Wednesday, 30 December 2009

Pride & Prejudice


A repost from Anna Raccoon.

The utter hypocrisy of this quote caught my eye.

“Yvette and I are married. I personally think it is better but I certainly would not say that to other people.”

Coming as it did from one of the main protagonists of the Nanny ‘we know what is best for you’ State, it had me awake for many hours trying to work out who, which government department, where, who selected them, what are they called, these people who dictate what is acceptable to dictate to us and what is not.



My original thoughts concerned the conundrum that is the racism v class war. That it is inherently vile and evil to disparage a man because of the genetic traits inherited from his parents. Who he is born to is not of his choosing, therefore the external signs of that accident of birth should not be held against him – unless of course we are talking of his parents happening to be wealthy and white, in which case it is perfectly in order to hurl abuse at him for the choices – schooling – that his parents made for him when he was a child.



Unfortunately, your Dormouse-like Raccoon fell asleep at that point, and by the time she emerged from hibernation, Devil’s Kitchen had already superbly fisked that argument. So I turned to another example of the output of this anonymous Government Department that clears old prejudices out of the closet like the winter wardrobe, only to replace them with a fresh set that it deems more suitable for the season.



Let us move on from ‘accidents of birth’ and take two prime examples of ‘life-style’ choices, that have entirely reversed their position, albeit with near identical arguments, over the past 12 spin-infested years.



Homosexuality v Smoking.



Those of you with opinions preformed in quick drying cement may wish to move straight to comments, and deposit your usual turgid prose. The rest of you may wish to engage in a lighthearted exercise.



One of these life-style choices is said to hold a risk of serious illness and possibly death. One of these life-style choices must be conducted well away from ‘decent’ people. One of these lifestyle choices is said to pose such a risk to young children that anything pertaining to it must be hidden away in shops that cater to such tastes, for fear that children may be encouraged to dabble in the vice that dare not bear its name. The danger is said to be so acute that even advertisements for such practices are banned. Indeed, the risk of accidental ‘contamination’ or indoctrination through contact with those who conduct this life-style choice is so high that practitioners are banned from adopting children. One of these life-style choices is alleged to risk ailments that cost the NHS a King’s ransom every year to treat, and results in many deaths. One of these lifestyle choices is said to interfere with the continuation of the human race. Thus it is decreed that all decent people should decry the practice at every opportunity. Anybody admitting to the practice should be shunned from public places, denounced at dinner parties, forced to fumble furtively amongst the shrubbery if they insist on ’sinning’, denied the right to hold their heads up and announce their preference to a tolerant world.



On the other hand, one of these lifestyle choices is protected by legislation from being spoken of disparagingly, joked about, discriminated against. Legislation has been altered specifically to allow children the chance to indulge at a younger age than previously possible. Magazines, newspapers and TV programmes are paraded at every opportunity specifically so that those who had not yet commenced this life-style choice might easily find the information to allow them to do so. The NHS opens its willing arms and special hospital wings to cure the ailments, at great cost, that can follow in its wake. The deaths that occur are publicly mourned as a great loss to society. Annual parades are held, and the men and women of our emergency services censored if they don’t attend to publicly show their support for those who make this life style choice.



If you have read this far, you may want to know that I don’t condemn either homosexuality or smoking, in fact I am an avid practitioner of one, but not both.



I do condemn the hypocrisy of fashionable discrimination. If discrimination is wrong, and I believe it is, then all discrimination is wrong.



The discrimination which protects and encourages one practice and condemns another. The sporting discrimination which condemns fox hunting but protects cocaine snorting footballers from censure. The religious discrimination which condemns cross-wearing Christians but protects bomb concealing burkhas in our public buildings. The mental health discrimination that condemns discussion of our Prime Minister’s mental health, but allows that same Prime Minister to cite the mental health of a drug smuggler as reason why he should not receive the due justice of another country where he has transgressed. The ‘identity’ discrimination that condemns discussion of the advisability of promoting a man to the highest office – Privy Councillor – on the basis of his birth but permits discussion of the advisability of promoting a man to Prime Minister on the basis of his birth.



Who decides what is the correct shade of discrimination this year? How long the hem line of disapproval will be? Which coat of sanctimony to put to the back of the cupboard, and which to wear with pride? Tight pursed lips this year, or slack jawed acceptance for all?



Is it really the province of Cabinet Ministers to determine who lurks in the closet and who parades with pride? Something like 1% of the population belong to any of the ‘big three’ political parties. Those people seem to be solely responsible for deciding what the rest of us think and believe -even when we don’t believe, we are corralled by draconian laws into pretending that we do.



Why do we let them?

31 comments:

Scumbags Out! said...

When will further details be forthcoming about how we can all become you, OH?

Old Holborn said...

Patience. First, I need to become a "Freeman".

Roger Thornhill said...

It is not correct to describe homosexuality as a "lifestyle choice". It seems this is no accident as your argument is built around that assertion.

Disappointed.

Old Holborn said...

Roger, you miss the point

The post is about the active promotion of homosexuality to young people via the media by politicians. That is very much a "lifestyle" choice.

Captain Ranty said...

A brilliant post.

I agree with all of it. Hypocrisy has become the religion de jour.

Discrimination is okay when "they" say it is.

Let's discriminate against all 646 of them when the time comes.

CR.

wv = caning. It isn't enough but it's a start.

Anonymous said...

Being a fag is choice. In countries where they are executed, there are hardly any.

The Young Oligarch said...

An excellent post .

I disagree , however , with your opinion that discrimination is wrong . I believe it to be an absolute necessity for civilisation .

Theodore Dalrymple makes a good case for this view in his book "In Praise of Prejudice".

SO17 said...

Race or sexual orientation can't be chosen and shouldn't be a basis for discrimination.
That works both ways.
Crimes against the individual already exist that should protect us all.
By adding'Hate crime' to an offence means that the majority of people will not benefit from extra judicial sanction.
In effect Britain now has first and second degree murder.
That as an example is what pisses off the British most.
As long as the state does not discriminate that is the best one can hope for.
The leftwing, who want to micro manage and legislate against the individual,are both wrong and counter productive.

The Paragnostic said...

The assertion that faggotry is not a lifestyle choice is based on what, precisely?

It may be argued that an urge to faggotry is either a genetic predisposition (unlikely, since such a preference would die out naturally over time) or due to developmental abnormalities in the womb, but the decision to act upon those urges, in defiance of the natural order of things, is certainly a personal choice.

The real problem lies in the nature of the clique that runs our country - the liberal and generally effete elite that strangles all opinions which conflict with their uniquely twisted outlook on life. Homosexuality should automatically disqualify the practitioner from public office, as it betrays a contempt for nature and a weak and deviant intellect.

Smoking, on the other hand, is a perfectly reasonable activity that should be encouraged - smokers are much less likely to inflict their opinions on others, are generally tolerant of others, and show a sense of independence that we should all follow.

I had a letter from my GP this morning, noting that 'our records show that you have a history of smoking', and inviting me to seek help for this foul affliction that poisons my life. I promise to think about giving up when all the local queers get a similar letter with a phrase such as 'our records show that you have a history of pederasty', and offering help for their poor battered sphincters.

I may have to wait a while for the latter, so I salute you all with a fine Monte Christo, a glass of port, and a girl on my arm.

El-Kevo said...

As a non-smoker and a never-have-been-a-smoker It is a joy to travel on public transport and be in public places without being contaminated by this habit. You really have to be a non-smoker to understand how offensive it actually is to have your lungs filled with it and your clothes reeking of the stuff.

Homosexuals have never offended me this way - and nor have they presumed that I don't mind.

That said - I don't agree with an outright ban on smoking.

I am Stan said...

@The Paragnostic 15:48-It may be argued that an urge to faggotry is either a genetic predisposition (unlikely, since such a preference would die out naturally over time) or due to developmental abnormalities in the womb, but the decision to act upon those urges, in defiance of the natural order of things, is certainly a personal choice.

Sounds like someone is surpressing their own ¨faggotry¨ urges hahahaha

Just let it go man,be true to yourself
...he doth protest too much methinks..

Pavlov's Cat said...

Right, you fuckers, let's clear up two old chesnut that get dragged up again and again and again and AGAIN.

1) Homosexuality = Not Choice.

"You've found the gay gene?"
"Yes."

- Bill Maher talks to genetic scientist in "Religulous".

2) Homosexuals would "Die out."

No, because genetics don't work that way. Natural variation ensures that homosexuals will always account for 1% of the population.

Remember those old scares about how blonde people were dying out? Or how ginger people were never meant to exist in the modern world because our prehistoric ancestors didn't find them shaggable enough? They were proved wrong, because a) both blondes and homosexuals are still around, because NATURAL VARIATION ENSURES THESE GENE TRAITS CROP UP AT A STATISTICALLY CONSTANT RATE.

Shove that in your pipe and smoke it. I really don't have the fucking patience for people who can't do 5 minutes of googling and work it out themselves.

Also a meagre 3/10 for the "homosexuality Vs. smoking" argument, seeing as the Homosexuality half of it is built on sand:

"Legislation has been altered specifically to allow children the chance to indulge at a younger age than previously possible."

Yes, by bringing it in line with the laws regarding heterosexuality, thus ensuring equal rights for all and moving towards, more libertarian than authoritarian, surely? This move erases a social distinction built into legislation, which is a good thing.

"The NHS opens its willing arms and special hospital wings to cure the ailments, at great cost, that can follow in its wake."

That is to say, in the wake of irresponsible, casual sex on both sides of the sexuality fence. Gay people pay their fucking taxes too. Fail.

"The deaths that occur are publicly mourned as a great loss to society."

.. And your point is?

Anyone else the MSM feels the need to martyr gets this treatment. Jade Goody anyone?

"and the men and women of our emergency services censored if they don’t attend to publicly show their support for those who make this life style choice."

Join me next week in bizarro land, where I'll be censoring someone who isn't saying anything in the first place.

You can't censor a negative. Your statement makes absolutely no sense.

"The sporting discrimination which condemns fox hunting but protects cocaine snorting footballers from censure."

These things have shit all to do with homosexuality.


Well done on ruining a half-decent last paragraph on Labours social engineering agenda with an article of swivel eyed lunacy. Homos! Homos everywhere! Putting a strain on the NHS and being in the media! Those homos should be seen and not heard!

I dislike charities with agendas getting their hands on taxpayers money just as much as you do - I don't want pride parade funding, thanks, I can sleep with who I like with or without government bribes, and dead boy band lead singers get no pity from me.

So please, let's not condemn identity politics right after buying the fuck into it.

'Scuse me, I'm off to find my smoking jacket with the pink triangle on it for a few fags in a lock in.

Anonymous said...

I used to have the greatest of respect for Anna Raccoon until now. What a load of fucking shite.

Anonymous said...

The choices as to which activities to censure and which to promote/protect is not random. The State has been conducting a cultural revolution from above. Recognising that freedom had been excellently preserved within a conservative, Christian, pro-life, DIY-self-reliance culture, the statists sought to destroy that culture so that nobody would value freedom ever again. Hence the ultimate enemy for the state is the standing-on-his-own-two-feet, white, middle class, Christian family man. For he does not need the state.

I am Stan said...

Hence the ultimate enemy for the state is the standing-on-his-own-two-feet, white, middle class, Christian family man. For he does not need the state.

What utter twaddle!...stop feeling sorry for yourself Anon......FFS..

thelunaticarms said...

Bravo - this is what happens when we have too many poofs in power. A Nation should only have one Queen (and that isn't Lord Mangledbum).

Old Holborn said...

Coming tomorrow

Only Israel has more Jews in power than Britain....

Anonymous said...

Why do some people or groups find what other adults do together such an emotionally charged issue? If they are devoutly religious do they eat shellfish or seek the banning of oyster eaters?

Is it the aesthetics that disturbs them? Why should it? They won't be participating. Dont they see some hetrosexual couples daily and think to themselves "rather you than me"?

There are a lesbian couple living down the road and although it's probably remiss of me I don't lie in bed wondering/worrying about what they are doing or wondering if we are all going to be safe in our beds.

The rule of the mob (often hypocritical)is just as oppressive as the rule of a stasi state.

Anonymous said...

OH, I think you'll find the US government is riddled with them in vastly disproportionate numbers too.

caesars wife said...

I think this is work in progress ,and doesnt really accept that there are/may be boundries in what is the concept of a "civilised society" which alas means different things to different people.

Having the right to live a "gay" lifestyle without getting a rub down with a house brick is perhaps progress and the claims that it is somehow a socialist cause are not true , as socialism has its own maligned bigotry . Where it has gone wrong is in its overblown ego about its results in its active promotion ,the G in gay is not pronounced quietly. Despite many attempts to claim forcing the equality of heterosexual and homosexual realtionships , there are some differences which are not interchangeable or soluble.

There is no evidence that gay people somehow are incapable of running a succesful business , producing worthwhile intellectual contributions , driving well or even being good at rugby or other sports . So defining equalty in these civil terms is not a problem and that argument has been won and are clearly adult rights.

What gets me is that somehow the active promotion of gay lifestyles will do anything more than increase the argument that enviromental/nurture is more signifcant than the "its hardwired " arguments .

Giving way to an argument is quite different from backing its promotion , why on earth are questions about sexuality being raised with children whose hormones havent kicked in , when these hormones may yet be another intricate developing of our sexuality , causing more confusion and insecurity .

teaching kids stranger danger and promoting parental/family abuse is right, but i dont think asking kids to role play being gay is anything more than creating problems . The wierd way foster parents get fisked by the equalities brigade is worrying as it means that social services no longer value the difference.

smoking : given that inhaling the particulates from diesel engine fumes is bad , it perhaps seems unfair , we are too skint to stop taxing smoking addicts , although high taxation is ensuring a healthy black market . But in general I back banning it purely on the grounds that we could do somthing more usefull with the land .

I can only conclude that there is nothing wrong with prejudice esp if your later proved right !!

Old Holborn said...

I am prejudiced against rotten meat, bad beer, houseflies, unflushed toilets, Nissan Micra drivers, female genital mutilation, head lice, spiny urchins, tapeworms, the Welsh, thistles, luke warm baths, stinging nettles, great white sharks, Nigerians, spitting on pavements, dandruff, Cinzano Bianco, broken fingernails, flared trousers, child rapists, London Transport, fog, the BBC, wife beating Scottish heroin addicts, Argos, speed cameras, fat people, Brut 33, beards, english brewed "lager", magpies, bus lanes....etc.,...etc.

Put me in prison

The Beast of Clerkenwell said...

Queerism is a vile invention that keeps certain weak minded individuals in a state of permanent adolesence
They couldnt get a fuck from the opposite sex so played with their ugly mates cock.
Lesbians are just ugly women who look like their fathers

sconzey said...

Oh Anna, I'm so glad you didn't quit blogging after all.

For those vitrolic debaters above, twin studies have produced mixed evidence for the heritability of homosexuality. I'm afraid the science is still very much debatable, so you're all wrong.

But that is besides the point, because homosexuality is not treated by state agencies as a genetic trait. I have yet to see flyers: "am i ginger" "coming out as a tall person"

It's treated as a lifestyle choice, and indeed it is not the affection and sexual attraction to those of the same sex which is promoted, but often the "gay scene" -- the lifestyle surrounding it; c.f. state-funded gay-pride parades.

