Santa Claus the Global Capitalist Pedo

Well, given that we're being "all political" at the moment (Hiyah, Uncle Sid!), I couldn't quite resist this from Mark Steyn's Xmas column:

One final thought on "My Grown-Up Christmas List" [by Kelly Clarkson]. The first two lines always give me a chuckle:

"Do you remember me?

I sat upon your knee…"

When was the last time you saw a child sit upon a Santa's knee? Rod Liddle in the British Spectator reports that at a top London department store Santa sits at one end of the bench while a large "X" directs the moppet to a place down the other end, well out of arm's reach. For even Santa Claus is just another pedophile in waiting. Naughty or nice? Who really knows? Best not to take any chances. That's another way societies seize up – by obsessing on phantom threats rather than real ones.

Are free peoples now merely vulnerable infants in need of protection from the pedophile Santa of global capitalism? This is the issue that will determine the future: Euro-style state-directed protectionist sclerosis versus individual liberty in all its messiness. I know what I want on my "Grown-Up Christmas List."

"Jesus loves me. This I know."

Little boys are lovely, and their love is a precious and wonderful thing.

And it is enough for me simply to know that He so loves them that even God Himself should have wished to be one.

The Von Trapp Trap

This beautiful picture was in this morning's Sunday Telegraph.

Actually I think they all look nice. But guess which of these was my favourite.

Clean Kids = Clean Vids?

This is an absolute classic. For years I had no idea what this lad was singing and just assumed it was a standard "Nanny State" TV-ad about personal hygiene.

It turns out he's actually singing about taking regular showers because there's a boy he's sweet on and he fancies his chances.

Quite cute, really!

UPDATE: In reply to Uncle Sidney, I actually predict that those hot showers won't be running for much longer. Obama got elected because the Republican Party went bananas. America has of course had Nanny State welfarism just as bad as the rest of the West since the 1930s. In fact if it hadn't been for Uncle Sam paying the lion's share of our defence bills since the War, not to mention bankrolling our welfare project after the War with Marshall Aid, then we wouldn't have been able to afford it anyway. Now of course welfarism has bankrupted even America, so whether America (and Obama) likes it or not the money-tap is going to have to turn off pretty soon.

UPDATE II:Actually America is rotting away because after eight years of President Bush spending like there was no tomorrow the country is now bankrupt.

No one in Britain would seriously contend that we have a higher standard of living here than Americans do. America remains our largest export market (with Germany being our largest import market) and immigration is mostly the same way - despite the fact that it's much more difficult to become an American citizen than it is to become "British".

Babies? Well, if you're talking about Britain then I grant you that infant mortality is slightly lower here than it is in the US. But there are a good dozen or so European countries where it is higher. In Britain, more to the point, the abortion rate per capita is higher than it is in America, despite the fact that Britain's abortion laws are much more stringent. More importantly, the birthrate in America is much higher.

Poverty? America's GDP per capita is higher than anywhere else in the world.

Ignorance? Well, I might grant you that one. But Britain for some reason fell in love with the American educational system (just as we've fallen in love with all of America's horrible culture) and has determinedly tried to make our schools every bit as bad as America's.

There's already been a violent revolution in America. (Google "American Revolutionary War" if you're not sure.) It then spread to Europe in 1789, and thence throughout most of the world. Why do you think the world's so screwed up right now? Answer: Because everyone wants to be like the bloody Yanks.

At the moment America looks as if she's heading into a post-imperial malaise. The problem for rest of the World is that she may very well pull the rest of us down with her.

I'm not saying I agree with the Pope, but...

What with one thing and another (and as I tried to explain here) I'm hardly the best person in the world to defend what the Pope says. But this piece of gay gobbledygook just made my head spin.

Should we throw our arms up in the air with shock and horror that this 'ex-Nazi' Pope Benedict claims in his Christmas speech, to his followers, that homosexuals are a greater threat to humanity than the destruction of the rain forests?!

Well no! It is typical behaviour of these Popes, stretching all the way back in time to the beginnings of the Christian Empire. The Christian Hall of Shame

As you will see when you study the long line of his predecessors and their morality, then it makes sense this Pope is carrying on the bad work!

But, looking at what this man says reasonably makes no sense whatsoever. He is trying to say that 'homosexuals' (a term itself made up in the 1950s as a form of pseudo segregation from the other imaginary divide, the 'blessed' 'heterosexuals), or gays pose a threat to the world? How come? Wouldn't it be better more people chose to be gay (not that you always can) so as to ease the increasing rise in world populations. But did the old fool mean that? Is it some 'evil' against 'God' he means?

Well yes, quite! (It goes on for quite a bit.) Except of course that obviously the Pope did no such thing. If he had said that gays do more harm to the world that the destruction of the rainforests then I'd have agreed with him. Alas, no!

The world's big problem at the moment is not a rising population but an ageing population caused by a collapse in the bithrate (caused by, amongst other things, the increase in homosexuality). This is now causing a rapid drop in Anglo-American house prices and an enormous "credit crunch" and recession, which will in turn lead to a huge number of job losses and hardship for many people.

And all because the West couldn't be fucked (literally!) to keep the system going!

UPDATE: In reply to Uncle Sidney,

1. Re: the Pope's sex life, that's not what I've heard.

2. The Pope is not a "fundie". Last time anyone checked he was a Catholic, albeit of the fairly namby-pampy Social Democrat variety.

3. Again, I just don't see where the "gaff" is. (IMHO most of these "gaffs" are deliberately intended to generate controversy and headlines anyway.)

UPDATE II: Well here's where I'm going to go all girly and say "Well, it depends what you mean by 'official' Catholicism." The Catholic Church is deeply split about some pretty fundamental questions, and no one likes to ask which side the Pope's on.

There's really good people in the faith. However they're helping folks in spite of, not because of the guys in the funny hats.

I couldn't agree more, although even I'd be cautious about writing off all the people in the funny hats.

These guys are bad news, and have as much to do with the preachings of the Carpenter as Kim Jung Ill.

Nicely put!

I guess they'll add my comments here to my upcoming time in Prugatory.

Frankly I'm not at all sure that I'll even make it that far.

Why didn't the priest thing work out? (I'm sort of interested, but don't say anything if it's embarrassing.)

Whatever next?

I haven't actually seen The Boys of St Vincent but it looks [H/T: Telstar] like exploitative anti-Catholic crap, with no understanding of the real nature of the Church’s problems or of how real child molesters actually operate. The funniest thing about these “child abuse” films is that they don’t even show children being abused. It’s not very edifying to reflect that if they did then most people would be less scandalised by it.

Why do I say this? Partly because people very quickly become innoculated by the media. It's only a matter of time before something that at first seemed terrible and unmentionable, whether it be war or famine or whatever, becomes just another news story. In a similar sort of way, things that a generation ago would have disgusted Middle England to its very core are now part of our mainstream media entertainment.

A good example of this would in fact be underage intergenerational gay sex. When Queer as Folk was first broadcast it was illegal to have gay sex with children. Rightly or wrongly, the Labour Government put an end to that, and now it's legal to sodomise children over the age of 16 but it's not legal (under the 1979 Protection of Children Act) to take photographs of them. (Logic, where is thy sting?) The show is about an adult male who seduces and sodomises a 15-year-old kid. All so very liberating! I thought the lad in the English version was actually pretty rough. In the Yankee re-make of course he's much much cuter.

My point (here it comes) is that when Queer as Folk was first broadcast there was a wholly confected media controversy. The usual stuff about homosexuality, paedophilia, dumbing down at the BBC, and so on. Nowadays of course the plot to Queer as Folk would be little more than a subplot on Skins or Hollyoaks, parents are more than happy to let their teenagers drink in this sewage. The man behind the original show is now "the funny man who brought back Doctor Who" and the absolute darling of Middle England. No English Christmas would be complete without his "genius". And if a 14-year-old lad "comes out" to his parents then presumably all they're expected to do is make sure his read the chapter in his science textbook about how to be put on a condom. (It's the only part of any subject they still enjoy at school, and it's certainly the Government's favourite.)

The really funny thing is that (as I intimated in my last post) the whole "gay rights" lobby is now a revolutionary movement, and it needs its revolution to continue indefinitely to maintain itself. At the moment we look set for a Tory Government in this country, and even with likes of John Bercow and Alan Ducan on the new "Liberal Conservative" front bench it seems unlikely that much will change under David Cameron. (Gay foxhunters might get a break, which should give a new meaning to the phrase "Think pink!", but apart from that...) But all good things come to an end, and in times of economic turbulence Governments tend not to last long.

What will the "not-paedophile" gay Left have planned for us after Labour's next landslide? I genuinely dread to think.

UPDATE: In response to His Majesty's comments, I can only reiterate my point. It's not really in the scope of this blog to discuss the problems of the Roman Catholic Church, but its biggest problem nowadays is that its clergy behave like a law unto themselves and give very little regard to the psychological/spiritual wellbeing of the laity under their charge. If this moral can somehow be read into this particular "true" story (which I haven't seen) then all well and good. But the reality is that there are some gays who are happy to join the morally and spiritually disinterested body of the Catholic clergy in order to hide away from the morals and other social conventions of the real world, and if they can then use their positions (or what they would call their "vocations") in order to satisfy their perverted lusts then they'll do that as well. This is of course not the standard way in which gays who want to molest children get access to them. Normal operating procedure for male paedophiles is to target single mothers. The naughty priest/Scoutmaster/piano teacher is a favourite pedo fantasy: the emotionally manipulative stepfather, not to mention his "friends", is closer to reality.

A Good Point, Well Presented

See Uncle Jim Sid (or, failing that, here) for the rest...