[birthdays] yet another

Yet another birthday today - this time John Hirst. Happy Birthday - don't do anything naughty while you're out.

[sunday quiz] colossal this evening

Simple - name the seven wonders of the ancient world. To make up the ten questions, here are three more:

8. Did Demetrius or Ptolemy invade Rhodes?
9. Would Harlicarnassus be in Greece or Turkey today?
10. What was the island in question in Alexandria?

Answers: Great Pyramid of Giza, Hanging Gardens of Babylon, Statue of Zeus at Olympia, Temple of Artemis at Ephesus, Mausoleum of Maussollos at Halicarnassus, Colossus of Rhodes and Lighthouse of Alexandria. Demetrius, Turkey, Pharos.

[baby time] yet another blogger indulging

Steve Green, at Daily Referendum, is not content with three girls - now he has to have a boy as well. Not actually him, per se but his wife will probably do most of the job. But Steve will be right there.

Steve's "not too sure how happy the Little Lothario will be about his wobbly bits appearing on the internet before he is even born" but he needn't worry too much. Can't remember that old adage clearly:

Great logs from little wobbly bits grow.

Was that it?

[bad theology] tutu should check his bible

Archbishop Tutu is is either:

1. seriously muddled about Christian theology or else
2. pursuing the post modernist agenda which is still in full swing.

He said the Anglican Church had seemed "extraordinarily homophobic" in its handling of the issue, and that he had felt "saddened" and "ashamed" of his church at the time. Asked if he still felt ashamed, he said: "If we are going to not welcome or invite people because of sexual orientation, yes. "If God, as they say, is homophobic, I wouldn't worship that God."

There are two responses to this:

1. Christianity itself says:

Romans 1:26-27

1:26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 7 1:27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women 8 and were inflamed in their passions 9 for one another. Men 10 committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Jude 1

1:7 So also 33 Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighboring towns, 34 since they indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire 35 in a way similar to 36 these angels, 37 are now displayed as an example by suffering the punishment of eternal fire.

Jude 1 also says:

1:4 For certain men 14 have secretly slipped in among you 15 – men who long ago 16 were marked out 17 for the condemnation I am about to describe 18 – ungodly men who have turned the grace of our God into a license for evil...

Which is Tutu – unlearned in the scripture which is his bread and butter or taking a deliberate stance which his dog collar gives him no right to do, whatever his private feelings?

2. Homosexuality itself:

There is a clear political agenda throughout the western world, one such move being the American Psychiatric Association's 1973 removal of homosexuality from their DSM Manual. By doing this, despite clinical evidence of the time, tacitly approves homosexuality as a legitimate “choice” rather than as a disorder.

There is substantial evidence that the major social bodies such as Planned Parenthood [investigate their funding] and the APA [see this article on the upper echelons of the psychiatric profession, for example] are following an agenda very close to that allegedly articulated by one of the Rockefellers in the last post.

The introduction of the term “orientation” and the criminalizing of anyone declaring deviance from the norm for what it is – a “disorder” - is of the same order of magnitude as the Gore/Global juggernaut which the blogosphere is up in arms about – that is, they are pushing an agenda which is politically driven though there are elements of truth attached to it.

Tutu's PC “love for everyone” presumably also includes murderers, paedophiles, wife-bashers and idolators but makes one fundamental error – his view is to love them “along with” their “orientation” whereas Christianity in the gospels is for loving everyone “irrespective of and despite” their orientations.

That's a quantum difference and he either misunderstands this or deliberately ignores it as a result of his political position at the head of the Official Church.

So to homosexuality itself and, as Richard Fitzgibbons, M.D. states:

There is substantial evidence based on years of clinical experience that homosexuality is a developmental disorder.

Dr. Charles Wahl, a researcher in this area, said:

"The vast preponderance of evidence clearly indicates that homosexuality is a learned disorder and is not genetically inherited."

"In Imprints: The Lifelong Effects of the Birth Experience, Dr. Arthur Janov writes that:

... the homosexuals he has seen in primal therapy have had "catastrophic birth histories." He believes that inutero trauma may bias male-female sex hormones permanently which might result in residual tendencies. He believes that the deviation is a problem of psychological need and not one of sex. It is a way the need gets sexualized (pp. 98-99).

Psychiatrist Stanislav Grof does not believe that the entire origin of homosexuality can be traced solely to problems of birth and near birth. He believes:

... that early childhood events are not the cause of the focus but are seen as necessary conditions for their development and act as reinforcements to pre and peri-natal issues. (Beyond the Brain, pp. 219-220).

And so it goes on. If only for its biological limitations, homosexuality is not a free and equal choice and yet that is not only being taught in schools but is being enshrined in law. In other words, deliberate falsehoods are being enshrined as truth in law and those who call the legislators on the point are prosecuted.

The greatest crime which is being committed by very powerful people in the community is to teach children, such as in the RFID programme and in Britain, that certain things are fine and normal when they're nothing of the kind - another example is glossing over indiscriminate sex before marriage.

Where does that leave me personally, vis a vis homosexuality? In the late 70s I was actually in the gay scene, went to the parties although I'm straight myself and generally got along with the community fine. It was a passing phase and family then called.

Where does that leave homosexuals themselves? For a start, they're not going to take any notice of me other than to vilify me but for what it's worth, may I give an analogy.

I need a cool room to live in and can't even stand a beach on a hot day. There are other people like me but not many. It's a great problem over here where people switch the heating up full bore in flats in winter and that precludes me visiting the majority of people.

However, I'm certainly not going onto the streets to fight for Cool Rights or to get government to legislate against anyone who tries to stop me turning the heating down. They're the majority so that's the way it goes. The few who are like me can visit me and me them.

I'm not going into schools to tell children that Cool Rooms in winter are just as good as Warm just to make myself feel better about it. It has nothing to do with Tutu like "tolerance". It's an aberration and I just live with it.

I still get on famously with Warm Roomers and we can meet in cafes and have a laugh [as long as I can be near the door]. In conversation, where do I get off if I try to push the idea that Cool Rooms are just as good as Warm in winter - of course they're not but for me they're a necessity. That's all.

Now my mate and his girlfriend who can't stand being in a Cool Room - what if they start mocking and calling me Iceberger or something rude like 'shrivel-d--k'? Well, they cease to be friends.

What if a gang of thugs beat me up for being a 'filfthy Iceberger'? That's a police matter and I'll prosecute. What if kids in school have been learning that Icebergers are sickos? Yep - that literature needs changing. But not to the point of telling them that Cool Roomers are normal.

In other words, there are certain realities and we live with them. There are some things which are wrong and we change them. But we don't tell lies about it as a reaction against years of anguish.

[credibility] credulity and where the truth lies

This started out as an attempt to collate all Anonymous's links for November and four things stood out:

1. how many damned posts I've actually written [phew];
2. how many links the Anonymii have provided;
3. an interesting piece by UK Daily Pundit, in the main stream, on David Kelly;
4. a piece on Nicholas Rockefeller which puts us into the traditional bind:

Many of you know of an interview by the film maker Aaron Russo with Rockefeller. Trouble was, I came across it in among a mass of Alex Jones/Illuminati/David Icke material which usually floods the first few Google pages on most of these topics.

The essential problem with this material is that no one rational will accept it the way it's presented. It needs independent corroboration to get mainstream acceptance. I also found a scurrilous phone conversation with Russo and Michael Medved and though Medved shows himself to be a complete horse's backside, Russo does himself no favours either by trying to force talk of New World Order and so on past Medved, supposedly to the people.

So, in the end, we're left with wild accusations, counter-accusations and allegations which, if true, are chilling but if the product of a disordered mind, are counter-productive. The only thing which could be said at this point is that it's standard tactics to discredit an interviewee by running the conversation in a mocking tone and with a grin on the face from the outset [e.g. the Fox on Sunday interview with Bill Clinton] and then labelling and packaging the other as a “demented mind”.

Imagine the same interview by phone over Olly North's Iran Contra activities, before the thing came out. The tone would have been the same. So it's deeply dissatisfying.

Then I look at the photo above of Russo and Rockefeller and they weren't exactly enemies, would you say? So it might have been likely they did actually have an interview. And Russo came out and related the conversation later. And Rockefeller is not on record anywhere I can find denying the substance of what was said.

I don't see Russo being sued anywhere. Which raises the question of why? The only explanation I can find is that the alleged comments by Rockefeller are so wild that anyone reporting them would be labelled a kook by a listening public and dismissed – the comments don't need refuting. Also, Russo's manner is wild and unfocussed.

There is another explanation in line with what I know from other sources about these people – that it was a set up and both were having a good laugh feeding pap to a credulous conspiracy theory industry. That whether or not it was true, it could never be taken as true the way it entered the public sphere.

For what it's worth, this is a description of that interview:

This was around the time he had those infamous conversations with acquaintance Nick Rockefeller who had tried to recruit him into the Council on Foreign Relations.

Russo related in an interview that Rockefeller had told him, 11 months before the 9/11 attacks, that there would be an “event” that would trigger U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, that the Rockefeller financial empire had bankrolled the women’s movement with the intent of breaking up the family and gaining control of the minds of children, and that the long-term goal of the globalists is a microchipped population that could be controlled by “the bankers and the elite people.”

“Related in an interview that Rockefeller had told him” is not good enough. Where is the interview itself? I don't want to see Jones interviewing Russo. I want to see Russo interviewing Rockefeller. Alternatively, why doesn't Rockefeller simply quash the idea that he said those things?

As I mentioned above, deeply dissatisfying, the way they like it.

[mugabe] living in poverty like his people

H/T Stan Parr [Witanagemot]

Stan writes:

Imagine who would have such taste and live in such opulence? This Mansion is in Harare and belongs to The President of Zimbabwe.

The word which springs to my mind is "obscene".