Anna's criticism stands, regardless of the actual heritability of homosexuality.

Pavlov's Cat said...

I think it's fairly simple to understand that

Education is not promotion, it's education.

Provision of services is not promotion, it's provision.

Media regarding homosexuals is not promotion, it's just media which may or may not be biased in favour of a certain worldview (Ie, gay people are fine and dandy and aren't going to cause the apocalypse).

Any commentor here who uses the phrase "promotion of" in connection with homosexuality is basically fucking delusional. There aren't any stasi telling people to be gay.

There's a difference between forcing acceptance and forcing conformity. Duh

Ron Broxted said...

This is more fucking like it, fuck political debate and how we are all being screwed by fucking labour cunts. The true third way is straight up the shitter.....Oooh matron.

PS, got any photo's without the pants? Must dash my nose has started bleeding again.

Rebel Saint said...

I hate the lazy "Discrimination is wrong" thinking. Discrimination is not only not wrong - it is a vital positive trait.

I am teaching my children to practice discrimination all the time ... discriminating about the friends they make; discriminating about the media they watch/listen and believe; discriminating about the arts they enjoy; discriminating about those they can trust.

Lets not have any more of that silly anti-discrimination talk on here please.

We need more discrimination, and more intolerance.

The Paragnostic said...

Ooh - there are some angry queens commenting here.

Pavlov's Cat - just because one 'genetic scientist' thinks they might have found a gene that occurs in a lot of arse bandits doesn't mean that such a gene is a 'gay' gene. The general attitude in science post-1945 has been biased towards the liberal agenda, because the liberals have the monopoly on scientific funding, and areas such as eugenics are ideologically suppressed, despite having very good and secure science at their base.

And as for dying out? I seriously believe that it will eventually die out, especially in societies where queerness is promoted as a lifestyle. The persistence of any notional genetic component to faggotry is increased in societies where it is not accepted, as those with deviant tendencies adopt a normal lifestyle to avoid persecution, and thus pass on their substandard genes to their poor descendants.

Queer baiting is such fun - they are so shrill and hysterical in their defence of their deviant lifestyle that they are nearly as entertaining as a good bit of badger baiting.

Remember, faggots - YHBT!

Clive said...

"Education is not promotion, it's education."

Indeed, and people need to be educated that if you so much as sit on an armchair that was once used by a homosexual, you could catch all manner of killer diseases from third-hand spunk on the upholstery.

I assume you approve of this message, so I won't listen to your opinion and will just keep talking regardless. This isn't promotion, it's the precise opposite, but it still counts as education.

It may well be demented paranoid hysteria with no shadow of a basis in reality, but that isn't considered a problem nowadays. **You** can see it's precisely that, but no-one else will hear you over the sound of my lobbyists (the ones following my strict instructions to tell me to what to do.)

Clive said...

Hang on, I might have got that back-to-front. This month, it's a different group lined up for the daily Two Minute Hate.

S*rry about that. Now don't go asking any wider-ranging questions about divide-and-conquer tactics.

I am Stan said...

@Paragnostic-Queer baiting is such fun - they are so shrill and hysterical in their defence of their deviant lifestyle that they are nearly as entertaining as a good bit of badger baiting.

Remember, faggots - YHBT!

31 December 2009 05:39

Hahahahaha its 05:39 am...your surfing the gay porn sites arnt you...while everyone is in bed..hahahaha

Oh the guilt...

Anonymous said...

Hahahahaha its 05:39 am...your surfing the gay porn sites arnt you...while everyone is in bed..hahahaha

Oh the guilt...

31 December 2009 09:53

Either that or the playground bully mentality in adult bodies.

Perhaps some who have so much to say about state interferance, like people to conform sexually?? Maybe the nanny state is least worse after all?

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails