The St Helens Patriot

Tim Haydon

05

Jul
2012

Liberalism, Homosexuality and other Sexual Behaviour

Written by Tim Heydon

Two Recent Court Cases

Two recent court cases raise an interesting question. Given the liberal consensus about freedom and sex, why were they ever brought?
The first involved a 32-year old Californian woman who had sex with her 16-year old son. The Daily Mail (22nd June) reported that the two had not seen each other for 15 years. When they were reunited, they felt a mutual attraction and engaged in sex activity.

The second concerns a Gloucester man who the Independent of 28th June reported was found guilty of having sex with his ex-wife’s female bull mastiff.

Disgust is the Basis of the Law

The fundamental reason why these acts remain illegal notwithstanding the prevailing sexual free-for-all is, however else it is dressed up, quite simply that people find the idea of them disgusting. It is natural to be repelled by the idea of having sex with animals. Why? Because humans are no different from other animals who instinctively breed only with their own kind.

Homosexual Acts were also illegal because of Public Disgust

Homosexual acts were once illegal in this country for the same fundamental reason as bestiality, incest and other sexual perversions still are – disgust. And it is disgust that has always been at the root of religious objections to it.

Why Sheep Shagger and ‘Wanker are Insults

The repulsion we feel about the idea of having sexual activity with a dog or any other animal or anything else except another human of the opposite sex who is willing and capable of it has arisen in the human animal as part of an evolutionary strategy ‘designed’ to prevent us wasting our energies in sexually useless behaviour, ie behaviour which may not or cannot result in viable offspring.

Why Mother Fucker is an Insult

The same applies to having sex with your father or mother. This rarely occurs in normal family circumstances because of the process called ‘reverse imprinting’. Evolution has produced this reaction of repulsion at the very idea in order to avoid inbreeding with all the birth defects it can produce. Of course, the fact that it only arises within the limits of a stable social arrangement best achieved by the traditional family is one excellent confirmation (among many others) of the necessity of this institution.

Classical Liberalism and Sexual Aberrations

Now classical liberalism has it that personal freedom should be untrammelled save only if others are hurt by one’s behaviour. So if this is accepted, in what way are others directly hurt by the sexual perversions noted above behaviour of the individuals concerned?

The answer, of course is: not at all. Private sexual behaviour like this hurts no one except the individuals concerned, not even the dog which quite possibly enjoyed the experience.

It could reasonably be argued that it is the possibility of congenitally deformed offspring which represents ‘hurting others’ in the case of incest. However, the advent of widely available contraceptive devices has scotched such arguments. If Homosexual Acts are now Legal, why not the other Perversions also?

The question arises; why, if Homosexual acts are now legal are other sexual perversions still illegal? There can be no real answer to that. Homosexuality became legal because of vocal opposition to its criminalisation by the homosexual lobby.

In an era of growing individualism and leftist demands for ‘equality’, public disgust and religious objections alone were not thought sufficient reason to criminalise behaviour which (it was argued) hurt no one. And the same reasoning must apply to these other sexual activities, even in the absence of lobbies for them.

The Logical Conclusion of Liberalism and Sex

Classical liberalism though takes the view that if indulging in homosexuality, bestiality, incest and so forth inflicts hurt on others then according its teaching this is what must be avoided. And these activities do cause distress. The hurt includes the repulsion most people feel who witness it.

Classical liberalism generally also teaches the utilitarian rule or some variation thereof that what is desirable is the greatest happiness of the greatest number. According to this rule it is the distress of the majority which must take precedence over the distress those who are exclusively homosexual and those others who are aberrant sexually (totalling probably just a few per cent of the population), no doubt feel witnessing heterosexual behaviour.

Balancing Freedoms.

Given the above, a reasonable outcome of the necessity to two freedoms – the freedom to indulge in whatever sexual activities turn you on and the freedom to be free of having to witness those that are repulsive, is that sexual aberrations should be tolerated if carried on in private.

Freedom also demands that those who disapprove of exhibitions of aberrant sexual behaviour should be free to conduct themselves accordingly within the limits of the ordinary law.

The Oppression of Left-Liberalism. Equal Treatment for the vilest Perversions

While classical liberalism seems now to be the key to a civilised approach to sexual behaviour and has much to be said for it in other areas of life, left-liberalism’s insistence that ‘equality’ trumps freedom seems to lead to another conclusion.

Given that liberalism leads to toleration of such activities as incest and bestiality, there is no good reason why left-liberalism should not eventually demand that sex with a bull mastiff or one’s mother or father be given the equal treatment that it already demands we show to homosexuals.

And in time it will be, if left-liberalism is allowed to take its course. This is what happens when a totalitarian ideology tries to treat human nature either as non existent or as something that can and should be dismissed or ‘perfected’ as ‘uncivilised’ and unworthy of rational beings. Once a principle is conceded, in this case that ‘equality’ trumps majority attitudes about sexual activity, what is to stop the slide into this abyss?

True tyranny is the Oppression by a Minority of a Majority

It is the inevitable Left-liberal demand that we treat all the sexual behaviours mentioned above as well as homosexual behaviour with equal esteem both privately and publically that is so offensive and oppressive.

Like so much else in Cultural Marxism, it spits in the face of nature and whilst championing the freedoms of minorities tramples all over those of the majority, using a rigged political system and its domination of the media and other institutions to do so.

This is tyranny in its true sense; tyranny by minority.

But you cannot legislate human nature out of existence. Sure, some aspects of it must be controlled, but generally speaking the further you get from what is natural, the unhappier and unhealthier society is likely to be. And as the Roman poet Horace said; ‘Naturam expelles furca, tamen usque recurret’

‘You may drive out nature with a pitchfork, yet she’ll be constantly running back’.

MIKE JAMES, A TRUE ENGLISHMAN, TO GO ON HUNGER STRIKE OVER THE BETRAYAL OF OUR COUNTRY AND PEOPLE
More Sharing ServicesShare | Share on facebookShare on myspaceShare on googleShare on twitter

Unless the British government concedes to the popular demands of the British and, in particular, the English people, to hold a referendum on the immediate withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the illegal and unlawful European Union, this writer, a Freeborn Englishman subject not to the laws of unelected parasitic elites in Brussels, will be dead by means of starvation in the name of a Free-Sate England within 60 days, probably less, for, being naturally skinny and having endured an uncompensated vaccine injury in 1993, I have always weighed less than 45 kilos (seven stone).
I am largely untrained in the use of firearms, and, in common with all of my fellow Englishmen, have been denied the right to use force in determining the future of a nation oppressed and crippled by social engineering, multiculturalism and draconian laws that defy all humanity and common sense. There is only one option left open to me as a man who loves his own people and who cares for their welfare and civil liberties.
I, Michael James, born just before midnight on 20 December 1959 in the Danesfield Maternity Home, Jarrow, as a Free Englishman endowed with the Natural God-given Rights of a subject of Her Majesty the Queen, hereby give notice that, as from this very day, Sunday, 27 May 2012, I shall desist from the consumption of all food other than glucose and water until my people are granted their popular demand for a referendum on whether or not to remain within the Soviet European Union.
Mr Cameron, ostensibly the First Minister of the British Crown, an entity established to protect the rights of speculators and war profiteers based in the City of London, and who yet was also purportedly elected by the people of my nation to protect their interests against all enemies, both domestic and foreign, will have to answer to God Almighty and the English People should my death yield no concessions to the outrage against the undemocratic and monstrous intrusions on the British way of life by a universally despised Soviet-style bureaucracy that has robbed my people of their freedoms, their prosperity, their unique culture and their civil liberties.
Under Federal German Law, I cannot be detained or force-fed against my will should my decision to go on a hunger strike for freedom is informed by reasonable political conscientious objection. From the illegal Maastricht Treaty to the abhorrent and undemocratic Lisbon Treaty, both of which transformed, against the will of all the people of Europe, a free trade area formerly known as the EEC into what has become a hideously oppressive and unnatural political “project” known as the “European Union”, the Free People of the British Isles have become as slaves.
For the last twenty years I have been working and living in Germany. Yet I am proud to call myself a patriotic, true-bred Englishman, a member of one of the greatest races of men and women to grace this planet. All of my rights, freedoms, liberties and responsibilities were, in common with all born in the loving image of our Father, granted to me as a gift from God through his Son, Jesus Christ, not to be transgressed or abridged by the demonic machinations of men in suits, are sacred and inviolable.
Nobody has the right to rob natural-born indigenous Englishmen or Englishwomen of their God-given liberties, for every Englishman is a King, every Englishwoman a Queen. To this cause I am willing to lay down my life.
I am therefore appealing to you, dear reader, whatever your nationality or culture, to disseminate and publicise my stated aims as widely as possible, for I am hated, ignored and pilloried by the mainstream media as a dangerous “alternative thinker.” I shall soon be too weak to muster the strength sufficient to the task of writing to just one newspaper editor or government official. I thus implore you to make my case known to the world. Without your support, the pains yet to afflict me will be for nought. Please e-mail, fax or copy this article to as many news outlets and government officials as possible.
This I do for you, no matter who you are, whether you are rich or poor, black or white, Muslim or Christian, Jewish or Hindu. This I do in the name of all Mankind, for the destruction of the illegal and Satanic European Union and everything for which it stands is imperative to all of us in bringing to an end the sheer evils of the globalist New World Order, its fascist military wing, NATO, and its long-term Malthusian designs that seek to both dehumanise and then depopulate the world of all but half a billion human beings.
Yesterday, mindful of the Wall Street and Deutsche Bank seduction, pillage and rape of the people of Greece, I ate my last meal, constituting a small amount of rice and Gyros. In my heart, I know it shall be my last, for I see no circumstances under which the British Crown will allow my people the right to self-determination.
But if my death, no matter how demeaned, ridiculed and slandered I am by the mainstrean media, lights just one spark of hope in those yearning for Freedom from the tyranny of the Soviet European Union and the Military-Corporatist control of all my fellow human beings, then my passing shall not be in vain.
Let that spark light a bonfire of Liberty that can be seen in the hearts of all men and women sickening under the strictures of a corporate-fascist world order that seeks to make of the Children of God mere slaves to Mammon.
Then, like me, you shall be free, my friend. You shall be free.

