currency, I’m going to oppose it.

And so on.  Thus I’m going to oppose the Harry Potter way into hearts and minds or the Laurel Canyon summer of love and any other nasty device to erode our society.   I’m neither going to cooperate nor accept their a prioris on which they base their pushes.

And no, I don’t oppose “progress” because this is the very opposite of progress.

9 comments for “The slow descent

  1. August 8, 2012 at 11:43

    “so I treat anything stemming from the PTB, Them as worth opposing…..So if they push climate science, I’m going to oppose it.”

    This is to be just as controlled by Them as someone who always does what they say.

    Accept nothing, question everything and form your own view. If you do this, sometimes you will find yourself agreeing with the PTB, it’s inevitable.

  2. Chrysalis
    August 8, 2012 at 11:45


    I posted a response to Lord Nazh below, you must not have received it?

    I agree with you, the government should not be forcing these issues down our throats.

    However, I mentioned in that lost comment, the only time gay marriage came up on our ballots, here in America, was during the 2004 election, when Jeb Bush was our governor, when living in Florida, and we had a conservative Republican majority on local, state and Federal levels.

    The question was “Marriage is between a man and a woman – yes or no” – and there was no abstention allowed, we had to answer it or the ballot would be kicked out of the tabulation computer.

    In other words, it was NOT the Leftists that were forcing this issue on us, at that time – Conservatives were in power, at all three levels of government.

    Additionally, we’d just been hit by a major hurricane, carpetbaggers taking our money to fix our roofs and running off, price gougers hiking up the price of gas, water, food and utilities and no one would stop it – but thank God gays can’t get married?

    Although I agree with your ideals that many of these items are contributing to the moral decay of Western society, I think many Christians often forget that Christ’s actual teachings had little to do with sexual immorality and more to do with greed, judgment and hypocrisy from the Pharisees for condemning others on their sin as if above reproach themselves.

    Additionally, Paul encouraged confrontation of others on sexual sin to be done in love and to mourn their choices to sin, not puff up with pride for not committing sexual sin, as if you are superior like a Pharisee.

    I’m not saying that you personally are, I’m reminding you (and those reading) that Christ’s whole point is about humility, self-examination, gratitude and grace – not holding up a measuring stick in comparison to others to feel superior to them or condemnation of them.

  3. August 8, 2012 at 12:43

    Christ’s actual teachings had little to do with sexual immorality

    The Sermon on the Mount begs to disagree. Unfortunately it’s the whole package or nothing – we can’t choose which bits we like and reinterpret the rest because it’s not fashionable.

  4. August 8, 2012 at 13:16

    Interesting post.

    When reading it I was reminded of when I watched a documentary on Mel Gibson’s The Passion of The Christ. Gibson subsequently went way off the ranch but there was a really interesting piece.

    It was showing you the scence in which Christ is being led to his crucifixion and as he walks the we see Satan walking totally unnoticed through the crowd. As that scene was being shown Gibson explains his decision to cast Rosalindo Celentano as Satan.

    He said he chose her because of her beauty but that within that there was something dark you couldn’t quite put your finger on. She created a mixture of emotions. In his mind he didn’t see how the devil could be the horned beast with the head of a goat. It wouldn’t work. To him the devil had to beguile mankind into evil actions of their own accord and the classical image would only scare things not beguile them. To him the devil’s success would be to seduce humans into evil of their own volition.

    I found that fascinating and although it’s been a long time since I looked in a bible, that method sounds like my recollection of the book of Job (so it could be wrong), in which Satan effectively bets God he can turn mankind against him and that he attempts that by trying to manipulate the circumstances around him and watching his reaction to them. There’s no terror and no possession – just the turning of his own mind.

  5. Furor Teutonicus
    August 8, 2012 at 13:21

    XX I don’t support Christianity just for its political efficacy and yet it is most efficacious, along with nationalism, the family of one natural father, one natural mother and kids,…XX

    She, who shags any old angel that happens along, and he that bloody BELIVES it?

    Aye, RIGHT laddie.

  6. Chrysalis
    August 8, 2012 at 13:24

    Well, James, I don’t want this to turn into argument, I’d rather find the points we agree on – but have you read the entire passage in Matthew 5? 🙂

    Because only 20 out of the 30+ points he made (1/10) in that sermon in Matthew 5 are about sex – the rest are about judging others, greed/wealth, keeping oaths, deceptive practice and false prophets.

    And I was speaking about ALL of his sermons and words to the Pharisees, not just one sermon.

    In fact, you won’t find Christ speaking about sex other than this (and other gospel accounts of it), except one other time – when the Pharisees confronted him, trying to find fault in him by trapping him into answers regarding “changing the law” on divorce.

    Unlike Paul, Christ never conformed to gain acceptance by the Pharisaic Jews, but he was clever with his answer.

    In Matt 19:9, he told them that despite the commandment of adultery, Moses allowed the divorce decree to appease them, but it actually went against God’s law, and that the only time divorce was lawful was for reasons of sexual immorality.

    Can you show me another time Jesus discussed sexual immorality?

    Because I personally can’t find any other passages

  7. August 8, 2012 at 13:45

    Precisely what I was going to ask you, Chrysalis. It’s found in Chapters 5-7 of Matthew and then it is reprised throughout the rest of the gospels.

    There is no doubt at all that Christianity is down on homosexuality, bestiality and all other aberrant things. This is not to say that’s right or wrong but it just is. See Churchmouse’s site for the fine detail and I’ve put the verses from time to time.

    We can’t select verses out of context to support our point of view. We have to take the totality and draw conclusions from that.

    Can you show me another time Jesus discussed sexual immorality?

    Why do you need more than the Sermon on the Mount. It’s fine for me. You’re trying to make out something from limited reading and it just won’t wash I’m afraid.

    I’m currently at work but was able to get this to be going on with. I’ll do a post on the issue to nip this apostasy in the bud but meanwhile:

    It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’. But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

    In that is his attitude towards immorality. Regarding homosexuality, He took onboard the Judaic scriptures on that and in fact on those matters which he did not specifically dispute – he was here to uphold the law, as he said.

    You also misuse Moses. The Baal business and the breaking of the tablets was all to do with people falling back into the old ways. Moses most certainly was down on immorality.

    Here is an article on the Torah/OT [which is supported by Jesus]:

    Anyone who has heard of the cities of “Sodom and Gommorah” knows that they were notorious hotbeds of homosexuality. Gen 19:5-8 “and they called to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.’ But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, ‘Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.'” The Greek word in the New Testament for homosexuality is literally “a sodomite”.

    Apart from the fact the city was clearly destroyed by God because of homosexuality in the narrative of Gen 19, even the New Testament clearly states exactly the same thing in Jude 7 “Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.”

    Any sinner should always remember that the God who commands us to love our neighbour is the same God who will cast any and all unrepentant sinners into the “eternal fire”. Here are more Bible quotes, Lev 18:22-23 “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” Lev 20:13 “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death.” 1 Cor 6:9 “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals.”

    1 Tim 1:9-10 “realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers” Rom 1:26-27 “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.”

    Now I’m neither supporting or condemning that here and it’s certainly not my language but to try to argue it’s not so is disingenuous.


    OK, I’ve got home and need to clarify some things:

    1. It’s a sun-shiny day here, brilliant summer;
    2. We’re doing fabulously in the Olympics and the mood is good;
    3. The whole Christianity thing has been done to death, it’s been done at this site and at OoL and there’s no point dredging it up again when there’s no need.
    4. However, and I quote from my “About” page:

    I’m a private Christian, close on many issues to Eastern Orthodox whose holiday dates I prefer to the western versions, detesting fundamentalist bigotry but bursting into print when rubbish is spoken or written about the Christian message.

    As far as I’m personally concerned, gays are not my business – they can find a room, same as the rest of us can with wimmin. However, when the gay mafia try on the things they’ve been trying on, when the media forces us to watch it by having photos of it in prime place on news websites and one just can’t escape gaydom, then I get riled.

    So did the thousands who ate at Chick-fil-A. Let us now draw a line under this and move on to the next topic.

  8. Chrysalis
    August 8, 2012 at 17:27

    Whups! When I wrote you about a typo correction, I meant I had written “2 out of 30” of the points Christ made instead of what I meant, “2 out of 20”.

    I appreciate you making the correction for me, but now it says “20 out of 30” which is incorrect lol.

    Agreed, line drawn seen, thanks for allowing the comment. Britain IS doing very well, we were glad to see it in the Equestrian events as well.

    Take care,


  9. August 9, 2012 at 08:01

    Showing porn to kids is not any version of libertarianism I ever heard of. You may as well claim to do it under the guise of Christian love, it wouldn’t make it that either.

    And Women having tattoos is a red herring. To me you seem to add in extra mostly point less irrelevancies to make your case but only muddying waters and taking away from it in reality. Confusing your preudices with imorality.

    Thinking about your point/argument that seemed to say something like “if a person I consider so wrong on so many things supports something I don’t have an opinion on the I should oppose it because they are probably wrong on it like everything else.”

    I am not saying you might not have a point there. But I will say also that even people you can’t stand or disagree with can be right sometimes, annoying as that is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *