Connect with us

Culture and Religion

In UK, Ancient Heathenism Reigns Supreme

Published

on

Several minutes had passed since the medical examination of the newborn had begun. They stood inspective over the infant, occasionally murmuring to one another in a hushed tone.  The babe’s father stood nearby, pacing: his eyes intractably fixed on the small group of elders in a desperate attempt to interpret each subtle lift of an eyebrow or pinch of the lips.

Then came that dreaded nod…

The tormented father wept as the judge read the decision aloud: “as thinking it neither good for the child itself…” the child must die.

The above description is not a reference to the United Kingdom’s government-ordered killing of little Alfie Evans, nor the United Kingdom’s government-ordered killing of little Charlie Gard.

The infant’s death-order, described above, was merely the price of societal perfection for his father, living in the Statist abyss of Ancient Sparta.

In Lives: Lycurgus 16, Greek historian Plutarch (48-122 A.D.) wrote of the medical inspections of infants by “elders,” and of the state-ordered murder of infants in Ancient Sparta under the rule Lycurgus, a tyrannical central-planner:

“Nor was it in the power of the father to dispose of the child as he saw fit (as was his right in most heathen societies). He was obliged to carry (the newborn) child before certain men at a place called Lesche; these men were some of the elders of the tribe to which the child belonged; their business was to carefully view the infant, and, if they found it stout and well made, they gave order for its rearing and allotted to it one of the nine thousand shares of land above mentioned for its maintenance, but, if they found it puny and ill-shaped, ordered it to be taken to what was called the Apothetae (“depository”), a (large cave) under Mt. Taygetus (in the Peloponnese); as thinking it neither for the good of the child itself, nor for the public interest, that it should be brought up, if it did not, from the very outset, appear to be healthy and vigorous.” (emphasis mine)

Undesirable Infants – those either deemed unfit in some way, were conceived through rape, were unwanted, or were female – were often exposed, meaning that these infants were tossed into pits or over cliffs, or were abandoned in the wilderness and then left to starve or to be eaten by wild animals.

Such was life in the pagan purgatories of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome.

Such has life begun to be again, today, in the United Kingdom.

As I type, a toddler lies in the hospital, a prisoner, detained by the pagan pride of evil monsters, by his own Statist government.

The “elders” in the UK have sentenced little Alfie Evans to die, “as thinking it neither for the good of the child itself. Alfie may not be alone in the wilderness, but he is being exposed by the sword of starvation.

Right now, a tormented father weeps for his child.

The cruel winds of an evil-ridden history are circling ’round again.

 

Once Christianity came upon the scene, Christians began to regularly rescue exposed infants.

As Tertullian stated, “Christians sought out the tiny bodies of newborn babies from the refuse and dung heaps and raised them as their own or tended to them before they died or gave them a decent burial” (Early Church History).

“The Christian idea that each individual person has worth because they were created by God was foreign to the lies of pagan society where the State, the tribe, the collective was the only value they knew” (Early Church History).

One can even visit these once abandoned babes at the Catacomb of Praetextatus. “The catacombs are filled with very tiny graves with the epitaph ‘adopted daughter of…’ or ‘adopted son of…’ inscribed on them. These inscriptions refer to the many babies and young children Christians rescued from the trash over the centuries” (Early Church History).

Unlike during the times of Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece, however, today’s United Kingdom prevents Christians from aiding Britain’s exposed children.

Christians from across the globe have offered aid and open arms to little Alfie Evans. Pope Francis has faithfully attempted to save the ailing child, arranging medical transportation for Alfie so that he might fly via air ambulance to the Vatican’s hospital.

Still, the prideful “elders” cling mercilessly to their pagan heathenism, determined to deny any and all Christian charity for little Alfie.

 

Alas! One thing is now crystal clear: in the United Kingdom, ancient heathenism reigns supreme.

For a glimpse of the future, listen to these famous voices from the past:

In On the Laws 3.8, Cicero (106-43 BC) states:

“Deformed infants shall be killed.”

Posidippus, a Greek poet, wrote:

“Everybody raises a son even if he is poor, but exposes a daughter even if he is rich.”

In On Anger 1.15, Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) wrote:

“…mad dogs we knock on the head…unnatural progeny we destroy; we drown even children at birth who are weakly and abnormal.”

In Politics 7.1335b, Aristotle (364 BC-322 BC) wrote:

“As to exposing or rearing the children born, let there be a law that no deformed child shall be reared;  but on the ground of number of children, if the regular customs hinder any of those born being exposed, there must be a limit fixed to the procreation of offspring, and if any people have a child as a result of intercourse in contravention of these regulations, abortion must be practiced on it (the child).”

In Theaetetus, the Greek philosopher Plato (quoting Socrates) wrote of the important societal task of killing infirm infants:

“For we must take care that we don’t overlook some defect in this thing that is entering into life; it may be something not worth bringing up, a wind-egg, a falsehood. What do you say? Is it your opinion that your child ought in any case to be brought up and not exposed to die? Can you bear to see it found fault with and not get into a rage if your first-born is stolen away from you?”

In Ad Nationes, Tertullian (155-220 A.D.) recorded the frequency of pagan infanticide in the Roman Empire during the late 100’s and early 200’s A.D.:

“…because, although you are forbidden by the laws to slay new-born infants, it so happens that no laws are evaded with more impunity or greater safety, with the deliberate knowledge of the public, and the suffrages of this entire age…But then you make away with them in a more cruel manner, because you expose them to the cold and hunger, and to wild beasts, or else you get rid of them by the slower death of drowning.”

In Book 3 of Instructor, Clement of Alexandria (150-215 A.D.) wrote of Roman women caring more for animals than for children:

“And though maintaining parrots and curlews, they do not receive the orphan child; but they expose children that are born at home, and take up the young of birds, and prefer irrational to rational creatures.”

 

Advertisement

0

Culture and Religion

Anti-Semite Tom Wright-Piersanti is the true heart of the NY Times

Published

on

Anti-Semite Tom Wright-Piersanti is the true heart of the NY Times

Progressive journalism is a double-standard wrapped in hypocrisy and served on a plate with no self-awareness. That’s why revelations that NY Times senior staff editor Tom Wright-Piersanti posted several racist and anti-Semitic Tweets in the past came as absolutely no surprise to me when Breitbart broke the story this morning.

The Tweets insulted Jews, Native-Americans, and Hispanics and date back as far as 2009. But even as he scrambles to remove official record of his feelings, the remnant of them remain. Some have grabbed screenshots. We’ll go ahead and post the text from some of his Tweets so the words remain in text-form indefinitely.


CINCO DE DRINKO aka CINCO DE STINKO aka STINKO DE DRINKO aka DRINKO DE STINKO, what upppp, who out there mexican can verify

— Tom Wright-Piersanti (@tomwp) May 5, 2011


@douggpound I like to make it rain when I perform at my authentic Native American dance strip club

— Tom Wright-Piersanti (@tomwp) June 6, 2010


I think I just heard him say “Hoes, Hoes, Hoes! Merry Cripmas!” Does anyone know who it could be???

— Tom Wright-Piersanti (@tomwp) December 24, 2009


http://bit.ly/QCGfF WEIRD. This woman’s Spanish jumps back and forth between a pleasant Mexican “distinción” and a halting Spanish “ceceo.”


Is Wright-Piersanti a unique case? No. Progressive journalists such as the vast majority on staff at the NY Times have been shielded from scrutiny. It’s not that anyone is actively trying to cover up for the racism or anti-America sentiment that flows freely in newsrooms across the country. It’s that the people who normally engage in investigating people’s history on public sites like social media are searching for conservatives to bash. This is a leftist technique, one that more conservatives should adopt as the cries of “Republicans are racists” continue to be bellowed out by mainstream media.

The saddest part is the NY Times is unlikely to act and leftist media is unlikely to report on this much. If these Tweets were posted by someone at Breitbart or One America News, it would be the top story in the news cycle and every Tweet supporting President Trump by the journalist would be used as evidence for the racism narrative the left is trying to paint about the right. But Wright-Piersanti is not a Trump supporter and neither is the NY Times.

Tom Wright-Piersanti isn’t a one-off case. He’s indicative of the hypocrisy that’s rampant throughout mainstream media as they seek evidence that conservatives are racist while ignoring the racists in the mirror.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

After indignant virtue signaling costs billions, Gillette quietly ‘shifts’ away from social justice

Published

on

After indignant virtue signaling costs billions Gillette quietly shifts away from social justice

Social justice backfired for Gillette. Despite innumerable complaints and an exodus of customers, the razor maker remained fervently proud of their ad campaigns attacking “toxic masculinity” to the point that CEO and president Gary Coombe said it was a “price worth paying.” They’re standing by their ads and are claiming they helped them reach a younger millennial audience, increase brand awareness, and put forward the type of company message they want portrayed.

If losing $8 billion was worth the message, they’re stronger activists than most.

“P&G reported a net loss of about $5.24 billion, or $2.12 per share, for the quarter ended June 30, due to an $8 billion non-cash writedown of Gillette. For the same period last year,” Reuters reported, “P&G’s net income was $1.89 billion, or 72 cents per share.”

Despite the massive loss over the controversial ads. they claim to have no regrets. This claims were made three weeks ago and delivered with bluster in multiple interviews for damage control. This week brought a different tone as they’re now “shifting the spotlight from social issues to local heroes.”

The new campaigns have already launched in Australia with a slow rollout in the United States expected next month. Here’s the local Australian hero they’re focusing on. Needless to say, he’s not representing a social justice cause, nor is he worried about exuding toxic masculinity.

This is an unambiguous attempt to escape the controversial corner they painted themselves into that cost them billions, but don’t let progressive media know because they’re certain the social justice campaign was wonderful. They’re so certain about this that they’re blaming the loss on men suddenly loving beards. Seriously.

Companies like Gillette are learning being “woke” makes you broke. That’s how business works; alienating half of your customers for the sake of politics is never a good move. Stick to business. Leave social justice to the basement warriors.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

We don’t need ‘red flag’ gun confiscation laws. The solution to the problem is already in place.

Published

on

By

We dont need red flag gun confiscation laws The solution to the problem is already in place

Laws for Civil Commitment procedures that also protect due process are in place in every state -‘crisis’ solved QED.

The Authoritarian Socialist Left keeps on insisting that there is a ‘serious crisis’ and that Gun Confiscation SWATing laws are desperately needed before anyone can rationally think through their true implications of destroying due process and the presumption of innocence.

The problem for the Left is that there really isn’t a ‘crisis’ since there are laws on the books to handle situations where someone may be a danger to themselves. We have already proven this here, therefore, there is no reason to implement these draconian measures that will serve to eviscerate multiple parts of the bill of rights in one fell swoop. Thus the solution to this problem should be pretty straightforward, point this out to everyone and move on to other issues of greater importance.

Solving the problem by simply pointing out that the solution already exists.

We supposedly need to discuss this issue immediately, without any delay. Fine, it is just a matter of having President Trump or Senate Majority Leader McConnell schedule a formal announcement on this allegedly intractable issue. This announcement would simply reiterate that laws for Civil Commitment are already on the books, so there is no reason to waste precious time in debating a non-issue. We also have the added bonus that these laws also protect civil Liberties, something of primary importance for those of us on the pro-Liberty Right.

It will be a formal announcement that there is absolutely no reason for these laws, followed with a press kit detailing Civil Commitment procedures in every state. Then it will be logical to ask why the authoritarian Left keeps on demanding news laws for a problem that has already been solved. Please note that they are essentially doing that on the Intergalactic Background Check issue, since these also already exist, but that’s a separate issue.

Consider the reasons why the politicians should accept this elegant solution to the problem:

  • It wouldn’t require any new laws.
  • It wouldn’t take any political wrangling.
  • It would solve the problem immediately.
  • It would protect the bill of rights –specifically the 2nd, 4th, 5 and 6th amendments.
  • It will resolve the situation with minimum trouble.

Why aren’t the politicians already calling for this perfect solution to the problem?

There are only two reasons why this perfect solution has not been brought forward by the legislators on either side. Either they don’t know the law – which is absurd – or they want the power they would attain from ‘Red Flag’ Gun Confiscation.

Legislators really have only one job – to understand and perfect the law. They should have already known about this solution. This means they only have one reason to push for Gun Confiscation SWATing laws. These politicians would clearly like to expand their own power, even now, Democratic presidential contender Kamala Harris is salivating at confiscating the guns of those merely accused of ‘thought Crime’.
Who know what clever ways they will develop for their new-found power? We’ve already shown that these laws don’t work as advertised, that they have caused more problems than they have solved and they are a civil rights nightmare. Why are they being imposed by the government to solve a problem that has been already addressed?

The Bottom-Line.

This editorial could have been just two lines – the headline and the subhead – summarizing the whole point. Solving the problem that gun Confiscation SWATing is supposed to address is simply a matter of following existing law. The same could be said for liberticidal Leftist power grabs – Intergalactic Background Checks, the ‘Assault Weapon’ scam.. er ban and most everything else. It’s already illegal for felons and others to possess firearms. Thus, these measures are like making things double secret, illegal, in the vain hope that people who don’t follow the law [hence the term ‘lawbreaker’] will suddenly do so because of the magic of a new law on the books.

In the specific example here, the laws already exist and they protect due process. Politicians on both sides of the aisle simply need to step up and use them instead of trying to use the latest ‘serious crisis’ to grab even more power for themselves.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending