Sunday, August 07, 2016

The Scarlet L - for Lesbo

5. Controversial Sprinklers Return to Auschwitz
So if you can't have sprinklers to keep people cool in summer, I suppose you also can't have a furnace to keep them warm in winter. That would be insensitive. And having security guards on the property? INSENSITIVE! And asking people to queue in a line to enter the grounds? INSENSITIVE! And eating a bean burrito before visiting Auschwitz? INSENSITIVE!

4. The Holocaust Historian Who Loves Donald Trump
The "Historian" in this case is just another totalitarian-loving Oompa-Loompa apologist. But the article reveals not just the depths the apologists will sink to explain away their buffoon's worst behavior, but also the depths to which Leftist Jews will go to ignore Trump's love of Israel, and his Jewish grandchildren.

3. Christopher Biggins removed from Big Brother following Holocaust comments
I recognized the name, but I couldn't quite place him looking at the photo. Then it dawned on me - he was the fat queer who played Nero in I, Claudius. HA! Any other visitors like that miniseries as much as I did? I'm sure British audiences are more familiar with him in other roles, but that is what I remembered him for. Biggins is right-leaning enough that he should embrace his anti-Semitism and seek membership in the Alt-(Fag)-Right.

2. Raoul Wallenberg, Swedish Holocaust hero, executed in Soviet prison, diaries reveal
Hmm... well, thank you Stalin for that at least. I've always thought Wallenberg looked like he had kike-blood, and according to this, there may have been a reason for my suspicion.

And now for something completely different. I really wasn't intending for today's post to be so Kikey, it just happened. But the following disturbing, non-Kikey story deserves its number 1 position your Compulsory Diversity quota today. Therefore, its bucks the unintentional theme for today:

1. The Scarlet L - for Lesbo: Family of 5, including tot with heart transplant, found dead in apparent murder-suicide

Permit me to briefly summarize before my comments, relying also on information from Heavy.com. A family of 5, Mark and Megan Short (40 and 33) and their 3 young children (8, 5,  and 2), were found dead from gunshot wounds in what is being called a murder suicide. Po-pos won't tell us who pulled the trigger.

Their youngest child was born with a defective heart, and had to receive a heart transplant. She was placed on god-awfully expensive immunosuppresant therapy to keep her alive. The cost of her surgery and drugs must have easily been in the range of a few hundred thousand dollars during the course of her brief life. And now she has been murdered by one of her parents. FUCK YOU INSURANCE COMPANIES / TAX PAYERS!

Now for the salacious bit - The mother had left the father in order to pursue a lesbian relationship with a fellow "transplant mom". Here is the social media post where she discussed her decision:

Read that line again: "We are still really struggling. It is a daily battle and I decided to finally live for me!"

The struggle is shared, but she decided to live for her. [Slow, sarcastic, clapping]. Well, lezzie - it was a brief life, wasn't it? Hope you enjoyed your eight weeks of muff munching.

CRETIN. Once you have children, you don't get the option of "living for me" anymore. That's what leads to women letting their toddlers play unattended in the bathtub. "OH, I just turned away for a moment and he drowned! BOO HOO HOO. Want to go out clubbing tonight?" Not that she killed the kids mind you. It's just that the mentality of putting one's romantic life in front of the needs of one's children is unbelievably selfish and yet sooooo freaking typical of the modern age.

According to this article, the mother had PTSD; but since she was a lesbian, we already knew she was mentally ill. It is possible she killed them. We just read a recent story of a mentally ill woman who killed her daughter's to strike at her husband. In this case, I think it is more likely the husband killed them all. Shame, losing one's wife, one's children, and one's financial security can do that to a fellow. It must be even more unbearable having struggled with the terrible medical condition of his youngest, only to lose his whole family based on the sapphic whim of his wife.

I can see it now, the feminists gloating about the evil White man who killed his wife rather than let her be a happy free lesbo. But turn it around, and make it the White man taking the children away from their mother and running off to pursue a romance with some woman he met while his daughter was getting medical treatment, and they would be decrying him as a foul womanizer. It would be a Lifetime movie.

MultiKulturalism is unbelievably messy. DIE-versity deserves is comic misspelling. The West has lost its mind. Think about it. What would a sane society have done?

In a sane society, the doctors would have told these people: Your daughter is grossly defective. We will not pay to keep her alive. We will not add to the burden on society or the genepool. They also would have screened the parents and the other children to determine their fitness or lack thereof, and taken appropriate measures in response.

In a sane society, the parents would have grieved, and let their child go. Their loved ones would have grieved with them given them support, and then helped them move on. It would be understood that the child was unfit for life, and it would have been irresponsible to bring more suffering into the world.

In a sane society, it would be social and legal suicide to commit adultery. It would mean losing everything - being ostracized by one's family, losing one's children, one's wealth, one's job, and all parental rights. It would mean being expelled from the society as an outcast. No scarlet letter - that person would become vapor - perhaps literally if the society was strong enough. And why? Because one's selfish, irresponsible actions impact one's children, which impacts the future of the society. Society has to pay for the mistakes of its members. The whole society has to deal with the consequences of the moral defects of its members. Our mad society has simply gotten really good at ignoring those consequences and pushing them off to the next generation indefinitely.

In a sane society, homosexuals would not have children. Homosexuals would not marry. It would be fundamentally understood that procreation is a heterosexual act, and that the products of procreation are meant to be raised by heterosexual parents. Anyone who pursued homosexuality would not be permitted to adopt, and would lose parental rights. Single people would not be able to adopt either.  IVF would be denied to the innately infertile, homosexuals, and the unwed because if you can't produce children naturally, you have proven that your genes aren't worth replicating. IVF would basically be restricted to heterosexual couples who were otherwise deemed fit but who by injury or accident were denied natural means of reproduction.

Why isn't this stuff self-evident? Why has everyone lost their minds? Let me make it as simple as possible for you. If you disagree with any of the viewpoints articulated in the sane society paragraphs above, it is because you are at worst a selfish, egotistical degenerate, or at best a naive moralizer whose limp-wristedness empowers the selfish and egotistical to turn this world into a sewer.

6 comments:

  1. Drey, you pretty much nailed it about our sick, lez/fag
    loving society. By the time we fully become a monstrous Brazilian favela, all the white 'kwans will
    have been liquidated. Brother Adolph knew it was coming.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643823/Enoch-Powells-Rivers-of-Blood-speech.html

      The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.

      One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.

      Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."

      Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.
      At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

      Delete
  2. Did they have Zyklon B in the sprinkles too?

    “…we just feel the whole scenario of the Jewish annihilation is so horrific that we wanted to experience it for ourselves.”

    Somehow this just struck me as absurdly funny. How I wish every Holocaust worshipping white would experience it for themselves… and in the near future they might! With real ovens.

    “He said he was looking forward to seeing the camp - where over a million Jews were murdered…”

    This was unintentionally funny as well.

    But the otherwise the article is just tedious. Another white says an off-hand stupid joke, the recipient of the joke has a supposed breakdown, then the parents of the adult woman demand the white be removed because an old man said something MEAN to their daughter. Just cry me a river, would you?

    Apparently Soviets did something good, at least. If it is true that the highest ranking administrators in the Soviet were Jews, then it was another white killed by the very people he was trying to help! Poetic justice?

    I really do wonder what is the reason people have kids in the modern age? In the past they didn’t have an option unless they killed the child. But what is the reason that self-centred, narcissistic witless morons have kids? Decoration? Accessory to their personal drama? Extension of themselves? Because that is “what everyone is doing”?

    And where on earth did she go to receive support for her decision to abandon her husband, children and transplant toddler for another woman? LBGQT support group? Did people stop at the lesbian part and their minds just erased rest of the sentence?

    I also do not understand why people have the need to bring in more people into this world who cannot possibly live an independent, full life. Then Mass Media portrays these disabled as loving and optimistic and so much happier than those normies. That is also why autistics who cannot even interact with the world are just super people in disguise.

    It reminds me of a short article I read in middle school; it said muds in some part of the world are the happiest people on Earth. Their country was regularly struck with war, famine, drought, and other natural disasters. I thought, well, why wouldn’t they be since how much lower can you sink?

    “Because one's selfish, irresponsible actions impact one's children, which impacts the future of the society. Society has to pay for the mistakes of its members.”

    This, Mr Arlott. How I wish everyone would understand this simple truth, or perhaps they just don’t care.

    - Different Anon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Different Anon,

      RE: The unintentional comedy of Holocaust tourism.
      The cattle don't really respond well in situations that send mixed signals. Going to a Holocaust museum is supposed to be a devastating, soul crushing experience. What better time for that than on your summer vacation? At other times of the year, ask a class of kids returning by bus from a school field trip to the Holocaust museum in D.C.: Did you enjoy your trip? They aren't going to be weeping, and mumbling through trembling lips, "No." They are going to respond with a mind-numbed, emotionless, "Yes.". The same as if they had just returned from a museum exhibit about slavery or the genocide of injuns. And that is hilarious.

      When I was a little kid and first heard that Nazi's gassed Jews in showers, I imagined individual shower stalls that Jews walked into and then turned the water handle, only to instead be gassed in the face with Zyklon B. The teachers weren't very specific about the extermination process. I also wondered how the Nazis got the bodies out of the shower and if there was a trap door in the floor for that purpose. For the record, I thought it was terrible, but even at that young age I was trying to understand the mechanics. I formed that very cartoonish image because there was no Holocaust museum and no Schindler's list to inform me otherwise. Now we "know" better, but the "reality" can't compete with the action-starved, poor attention spans of young people. It simply numbs them with mild boredom.

      RE: Children
      I think the urge to have children is an innate, natural, unconscious motivation that people have formed beliefs and justifications about both for and against. I have met progressives who argue that having children increases misery in the world, so they choose not to. I have met Christians who say they plan to adopt rather than produce children (at all or simply more than a couple of biological children), again because the world is filled with needy, miserable children already. I wonder though. Perhaps their own defectiveness is hindering their reproductive drive?

      Now, arguing against that interpretation is that there are plenty of defectives reproducing who do not seem similarly impaired, but perhaps that is simply because nature has different ways of dealing with the reproduction of the unfit. Lower humans would, in their natural state, be unable to keep their defective spawn alive. They would lack the intelligence and resources to do so. They would not need a subconscious motivation to question whether or not they should reproduce. Thwarting this system in the modern age are higher humans, who devote their intelligence and resources to general welfare. This keeps the offspring of the unfit lower humans alive, which creates ever more burden on human society as a whole. How will such an imbalance be corrected?

      Perhaps, for intelligent, higher humans, the only means by which lack of fitness could be controlled would be by an internalized drive not to reproduce themselves. And these higher humans, such moral beings, then frame this drive as having derived from their belief system, when in fact it is nature's way of controlling their population, and thereby also controlling the population of lower humans. For now, it seems that nature is failing in this endeavor. But nature doesn't care about timetables or how catastrophic a correction will be the longer it is delayed.

      RE: The Simple Truth
      Different Anon, I think they just don't care. I think they do not even have the capacity to grasp the truth that actions have consequences. If the consequence is delayed, to them it does not occur. An analogy of their mindset can be seen with the Simpson's bit about garbage: "He who tops it off drops it off." https://vimeo.com/27830890

      Let the garbage become a mountain. Jam your foot into it to pack it down. Gently lay each piece atop the rounded heap so as not to disturb the shaky structure. Don't be the loser literally caught holding the bag.

      Delete
    2. It wasn’t really the innate, unconscious motivation I wondered about. I just know so many couples who have children, never do anything as a family with them nor pay much attention to them in general, constantly try to find someone to take them for every weekend and sometimes even the weekday just so they can go out and drink until they drop. Looking at such a behaviour (“I live for me”, indeed) it seems clear to me it wasn’t children they wanted.

      But perhaps a better way to phrase it is, “it is children they wanted but not the responsibility of children”.

      Indeed, most people seem incapable of grasping that truth. Hah! What an accurate analogy that Simpon’s bit is.

      - Different Anon

      Delete
    3. But perhaps a better way to phrase it is, “it is children they wanted but not the responsibility of children”.

      Ha! You stole my response before I could even give it.

      I still suggest though that there is more doubt today about whether or not the desire to have children is innate or is a matter of choice. Think of Moochelle's speech in Spain "You're children if you choose to have them." She makes it sound like owning dogs or cats. You don't choose which child you get. You can choose to *try* to get pregnant, or choose contraception, or choose to abort, but whether or not you actually successfully conceive or reproduce is not guaranteed like picking out a puppy from the pet shop.

      From that perspective, I enjoy when I hear that a woman who chose abortion as a birth control option ended up being sterilized by the procedure. You didn't like that one? Well, no soup for you!

      Delete