Normalizing Incest and Other Perversions: It’s Already Happening

Stream: Normalizing Incest and Other Perversions: It’s Already Happening

Now you might think that 19-year-old Natasha had sex, “sex [that] was intense in a way that no other sex has been”, with her father because she was lacking a father figure in her life.

Not so.

“My mom’s long-term partner was a patriarchal butch lesbian, so I already had a ‘father figure’ in my immediate family,” she said.

Surprisingly, this “patriarchal butch lesbian” father figure was abusive, so Natasha went in search of her actual father, who she discovered and then bedded in Jamaica.

Cosmopolitan UK gives us the dry, clinical name for Natasha’s behavior: Genetic Sexual Attraction.

It can’t be long until we hear, “Don’t worry. It isn’t incest, it’s GSA. And I was born this way.”

Sooner than you think. The magazine says GSA is a “real topic of discussion at the moment, with numerous stories of long-lost family members who reunited only to discover an intense sexual attraction, being bandied about all over the place.”

In a separate (and vivid) article about another woman having sex with her father, the magazine tells us GSA was “coined by a woman called Barbara Gonyo years ago, when she felt an overwhelming sense of sexual desire after being reunited with her birth son, Mitch, who was adopted as a baby.”

England’s Telegraph says, “Disgusted by incest? Genetic Sexual Attraction is real and on the rise.” In that article is a large picture with the words “I’m in love with my son and I want to have his baby.”

The blog Full Marriage Equality tells those experiencing GSA “You are not alone” and “You are not crazy or wrong for having these feelings.” Why? Because “there is no good reason why adults should feel a need to refrain from being together in whatever way they want.”

Folks in this category are calling themselves “The GSA Community”, and there is (of course) an online discussion group.


Besides homosexuality, pedophilia, and objectum sexuality, GSA is only one of the new sexual “orientations” with which we are becoming familiar.

An increasingly frequent argument is to call somebody “transphobic” if they would reject sex with somebody suffering gender dyhphoria. Having a “genital preference” is frowned upon.


Zoophilia (bestiality) is now not uncommon. […]


Perhaps most disturbing […]

A New Reaction


Don’t tell CNN, but do click on over.

Why Are Elites Making Us Say Men Are Women?

I do not joke nor jest. In New York City, “You can be fined for not calling people ‘ze’ or ‘hir,’ if that’s the pronoun they demand that you use.

Examples of Violations

a. Intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear which pronouns and title she uses …

So that if a man pretends, as I do, to be First Sovereign Emperor of Earth, and thus demand that you use the pronouns “your” or “his Majesty”, you must use them. Or pay. If you cannot pay, the money will be confiscated from you. You bigot.

Even milquetoast conservatives are being chased by rabid mobs of social justice warriors demanding through barely veiled threats of violence that men who pretend to be women should be addressed as women. Which is fine. Let them come.

But what happens when the mighty and very well armed government decides you must lie? Will you? Most will.

This is the Path of Suicide.

Another example. The majority now buys the lie that two men may marry each other. And we have already seen the rabble chase after the truth-tellers on this subject. But you can’t help wondering how many lie to save themselves the grief. It is, surely, not an insignificant fraction.

Well, so what, says the utilitarian. Tell the lie, let them have their fantasy, and move on.

Yeah, sure. Move on. What most don’t grasp is that the elites, most of whom are not men pretending to be married to one another, want you to lie. They do this to show who is in charge. Once everybody accepts the lie about gmarriage, the elites will push on to new territory, as they are doing with men pretending to be women. And after that fiction is commonplace, some new outrage against Truth will take its place, and so on, until the populace it pliant and cowed.

For Heaven’s sake, did anybody not read 1984? What the purpose of torturing Winston to say 2 + 2 = 5? That the Party really believed that mathematical fiction? No! It was to subjugate and for no other reason.

Sure, there are always handfuls of lunatics bounding about who do say what is unequal is equal, but these unfortunates (like the poor) are always with us. They are always so small a minority as to be powerless—unless they are granted status by self-serving elites. Too, the variability of preposterosities believed is enormous. The elite is free to pick from any of them. So why doesn’t the government make us swear Bigfoot is real?

Why not, indeed? Probably because most people wouldn’t care one way or the other if it were true. It is only a trivial affront to sanity to say “Bigfoot exists”. But officially mandating that one say that a man is a woman is so removed from Reality that none can accept it unless (a) they have lost their bearings, or (b) they are suitably threatened.

Any combination guarantees cultural suicide.

Experimentation on accepting the False is on-going. Here is one thrust. Write a letter to terrorists! Children told to ‘respect’ killers in new teaching aid

It tells primary age children that terrorists kill people because they believe they are being treated “unfairly and not shown respect”.

It gives examples of “terrorists” whose ideas then turn out to be right: “The Suffragettes used violence and were called terrorists…” it stated. [ellipsis original]

Well, no. The Suffragettes turned out to be wrong. And, anyway, they were granted power by the elites of the time, who were free, if they so enjoyed, to ignore them. Elites could have even restricted the voting franchise further, if they were inclined.

Anyway, having people swear their murderers are motivated by hurt feelings is a whopper of a lie. And so it is pushed, only because some still protest against the lie.

List Of Biblical Contradictions Withers To None

Some fellow pleased to call himself a skeptic, which is to say an atheist, thinks Matthew 28:1 (In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre) contradicts John 20:1 (The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre).

This is listed as the 115th Biblical “contradiction” at, a contradiction seen by everybody, the author assures us, but “fundamentalist idiots.” The presence of this glaring contradiction indicates two different accounts of Jesus’s resurrection, and two different accounts proves the Bible could not have been given by the Holy Spirit. Thus Christianity is a fraud.

You can hear the exasperated but patient voice of Phillip Campbell as he in The Book of Non-Contradiction: Harmonizing the Scriptures writes: “Dawn means when the sun first begins to come into view on the horizon in the morning. It is still usually kind of dark at dawn.” Indeed, as the poet said, it is then darkest.

That Campbell had to trouble with this is telling. It proves that many are ready, even eager, to accept the thinnest, most patently ridiculous evidence in order to support a cherished belief. What makes it funny is that these stunts are normally done in the name of “rationality”.

Anyway, there is pleasure in walking through the 191 supposed contradictions (Campbell tackles them all). The effect is to strengthen one’s convictions and not weaken them, and this is because the solving of small riddles bolsters belief.

Campbell doesn’t set right only minor misunderstandings, but major conundrums, too. And most of these are solved by realizing that — surprise — not every culture acts identically to ours. This discovery will astound many moderns, who assume that people throughout history were aiming for our point in time. So that when a person writes of things he heard or saw Jesus or King David do, he was thinking of us when he was writing, so that this witness took great care to use words and forms familiar to us via media like television or court reporting. Thus, if his words do not conform to modern expectations, it must be that the events he saw did not happen or don’t mean what he implied.

Campbell runs through fifteen major controversies, such as the supposed differing accounts of creation and of Jesus’s genealogy, and of why we still proscribe homosexuality and do not eschew shellfish, two laws from the Old Testament.

Two examples will suffice to give an impression. Seemingly conflicting accounts make it appear, in Luke 22 and John 18–19, that the last Passover Jesus attended was on two separate dates. How could this be? Well, in modern times Passover only happens on fixed dates, made known well in advanced by printed calendars. But two thousand years ago several calendars were in use (the Jews had more than one, the Romans another, etc.) and they gave varying advice on which day to celebrate. Different sects within Judaism picked different but nearby dates.

So that when it appears that the eyewitness testimony gave differing dates, the reality is that it probably was different dates; i.e. more than one celebration. This happens in modern Christianity, too, but it doesn’t cause anybody to fret. Catholics and most protesting Christians have one date for Easter, and the Orthodox another. But not many atheists would claim Catholics and Orthodox don’t exist because there are “conflicting” reports of Easter celebrations.

This brief description makes it sound too easy and leaves out a wealth of detail, but be assured Campbell’s analysis is painstaking and thorough.

My favorite example involves Richard Dawkins, who often uses a version of the following fallacious argument, which (of course) convinces his followers: God ordered the genocide of certain peoples; therefore, since God is love and love doesn’t kill, God doesn’t exist.


The real and obvious and sobering and awe-inspiring argument seems to have escaped that great man: God ordered the genocide of certain peoples; therefore, don’t piss off God.

Campbell is having nothing to do with modern squeamishness which seeks to dismiss the events related in Joshua and other points in scripture. When God said smite the Canaanites, He meant smite them, and smite them good.


Though the Canaanites seemed to have it coming, why they were put to the sword is God’s business, not ours. Did not God wipe out the greater part of humanity in the Flood? Let’s not forget Sodom and Gomorrah. And let’s not forget you, either, dear reader.

Now we come to the crux of this issue: what we ultimately need to keep in mind when looking at the Canaanite genocide is that God is the ultimate authority over human life and can take it in any way He chooses.

Again, there is much more to it, and Campbell brings us through it.

Two trivial complaints, neither of which should stop you from buying the book, which you should. The book’s typesetting swaps en dashes (and maybe even em dashes?) for hyphens which should be used in compound words; e.g. “the principle of double—effect” versus “the principle of double-effect”. Grates on my eyes, though I doubt it’s noticeable to most. And Campbell could never bring himself to write about himself in the first person; e.g. “we recommend the article ‘Deconstructing the Documentary Hypothesis’ by Phillip Campbell.” William M Briggs also recommends the article.

Campus Idiocy Roundup II

Harvard, circa 2018?

Given the (this isn’t the right word) success of the last Roundup, this may become a semi-regular feature.

Headline Catholic College Students Push Expanded LGBTQ Acronym

Longtime readers know these “Catholic” students are far behind us. Why, it was three full years ago we opened betting on the next “orientation” letter. Even then, we were at LBGTQAI, more or less.

The student government at the College of the Holy Cross is pushing an expanded acronym in place of LGBT or LGBTQ: “LGBTQIAP+.”

The acronym stands for “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual, pansexual,” and all the other non-heteronormative, non-cisgendered among us (that’s left-wing-speak for heterosexual people).

Defining yourself by your sexual desire is an axiom with these folks. You are your lust. It defines your existence. Since lust is endlessly various, it follows there must be a limitless supply of letters with which to express these lusts. People will not be satisfied with having their individual lust lumped into a “+”. Too degrading and existence denying.

English has far too few letters, I’m afraid. We could append Greek and Cyrillic, but we’d still fall shy. The only solution is numbering. Problem here is, even though there are an infinite supply of numbers, campus knotheads would immediately fall to arguing over precedence. Who gets “1”, sodomy or dog lovers? What an ugly fight it would be!

I’m out of ideas. What are yours?

Headline Why Colleges Have a Right to Reject Hateful Speakers Like Ann Coulter.

Before we begin, I want to remind readers that I have not received any invitations to speak at graduations this year. Again. The mind boggles.

As graduation season approaches, colleges across the country are locking down commencement speakers to address the class of 2017. Harvard got Mark Zuckerberg (a Harvard dropout). Hillary Clinton is speaking at Wellesley, Bernie Sanders at Brooklyn College. Joe Biden will speak to my seniors at Colby.

This was the opening, to prove that there are worse things than being uninvited.

When departments or groups arrange for a speaker, invitations are usually authorized by small committees or localized administrative offices without a campus-wide discussion or debate.

Do you see? Do you see? Campus-wide discussion. To this writer, a professor, the campus a monolithic entity, a modern-day monastery. Of course the campus should speak with one voice against the heresy of Reality!

Understanding this sequence of events is crucial, because no-platforming is as much a function of process as of politics. Instead of community-wide discussion and debate over the merits of bringing a given speaker to campus, the debate happens after the invitation, giving the misleading impression that no-platforming is about shutting down speech. Indeed, when savvier campus groups deliberately choose controversial speakers, they’ve already won half the battle by getting the speaker approved. After that, every value judgment against the speaker, however thoughtful, reasonable, or prudent, becomes an attempt to silence the speaker and “shield students from scary ideas.

If you didn’t have it before, you have it now. The writer premises his argument on the belief that there is only one set of acceptable views, and that, sometimes, heretics and rogues sneak one past the goalie. These heretics and rogues, the author later implies, should be stopped. Bad invitations should never happen.

And this, you might be surprised to learn, I agree with. Heresy should be barred. Thus, the author is right that there is only one truth, and that it should be defended at all costs. He’s only wrong in thinking he’s identified it. The author, like the majority on campuses today, are all staunch realityophobes. If they thought the politics warranted it, they would deny the sun rises in the east. Campus disinvitations (their word) are not wrong because “free speech” is sacrosanct. They are wrong because they are removing the chance for students to hear the capital-T Truth.

Headline Violence, repression, and freedom

Jim (the author) is a fellow gloomier than I, and perhaps too (um) Freudian in some of his analyses (I don’t believe he’s Christian). But here he is right. Campus realityophobia and allied violence are driving people to the alt-right.

Today, if you support freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble, you are a nazi. So, what the hell, you had better ally and organize with actual unironic nazis. George Soros is a Jew, and he is providing your enemies with military grade pepper spray and restricted explosives, so if the Nazis say “the Jews” are doing this, why split hairs with them?

Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly was always a lie, sometimes, as in our past, a little white lie. Sometimes, as at present, a great big blatant arrogant lie. There is always a state religion, and you can never commit lese mageste against the state religion and its symbols…

The trouble is that our official unofficial state religion has open entry into our officially unofficial inquisition, the social justice warriors, with the result that it is intrusively developing a line on everything — not only race and sex but fatty foods and global warming, so that the necessary restrictions on freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association have become alarmingly intrusive and aggressive.

Punchline: “Repression is ramping up not because we used to have freedom of speech and freedom to peaceably assemble before and now we do not, but because the official belief system is getting ever crazier, and thus requires ever more violence to be enforced.”