Tarred with the Wrong Brush! Nationalist Policies versus the Enforced Clichés of Public Opinion
Posted by admin02 on May 2, 2012 // 2 Comments

By Peter Mills MA. PhD. The Daily Mail, sometimes a great newspaper, is in danger of becoming hypocritical. It is filled on a daily basis with excellent and fully justified rants, seriously pointed articles and entirely valid howls of editorial protest, all of which in one way or another lament the extreme disintegration of our society and social values, the corruptness of our politicians and business magnates, and our general collapse of national standards, public finance and administrative common sense.

And yet, on a regular basis, like a strange knee-jerk reaction, it also cocks a supercilious snoot at the only kind of political movement that can remedy the very catastrophes it laments – Nationalism.

Daily Mail writer Stephen Glover, for example, in a single headline to his article on page 17 of April 12th, fully recognizes the threats Britain faces, yet in the very same sentence, extraordinarily feels the need to jump yet again on the same old and obsolete bandwagon of “putting the boot in” where the growth of European Nationalism is concerned.

The headline in question states in big black letters: “Economic crisis, a failing political class and the spectre of 1930s-style extremism across Europe.”

The Daily Mail is merely one common example of this widespread affliction of double-standards, and I have no wish to malign it or single it out, except by explaining that it is my regular newspaper and has been so since I was 17 in 1956, thus it comes to my attentions more than any other newspaper.

This same form of “knock all Nationalism regardless” is, of course, also encouraged by our successive governments, by 99% (probably more) of Fleet Street, by the TV and radio management and owners, and by all those “Establishment-leaning” institutions, movers-and-shakers and opinion-makers who, en masse, have their collective hands upon the steering wheel of the general public’s attitudes, opinions, thought-processes and world-view.

And unless this mischievous and outdated spread of mis-information can be popularly challenged and overcome, its infection of the attitudes of the general population of this country will help drag Britain down to death like some poor staggering wildebeest being eaten alive by hyenas on a television wildlife documentary.

Consider this metaphor: if a famous mathematician in a bygone era, now long dead, stated some eighty years in the past that two plus two equals seven, then it is evidently extremely difficult to convince successive generations that this is not, in fact, the correct answer to the sum, and thus everybody must be compelled to continue to believe that this is the correct answer, and to always remember to include it as correct in their own calculations, and that, because it is such a famous historical example of mathematics, this answer will remain correct and therefore unchangeable for all eternity amen.

Immediately we can see the utter fallacy of this kind of “regimented thinking” (actually, it is defined as “vertical thinking”, which is not capable of escaping the walls of its limitations, as opposed to “lateral thinking” which can adapt outwards as necessary to new ideas and facts).

If this analogy seems vague to you, then I ask you to consider the identical premise when it is applied, not to fictional mathematical opinions, but instead to the political opinions of the average British people as they are spoon-fed by the media. Eighty years ago next year, Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party gained power in Germany, with results that everyone is familiar with. The Nazis were Fascists, a term coming into usage via the earlier rise to power of Benito Mussolini in Italy (from the Latin “fasces”, a bundle of rods tied round an axe used by the Romans as the badge of a civic magistrate). The term “Nazi” derives from “National Socialist” (Nationalsozialismus).

Thus it is the easiest thing in the world for newspapers and the general media, for politicians, reporters, editors, writers, interviewers, social commentators and all that plethora of people who speak to the nation, to equate any political party which includes the word “Nationalist” in its title, or even if it does not, which dares to promote political Nationalism in its policies and its political stance, as “Fascists”, or “Right-Wing Extremists” or even “Nazis” or “Nazi-Like”.

Thus, since it can be categorically shown that, eighty years ago, someone stated two plus two equals seven, it is regularly hammered into today’s public that two plus two must still equal seven in the present day. Present-day mathematicians are quite obviously incapable of noticing the error in the bygone equation and adopting instead a correct formula that will give accurate and much more useful results. That is the identical logic used by everyone who seeks to defame Nationalism. It is not logic. It is the application of hysterical bigotry and preferential ignorance. When it is presented on a daily basis by the media, it becomes hysterical ignorance and is entirely inexcusable.

As most people will know, the word “Tory” derives from the old Irish word “tóraidhe” (in modern Irish, tórai) which means “outlaw, robber, brigand”. However, the typical “grass-roots” members and voting supporters of the Tory Party in the present day would surely be most outraged if the British media at all levels insisted on defining them as “an outlaw party” or “a party advocating extremist brigandage”, or simply as “a band of criminals”.

Nationalists are not fascists, or right-wing extremists, or Neo-Nazis, any more than the Conservative Party are all criminals, or the Labour Party all wear cloth caps and clogs, or the Liberal Democrats are Whigs. Yes, there are doubtless some criminals amongst the Tories, and some Labour MPs might wear cloth caps; there may even be one somewhere who wears clogs; and there may even be a few Lib-Dems who fondly think of themselves as wearing powdered wigs, buckled shoes and knee-breeches. But these caricatures are generally the exception rather than the rule.

Likewise, Communism has many sub-species, but the largest countries to have been ruled by Communism are the former Soviet Union and China. The Soviet Union got its calculations wrong and collapsed, having made mistake after mistake. Communist China, on the other hand, has made mistakes in the past (haven’t we all?) but has managed to make progress and today is the second largest economy in the world, exceeded only by that of the USA – and the way western economics are heading, China may well soon overtake the US and become the world’s biggest economy.

I do not favour the rule of Communism, any more than I favour that of Nazism or Genghis Khan. My point in citing such examples is, simply and patently obviously, they show that like all things except the media, political opinions and associations must change and evolve as time passes, because those that do not will collapse and are erased from the world-scene.

Political Nationalism in today’s Europe (including Britain) is likewise, in absolute terms, not the same animal as the fascists of the 1930s. In fact, by an examination of comparative policies, it can be quite easily seen that the Nationalism of such parties as the Dutch Freedom Party of Geert Wilders and the French National Front of Marine LePen, and the striving cause of the new unified Nationalist trend in Britain, actually have far more realistic and potentially successful political strategies for solving the economic, sociological and political crisis that now grips all Europe in an iron fist.

The biggest problem of all, though, is that the voting people are forced to wear propaganda blinkers which project into their minds the false and obsolete illusion that Nationalism is a bogeyman synonymous with fascism or worse, whilst at the same time completely camouflaging the truth that it is the Iron Fist of a Europe run by secured “establishment” parties that holds everyone in the death-grip of a very real bogeyman (or gang of bogeymen)!

The Nationalist parties of Europe, including Britain, offer policies that can remedy the situation and restore the status quo of proper regional government and proper regional economies – and, come to that, of proper democratic voting such as is denied to anyone who wishes to resign from, or not vote to join in the first place, the catastrophic European Superstate. Countries such as the now-suffering Ireland, when they voted “no” to Europe in a referendum, were ordered by Europe to go back and do it again, and if necessary again, until they got it right! Is this not the working of actual fascism?

The European Union and the traditional establishment or “normal” political parties who support it are the producers of the policies that are destroying our civilization.

Nationalism, on the other hand, today offers a complete and rational set of policies that will enable a country such as Britain, or Ireland, or Greece, or Italy, or Spain, or Portugal, or….. – the list is perhaps too long to complete – to repair the damage inflicted upon them by the European Union and the “establishment” political parties who are securely in its pocket.

This is the new mathematical formula that Nationalism can offer Britain and Europe, and it is a correct and successful formula, not an outmoded grotesquery still given Frankensteinian lifeblood from the superstitious fears of past generations kept aflame by the fanning of media and political propaganda.

Until the media and the general public begin to see the truth of this, we will inevitably be seeing more lurid anachronistic headlines attempting to convince the ordinary voting people that two plus two still equals seven just as it did many generations ago.

I have news for the News – we are now in the 21st Century and things have changed, especially politics. They need to face that fact and admit it to the public.

Diablo Salute. Is Ron Paul an Illuminati blind alley set up top neutralise possible opposition to the Police State that’s taking over America?

Introductory Update – February 9, 2008
Late last night, Ron Paul conceded his place in the presidential race and did so quoting Trotsky, of all people. If nothing else this only emphasises suspicions outlined in the article below.

A similar ruse has been tried on British voters, when the British National Party, led by a known intelligence asset, campaigned on issues of “patriotism” and “anti-immigration”. As it turned out the BNP did absolutely nothing on those issues but used them to rally support and then lead disaffected voters up a blind alley.

Where it then promptly left them. Thereby neutering any feelings of discontent among voters before they could coalesce into a genuine, popular political movement.

This is how the voting public is now manipulated in the West.