Why are Britons becoming less tolerant of gay sex? Hint: it’s not due to Christians like Rees-Mogg

Little Nicky loves a bit of irony and this is classic.

Why are Britons becoming less tolerant of gay sex? Hint: it’s not due to Christians like Rees-Mogg
Acceptance of gay sex and pre-marital relationships has fallen for the first time in decades in the UK, but the media is insistent on blaming the wrong people for intolerance.

The annual British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey has found that 74 percent believe that sex before marriage is “not wrong at all,” a percentage point less than last year, and 66 percent of adults say the same about same-sex relationships. While the declines are marginal and the numbers remain near historic peaks, the last time Britain grew less tolerant of homosexuals was during the AIDS panic of the late 1980s, and researchers state that openness has “plateaued” after years of rapid growth.

If in doubt, blame Brexit

The left-of-center media took no time to identify the reasons: the Guardian’s article on the subject features “Ukip, the Brexit party and the European Research Group (ERG) of Conservative MPs,” Arlene Foster of Northern Ireland’s DUP, “senior Conservative politicians including Andrea Leadsom and Esther McVey” and singles out Jacob Rees-Mogg, even though he doesn’t actually oppose same-sex relationships. In any case, one is left wondering why millions of Britons are suddenly taking their social cues from a Catholic father-of-six raised in a stately home by his devoted nanny. The Independent goes through much of the same list, throwing Theresa May and Boris Johnson into the mix, while on Sky News an LGBT activist said that Brexit had “emboldened” social conservatives.

A more sophisticated thesis claims there is a backlash against the rapid progress of LGBT rights and other liberal causes that have become visible everywhere from shop fronts to street parades to politicians’ lapels, and sites that have left comments on are full of opinions from those claiming to be sick of alternative lifestyles “rammed down their throats.” As recently as 2012, fewer than half of Britons told the same survey that there was nothing wrong with homosexual relationships, so perhaps some of the defections to the rainbow flag may have been fleeting.

‘Non-Christians’

But the more obvious answer appears to be hiding in plain sight, in black and white, in the survey itself.

For example, fewer Catholics (82 percent) believe that premarital sex is “rarely wrong” or “not wrong at all” compared to those who do not follow any religion (93 percent). But the real social conservatives are not the old or the Christians, but a grouping of “Non-Christians” only 35 percent of whom believe that sex before marriage is acceptable.

The picture is likely the same for same-sex relationships, though for reasons unknown the survey withholds a detailed breakdown of who exactly is against gay sex. But using the figures of 2016, which are available, only 30 percent of those non-Christians make allowances for LGBT couples – with acceptance rates 20 to 30 percent lower than Christian denominations, and even further behind atheists. Even if that number has improved against the overall trend, the group likely remains laggards. When LGBT advocates talk of a hardened rump that won’t fall in with other social trends, this is who they should mean.

So, who are these statistically interesting outliers? In the majority of cases, Muslims, with significantly smaller Hindu, Sikh and Jewish groups.

Using data from the BSA survey itself, the proportion of Muslims has doubled in the past decade alone from 3 to 6 percent. Government statistics estimate that there are over 3.3 million Muslims in the UK, more than twice as many as in 2001, with the real number thought to be higher as many migrants are not counted in such figures.

It might not seem like a lot, but if this group is radically different in its social attitudes it is enough to put a dent in the steady line of progress for tolerance, as it grows proportionally bigger.

Growing concerns

Other than the specific example of parents in Birmingham schools protesting against a new pro-LGBT curriculum, there is no acknowledgement of the impact of Muslims as such, or of their changing demographics on overall British attitudes in any of the reports. Similarly, the Independent writer talks about “an atmosphere of hostility creeping into our lives” and complains that he has “been subjected to a huge number of homophobic comments recently and several friends of mine have been assaulted or attacked” but doesn’t reveal who is behind these aggressive acts in London, a city with the highest “non-Christian” population.

Lefties love to shout their support for Gay BLTs from the rooftops. Likewise their love for Muslims and all things related to Islam (except the bits of Islam they are in denial about of course.) They’ve been so keen in both Gay / Lesbian / Trans rights and the acceptance of Islam, including Sharia Law, in British society that they have campaigned for both simultaneously just as they have campaigned for tolerance of perverts, druggies, criminals, gangstas, and members of the Jew – hating Labour Party.

Ironically homosexuality, sex outside marriage and any kind of drug use are crimes in Sharia Law, the first two so serious they are punishable by death.

Little Nicky and his friends over at Boggart Blog have often wondered how the lefties would react when the muslims they campaigned to introduce into British society started to turn on the Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Transexuals and Qs, whatever they are. Because ‘tolerance is a word that does not figure largely in The Koran.

Original Boggart Blog

 

 

 

The Mainstream Left Are Turning Against SJWs

Leftist Identity politics operate on the idea that everyone belongs to an identity group, and all of those groups are brutally oppressed by “The White Patriarchy.”

The idea is that since they are oppressed, they deserve extra rights and privileges in order to “defend themselves.”

The problem is that they ran out of things to be oppressed by, so they had to invent “micro-aggressions.”

Micro-aggression are tiny little insults that are CRUSHING the “marginalized people” like a Nazi steamroller (!!!)

THE LIST OF MICRO-AGGRESSION GOT RIDICULOUS A LONG TIME AGO.

10 Most Absurd Things Banned On Politically Correct College Campuses

I saw an article by an SJW in the Harvard newspaper where the writer complains bitterly that he is oppressed by the mere presence of white people.

(You’d think that getting a $350,000 college degree would take the sting out having to be around white people, but nope.)

I just got done listening to a debate where two college professors said that they should have the right to censor free speech, because free speech is largely a tool of white men and that they literally are fighting for their very lives (!!!) each day at their incredibly liberal colleges.

It all amounts to a cynical power grab by poisonously hateful, tribal people.

The other problem that SJW face is that they love PURITY TESTING.

No matter how liberal you are, you’ll never be pure enough for them.

There was a lefty-ish college professor at Evergreen College who taught evolutionary biology.

Evergreen is an off-the-charts progressive Taliban zoo of a college and the college president is like a self-parody of a self-loathing white leftist.

Evergreen decided that all white people should be disinvited to campus for a day, so the minorities could enjoy a day of not being oppressed by their toxic, oppressive presence.

The biology teacher, Brett Weinstein, wrote an email saying that he thought it was a bad idea and that he was uncomfortable with the concept.

The SJW Army went completely berzerk and tore the campus apart, the guy and his wife had to flee the campus for their physical safety.

The chief of campus police resigned because the Marxist college president would not allow the police on campus to protect the safety of the faculty and students from the mob of SJWs.

The college president allowed himself to be held captive by the mob and meekly asked them if he could use the bathroom.

THE SJWS LITERALLY WANTED TO HOSPITALIZE THE PROFESSOR AND HIS WIFE BECAUSE HE WASN’T MARXIST ENOUGH AND SELF-LOATHING ENOUGH TO SUIT THEM.

Unfortunately for the SJW thugs, the professor turned out to be a courageous and extremely well-spoken guy and he made their thuggery famous.

bret weinstein evergreen – Google Search

You’ll never be pure enough for the SJWs until you have green hair and 14 cats and you parrot their new-speak down to the very last syllable.

Are you a white left-leaning feminist who voted for Hillary? Not good enough. Sooner or later you’ll be fed into the Purity Wood Chipper.

When Feminism Is White Supremacy in Heels

MORE SJW CRIMES
War On Free Speech Reaches Denmark

 

The Internet Goes Wild With Speculation About The Notre Dame Fire

No report on today’s big story from me, I’ve been busy making arrangements for my wife to transfer to home care after three months in hospital. She’s a long way from well, but will be happier here, with carers looking in four times a day. So here are some controversial reports on the Notre Dame fire. At this stage I do not believe any of them but I do not disbelieve them, we have no evidence on which to form an opinion.

But coming so close to the main Christian holy day in France, an attack on France’s principal religious centre at a time when attacks on Christian churches in that country are a daily occurrence, does lead those of us with a sceptical frame of mind to think that media attempts to explain away the catastrophe as ‘just an unfortunate accident’ stink of cover – up.

Source Zero Hedge

Update 2: Ever careful to watch for false-flags and conspiracy theory concerns, video is emerging of a Gilets-Jaunes in black clothes at one of the two towers half an hour after the start of the fire at Notre-Dame

One definite way to disenfranchise the yellow vests – as they crush French autocracy – would be to set them up as the fall-guys for this national disaster. Surely that is not possible!

*  *  *

Update 1: A silver lining – if that’s possible: a Catholic priest was today hailed a hero as it emerged he entered the Notre-Dame last night during the height of the inferno to rescue precious cathedral relics including the Crown of Thorns.

The hallowed artefact, which symbolises the wreath of thorns placed on the head of Jesus Christ at his crucifixion, was stored in the cathedral’s treasury and was brought to Paris by French King Louis IX in 1238. Jean-Marc Fournier, Chaplain of Paris Fire Brigade, was also said to have saved the Blessed Sacrament last night from the 850-year-old Gothic masterpiece.

*  *  *

Paris prosecutor Rémy Heitz stressed early indications suggest the fire was accidental, as he added:

Nothing indicates a deliberate act.”

Nothing? How about the surge of attacks on Christian and Jewish places of worship, business premises and individuals in France

or this?

But, as Michael Snyder details below, now that the initial shock of the fire has subsided, the Internet is buzzing with speculation about the origin of the fire.  In the end, there are only two options.  Either this was an accident, or someone intentionally started the fire.  And if the fire was intentionally started, obviously someone had a motive for doing so.

Time columnist Christopher J. Hale set off a firestorm of speculation when he tweeted that a friend who works at the cathedral told him “cathedral staff said the fire was intentionally set”…

Hale deleted the tweet just a few minutes later.

Was he lying about what he had been told?

Coming from a professional journalist, that doesn’t seem likely.

Instead, it is much more likely that Hale quickly figured out that he said something that he wasn’t supposed to say.

YouTube video that purportedly contains audio of Muslims celebrating the fire at the Notre Dame cathedral has also sparked a lot of speculation.  But at this point there doesn’t appear to be any way to verify the authenticity of the video.

But what we do know is that all of this comes at a time when churches all over France are being attacked.

On March 17th, the second largest church in France erupted in flames, and police later ruled that it was not an accident

While Notre Dame is undoubtedly the most well-known landmark to be affected, Paris’ second largest church, Saint-Sulpice, briefly burst into flames on March 17, the fire damaging doors and stained glass windows on the building’s exterior. Police later reported that the incident had not been an accident.

Overall, a dozen Catholic churches were either set on fire or greatly vandalized during one seven day stretch last month

A dozen Catholic churches have been desecrated across France over the period of one week in an egregious case of anti-Christian vandalism.

The recent spate of church profanations has puzzled both police and ecclesiastical leaders, who have mostly remained silent as the violations have spread up and down France.

Last Sunday, marauders set fire to the church of Saint-Sulpice — one of Paris’ largest and most important churches — shortly after the twelve-o’clock Mass.

And some of the vandalism that was reported during that seven day period was deeply, deeply disturbing

In Nimes (department of the Gard), near the border with Spain, the church of Notre-Dame des Enfants was desecrated in a particularly odious way, with vandals painting a cross with human excrement, looting the main altar and the tabernacle, and stealing the consecrated hosts, which were discovered later among piles of garbage.

Likewise, the church of Notre-Dame in Dijon, in the east of the country, suffered the sacking of the high altar and the hosts were also taken from the tabernacle, scattered on the ground, and trampled.

Could it be possible that there is a connection between those attacks and the fire that just erupted at the Notre Dame cathedral?

That is a question that any decent investigator would be asking at this point.

We also know that anti-Christian and anti-Semitic attacks are on the rise in France.  Just check out these numbers

The number of anti-Semitic attacks (541) rose 74 percent from 2017-2018 while anti-Muslim attacks numbered just 100, the lowest since 2010.

Meanwhile in the same period, there were 1063 anti-Christian attacks, a slight increase on the previous year.

Needless to say, radical Islamists are responsible for most of the attacks against Christians and Jews, and the number of Muslims living in the Paris area has greatly increased in recent years…

According to reports, the number of Jews fleeing France for their safety has dramatically increased since 2000.

In one Paris suburb alone – Seine-Saint-Denis – 40 percent of the population is Muslim while 400,000 illegal immigrants also live there.

But in this politically-correct era, we aren’t supposed to talk about attacks against Christians, and this is especially true if those attacks are conducted by radical Islamists.

On Monday, even anchors at Fox News had apparently been instructed that any speculation about who started the Notre Dame cathedral fire must be immediately shut down.  These days there is very little difference between Fox News and the other major news networks, and that is very unfortunate.

On another note, I also find it very interesting that at one point on Monday a YouTube algorithm linked the fire at the Notre Dame cathedral with the 9/11 attacks

A YouTube feature designed to combat misinformation offered some of its own during a major news event Monday: It linked the fire at the Notre Dame Cathedral to the September 11 terrorist attacks.

The company blamed the mixup on its algorithms. It removed the links on all Notre Dame fire posts after the issue was flagged.

In this day and age, the “spin” is often more important than the actual events themselves.

In the coming days, a tremendous effort will be made to get us to feel a certain way about the Notre Dame cathedral fire.

But what would be so wrong with allowing us to think for ourselves and allowing us to come to our own conclusions?

The Internet was one of the last bastions for global free speech, but now the heavy hand of censorship is descending, and our ability to freely discuss global events is eroding a little bit more with each passing day.

Told You So: Harold MacMillan’s EU warning revealed

Harold MacMillan

This blog and its partners in the Greenteeth Digital Publishing family has never been shy about sharing our belief that the European Union is, and was from the start designed to be, a vehicle for German domination of Europe. Germany is a young nation, until the 1870s it was a collection of Kingdoms, Principalities, Grand Duchies and city states that had cultural links but no political cohesion.

The most powerful of these stakes was the Prussian Empire, a militaristic society run by its aristocrats and headed by despotic Kaisers. When the Prussian Chancellor, Count Otto von Bismarck set about uniting Germany, he had one aim, to create a pan Germanic state to rival France and Britain. Germany, Bismarck and his Prussian colleagues believed, was a nation of superior being destined to dominate Europe (and by extension the world)and that belief apparently still prevails among Germany’s ruling elite. Does all that sound a bit familiar?

Harold MacMillan, British Prime Minister from 1957 to 1963 gave us a chilling warning about the EEC – (European Economic Community) the precursor to the EU – before Britain joined the bloc, claiming that Germany had planned on using the trading bloc, originally called the European Coal and Steel Community, then The Common Market as an instrument to assert its supremacy across the continent once more, it can be revealed. After Britain joined while it was the EEC, another name change had it becoming the European Community, then with the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1995 the European Union was formed (not the pattern of progression towards ever more grandiose ambitions in those titles,) and the plan that had been the founders goal from days one, “ever closer integration,” towards the creation of a federal union, The United States Of Europe, was openly declared.

On Wednesday, 3 April, 2019, five days after we should have left the European Union by default having failed to agree mutually acceptable terms for the future relationship with the fledgling Fourth Reich, the UK’s elected representatives, The House of Commons voted in favour of legislation which forces the Government to request another extension for ‘Brexit’, giving our current Prime Minister Theresa May (it rhymes with betray,) more time to trample on the British constitution and show us the comtempt the ruling elite have for the principles of democracy.

Despite Government opposition, the motion passed by just one vote on its third reading, by 313 MPs to 312, and it will now proceed to the House of Lords, which is likely to give its approval. Should this take place, the motion will become legally binding, significantly reducing the chances of a no deal EU exit. May has negotiated what she claims is a good deal, a set of terms and conditions (allegedly dictated to May’s hand picked negotiators by German Chancellor Angela Merkel,) which in reality see the UK become a vassal state of Brussels rather than quit the union and regain all the sovereignty our previous leaders have surrendered.

This betrayal of democracy and of the nation by our elected representatives comes as the Conservative Party descended into civil war over Mrs May’s strategy. Senior figures in both main parties raised the prospect of a second referendum to obtain the British public’s backing for any deal – and to offer the choice of remaining in the EU.

As Britain’s future appears even more uncertain with Brexiteers arguing the views of the 52 percent who historically voted to leave the EU in June 2016 are being betrayed, a newly-resurfaced warning about the bloc by former Prime Minister Harold Macmillan has resurfaced.

In the MacMillan era, the late Fifties, full employment combined with an unprecedented rise in consumerism meant Britons saw their standard of living rise. Wages, exports and investment were strong, and it looked as if the nation was at last recovering from the effects of the century’s two great wars.

Despite the feelgood factor Britons remained suspicious of Germany particularly when the German economy, boosted by American and British money appeared to be in a position to challenge Britain’s.

In 1958, as the Common Market, driven by the rapidly recovering economies of Germany, France and The Netherlands began to look as if it pointed the way forward for Europe to resists the economic juggernaut of the USA, Harold Macmillan issued a chilling warning about the Common Market, a year after its creation.

He said: “Western Europe dominated in fact by Germany and used as an instrument for the revival of power through economic means… is really giving them on a plate what we fought two wars to prevent.”

Mr Macmillan was not the only one who feared Berlin.

According to 2017 report “Euroscepticism and Opposition to British Entry into the EEC” by the French Journal of British studies, a British official similarly warned that the EEC would provide “a means of re-establishing the hegemony of Germany”.

More recently, political analyst Mark Brolin claimed in his 2016 book “A State of Independence: Why the EU is the problem and not the solution” that the Maastricht Treaty, which was signed in 1992 by members of the European Community to further European integration, planted the seed to make Germany the most powerful country in the bloc.

RELATED POSTS:
Europe Unglues
Europe, democracy, integration
European Fascist Union
Europe a German Superstate
European Union Steals Members’ Sovereignty
Theresa May’s New Contempt Of Parliament Scandal
Head Of European Institute: Brexit ‘Better’ For Everyone

EU Stitch Up To Promote Euronazi Selmayr’s Is Typical Of The EU’s Contempt For Democracy

Fears Over Threat To Sovereignty Could Wreck EU European Army Plan

 

 

An Excellent Response From A Brexiteer

One thing that more than anything else has hardened attitudes of people who voted to leave is the way supporters of Remain have constantly attacked us, accusing those who wanted out of the authoritarian bureaucratic dictatorship the EU has become, of being stupid, bigoted, xenophobic, old idiots.

In spite of these accusations it has been mainly the Remain supporters who have not been able to argue their case, instead they simply repeat the insults and parrot the EU / Globalist propaganda. Leave supporters, however, tend to be more thoughtful and well informed.

I felt I had to reblog this question from Quora, and the excellent answer to it froman Oxford PhD:

UK citizens, how did you feel waking up to the news that you were out of the EU?

Answer from: Alun ap Rhisiart, D.Phil in Zoology from Oxford University

 

Corporations and the Speedway to Serfdom

To further explain: on the one hand, the more one pushes towards equality, the more one has to control the huge variation in human traits and preferences [ … ] On the other hand, the more one pushes towards freedom, the more one has to be content with the aforementioned variation in human traits and preferences leading to some people being extraordinarily successful while others having barely anything.

In theory, you can find reasonable justifications to both approaches; however, one of the above requires active intervention – while the other does not. If both systems lead to a certain form of injustice, I’ll always take the one which isn’t man made.

READ ALL >>>
More on Corporatism
Latest News
Daily Stirrer February 2019