CENSORED on Some thoughts on the Rolling Stones in Cuba – Mail Online – Peter Hitchens blog

March 28, 2016 – I  left this comment here: Leninism and Lennonism aren’t that far apart. Some thoughts on the Rolling Stones in Cuba. – Mail Online – Peter Hitchens blog – which was CENSORED.

Dear Mr. Hitchens,

While I sometimes greatly appreciate reading your views and social criticisms, here is one topic where we are at the very opposites.

As I commented in none other than the “Rolling Stones” magazine (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/live-reviews/rolling-stones-thrill-huge-crowd-at-historic-havana-show-20160326?page=2), of course, with the easing of the embargo and whatever else is thawing, the Rolling Stones, icons of some of the worse cultural trash in the West just had to go do a concert in Cuba.

The Western MSM hailed this as progress. Progress means having some of England’s crappiest people, four lousy musicians, drug addicts, and sexuality pigs unload their garbage on the Cuban people. They just have to come destroy everything that is good in Cuba. Let us take a moment to ask: When did the Rolling Stones do anything that is considered good from a social or political perspective?

Next, you ask, “Could it be that money and logistics played a part? ”

Indeed, when has money not played a part in every evil deed by wily, devoid of ethics Westerners proclaiming to be for “freedom and democracy” in every country they have set foot to ruin and destroy? Take a look at what the US and capitalism have done to Latin American – the profound malaise, the gangs, the drugs, the murders, the poverty, the sexual abuse, the disease epidemics – for millions, it’s hell on earth.

Regarding one of your questions, I came across this tid bit in the media: En su web, la banda reveló: “Este evento está siendo posible gracias a la beneficencia de la Fundación Bon Intenshon…”. Detrás de esa fundación está el empresario Gregory Elias, promotor de un festival de jazz en Curazao y presidente de United Trust, una importante asesoría del paraíso fiscal caribeño.

Apparently it wasn’t the Stones who paid for their unfortunate visit to Cuba.

Could it be, lordie, lordie, that United Trust is a tax evasion/corruption consultancy? Maybe providing money laundering services as well? The Stones are so trashy they can’t even come to Cuba on a clean ticket… I’m surprised they weren’t sponsored by the Hillary Mafia Foundation…

And United Trust – why does that sound familiar? Ah, yes! United Fruit…

The pests are back!

And next time you want to mention torture, why don’t you mention how the CIA monstrously tortured – yes, go into the details – and murdered thousands of innocent Latin Americans in ways that make Castro look like an altar boy?

Lastly, Mr. Hitchens, I’m sure you will allow this to go through moderation, you who love to go off criticizing those awful repressive regimes where no criticism is allowed by those who control public discussion – lest you be cut from the same cloth?


ADDED on March 29, 2016.

As of today, my comment above has remained censored on Peter Hitchens’ blog/Mail on Sunday site.

See, “freedom and democracy” is a system where it’s proponents never allow anyone to debate them in public. Then they point fingers are Putin, Castro, and whoever for repressing criticism…



CENSORED: The Spectator – What conservative gay Christians want – Dan Hitchens

The Spectator has an article depicting the ignorant-on-psychology approach that some conservatives spouse:

What conservative gay Christians want

It’s not church doctrine on marriage that needs to change. It’s almost everything else

The LGBT rights movement — so the story goes — has split the Christian churches in two. On one side are the progressives, who believe that Christianity should accept gay people and recognise gay marriage. Lined up against them are the conservatives, who hold fast to the belief that being gay is sinful. It’s not entirely false, that story. There are just a vast number of Christians who don’t fit into it.

Ed Shaw is an evangelical pastor in Bristol and is gay — or, as he puts it, he ‘experiences same-sex attraction’. It’s a less misleading term, he tells me. ‘If I say to people in conversation, “I’m gay,” they tend to presume that I’ll be delighted if they match me up with their gay friend Barry.’ Which isn’t what he’s looking for: ‘I’d love to meet any of their friends, but I don’t want to be match-made with people because I’m not interested in that sort of relationship.’

Shaw is one of the founders of Living Out, a website written by gay people who are also traditionally minded Christians. As he points out, this is quite a large constituency. The ‘horror stories’ about churches rejecting LGBT people dominate media coverage, he says: Living Out exists partly to record more positive experiences.

Shaw’s is one of them. ‘As a pastor,’ he says, ‘I thought being open about my sexuality would be a disqualification for the job, and would mean that people would stop coming to me.’ Instead, they started calling on him more than ever. ‘Because they think, this guy finds life tough, it’s not easy for him, he might be able to help me. I think previously I thought the deal was, try and fake it as a perfect person, and then people will listen to you.’

When Shaw writes in praise of the ‘real elements of beauty’ in gay relationships, or laments how the C of E’s ‘hypocrisy’ has ‘hurt a lot of people’, he sounds like a liberal Anglican.

Notice that there is no more talk about how perverted and dysfunctional their homosexual desires are, it’s all “real elements of beauty”. Homosexuality is all about being BFFs! And why should such a guy find life “tough”? Anytime he says homosexuality has real elements of beauty, it appears he has men like Dan Hitchens drooling to hear more about how wonderful it all is. Maybe Hitchens would like to give him a long hug for all his suffering, you know, get real close to that suffering homo who will never think of going to treat his deformed mind. And when a male youth or adult needs to talk about a sensitive matter to Shaw, and he responds by a long, intense sexual stare, violating what would be a Pastor’s role, I’m sure Hitchens would just shrug and say, but he is a suffering homosexual, such a nice guy, who can blame him? We must embrace him, in fact, let me go embrace him one more time myself.

And that’s the people now in both these evangelical churches and the Catholic Church. I mean, the way things are going, the Catholic Church should just come out and put “gay sauna” signs on every of its churches.

Like another favorite of ignorant conservatives like Hitchens, whom he also mentions, Eve Tushnet, a “Catholic” pervert who’s doing everything she can to destroy the Catholic Church – from inside:

For Tushnet, the future became clearer when she asked where specifically God was calling her to love — which led to volunteering at a crisis pregnancy centre, and to a deepening of friendship. Tushnet sees this life as an expression of her sexuality, not a denial of it. ‘The desire for same-sex intimacy and love and the recognition of beauty in people of the same sex — these are inherently good things, and in many ways basic human needs.’ Some people find it possible, she says, ‘to take all of that energy and intensity of erotic love and let it flow into a relationship to women or to beauty or to God’. That kind of ‘sublimation’ has always made intuitive sense to her.

Who would have thought that only a few decades after GLAAD was created, it would merge with the Catholic Church? It’s harder and harder to tell them apart. This may be why “Dan Hitchens has just been appointed deputy editor of the Catholic Herald”. Or why approximately 80% of the sexual abuse cases in the Catholic Church in the US were priests abusing males, and the majority were not kids, they were adolescents. We have people like Hitchens and Tushnet to thank for that – with their discourse and their lies and their embellishment of homosexuality. (It has been two years already since I wrote The new Pope, the Catholic Church, and homosexuality: a fish rots from the head down!)

Notice also that people like Hitchens and Tushnet never talk of violence, sexual harassment, abuse, or perversion. I even wonder how many of these farcical Christians even have any kind of healthy mind or feelings regarding sexuality left.

Their own perversions have supplanted any conscience of what is healthy. Once a healthy feeling becomes perverted and deformed, a person no longer has a guide, internally. From then on, being a pervert is their only experience of “normality”. This is why homosexuals are so much like pedophiles, zoophiles, and any other deformed human beings. Their sense of normality is based on their sick minds – they are not going to ever talk about how evil or harmful or how much violence they do in the world.

No wonder that when homosexual pigs (and their supporters) are in power, like they are in many of these churches and social spaces and public forums, people like me are never allowed to speak.

This explains why my comment to the above article was censored:

When you are completely ignorant about treating psychological problems, like the Church often is, and so is the Spectator crowd, you are going spout this non-sense that homosexuals have nothing to treat and should go about their lives with their minds deformed. This creates the problem that every kind of homosexual perversion is normalized in their minds and many will effectively insult and sexually harass others because of their homosexuality, along with worse crimes. The dominant discourse will always be “what a cross LGBTs have to bear”, not “let’s inquire about why they experience all kinds of perverted sexual feelings towards people of the same sex”. People who are ignorant about human psychology simply cannot answer or investigate the question. Hence the idiotic stance that results from these conservatives.


Last but not least, I know I’m not the only one, but sometimes, when I read such aberrant articles, I feel like the only person who realizes that these so-called Christian/Catholics interpret the Bible any way they want, and then say the Bible is the word of God – and so it must be true. It would be nice to tap on their shoulder and ask, ‘Haven’t you noticed that every century you have changed the discourse and every time you still proclaim your version is the “word of God”? Cute game, isn’t it?’

This is particularly true of this “we can’t turn away the gays because I love them so much and they’re so nice to me” crowd like Hitchens. “I must have them so near to me in my heart, because I’m such a good little Catholic. And tell me once again how beautiful homosexuality is, Shaw, how utterly nice homosexuals are. It makes me drool. I really want to know how another man would worship me, how he struggles with it, how he’d like to be best friends with me forever. It’s not an abomination at all – who could ever think that, Shaw? I’m just doing my Catholic duty to be good here.”

Really, with “Catholics” like this, who needs GLAAD?


CENSORED: comment about article on porn on Ethika Politika (Arrested Development: The Destruction Of Masculinity In A Pornified Culture) by Octavia Ratiu

CENSORED: my comment about article on porn on Ethika Politika “Arrested Development: The Destruction Of Masculinity In A Pornified Culture” by | October 23, 2014

The CENSORED comment:

I very much appreciate and support EP’s continued articles to criticize porn. Well done.

My comment to this article, which has many good points, and we need more of, is that it’s too focused on a narrow construct (male viewer/female sex object). Porn poisons the brain and psychology of women just as it does for men. Also, there was no mention of homosexual porn and other perverse kinds of sexuality. I have no doubt that porn reinforces for quite a bit of women who have a heterosexual psychology, along with other factors, a perverted way of thinking about women due to porn. That is, they receive varied messages that thinking of women sexually is acceptable, desirable, and tiltillating – the normalization of homosexuality and bisexuality. Thus they end up gazing at women in porn in the same top-down exploitative position that male viewers of porn are in.

For many women, who have long lost or never had a psychology of respect and dignity, but are much more involved in dynamics of power regarding sexuality, porn is the kind of content that gives them a green light to sexually harass or make unwanted advances towards other women to pursue in the real world what they like to see on screen. And where have you ever seen a homosexual man railing against porn and homosexuals involved in porn? One more piece of evidence of what garbage of people LGBTs are.

Censorship at National Review Online – NRO – all my comments deleted re “More on Houston’s Harassment of Pastors/Annise Parker”

Here are the comments that the moderator deleted on the threads of a couple of articles related to Mayor Parker (or should we say Porker?) at National Review Online – NRO. All my comments at NRO are being systematically deleted.

More on Houston’s Harassment of Pastors


on National Review Online

Alessandra 3 days ago Removed

I’d prefer ppl spent their time and energy initiating the legal procedure to impeach the nasty Parker from office, since she is clearly unfit to be Houston’s mayor.


The Real Victim of Houston Pastor Story: Annise Parker

Alessandra 3 days ago Removed


@Alessandra_Ref – we shall not stand 4 gov control of our churches. Parker must resign. Contact mayor mayor@houstontx.gov, call 713-837-0311


Alessandra 3 days ago Removed

Aside from venting on the Internet, conservatives need to ask themselves
what can they do concretely to culturally slap back this disgusting
perverted woman who is now mayor of Houston and anyone else who
normalizes homosexuality. The problem many conservatives have not
realized is that LGBTs don’t want tolerance, they want domination and
control of society – and they will destroy our fundamental rights, and
will not bat an eye in the process, while claiming it’s more than
justified. So, 1) political action of all kinds to fight against liberal
politicians and political action 2) work to defeat new “sexual
orientation discrimination” bills and to repeal all such laws across the
US 3) do not employ any LGBT or person who is adamant about normalizing
homosexuality – you are only giving power and money to people who wish
to destroy you, your rights, marriage, a sexually healthy society, and
who will force you to submit to their nasty homosexuality agenda -or
suffer persecution – legal, social, financial, religious, cultural, and


Alessandra 3 days ago Removed

Every LGBT pervert is normal in their own mind


Normalization of homosexuality or freedom of conscience/religion – choose one


Alessandra 3 days ago Removed

Does it have to do with thinking that homosexuality is normal in Denmark and electing a homosexual pervert for mayor?



Another day, another banning: this time at “The Other McCain.”

I have been too busy to write here, but just wanted to drop off some quick notes.

Another day, another banning: this time at “The Other McCain.”

I admire Robert McCain’s work very much – and he is a great example to other journalists concerning his writings related to deviant and predatory sexualities.   And I also like several of his regulars quite a bit. I had meant to do a summary of many of these child exploitation cases he has written about, to also keep a reference on my blog, but I haven’t yet gotten around to it. So much to write about, so little time!

However, it’s unfortunate that part of his followers are stuck seeing the world through the most narrow-minded 1950′s Cold War blinders and we also have some hysterical people regarding total denial of abuse in industrial farming, something I am also very critical of. Aside from McCain’s ultra-simplistic and twisted constructions of “patriarchy” and “feminism” that miss the mark as often as they hit it. And that’s not mentioning immigration issues.

But despite these drawbacks, McCain’s work on perverted sexualities and how much the LGBT and liberal populations do harm in the area of sexuality is truly an example.

I, however, wrote some comments that challenged the aforementioned ridiculous views on other issues and… I got banned.

Amusingly, more or less at the same time he banned me, he published a post called none other than:
Dissent Must Be Abolished! ( February 16, 2014)

where he criticized liberals for suppressing dissent, criticism, and debate. Not content with that, he wrote in another post: “Demonizing and marginalizing dissent is what liberals do routinely.”

Ah, as McCain well shows, not only liberals – alas, on his blog, dissent  must also be abolished.

Rod Dreher at The American Conservative teaches by example how to be a hypocrite regarding freedom of speech

On Sept. 13, 2013, Rod Dreher at The American Conservative gave a nice display of his glaring hypocrisy regarding freedom of speech and his often camouflaged aversion to the market place of ideas. Why?

In a recent article (“Campus Feminist Vs. First Amendment”), Dreher decided to launch an attack on a female LSU student, Jana King, portraying her as some rabid anti-freedom of speech nitwit, and himself as her very opposite, an enlightened defender of free speech. Now, that takes hypocrisy, given that Dreher is not in any way different than Jana King. Before we get to Dreher’s hypocrisy, however, let’s take a look at the case itself.

Dreher starts out by painting King as a (liberal) snowflake who is particularly upset about a noxious form of oppression: having to hear opinions she disagrees with. Sounds bad, doesn’t it? Funny thing is, that’s exactly what Dreher’s profile is. Moreover, when we examine the case with King more closely, it seems a bit more nuanced at least in one respect.

King wrote an op-ed and made a video complaining about a recent change in policy at LSU. As a result of a lawsuit from the Alliance Defending Freedom group where the latter prevailed, LSU has recently been forced to allow students express opinions anywhere on campus and not just on this tiny “Free speech plaza.” Now, at first glance, it sounds like the University had confined “free speech” to one tiny square outside the classroom – like something out of Animal Farm – but this policy seems to mostly involve speech outside the classroom, that is, students and outsiders being able to protest or distribute printed materials to LSU’s students all over campus – and not just in one small spot.

I, in any case, completely support ADF’s actions to ensure there is freedom of speech in this regard throughout this campus and other campi. But I have to say I sympathize a bit with a particular aspect of King’s complaint. While one gets the impression that King is actually quite bothered merely by opinions she doesn’t appreciate -something she shares completely with Dreher- the examples she has on her protest video are mostly of aggressive deliveries, a fact that Dreher carelessly if not purposefully left out. Says King:

Most people think of freedom of speech as a constitutionally given right that allows them to say whatever they want, whenever they want, at whatever volume they want, without fear of any consequence because “Ahem, First Amendment.” … What they did not intend to protect was that student’s right to yell at you about a fetus that you may or may not have growing inside of you. … I feel like the Founding Fathers would side with me if I were to tell them about my experience last fall, when a member of the Baton Rouge community came on campus and began harassing me and a friend for being feminists. She went so far as to angrily shake a finger at us and call us “baby murderers.”

King isn’t merely complaining about differences of opinions and their expression, but of their angry and aggressive, in-your-face delivery. We don’t have enough details to know exactly how aggressive this incident was, but I can image if the protesters were truly angry and aggressive that it’s not unreasonable she found them unpleasant. And while I still support the right of people to yell at others in protest, it can also turn into a form of harassment or be borderline. I could see how this type of angry and loud behavior could easily escalate tensions between students to the point that it would break out in some kind of physical violence. On the other hand, I think if such incidents should happen, they need to be dealt with individually, instead of having a campus-wide censorship policy which, in particular, prohibits the more normal (read minimally polite) delivery of pamphlets or speech.

Getting back to Dreher, he continues his grand hypocrisy display in his article by going on to attack the idea of a “safe” space on campuses mentioned by King. His criticisms are all very well and good on the subject, and I perfectly agree with them, but a “safe space” is exactly what he enforces on his blog!

Dreher writes on the fake “safe” concept:

[beginning of excerpt] That “safe” business deserves a bit more commentary. If you watch the short King video to the end, you’ll see that she considers restricting speech on campus to be a matter of protecting her “right to a safe learning environment.” This whole idea of “safety” is often a cudgel the cultural left uses to marginalize and silence its ideological opponents by condemning their opinions as a threat to safety.”

The first time I encountered that was back in 1994, when a self-described feminist at my lunch table, upon learning that I was pro-life (this, in response to my answering a question one of her feminist friends put to me), mildly freaked out, and told her friends that she didn’t feel “safe” with me at the table. I had never seen anything like that before.

But it’s quite common now among gay activists in schools, who (rather brilliantly, from a Machiavellian point of view) sell their highly ideologized approach to education as a method for creating “safe spaces” in schools. The idea is that if you oppose their strategy or proposed policies, you must be indifferent to the safety of LGBT students. …

For example, in this guide, GLSEN compares rejecting its definitions of what constitutes an acceptable school to being on the same spectrum as supporting slavery or being a member of the KKK. In the same guide, it gives this example of “community oppression”:

“Community oppression is oppression that one experiences within a community to which they belong. Example: A lesbian attends a house of worship that preaches homosexuality is a sin.”

You see what’s going on here? To express the opinion within your community that homosexuality is sinful is a form of oppression.

[end of excerpt]

Dreher then cites Greg Lukianoff of FIRE:

“In a sense, I am grateful for her video and article because it’s rare to see a student so clearly and forthrightly make the case against basic political speech on campus. It’s also nice to have someone state so clearly that they think basic political speech could be harassment and possibly deny her a “safe learning environment.” When I tell people the language “safe learning environment” is often used as a code for the supposed right “not to be offended,” they are, ironically enough, sometimes offended by that suggestion.  … On today’s modern campus, safety equates to comfort, which too often means a right not to hear opinions that you dislike. This is precisely the opposite of what campuses should encourage.”

This is the apex of hypocrisy from Dreher. If you’re reading this for the first time, it may be news to you that I was banned from commenting on Dreher’s blog (part of the TAC site). What terrible offense did I commit? His accusation was that I created an “unsafe” environment at his blog! Ideas or facts he is bothered with, in his own little snowflake manner, are swiftly censored.

Dreher justified his banning by accusing me of writing something “inflammatory.” See? There is no safety if something “inflammatory” is written, is there? Clearly, Dreher was only doing a public service on his blog by censoring comments he labeled “inflammatory.” Because we all know how bad “inflammatory” is. It just calls for censorship, doesn’t it? (Rather brilliant, from a Machiavellian point of view, wouldn’t you say?) If Dreher could rewrite the First Amendment, he would change it to: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech (except in all cases I deem said speech to be inflammatory), or of the press (which should also be censored any time it has the gall to be inflammatory as well, as per my definition)…

So if you ever want to censor an idea or fact, just call it “inflammatory” and censorship is justiified. LSU and GLSEN and Jana King made the mistake of calling the opinions, ideas, and facts they don’t like “unsafe.” Who could censor “unsafe” speech? Only narrow-minded people on the left. But “inflammatory” speech, oh no! That’s a whole different ball game! It must be censored! Just ask Rod Dreher. He would have been all in favor of LSU censoring free speech in the entire campus, including in the classrooms, if students had claimed they were being forced to hear “inflammatory” ideas!

What Dreher really meant is that I was upsetting his little comfort level. And obviously such charges of “inflammatory” are of the kind “proven to be inflammatory because the accuser says so.” Just like when the left claims some statement is “unsafe” according to them.

Let’s fix Dreher’s paragraph above for him: This whole idea of “safety” is often a cudgel that conservatives very cozy with homosexuality, like Dreher, use to marginalize and silence other social conservatives by condemning their opinions as a threat to their “comfortable” discourse bubble.

On the center, right, or left, people often react quite the same way: if some speech makes them uncomfortable, well, its censoring is immediately justified under the guise of defending some lofty ideal.

The censorship Dreher practices on his blog is not any different than what I experienced recently at a liberal cad’s blog who exclaimed: The market place of ideas must be shut down, because too obnoxious. See? Too unsafe, too obnoxious, too inflammatory – pick your censorship justification label, they’re all the same: they merely serve the same noxious purpose of reducing the market place of ideas to a monopole of ideas. It’s nothing but a way to eliminate questioning points of views within a public forum. While I am not positing that a campus space is perfectly equal to a blog forum space, I am pointing out that Dreher is just as much of a snowflake eager to maintain his little comfort level as Jana King, GLSEN, and all the obtuse, herd-thinking liberals he criticized.

Lastly, paraphrasing Dreher’s own article at the end, Dreher considers himself enlightened and tolerant yet he is no less McCarthyist than these liberals. Such is the nature of illiberal cozy-with-the-gays conservatives. They are not aware that free speech means free speech, not just freedom for speech that’s “safe” or “non-inflammatory” according to the tendentious and manipulative definition they and many other such “conservatives” insist on.


This blog is dedicated to publishing recent comments and discussions that have been censored mostly in conservative venues, but sometimes liberal ones as well.

I started publishing censored comments submitted to First Things/First Thoughts and then added more censored comments as the phenomenon multiplied. As I mentioned I had several comments censored on The American Conservative until I was banned. The false charges for the banning were “inflammatory!” Below is a list of the links to some of the censored comments.

What is an inflammatory accusation? January 22, 2013

This post was redacted by Rod Dreher at the American Conservative. He took out all mentions to how denouncing violence by LGBT people is met with the same levels of cover up as in the CC scandal.


Censored (The American Conservative – Dreher – WaPo: ‘Error Has No Rights’)- Denials and more denials of levels of LGBT violence


Censored (The American Conservative -Dreher- What’s The Big Deal, Anyway?): Another case of a bisexual woman engaging in sexual misconduct


Censored at TAC:

LGBT individuals are beaten largely by LGBT individuals and who think there is nothing wrong with being “gay” – not by social conservatives


Censored (The American Conservative – Why Natural Law Arguments Fail By Rod Dreher): 14 Main Reasons Why Lefties Want Gay Marriage


CENSORED (What Same-Sex Marriage Means by Andre Archie- The American Conservative Blog ): debate on homosexual marriage


CENSORED (The American Conservative – Counterculture Conservatism – Bacevish): Social conservatives should sell out – NOT


Censored (at the American Conservative): Post talking about homosexuals perpetrating violence


Putin and the Decadent West

Censored on the American Conservative 21/1/2013- I was told it was inflammatory


Censored (The American Conservative): Comment highlighting sexual violence, promiscuity, and STDs by homosexuals in reference to the new rules for Boy Scouts