anti-children

Bergoglio's stupidity catches up with his perversion - Sunday 12th of August to Saturday 8th of September

It has been far too long since I wrote, and it has not been for lack of topics, rather perhaps the exact opposite. There has been so much to write about that it has been difficult to know where to start.

Most of what has caught my attention has been Church scandals, but there have been some siginificant secular news as well. I shall make the unusual choice of starting with the secular news, although I shall only cover  the secular world in brief.  The rest will be taken up by Bergoglio's most headline-grabbing scandal to date, so perhaps it is just as well that my update-rate has been sub-optimal, for otherwise I would have been writing about that very thing all this time; so dominant has it been.

The most significant news was that China may scrap it's abhorrent two-child policy after 40 years of callous murders. What has often been called a one-child policy was for most people always a 2-child policy, since people outside the cities were 'allowed' 2 children, as were those without siblings. I write allowed in quotation marks because I cannot get over how absurd it is that the government sticks its nose into how many children  a couple has. A government can no more allow people to have more than 2 children than it can allow its citizens to breathe, which is to say that having children is a natural right which the government has no right to infringe upon more than it has on our right to breathe. It can only allow it only insofar as it has violated that right in the first place.

In any case, the 2-child policy created a childless society en large, which was not helped by the Chinese traditional preference for boys, or Chinas world-leading suicide rate among women. China is on course to have the oldest population in Asia in a few decades,  and all because of its communist ideologues. When you fight against nature, you will always lose.

I have, however, long maintained that China might indeed become the first country in modern times to outlaw the killing of unborn children, after having allowed and even mandated it. This is because the Chinese are not as ideological as their Western leftists. To them abortion was what they thought would bring them out of poverty. To the Westerners, abortion was a way to rebel against God and former Christendom's cultural and moral heritage, through the 'liberation' of women, which of course, has been the enslavement of women to their sexual appetites. The Chinese have no time for this nonsense; they are materialists. If killing hundreds of millions of children is what they think will bring them wealth, then kill hundreds of millions they shall. They have finally realised that children are not a cause of poverty, but rather a nation's greatest resource, and now they are despreate to increase the birthrate. The easiest and cheapest way is to simply outlaw the killing of children, and you can be sure that if they think that will help their bottom line, then it is exactly what they will do.

I recently read that the Chinese have spoken about introducing a tax on those who don't have children. In other words, my prediction is not far off from being realised.

A bridge collapsed killing at least 35 in Genoa, Italy. This collapse affected me more personally than most other tragedies since I am certain I drove over that very bridge last summer on my way to Florence. In other words, I could have been one of those people. The Italian government, with Salvini at the helm, blamed it on the EU, given it has forced Italy into budget cuts. I hope that was a statement brought out more by being overcome by emotions more than calculated political opportunism, because even by modern political discourse, that is stretching political truthiness beyond breaking point. I do like Salvini a lot, but that was well below the belt. There is much blame to go around, but the EU cannot be blamed for this.

The EU, to the extent it can even be blamed for forcing the Italians to attempt to live within their means, simply called for budget cuts. I am quite certain they never mandated that these cuts be on vital infrastructure. As one good piece pointed out, if Italy did not invest so much on the NATO racket, it might have had more to invest in its infrastructure. Instead of buying fighter jets costing hundreds of millions of euros, they could build very good bridges for much less than that, and save lives while doing it, instead of taking them.  Instead of going along with sanctions on Russia which could have brought billions which might have been used on infrastructure, they decided to go along with the American racket. They could have stood for their sovereignty in both cases. Instead they decided to put the money into the hands of the U.S. military-industrial complex, and the lives this and similar decisions took just ended up being their own.

Russia kept warning against a false-flag chemical-weapons attack in Syria, even providing evidence to the OPCW and the U.N.. The U.S., meanwhile, continued to protect its Syrian Islamists by making the militants know that any false or hoax flag conducted on them would lead to strikes on Syrian government positions, and being the lap dogs they are, the British and French followed suite. This comes as the Syrians and their Russian allies are preparing the final assault on the last major Islamist strong-hold in Syria, having cleared most of the country, despite American interference. The Netherlands, in turn, decided to end support for Syrian militant groups, which confirmed what we have been saying all along - that militants in Syria have been backed up by secular Western countries - in addition to Arab sheiks and Jewish zionists...

From Russia with love - the coolest award in the whole wide world - Sunday 17th to Saturday 23rd of June

With so much bad news going around it is rarely that I get a chance to lead with a positive story, so when one comes along I sometimes feel duty-bound to start with it. That is certainly the case this week. It deals with family, and introduces what turned out to be a rather family-centric entry.

Given the general malaise in the Western world in general and in what can loosely be termed as Latin Rite countries, it should surprise few that the good news come from outside the Western world, from good old Mother Russia. You see, they have what must be the coolest award in the world in Russia titled "The Order of Parental Glory" and it is given to the father and mother who have raised large families well. If my understanding of the award is correct, we have different winners from different regions of Russia, which presumably is why some families will be much smaller than others. Most of the families will have 8 or more children.

This year's award presentation is embedded below:

whereas last year's, the first I watched, is to be found below:

The event took place some while back but what occasioned me writing about it is an article on The Remnant titled "Putin Less Than Impressed with Culture of Death" .

Before I proceed I would like you to pause for a bit, and realise just how far ahead Russia is compared to all Western countries when it comes to social cohesion and the promotion of decent societal values.

In the West, and especially since the Second Vatican Council, there has been a well-funded drive to destroy any vestiges of  commonality, of common values, of ancestral heritage, of natural existence, of natural law and of course of Christianity in favour of individualism, multiculturalism, mutli-religiosity, atheism and the idea that each and every one ought to decide what is good for himself, and that the state cannot get involved in promoting what is good, unless one can put monetary value on it - and not even that, if what is good monetarily gets in the way of the sexual revolution or zionism, or seems to evoke Christian values.

Can you imagine such an award in Sweden, with the king presenting large families with awards based on the fact that the parents have managed to stay together, conceive , bring to term and raise a large number of children? I certainly can't. For one, the awards hall would probably be full of Somali families (more on that later), with the odd Laestadians, and perhaps one traditional Catholic family once every few years (although I doubt Catholics would ever qualify). Secondly, it wouldn't be long before the king bowed to pressure from feminists and homosexualists to include single women with multiple children from multiple sperm donors (which is what men have been reduced to in Sweden), and of course, sodomites with their artificially-conceived children. Soon afterwards, it would probably devolve to parents with 1-2 children, and perhaps even none, as there would also be pressure to show that marriage has nothing to do with children. It would probably not be long before zoo animals would qualify, and they would probably be more deserving that most of the other recipients.

Swedish society is simply messed up and there is no way in which the king, however inclined he may be, would get away with promoting families, unless it was pseudo-families with the award quickly turning into one big depravity fest, more depraved for every year.

Could you imagine Donald Trump doing it in the U.S.? I can't, for he would probably be accused of one phobia or another, of wanting to destroy the planet with humans, of wanting to chain women to kitchen sinks, of taking his cue directly from Putin with the 'logic' that since Putin encourages large families in Russia, an encouragement of large families in the U.S. is somehow doing Putin's bidding. In fact, the only reason I could see this possibly ever happening is because Donald Trump seems to enjoy nothing more than annoying and agitating leftists, so the jury is out on whether Trump would do this given that it aligns with one of his few passions. That, of course, assumes that Donald Trump would even want to promote family life, a contentious point at best.

In any case, where we can imagine him doing  it or not, we ought to be able to count on the condemnation of much of academia and the mass media, given how decadent these institutions have become. By this time, it ought to be certain that a number of Catholic bishops would probably get in the act of condemning it, and maybe even the pope - or whatever Bergoglio is.

Neither can one realistically expect the queen of England or the president of France to do such things, for the very same reasons I have outlined above. The less said about the president of Germany the better. Both Poland and Italy seem to have governments which are willing and even working towards raising the birth rate, but I cannot envision either of their political rulers doing such a thing.

So now we can see just what a wonderful - in the true sense of the word - thing it is when the political ruler of a country gets in front of everyone and declares "We are going to promote the family, and we are going to promote large families!" None of that breeding-like-rabbits and great irresponsibilities talk that Bergoglio has thrown about at the mention of large families.

For all of Russia's ills - and the highest abortion rate in the world has to count as the very worst - it is still a nation of old, with  a ruler who is expected to look out for the best interests of the country, not only for the short-term so as to ensure his re-election,...

Pages

Subscribe to anti-children