Planned Parenthood 4a
Civil Liberties

Planned Parenthood brands its critics "extremists"

“Just depending on the patient’s anatomy, how many weeks, where it’s placed in the uterus.. we’re going to potentially be able to have some that will be more or less intact and then some that will not be,” says Melissa Farrell, director of research for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, Texas. “But it’s something that we can look at exploring how we can make that happen so we have a higher chance,” she adds.

“And we’ve had studies in which the company, or in the case of the investigator, has a specific need for a certain portion of the products of conception and we bake that into our contract, and our protocol, that we follow this. So we deviate from our standard in order to do that. If we alter our process and we are able to obtain intact foetal cadavers, then we can make it part of the budget, that any dissections are this, and splitting the specimens into different shipments is this. I mean, it’s all just a matter of line items,” she says.

This is the fifth video released by the Center for Medical Progress, and the focus is on Planned Parenthood’s eagerness to “get creative” with its conditions of foetal organ acquisition, in order to procure “diversification of the revenue stream”. For Melissa Farrell, these are obviously not babies she’s dealing with. They’re not even foetuses. She is, in her mind, dealing with “the products of conception”, and a product is not life, or even potential life; it is just stuff. It has shape and size and fills a void, but its solidity is just unconscious atoms, and her common sense tells her that it presents no qualms, scruples or concerns.

“The footage released today doesn’t show Planned Parenthood staff engaged in any wrongdoing or agreeing to violate any legal or medical standards,” said Planned Parenthood Executive Vice President Dawn Laguens. In a six-paragraph statement, she alleges that those who have misrepresented (ie exposed) them are “extremists”:

Extremists who oppose Planned Parenthood’s mission and services are making outrageous and completely false claims..

..the latest tape shows an extremely offensive intrusion and lack of respect for women..

..Previous tapes released by this extremist group were heavily edited..

..The vast majority of the public rejects this extreme political agenda..

So, not only is it “extremist” in the New World Order to teach (or believe?) that same-sex marriage is “wrong”; it is “extremist” to oppose the sale of aborted babies, or, if you prefer, foetal body parts, or, if you prefer, “the products of conception”. If Planned Parenthood is willing to “get creative” in its procurement of foetal body parts in order to ensure the “diversification of the revenue stream”, how is that different from an admission that they sell intact babies to increase their profit? Who assesses the veracity of the claim that they’re only “covering costs”?

But the narrative of the battle is now manifest: on one side are the enlightened ones who believe that Planned Parenthood is giving women “access to healthcare”; on the other are the extremists, who disclose to the world that Planned Parenthood is not merely legally terminating pregnancies, but immorally, if not illegally, “getting creative” and performing abortions in a “less crunchy way” so they might procure intact foetal body parts (ie whole dead babies) and sell them off to laboratories to be prodded, probed and dissected.

Thus does “extremism” begin to incorporate any theology of liberation which does not accord with state orthodoxy. You are free to advocate for the emancipation of those who are oppressed on the basis of their gender, race, sexuality or class, but there is no public space to argue for the limitations and thresholds of that emancipation, at least without allegations of bigotry, hate-speech or sundry phobias. Thus the collective welfare of the whole people – the polis – is contingent not only on women being able to become presidents, prime ministers, bishops and priests, but on their being free to evacuate their wombs of the parasitical “products of conception”. To demur is misogyny, chauvinism or sexism. Black people must have equal access to all artistic and cultural creation, but while they must be cast as Iago to fulfil quotas, no white man may ever again play Othello. To demur is racism, segregation, apartheid. Same-sex couples must be afforded the same tax advantages and provision of goods enjoyed by heterosexual couples, but marriage for all must be redefined in the process to accommodate the socio-political shift. To demur is bigotry, hatred, homophobia. And all classes, castes and categories of people must naturally enjoy the same civil liberties and human rights as each other, but this must extend to economic and social equality, such that the rich man in his castle must be forced to share his entire estate with the poor man at his gate; and the budding Nobel neuroscientist must share the same classroom and teacher with the child who loves to carve wood but cannot add or subtract. To demur from this framework of statutorily-enforced equal outcomes is snobby, elitist, ideological.

If it is “extremist” to disclose corruption, assert truth, advocate common sense or defend that which is moral, noble, good and virtuous, then all Christians are extremists. And since David Cameron is intent on prosecuting the non-violent extremists who stay within the law but say something he doesn’t like (ie spread “hate”), we can expect the non-negotiable creed of ‘British values’ to develop somewhat over the coming years. You are free to believe that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. But you will surely be arrested for saying that any ‘protected’ group will go to hell.

Extremism must be eradicated from society, and the extremist is not the one who procures “less crunchy” abortions so they might carve up intact babies: it is the radical who says (and believes?) that, in the cosmic sovereign scheme of things, the state is not God, Parliament is not omnipotent and politicians are neither omniscient nor infallible. You’re free to be religious, but please, for God’s sake, don’t believe anything too strongly, because that’s just too non-violently extreme.

  • The Explorer

    Presumably at the moment abortions are performed because a woman gets pregnant by accident. The next stage will be for women to get pregnant deliberately in order to abort. For all I know, that’s happening already.

  • If the released a/v footage is true
    then
    Isiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.

  • len

    ‘Dr Josef Megele’ would be proud of these proponents of ‘Planned Parenthood’ who seem to be carrying on his work?
    This is where the precept of ‘no moral absolutes’ takes you….

    • Jon Sorensen

      How does ‘no moral absolutes’ takes you to Planned Parenthood? Sounds like a dubious claim addition so Nazi reference…

      • The Explorer

        No moral absolutes takes you to lots of things. Planned Parenthood is just one of them. Don’t forget Margaret Sanger was a hard core eugenicist who thought some social groups should not exist. In that respect, ‘The Pivot of Civilisation’ shared common ground with ‘Mein Kampf’, which it preceded by only three years.

        • Jon Sorensen

          How does “No moral absolutes takes you to lots of things.”?

          The author of ‘Mein Kampf’ was a God believer who seem to have believed ‘moral absolutes’ and that he was doing God’s work. So your example completely fails

          • Inspector General

            No evidence at all that Hitler was doing God’s work. Hitler was very much of this world.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “No evidence at all that Hitler was doing God’s work.”
            How did you come to this conclusion?

            And why do Planned Parenthood discussion turn into Hitler conversation? Martin Marprelate just warned about de-humanize someone.

          • Inspector General

            You are the one that mentioned Mein Kampf.

            Feeling silly now are we?

          • Jon Sorensen

            Not feeling silly. The Explorer brought it up. I was responding to his Mein Kampf comment. I didn’t make this into Hitler conversation.

          • Inspector General

            Then all that remains is “Seig Heil, Jon Sorenson”

          • Jon Sorensen

            You nicely avoided:
            “No evidence at all that Hitler was doing God’s work.”
            How did you come to this conclusion?

            Well done.

          • Inspector General

            It is still open to question what his religious understandings were, but all the evidence points to a layman’s lack of interest in divinity. Agnostic. He was very much of this world and concentrated on that issue. It is known he loathed Christianity for being in opposition to natural selection. However, he admired Islam and its cruelty and had no problem with muslims being recruited to serve in Himmler’s beloved SS. What Himmler’s thoughts on that matter were are not known to the Inspector, but considering his pagan beliefs in an Aryan super race, it probably stuck in his throat…

          • Jon Sorensen

            Clearly you have not read Mein Kampf. He makes his beliefs clear there. He even explains where he got his ideas about Jews and who his religious hero was. He never said that he was agnostic. You just made it up.

            How did he “loathed Christianity for being in opposition to natural selection”? He banned books containing Darwin’s ideas.

            You seem to just spread Christian myths about him.

          • Inspector General

            Tried to read Mein Kampf. Gave up after page whatever. There’s only so much unpleasant rant a fellow can take.

            What makes you think this man here is an authority on Hitler’s spiritual side? You’ve been given an opinion, nothing more.

            If you want to venerate a character responsible for million upon million deaths, kindly do so elsewhere. One understands there are ‘specialist’ websites for that.

            Had the NAZIs won through. Christianity was finished, at least in Germany. That we do know.

          • Jon Sorensen

            I don’t know what you mean by “What makes you think this man here is an authority on Hitler’s spiritual side”. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf and he explained there his spiritual side.

            I don’t know where you got “Had the NAZIs won through. Christianity was finished, at least in Germany.”
            When ever Nazis won an election or conquered a country Christianity was just fine. It was Jews and atheist that got killed. Your assessment is not based on facts.

          • The Explorer

            Moral absolutes set boundaries as to what is allowable. No moral absolutes mean flexible boundaries. But there are also wrong moral absolutes.

            The Aztec priests who cut out a heart every day from a living victim were God believers who believed they were doing God’s work. Their moral absolute was that unless they did so, that era of the world would come to an end. So I agree, wrong absolutes are as bad as none.

            My point was that Hitler wanted to exterminate Jews, and Margaret Sanger wanted to use abortion to exterminate negroes, or at least radically reduce their numbers. Neither was constrained by the moral absolute against genocide which you get from believing in the Christian God.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “But there are also wrong moral absolutes.”
            So following “moral absolutes” can lead to morally right or wrong action. Sounds almost like relativism.

            “the moral absolute against genocide which you get from believing in the Christian God”
            You clearly have not read the Bible. In the Bible God orders genocides.

          • The Explorer

            I did say the Christian God ie, the God of the New Testament. Show me where the New Testament orders genocide.

          • Jon Sorensen

            My apologies. I did not realise you believe the God of the New Testament is different God as the God of the Old Testament.

          • I don’t.

          • The Explorer

            Same God, but different covenants. The God of the New Testament is in a different relation to humanity post Incarnation.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Typical relativist God concept. Some thing were ok before, but not any more. So moral right of genocide depends on time, place or covenants. And genocide might be ok again some day…
            I guess Jesus said that some jot and tittle must now change.

          • The Explorer

            Genocide won’t be okay again some day; the changes are permanent.
            ‘Acts’ 17:30. “In the past, God overlooked such ignorance…” Does that make St Paul a typical relativist? If so, then so am I.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “the changes are permanent” of course… until the next change.

            Moral absolutist believe the strangest things…

          • The Explorer

            The next change will be with the Second Coming, but that will bring the present phase of human history to an end; so the conditions will be different.
            Things that were forbidden to you when you are a child – like sexual activity or drinking alcohol – become legal when you reach a certain age. Financial dependence is expected of you as a child, but when you grow up the expectation is (or used to be) that you will try to support yourself. What’s so difficult about the concept?

          • Jon Sorensen

            Nice false analogy fallacy (try how adults need to behave differently now that 3000 years ago)

            However nice to see that you defend moral absolutism by giving moral relativistic examples.

            You forgot to mention Noetic covenant changes. Did absolute ideas changed then too?

          • The Explorer

            The concept is obviously more difficult than I thought.

          • Except he ‘forgot’ the golden rules …..

      • If you de-humanize someone- be it a foetus or a Jew- it doesn’t matter what you do to them. I think the link is pretty clear.

        • Jon Sorensen

          Martin Marprelate, what does that have to do with ‘moral absolutes’?

          I do agree if you de-humanize a group of people, like if one’s holy book condemns them, bad thing will happens.

          • Another good way to de-humanize people is to lump all religious folk together and condemn them out of hand. The Bible teaches that all human beings without exception are made in the image of God. that is a moral, as well as a Christian absolute.
            It is the lack of moral absolutes that allows people to de-humanize. Like Stalin, for instance, who said that killing a thousand people was no different to mowing a lawn. Like Pol Pot; like Planned Parenthood (which is really only Marie Stopes writ large).

          • Jon Sorensen

            What are these absolutes you talk about? Do absolutists agree on any absolutes? How do we decide with one are right absolutes?

            What does “made in the image of God” mean, and how is that “moral” thing? I have no idea how that has anything to with morals. Sounds like Stalin and Pol Pot were sure what they saw moral. Do you think they were moral absolutists?

      • len

        I would have thought the logical’ progression’ of no moral absolutes was pretty obvious?. Who decides what is right and what is wrong any more? Certainly not those who are conducting ‘research ‘on those whom they have denied their right to survival?
        A lion gets killed and their is uproar but who speaks for the victims of the abortion industry?. There is a silent holocaust going on apparently unnoticed because there are huge sums of money to be made?.

        • Jon Sorensen

          It is not obvious “the logical’ progression’ of no moral absolutes was pretty obvious”. What are these absolutes you talk about? Do absolutists agree on any absolutes? How do we decide with one are right absolutes?

          “Who decides what is right and what is wrong any more?”
          We decide. There is nobody else to decide. Isn’t that obvious.
          Rights come from people (laws made by government)

          • Anna055

            One of the things about believing in God is that you have your moral absolutes set for you. You might not always like them, or (apparent) changes in them might be confusing, but believing in God includes the acceptance that we don’t have the right to choose. That isn’t why I believe in God by the way, but it is part of the package of belief. If, however, you don’t believe in God then of course you are right in saying “we decide”.

          • Jon Sorensen

            What are these “moral absolutes” that “You might not always like” or “(apparent) changes” in them? So many people here talk about them but nobody is willing to tell what those are. It’s like internet unicorns, never seen in real life…

          • Start with the Ten Commandments ….

          • Jon Sorensen

            I can’t steal food to save a baby’s life?
            You can’t bear false witness if that would save your friend’s life from a dictator’s murder squad?
            Why is it absolutely wrong to cook a young goat in its mother’s milk?
            Seriously. Do you believe this?

          • Read the Catechism. of the Catholic Church.

            Unjustly taking the property of another (theft) is a violation of the
            seventh commandment. However, taking the property of another in extreme circumstances of need is not theft if consent of the owner could be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the
            universal destination of goods. (CCC 2408). Extreme circumstances would involve meeting the essential needs for food, shelter or clothing. So, taking food to keep your baby from starving if you had no other recourse would not be theft according to the teaching of the Church.

            As for lying, theologians have been debating this issue since both Augustine and Aquinas concluded no circumstances justify it and others argue it can be morally permissible in certain situations. There are libraries full of books on the topic.
            The Mosaic ritual laws are not universally binding moral laws on Christians but were specific to the Jews under the terms of the Mosaic Covenant.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Do you now see how your “absolute” commandments are situational. They are relative to the situation. Nice to know that your church tries to define “theft” in some situation as “theft”. A classic relativistic approach.

            Why would Catechism of the Catholic Church have absolute truth. They recently changed their opinion about Limbo too.

          • No, morality is not “situational” and these issues do not demonstrate that at all. As foe Limbo, the Church has no settled formal position on this and never has.

          • Jon Sorensen

            You said “No, morality is not “situational””
            You said that in some situations theft is not ok and some situations it is ok. Your morality is situational like it or not.(Just ask any freshman philosopher. Don’t trust me). Welcome to the world of consequentialism.

            “As foe Limbo, the Church has no settled formal position on this and never has”
            Church taught this for millennia; this was even taught in my Catholic school when I was there in the 80s. Now conveniently Catholics are saying there was never a “formal position”. This flip flop sounds very Catholic view of the world to me.

          • Anna055

            Umm you’re right: it is really hard to explain. The best example I can think of is lying. It isn’t necessarily a moral absolute in itself (though I know some people would disagree with me there) but beneath it there is another moral imperative which is absolute: being trustworthy. Most non believers would probably say the same thing, but I was mainly making the point that, as a believer, I don’t see it as my right to decide on moral absolutes, more as my responsibility to discover them. When I was talking about “apparent” changes in them I was thinking about the “do not kill” which does of course cause confusion when you look at parts of the Old Testament. I don’t have an answer to that, except to say that I still believe that God is utterly good.

            There are good articles on the subject, but like unicorns (not just internet ones!), you just can’t find them when you need them…hence no link to them, though I think there might be one or two on http://www.psephizo.com/ or http://thinktheology.co.uk/ .
            There is an article on a related subject: http://thinktheology.co.uk/blog/article/does-god-ordain-all-sinful-human-choices but I can’t find the one(?s) I was looking for: sorry!

          • Jon Sorensen

            It looks like you really want there to be absolute morals, but there just doesn’t seem be any of those. If you can’t even name one, maybe you should consider scraping the idea.

            Re “being trustworthy” is like telling truth; should you be trustworthy to dictator’s murder squad? Again “being trustworthy” is relativistic…

            You said “I still believe that God is utterly good”
            How did you come to this conclusion? What yardstick did you use, or did you just use “good” as definition

          • Anna055

            I’m not sure why being trustworthy isn’t a moral abolute. Re the murder sqaud, I suppose I made the assumption that a person was being trustworthy to the good, rather than the meaning I assume you hold, from your comment which seemed to imply that trustworthiness meant you had to do whatever anyone said, good or bad……but I might have got you wrong there!

            The comment about believing that God is utterly good wasn’t a logical argument – more to do with what I find Him to be. I suppose I’d better enlarge on that. I look at beauty in nature. I look at love in relationships. I look at all the things which give people joy. (I know there’s a lot of bad (both in nature and relationships) too, and I have struggled with the whole thing about a good God allowing suffereing. How I deal with this is by realising that the Christian God is an infinite being and that evil as portrayed in the Bible is finite. Thus finite evil, however big it seems, can never be more than a pin head compared to an infinite God. Even this pinhead grieves God so much that His Son, Jesus, came to earth to die and neutralise it. Because of this, evil ultimately loses, and will one day be no more. Right. I digress. back to the list of things that lead me to find that God is good: Actually mainly Christian things now: My reading of the Bible, times of worship, friends who have been healed through prayer and worship. Can’t think of any more things, though I daresay other people could add to the list.

  • Albert

    But as we saw earlier this week, “extreme” is relative to someone else. If we are extremists so are they. What in any case, is it that the extremists have falsely been saying about them.

    • Orwell Ian

      The issue is not whether both are extremists but what kind of extremism they represent. We may be extremists but they are the right kind of extremists.
      Thus a truthful statement may not be adequate defence when it is deemed “inappropriate” by the progressive consensus.

    • Jon Sorensen

      Let’s not forget that Planned Parenthood clinics have been bombed and attacked. I think they know what extremism is.

      • Albert

        So because some of their opponents are extremists, therefore they call all of their opponents extremists. I see, it’s a rhetorical strategy, because it clearly isn’t a logical or reasonable one.

        • Jon Sorensen

          where did you get “they call all of their opponents extremists”? Did you just make it up?

          • Albert

            I didn’t make it up. It was in the OP.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Where is “all of their opponents”?
            Can you quote that for me please?

          • Read the article.

          • Jon Sorensen

            I read the article and it does not say “all of their opponents”. Did you find it there?

          • No. I found this:

            “Extremists who oppose Planned Parenthood’s mission and services are making outrageous and completely false claims. They are engaged in a fraud, and other claims they’ve made have been discredited and disproven.

            “The footage released today doesn’t show Planned Parenthood staff engaged in any wrongdoing or agreeing to violate any legal or medical standards. Instead, the latest tape shows an extremely offensive intrusion and lack of respect for women, with footage of medical tissue in a lab. These extremists show a total lack of compassion and dignity for women’s most personal medical decisions.

            from here:

            http://plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/planned-parenthood-statement-on-latest-false-claims

            Make of it what you will.

          • Jon Sorensen

            PP says:
            “Extremists who oppose Planned Parenthood’s mission”
            Some claim:
            “[PP] call all of their opponents extremists”
            spreading untruths

            If PP did something illegal expose them. Spreading lies just weakens your case

          • The Explorer

            See Happy Jack’s link at the top of this thread. Three clinics so far have been found to be doing things that are illegal.

          • Jon Sorensen

            What kind of illegal activity?

          • The Explorer

            Read the link: that’s what it’s there for. It tells you.

          • Jon Sorensen

            No illegal activity shown in a link. You need to be more specific with you claims.

          • The Explorer

            We seem to be at cross purposes. Click on Happy Jack’s link, and it will take you to an article. The article tells you about illegal abortions at three clinics. The claims are pretty specific.

          • Jon Sorensen

            I get it now. Thanks.

            In Florida you can get 2nd trimester abortions. Article claims the three facilities were performing the second trimester abortions even though they were only licensed to perform first trimester procedures. If that is true then appropriate legal/licensing action need to be taken. (Planned Parenthood denied the allegations)

            Thanks for correcting me.

          • I do not put my trust in mans law. Truth is no defense in their courts.

            Whether or not PP did something illegal is something for others to figure out. What PP are is Satanic.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Is there any other law than one written by man?
            How do you know “PP are is Satanic”?

          • The Holy Scriptures answer both of your questions.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Whose Holy Scriptures and what are the answers if you know those?

          • It is not given for you to know.

          • Albert

            You need to remember that I was responding to your comment about people bombing Planned Parenthood. People who do such things are reasonably termed extremists (at least, if that term ever has any use). But the organisation who did this filming are not bombers (or if they are, I’d like to see the evidence). They are simply people who wish to expose what is going on. That seems to be fairly normal. Therefore, to call them extreme seems to be a label that applies to all pro-lifers.

          • Jon Sorensen

            But they don’t “call all of their opponents extremists”. Let’s stick to the truth.

            PP said “The group behind these videos has close ties with organizations and individuals who have firebombed abortion clinics and threatened the physical safety of doctors who provide abortion”

          • Albert

            Let’s stick to the truth.

            It is the truth, inferred logically from what they have said, unless this can be demonstrated, of course:

            The group behind these videos has close ties with organizations and individuals who have firebombed abortion clinics and threatened the physical safety of doctors who provide abortion

            Now a cursory look at the evidence does not seem to bear that out. The Center for Medical Progress is not directly linked at all with such. However, there is a board member who is president of Operation Rescue that had received donations from the man who did the Tiller murder. However, after that murder OR condemned it and it is hard to imagine that every organization that receives donations from criminals should be traduced as being called “close ties” with such person. OR also has a policy adviser who nearly 30 years ago attempted to bomb an abortion clinic – an act she now regrets.

            Now that does not to me seem to be a description of what PP has claimed: I can see no direct ties to any organization or individuals that have firebombed abortion clinics (close or otherwise), and the ties that do exist come through another organization and were clearly regretted or condemned by that organization.

            So far, the statement looks like a plain calumny. In the end, most people looking at the behaviour of PP will regard them as a pretty despicable organization. PP knows that and is looking for an ad hominem to defend itself.

          • Jon Sorensen

            PP did not claim “direct” link as you repeated make the point.

            Why would you have *any* links to organisation that adviced by Cheryl Sullenger, who indicating that she informed Scott Roeder of where Dr Tiller would be at specific times. Why would you have *anyone” from Cheryl Sullenger or Troy Newman organisation on your board.

            Clearly The Center for Medical Progress want to associate with Cheryl Sullenger’s organisation. And if Troy Newman is not a direct tie, then I don’t know what is.

          • Albert

            PP did not claim “direct” link as you repeated make the point.

            It said “close”, so I was exploring what could be meant by that. Indirect, I would say, is not close.

            Cheryl Sullenger, who indicating that she informed Scott Roeder of where Dr Tiller would be at specific times.

            Cheryl Sullenger does not seem to be have been convicted of anything in this. He asked for the court times and she provided them. How was she to know he was going to go and kill Tiller? Given that she clearly disapproves of such actions and that she doesn’t work for CMP, I can’t see there is an inference to the latter institution.

            Troy Newman organisation on your board

            What’s your charge against Troy Newman?

            I think you are missing the purpose of PP’s statement, it is to say that CMP are really a bunch of abortion bombers, and I cannot see that there is any truth in that.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “How was she to know he was going to go and kill Tiller? Given that she clearly disapproves of such actions”
            So why was she give info about Tillers whereabouts to Roeder? Where they trying to sell girl scout cookies?

            “Cheryl Sullenger does not seem to be have been convicted of anything in this”
            yep but she “pleaded guilty to conspiring to blow up an abortion clinic in 1988”

            “[the purpose of PP’s statement] is to say that CMP are really a bunch of abortion bombers”
            which they are not saying, but you are.

            And these organisations want to be linked via Troy Newman (just google his tack record). Sweet.

            Do you have any idea what kind of people you are defending??

          • Albert

            So why was she give info about Tillers whereabouts to Roeder? Where they trying to sell girl scout cookies?

            The question she was asked was about a court case. If someone asks me about a court case, I do not assume they are going to then go and kill someone in the case. Had she clearly done that, then she would have been prosecuted – and rightly so.

            yep but she “pleaded guilty to conspiring to blow up an abortion clinic in 1988

            Something she now regrets. Do you think that HMQ is somehow implicated in the IRA killing of Mountbatten because Martin McGuinness is part of one of her governments?

            Do you have any idea what kind of people you are defending??

            I am not defending anyone, I am simply stating what I believe to be the facts and arguing that PP’s statement is misleading and designed to distract attention from actions which are clearly morally repugnant, and probably illegal. Even if CMP are what PP say they are, PP are guilty of committing the genetic fallacy: the facts remain what they are whoever exposes them.

            For the record: I utterly abhor attempts to blow up or otherwise kill abortionists, because they violate the principles by which I think violence, if it can be justly used at all, can justly be used. And as a moral absolutist, I abhor such attempts absolutely, which is something I suspect most abortionists cannot do.

  • The Explorer

    Previous tapes were heavily edited. What does that mean? Inserting incriminating stuff? Leaving out the humane stuff? ‘Heavily edited’ seems to me the PP equivalent of the Muslim-apologist “quoted out of context” – what context? – explanation for the violent verses of the Qur’an.

  • The Explorer

    I suppose these revelations do give the impression that PP is concerned with making money, rather than simply providing a valuable social service. And that calls its altruism into question. And is troubling for those who feel all sexual issues should be free of any taint of Capitalism.

  • Orwell Ian

    The imposition of orthodoxy is nothing new:

    At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals – G Orwell (Animal Farm Prologue)

    It is the intensifying of this imposed orthodoxy, codified and sanctioned by the State in a way hitherto unseen outside the orbit of communist regimes, that is so alarming.
    In the past one could be silenced by the pressure of accepted social norms but now dissenters are publicly denounced as bigoted phobics and vilified by the vile twitterati. Shortly they will be officially categorised as extremists and their cases dealt with under terror legislation. To put it bluntly they will become “enemies of the State”. When the State silences opinions that it doesn’t want to hear, or some find offensive, and it cracks down on non-vlolent dissent that stops short of incitement it ceases to be liberal and democratic. Democracy is replaced by democratism a shallow pretence that is a cloak for advancing totalitarianism. Inculcation of totalitarian doctrines is the way to weaken the instinct by means of which free peoples know what is or is not dangerous. It is the route to the New World Order and the road to serfdom.

    • Albert

      At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question.

      This is interesting in the light of the comments of Mark Spencer MP that those who say same-sex marriage is wrong could be done for extremism. It is the acceptance without question that is demanded. It isa enough to question the orthodoxy to get hammered.

      • Orwell Ian

        Unquestioning obedience neutralises democratic checks and balances that inhibit government action.

    • The Explorer

      “Hitherto unseen outside the orbit of communist regimes”. It gives weight to the view that Political Correctness is the new face of Marxism, and the Cold War has reversed itself.

  • The Explorer

    I suppose there’s an ethical issue in that the investigators were only posing as buyers, rather than being actual buyers. But would the questions and answers have been any different if they HAD been genuine?

    • carl jacobs

      The news show “60 MInutes” used these tactics all the time. No one complained. Why? Because the observers had no ethical stake in the exposure. In other words, people like and appreciate and desire exposure when they feel they are being protected by the fact of exposure. They don’t like exposure when they feel their interests are being harmed by it. “Light is only good when it helps me.”

      This isn’t about the ethics of the one who exposes. It’s about the ethics of the one who observes. Does he know the deeds are evil? Does he want them to remain hidden so he doesn’t have to face what is being done?

      • The Explorer

        Yes, there’s a similar programme in Britain called ‘Watchdog’ in which reporters pose as customers to trap fraudulent workmen. Only the fraudsters are unhappy with the outcomes. I was just playing around in my mind with the accusation of ‘extremely offensive intrusion’, and wondering what the response would be if you went in and said, “Hello, I’m a pro-life investigative reporter” and then put the same questions. (Actually, you wouldn’t be able to, because the conversation would take a different turn.)

  • They won’t tolerate the intolerant. Do you see the problem with that?

    • The Explorer

      Yes. Like those who prove that there are no proofs.

      • Are you a moral relativist? The Holy Scriptures are true.

        Pslam 119:151 Thou art near, O LORD; and all thy commandments are truth.

        That comment about hypocrisy was not directed at you but at the baby merchants.

        • The Explorer

          Quite, and I was agreeing with you. Not to tolerate intolerance is to be intolerant oneself. Like proving there are no proofs.

          • Thank you. I missed the analogy.

            I wonder if Planned Parenthood would complain if they had a problem with a debtor and undercover filming was used to recover the money?

    • Jon Sorensen

      What is the problem with not tolerate the intolerance? I don’t see a problem there.

      • The Explorer

        If a group wanted to abolish free speech, would you allow them to state their views freely? If they gained power, they would abolish the mechanism that allowed them to gain power: only their views could be heard. If you stopped them from stating their views, you would not be allowing free speech. Do you see the problem?

        If you want to get rid of pacifism, allow it. You will then be conquered by another nation that will not allow pacifism. And so on.

        • Jon Sorensen

          What does this have to do “with not tolerate the intolerance”

          “If a group wanted to abolish free speech, would you allow them to state their views freely”
          Yes, but I would argue with with them = I do not tolerate the intolerance

          “If a group wanted to abolish free speech”
          sounds like blasphemy laws..

          • The Explorer

            If you are tolerant, then you will tolerate views other than your own. If you try to restrict views you consider intolerant then you have become intolerant yourself: otherwise, you would allow them.

      • They want you to be tolerant.
        If you do not want to tolerate their evil then they call you intolerant.

        This is why you can have either mans law or the law of the Holy Scriptures.

    • Darter Noster

      Hello Jesuswasnotajew, and welcome to His Grace’s blog.

      It’s always pleasing to see a new pro-life poster, but I’m a little bit confused and was hoping that you could help me out.

      3 hours ago on another blog you wrote: “Arnold Leese and Colin Jordan were decent men as far as I can tell.”

      For those on this blog who don’t know, Colin Jordan was a founder of the BNP and the most prominent British Neo-Nazi of the last 50 years. He was a fanatical acolyte of Adolf Hitler and routinely wrote advocating racism, sterilisation, the extermination of life unworthy of life and various other policies. Arnold Leese was his Fascist mentor.

      So, just out of curiosity, are you schizophrenic or are you just trying, as Carl Jacobs pointed out, to hide the Neo-Nazi, Christian Identity bullshit that you and your mates spout on blogs like Daily Stormer behind a cloak of concern for human life…?

      • Hi! Thanks for the welcome. I already said I am not Christian Identity.

        People can form their own opinions about Colin Jordan and Arnold Leese or they can believe you. That is their choice. They wrote what they believed in and paid a high price for it. Have I read all they wrote. No. Will they have written some things I disagree with. Very likely. They were Englishmen first.

        The Government does not always tell the truth. WMD’s and Iraq. That means you need to study to arrive at the truth.

        If I was interested in hiding then how would you have been able to find my other posts so easily?

        Above all is the Holy Scripture. I have no interest in proselytizing. I am here to learn, via discussion of the Holy Scriptures if allowed otherwise I will be banned I presume.

        • Darter Noster

          Yes, they can learn from books like “National Socialism: Vanguard of the Future – Selected Writings of Colin Jordan”, available on Amazon.

          You know damn well what Reese and Jordan were, what they believed and what they wrote, so don’t take me for an idiot and don’t try that ‘misunderstood patriot, unfairly persecuted’ crap – it might work on the white equivalents of the brain-dead idiots joining ISIS, but you’re not dealing with those now. I dare say you and the lads on the blogs you frequent say much the same about George Lincoln Rockwell and Richard Butler.

          You prance around the internet spreading your love of race hatred, Jewish conspiracy theories and people advocating the sterilisation and extermination of disabled people, and then you come here expecting to be taken seriously as someone who cares about Holy Scripture and human life? It won’t wash.

          If you wish to repent of your vile beliefs then feel free, but unless and until you do I and others here will not cease to make clear the Neo-Nazi snake in the grass you really are.

          • My first post on this site was:

            We can have either the law of the Holy Scriptures or mans law

            This was in response to the Satanic: ‘Extremism Disruption Orders’.

            Political movements DON’T WORK. Man’s Government does not work. They wax worse and worse whatever they are. They are interesting to study because they show the truth of the Holy Scriptures.

            John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

        • CliveM

          Obfuscation

          • He may be genuinely confused and searching for the truth.

          • CliveM

            To be judgemental for the moment, I don’t think so. He seems to me to be deliberately avoiding clear and concise answers to certain difficult questions.

          • He seems confused to Happy Jack and perhaps he’s been drawn here to overcome whatever influences are currently pressing on him. Jack is prepared to suspend judgement for a time.

          • CliveM

            You are being suitably charitable. I will concede that at least he doesn’t resort to abuse to defend a point.

          • Compare and contrast his posts with a another blogger who shall remain sans nom.

          • Pubcrawler

            Would that be the one with the irony blindspot?

          • carl jacobs

            the one with the irony blindspot

            Good. Not American, then.

          • Pubcrawler

            He spells like one…

          • CliveM

            Yes as I say I will concede that. However I do note he still doesn’t address the questions posed properly and some of his comments, as Carl notes, are questionable .

          • Hi happy Jack

            I tried to log onto the “daily stormer” and was blocked by my internet provider. So it must be distinctly uncool.

          • It is, Hannah.
            Perhaps you should ask David to adjust the settings on the ‘Family Protection’ programme now you are an adult ;o)) He’s way too protective.

          • Grrrrrrrrrrrrr!

          • Down pussy-cay …..

          • CliveM

            LOL

          • CliveM

            Hi Hannah

            Had a look. Decidedly ‘uncool’ and amazingly poorly written as well!

        • Inspector General

          You are an interesting character. One has no truck with the BNP and never will do, but they too are concerned about the white race aborting itself out of existence, and if there is help coming from your quarter to end this atrocity then your help is welcome.

          Good day to you.

          • I joined Disqus. It seemed interesting. I spotted the evil EDO’s news piece and that lead me here.

            The BNP were set up to fail. That is basic statecraft.

            The more I can learn about Holy Scripture here the better. During previous exchanges I have learned a lot.

            Holy Scripture tells us how powerful the adversary will get towards the end. Why on earth would I fight the beast when we are commanded to occupy? Jesus delivered the Word of God for three years and then he was murdered. Three days and three nights later he rose again. Praise our Glorious Father.

            Darter Noster: I understand your viewpoint.

          • carl jacobs

            JWNAJ

            It’s nice that you understand his viewpoint. Perhaps you could directly address it.

            You would have been wise to make your account private before you came here. We just reviewed your posts on other blogs. And what did we see? Talk of race mixing and black homelands and “Jewpapers” and the massacre of the … what is the Adamic people, anyways? It takes about sixty seconds to identify you as a racist and an anti-Semite. And then you choose to post on a board like “Daily Stormer.” I stumbled on this website a while back when I was doing some research on an alleged American massacre of SS personnel at Dachau. The article talked about Americans being duped into killing SS due to Jewish propaganda. Great site. Why do you post there?

            You don’t sound like that here. And so we ask ourselves “Why?” And we keep coming up with one answer. You are hiding what you are. You need to address the issues if Racism and anti-Semitism. You need to address them directly.

            And frankly I don’t believe your denials about Christian Identity. You are attached to some group that shares that theology. You need to tell us what that is.

          • Why make the account private? Would you rather not have the truth of where else I had posted? If you don’t like it don’t read it.

            Where is the scriptural support for race mixing? Why is it such a big deal if I do not agree with it? If all the races end up mixed then what happens to the diversity?
            Why did God create separate races if He wanted them all to mix? Why not create a hybrid from the start?

            Where am I commanded to hate other races in the Holy Scriptures? Do I hate other races? No. What is the point in that. I believe God is in control. So they have a part to play.
            I believe God made the other races therefore they have a purpose. Why would I hate what God has done. It does not make sense. He knows best. Read the book of Job.

            Not everyone who questions this Cultural Marxism is a neo nazi nutter.

            The relationship between the press and Jews is an open secret.

            Adamic people are the Adamites Genesis 1:26-27.

            A racist is someone that discriminates based on race. Most people do not want to live in South Africa or Detroit. Are they all racists?

            An anti-Semite is so overused it now means somebody the Jews don’t like.

            We already covered the “Daily Stormer” issue on the EDO thread. Have I said on posts here: hey! go and read the daily stormer!!! No. Stop the Ad Hominem. You only learn about that site if you go over my disqus page. That is one reason it is not hidden. People can research for themselves. That is one of the great things about the internet.

            Do I think everything on the Daily Stormer is great/true/wonderful NO. Its a website not a religion. One reason I post there is because I get to debate about the Holy Scriptures. Another reason is people post about their real life experiences. However, there are enough Christ haters and evolutionists/atheists on those kind of websites there is only so much to discuss.

            Do I want to know or care where other people post? No.
            I am pleased to learn you were researching World War II. I hope you continue to do so.

            I am not Christian Identity. I believe what the Holy Scriptures say. There is no group. What would the point of a group be? Only the return of Jesus will fix things. What are we told to pray for every day:

            Our Father
            Who art in Heaven
            Thy Kingdom come

            I believe that not some nazi/communist/capitalist/republic mans government. THEY DON’T WORK.

          • carl jacobs

            JWNAJ

            If you don’t like it don’t read it.

            You misunderstand. I hesitated to mention the possibility of you privatizing your account for fear you would do it. Access to your posts on other weblogs – and the weblogs on which you choose to post – serve as invaluable material to me. I want you to keep your account public so that people can read it. I want to staple those posts to the wall for all to see.

            An anti-Semite is so overused it now means somebody the Jews don’t like.

            Am I a Jew? Then what relevance has this to me. I do not judge anti-Semitism by asking the local Jewish guy “Hey, is he an anti-Semite?” I am capable of making that judgment all by myself. All I have to do is read your words. And your words – to once again be frank – do not distance you from the ideology that motivates the existence of Daily Stormer. You post there because you find it a friendly site for your views on race and religion. I don’t care about who else comments on that site – be they atheist or evolutionist or whatever. I care the you choose to freely associate yourself with it.

            I will not see you hung around the neck of the Gospel like a dead rat. I like bright distinct lines, and a line needs to be drawn such that it is clear that you are beyond the bounds of authentic Christianity. I will not have you present the form without the substance and have people mistake your ideology for the substance. Jack thinks you are confused. I think you are deceptive because you haven’t been straight with us since you got here. Especially regarding the church you represent. You keep saying what you aren’t. You won’t say what you are. I don’t recognize you as a Brother so you are going to have to go some way to convince me.

            Adamic people are the Adamites Genesis 1:26-27.

            If I could use this as a springboard to ask once again. Who taught you this stuff? Don’t tell me you thought it up on your own. I know you didn’t. Who taught it to you?

          • If you want to discuss the Holy Scriptures and how that applies to the articles posted great. It would be great to learn from your thoughts. I have answered your questions and you continue to ad hominem.

            You post there (Daily Stormer) because you find it a friendly site for your views on race and religion.
            –The Holy Scriptures tell you about race and religion. Jesus discussed them. He submitted and was murdered and then rose again three days and three nights later.

            Regarding friends:
            Proverbs 18:24 A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.

            -that you are beyond the bounds of authentic Christianity.
            What is authentic Christianity? Which of the 40,000+ denominations? If not that then what?

            Especially regarding the church you represent
            -What is a church according to Holy Scripture? Chapter and verse please.

            You keep saying what you aren’t. You won’t say what you are.
            -You either consciously or otherwise, do not read what I say. My first post here was:

            We can have either mans law or the law of the Holy Scriptures. Thats what I am.

            I don’t recognize you as a Brother so you are going to have to go some way to convince me.
            -I am interested in discussing the Holy Scriptures not convincing you of anything. That is not my responsibility.

            Adamic people are the Adamites Genesis 1:26-27. Don’t tell me you thought it up on your own.
            – Read the chapter. What else would you call them and why?

            John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

          • carl jacobs

            You have given answers. You have not answered my questions. Who taught you the doctrines that you have promulgated on this weblog?

          • Neither have you answered mine.

          • carl jacobs

            At last. An admission that you have not answered.

            I have been on this website for five years. People know me. They know what I believe because I have told them directly. They don’t know you. And you are presently hiding yourself behind a veil. Who taught you the doctrines you have promulgated on this website?

          • I discussed Holy Scripture NOT doctrine.

            What doctrines? There is a teacher above the Holy Spirit?

          • carl jacobs

            As a said. You answer but you do not answer. You wish me to believe that like Paul you went into the desert for three years. I don’t believe it. No one is untaught. If you don’t like the word doctrine, then fine. Who taught you the teachings that you have promulgated on this website? Do not say “The Holy Spirit taught me.” Tell me the name of the man.

            There is only one reason for you to refuse to answer this question.

          • No. I do not care what you believe. The more I tell you the more you twist what I said.We are done.

          • carl jacobs

            Heh. We haven’t even started yet. Respond or not as you see fit. I don’t require you to respond. This faux-victim routine may work with with your friends at Der Tages Stürmer but it won’t work here. I’ve now got you on record three times refusing to answer a straight-forward question that anyone else on this weblog would answer without thinking. The next time I see Jack I will ask him “Do you still think he is confused?” And Jack will say ” Hrmmmmmm…” I know Jack. He likes to cling to his optimistic assumptions.

            People will not read this and say “Did you see Carl twist his words!”. They will say “He refused to answer.” This isn’t going to go away. And it won’t just be me.

          • Jack would probably say his sheepishness in answering can be understood in more ways than one.

          • carl jacobs

            I love being right all the time. I knew you wouldn’t give up the ghost just yet. You’re one of those “Look on the bright side” people. Always trying to be positive. But the confidence level … now that’s been shaken.

            Hence “Hrmmmm…” Translated from Jack-speak, of course.

            Update: Oh, btw. “Sheepishness?” Of all the possible words in the English language that are available to describe willful stubborn refusal, you chose “sheepishness”? I think that says more about you than him.

          • Never go into counselling as a career, Carl. The verbal equivalent of water-boarding is deemed unethical.

            “Sheepishness” is a good word. You’re interrogating the man.

          • carl jacobs

            Jack.

            I’m not trying to be his friend. Or his counselor. Or his confessor. I am asking him a question that will impeach his credibility whether he chooses to answer or not. My purpose is not to help. My purpose is to expose the counterfeit.

            He can sound just like us when he wants to do so. If you treat him like a peer and let him get comfortable, then one day he will pull that racism sh*t out into the open, and people will say “Oh. so that’s what you people are really like.” There isn’t any innocent reason to post at Daily Stormer, Jack. You may arrive there by accident, but you don’t stay there by accident. He found a compatible environment. That means you don’t want him in your Pro-Life camp standing in your ranks. He isn’t a friend. He isn’t an ally. And he isn’t a rescue project. That stuff doesn’t happen on weblogs.

            He’s an enemy.

          • Jack knows his ideas are false. He is interested in how he became a prisoner of these.

          • carl jacobs

            Last night by chance I stumbled across a video on Youtube by one Mark Weber. It was titled something like “An Objective Assessment of Hitler.” A quick search on the name revealed that Mark Weber is a holocaust denier with his own Institute. So I thought “OK, I can listen to understand. It’s an hour.” I made it through all of 20 minutes. Avi will laugh at me.

            It’s good to understand. But sometimes there isn’t much to understand. In this environment, you are more likely to confound Christian Identity with Christianity than achieve understanding. And after a short while, you won’t want to understand anymore anyways.

          • Well, Jack knows in his head you are correct but his heart says find out more about the man. If he truly believes in Christian Identity, then it will take the Holy Spirit to free him.

          • Jack likes to think well of people. He’s been programmed that way. You have been asked a direct question. Do not disappoint. Please answer. You should not be ashamed of disclosing who has influenced your understanding of Holy Scripture.

          • No. I spent a long time responding to that guy. For what?
            It is not just one person, book , idea that I have read, listened to it is many. Its a long process. If I told him any of these he would just attack them and me again throwing mud.
            It is easier for him to discuss and attack men rather than the Holy Scripture and how it applies.

            The main teacher is the Holy Scripture itself. That seems to be the last thing he wants to discuss.

          • Come now, we all have mentors who have shaped our lives and our ideas. Holy Scripture can and is read in many ways by different people. Who shaped your ideas? It’s a simple question.

          • But he is not interested in the substance of any answer. That is blatantly apparent by now.
            Many people influenced me.

          • Whether Carl is or is not interested, Jack is.

          • I am interested in discussing Holy Scripture and how it applies.

          • So, Holy Scripture it is.
            Do you believe all men are born equal in the sense that we are all made in the image and likeness of God and He loves all peoples and nations?

          • I counted four claims:

            Do you believe all men are born equal
            All men are made in the image and likeness of God
            God loves all peoples
            God loves all nations

            Pick one if you like and we can discuss the Holy Scripture.

          • All men are made in the image and likeness of God ….

          • Does that mean you want to discuss Genesis 1:26?

          • Just want an answer, really. Fell free to back it up with scripture.

          • I am interested in discussing Holy Scripture and how it applies. Do you base your claims on Holy Scripture?

            If not then there is no discussion.

            If you do base your claim of “All men are made in the image and likeness of God” then upon which scripture do you derive this claim from?

            We can either have mans law or the Law of the Holy Scriptures.

          • Jack asked you for n answer … and is still waiting.

          • Does that mean you want to discuss Genesis 1:26?

            Are you a Catholic?

            You have to base your claim on Holy Scripture. Give me a verse to substantiate your claim otherwise I will ignore you.

          • Feel free … Jack was asking you for your views. Up to you if you reply or not.

          • We have gone back and forth at least three times. Never a straight answer. We are done.

          • This is true you have refused to answer Jack’s questions.

          • Hi,

            As you like truth, I’m sure you agree us Jews are lovely , fab and cool ?

          • Darter Noster

            Sometimes your enemy’s enemy is your friend; this is not one of those times.

          • Inspector General

            One was reading about how during the original crusades, the participants assembled in Malta. They were a rum bunch from all over, and you would have been a fool to turn your back on many of them. But on the line of battle, there they were, next to you.

          • Good day.

  • IanCad

    Darn it! YG. Life would be some much easier if you didn’t post such stuff.
    So; “Products of conception” is it now?
    We’re told that we mustn’t judge. Well, I’m sorry, but IMO these dreadful murderers are unequalled in their depravity.

  • Demon Teddy Bear

    Well said, your grace.

    I think when the history of the selfish generation is wriiten, for all its bigotry, dishonesty and intolerance of anyone else, it will be the mass murder of children in the womb that will damn them. It will damn them all; for making it possible, and for refusing even to report these sickening evils.

    • It’s apostasy that will damn this generation … all the rest follows.

  • cacheton

    ‘You’re free to be religious, but please, for God’s sake, don’t believe anything too strongly, because that’s just too non-violently extreme.’

    Yes, you apparently agree with me that freedom of religion is not compatible with the alignment of thought, word and deed. You can think what you like, maybe talk about it or maybe not, but not actually DO it.

    So what is going to give – the strong beliefs (if their foundations are unjustified and unjustifiable) or the persistence of this misalignment?

    BTW I am not a supporter of Planned Parenthood, just to be clear. In a society where thought, word and deed were aligned this sort of issue would not arise in the first place.

    • William Lewis

      Welcome to the Borg collective.

      • sarky

        So the 70’s tennis player with a dodgy mullet has a collective now?

  • Johnny Rottenborough

    Thus does ‘extremism’ begin to incorporate any theology of liberation which does not accord with state orthodoxy

    It’s a measure of how extremist state orthodoxy has become that the age-old cultural supports of Western civilization—Christianity, marriage, the traditional family, sexual restraint, patriotism, morality, nations of a common ethnicity—are under attack by the very politicians we elect to protect us. One hopes their betrayal is being adequately rewarded.

    As our ruling classes continue to hack away at those cultural supports, one shudders to think what the future holds. In all probability, it will make the days when babies were renamed ‘products of conception’ seem like a golden age.

    • Ivan M

      JR it looks very much like the politicians are being blackmailed. No doubt the homosexuals and their friends have dirt on everyone.

      • Johnny Rottenborough

        @ IvanM—Blackmail may not be necessary. Our politicians may well believe, like the German politician Gregor Gysi, that the world would be better off without the white race (and, very probably, without Christianity): ‘Every year more native Germans die than there are born. That is very fortunate.’

        Search YouTube for: german politician gregor gysi calls native germans nazis and their extinction fortunate

  • IanCad

    Physiognomy is generally discredited.
    I would challenge anyone to study the picture above and not to conclude that, indeed, the craft may have some merit after all.
    What a cruel, characterless women she appears to be.
    Just the kind of lost soul who would crunch and dissect, and peddle without a thought, that which we should hold precious.

    • The Explorer

      You mean Melissa? You think she’s bad, what about the one going through the body parts with the tongs?

      • Inspector General

        All are guilty, all should hang. And 4 years for the bookkeeper…

        • The Explorer

          Agreed, but that particular one makes me think of Hansel and Gretel.

        • Ivan M

          Hear, hear !

      • IanCad

        I saw the first video – that was enough for me.
        Utterly sickening; can’t watch another..

        • The Explorer

          Fair enough, but one lab assistant is so like a pro-lifer’s image of an abortionist she’s almost a caricature. AS I said to the Inspector, you could cast her for ‘Hansel and Gretel’. Perfect for the role, and equally a threat to young life.

  • Inspector General

    How times change. A little over 50 years ago, it would have taken HM hangman all week to despatch that crowd of unspeakables.

    When you come across instances of such depraved human wickedness as this, only St Peter’s sword will do. Kill and purify, gentlemen, kill and purify. Jesus did not stand passively by at the temple, and neither should we here.

    It is also a matter of concern to us all that where these corpses, intact or otherwise, will go include laboratories working on how to monstrously produce human life from two male gametes. There is a demand for that service, so they say. It just goes to show how one corruption overlaps onto another.

    Now, if there is any other effective way of wiping these crimes against humanity out and preventing their re-emergence by not judicially killing the people involved, the Inspector would like to hear about it.

    • Jack suggests we might start by seeking to re-establish abortion as a crime before setting out on a Holy Crusade using the sword and gallows.

      • Inspector General

        One was not advocating direct action, you idiot.

        • Linus

          “Kill and purify” is not a call to direct action?

          Perhaps we should leave that to the authorities to decide. A quick email to the British anti-terrorist authorities with a link to this thread (and a screen cap attached in case of later editing) should set the ball rolling.

          • Inspector General

            Off you go, le collaborateur. One is very conscious that in these days a twitter or text can land a man in prison. You kill by the lawful gallows, and you purify by removing the offender from this life.

          • Glad all that was clarified Inspector – for the benefit of the obtuse and malicious.

          • More hollow threats, Linus? How did you get on with that solicitor you were consulting about Jack’s alleged libel against you?

            Anyway, it may have escaped your notice that at the end of his rather florid call to spiritual arms the Inspector used the expression ” judicially killing”. Google it. Then, as Jack’s mum would often say: “Stick it in your pipe and smoke it.”

          • Linus

            Let’s see, shall we?

          • Did you place your hand on your hip whilst typing that? Cheeky boy.

          • Inspector General

            If we ever manage to sully our hands on you, you caustic old faggot, it will be for shoving your head down a lavatory and pulling the chain, an old English public school procedure for obnoxious oinks like you, which the Inspector is somewhat desperate to acquaint you with…

          • CliveM

            All done with Christian love of course!

          • ROFL … “caustic old faggot”.

          • Linus

            Thank you, but your lavatorial fantasies will never come to pass. Rather brave of you to tell the world what turns you on though. Wonder what the police will find on your hard drive when they seize it?

          • Inspector General

            Have you no shame? Here is the most serious of subjects and there you go mincing around this site like Pierrot.

            Rotten stinker!

          • Linus

            Have YOU no shame? Revealing your sexual fantasies in the midst of a serious discussion about how best to lynch doctors who act on behalf of women wanting to terminate unwanted pregnancies. Once you’ve strung them high, will the women be next?

          • Inspector General

            You really are a heartless bastard…

          • The Explorer

            I don’t think the discussion is about lynching doctors; this isn’t ‘The Handmaid’s Tale.

            The issue seems to be about how much profit should be made from selling on aborted body parts. PP describes itself as a non-profit organisation, and any charges are just to cover the costs of storing and shipping body parts.

            Melissa, however, seems to have her eye on the profit motive, and that’s driving what happens. The later the termination, the better the body parts. An intact baby, best of all. Reports say that is an issue in projected future video releases: the selling on of entire dead babies, with the attendant question of how and when the babies died.

          • Inspector General

            One’s desire to flush you in a lavatory pan is by no means a sexual fantasy, you pervert. Your ‘diversity’ really is confined to your kind.

          • Linus

            Your desire to to inflict degradation on your victims tells me everything I need to know about your motivation, which is clearly carnal in nature. Straight men will go for whatever opportunity presents itself when committing acts of violence. Only the repressed and self-hating gay man will dream up an elaborate vengeance involving the impurity he believes himself to be sullied by. It’s almost as though he actually WANTS everyone to know who he truly is.

          • Inspector General

            Interesting. You consider your would be watery humiliation a carnal activity. That’s it then, one no longer wishes to continue this thread. You are quite beyond the rationale or to be trusted with youth, come to that. But then, you are a proud gay thing.

          • Linus

            And you’re increasingly incoherent. Off to bed with you, you senile old codger. Your deranged neurons are clearly in need of a good night’s sleep.

          • Inspector General

            By the way. As an un-apologetic homosexual, you do realise the police will take a particular interest in your hard drive.

            Heh Heh!

          • …. and his soft ware.

          • Linus

            You do realize we live in the 21st century now, and not the 1960s? If the police were to target me for being gay, they would be committing a crime.

            The problem is you still think the authorities are on your side, don’t you? They’re not. They’re busy monitoring you as part of an extremist minority.

          • Inspector General

            “Calling all cars, calling all cars. Be on the lookout for a French anti Christian homosexual legging it down the street with a hard drive under his arm. That is all”

          • Linus

            I thought so … your imagination starts and stops at 70s and 80s police dramas, doesn’t it?

            Sorry to disappoint you, but the world of Z Cars and Juliette Bravo no longer exists…

          • The Explorer

            ‘Busy’ might be optimistic.

          • avi barzel

            May be this is not the case in your country which even dirt-poor African migrants prefer to use only as a temporary pissoir as they try to make it to England, but in the civilized world, otherwise known as the Anglosphere, it’s perfectly legal to call for the death penalty or for wiping out crimes again humanity. And you claim to be a judge. Who lives in a castle. With a moat, no less.

          • Linus

            I, claim to be a judge? That’s a new accusation. The hysterical abuse is par for the course and I’m used to it. I’m also used to your utter ignorance of the French language, which might be forgivable if you were an American, but which for a Canadian is just proof of laziness. What exactly is a “pissoir”? I think I can guess, but the missing syllables do your intelligence no credit at all. How hard is it to look up a word in a dictionary? Too hard for you, apparently.

            In any case, the only other interesting thing about your tirade is this obsession you have with my home. It can’t be common garden urban proletariat jealousy. Judging by the poor-to-middling command of their own language that most contributors to this site display (not excluding the Captain Peacock who masquerades as a dead archbishop, and his Mrs Slocombe of a sidekick) pretty much everyone here falls into just that category, give or take a generation or two and the pretensions that promotion from an East End terrace to a suburban semi in Sidcup give rise to. But none of them harps on about moats and castles like you do.

            No, there’s clearly something rather more complex than ordinary class envy going on in your benighted and confused little brain. Could it be the anger of the itinerant minority member whose ancestors were denied the place in society that ought to have been accorded to them based on their industry and undoubted capacity for material success? Is this the revenge of the wannabe châtelain whose accession to social prominence and a noble patrimony would have been limited under the best of circumstances, and only from the 19th century onwards, to something vulgar in the 16th arrondissement and a gin palace in Deauville?

            Of course from what I can gather, even these limited aspirations are beyond you, and in the spirit of “liberté, égalité et fraternité” it would probably be best to draw a veil over the vexed question of your “seize quartiers”. None of that matters in the modern world anyway, and surely shouldn’t trouble a classless Canadian.

            “Le nivellement vers le bas” that forms part of your country’s ethos was designed to work in your favour rather than mine. So stop pining for the castles and moats of France and Navarre and reorient your ambitions towards something achievable. Like Centralair, or a big bendy ten foot TV, or a month in a cabin on a mosquito-ridden lake somewhere oot near the muskeg, eh?

            Your moat envy might then subside and be replaced by jealousies more appropriate to your station in life. Pining for what you cannot have is so pointless. Lower your sights, pauvre mec. You’ll be much happier for it.

          • avi barzel

            Well, then. You have rendered me speechless, Linus. I shall reflect on my petit bourgeois tendencies and re-read Madame Bovary in pennance and as a warning.

            And my profuse apologies for misspelling “pissoire.” Insensitive of me; for some it may just be a stinky loo in the park, for others a romantic spot whose bouquet of scents elicits happy memories.

          • William Lewis

            One can sympathise with the French revolutionaries who decided to remove the heads of their haughty aristocracy. Apparently they failed to remove the accompanying snobbery though.

          • carl jacobs

            Avi

            You spelled the word correctly. It doesn’t much matter how the word is spelled in France – since we aren’t communicating in French.

            Not many people actually communicate in French, anymore. Not unlike the passing of the telegraph.

          • avi barzel

            Well, you slam-dunked him with that one. He seems to have gone off the airwaves. Hasn’t been long enough to know one must shed his ego at the login gate here.

          • He’s feverishly searching all his dictionaries and etymologies in order to demonstrate Carl is wrong. He often is, of course.

          • avi barzel

            Yeah, but Carl doesn’t care nearly as much.

          • carl jacobs

            Whaddaya mean “Yeah”? You should have said “No, he isn’t. You know better, Jack.”

          • Linus

            I will say that at least Carl Jacobs attacked me on terrain he was reasonably sure of – his own language, such as it is – rather than attempting to bring the fight onto my territory, which is a war he couldn’t possibly hope to win. Sensible man.

            I concede the point – or at least I don’t dispute it – that “pissoir” may be an English word. I utterly refute the false characterization of it as French.

            The role reversal implicit in the above exchanges is quite amusing though. Americans are normally so gung-ho and trigger happy. They act without checking their facts and regret it later, although invariably they’ll cover that regret with bluster and bravado. And the English and those dull, dull Canadians, who together are usually so circumspect in their actions and check all their facts before jumping in with all guns blazing…

            So how come the American acted like an Englishman, and the Englishman and his little colonial friend decided to play the role of John Wayne? Is this more evidence of atypical Christian personality types? As if more were needed…

          • carl jacobs

            Linus

            I didn’t attack you “on terrain [I] was reasonably sure of – [my] own language.” I simply pointed out your factual error. That isn’t an attack. For what it is worth, I thought that mistake you made was reasonable for a native French speaker to make. But you attacked – you see, this is the proper way to use that word – Avi Barzel as both ignorant and lazy on the basis on nothing more than your own ignorance and laziness. And you didn’t even have the grace to apologize for it.

            As I have told you before, you would be an excellent addition to this weblog if you would just get your head out of your rectum and start acting like a civilized respectful human being. But, no. You get caught out by your own arrogance and engage in the literary equivalent of kicking over the furniture and throwing books on the floor – for upwards of 19 hours now. You are trying to save face over something that should never have resulted in a loss of face. The error was nothing. The substance of this event must be found in the attitude and actions that you displayed because you made the error. That is what you should examine. Put away this ongoing rant about how the English is language is to blame for your mistake, and open your eyes.

            This has not been an edifying spectacle to observe. Or perhaps it has been. Only you can answer that question.

          • Linus

            How do the English say it? “Pompous git”, I think. Yes, that’s the expression.

            I marvel at the Christian ability to screech about the inadmissibility of any judgment from a non-Christian, while they have the right to hurl as much abuse as they like at anyone who dares to criticize them.

            There’s only one word to say in response. It’s written identically in both languages. Hypocrite. And what did your imaginary messiah say about them and their chances of getting to this make-believe paradise of his?

          • carl jacobs

            And this is why I have nothing to do with you. Perhaps sometime in the future I will read a very un-Avi-like comment from Avi that will actually prompt to pay attention to you. Or perhaps you will make some asinine comment about WWII? That’s my terrain after all. I’ll defend that piece of ground from your nonsense. Either way, you are free to go back to kicking over the furniture. It’s your property after all. If you want to make a spectacle of yourself, who am I to stop you.

            It’s all to my benefit when you make an ass of yourself in public.

          • Linus

            This is you “having nothing to do with me”, is it?

            Dear oh dear … he probably believes his own propaganda too. That’s that madness of Christians. Lost in their make-believe world where their every action, no matter how abject, is good and holy, while everyone else is evil and wicked.

            But it’s all to our benefit. The more deluded you show yourselves to be, the less likely it is you’ll ever be entrusted with power again.

          • Witnessing this meltdown is painfully embarrassing

          • Pubcrawler

            Oh, I missed it!

          • Not “nearly as much” – nobody comes near Linus in pomposity – agreed.
            But Carl cares. He’s American. He’s military. He’s an engineer. He’s a protestant. He’s a Cowboy. Oh, he cares.

          • carl jacobs

            Jack

            That’s an interesting philosophical conundrum. Would I care if I was wrong? It’s a difficult question to examine because it’s all so hypothetical.

          • 3 points, Carl. 57 to go. We’ll see.

          • carl jacobs

            Technically 58. But who is counting?

            Hrm. It seems Man U is trailing Leicester, Crystal Palsce, and Aston Villa in a tight race after four whole matches. Yes, it’s very representative of the final outcome.

          • Okay, 58. And Jack’s counting, Carl.

          • CliveM

            You didn’t read his whole post did you? Life is to short.

          • avi barzel

            Got me. It’s a fair cop, Clive.

          • Linus

            The word is “pissotière”, and they’re generally every bit as malodorous as the minds of the “pauvres cons” who fantasize about what might go on in them.

          • carl jacobs
          • CliveM

            It’s typically worthwhile checking Linus’s ‘facts’.

          • carl jacobs

            He is simply trying to enforce the French language as some kind of de facto standard. Because, you know, France is the center of the cultural universe. And it was at one time. Back when Peter was carving out his city on the banks of the Neva River. But .. now we’re living in the 21st Century.

          • Nah, he …. m.a.d.e. a. m.i.s.t.a.k.e.

          • Linus

            N.o. h.e. d.i.d. n.o.t.

            I often wonder if the depths of ignorance I witness on this site are representative of Christianity as a whole. I think they probably are, but most Christians just know how to be a little more discreet about it than you.

            “Pissoir” is not a French word. See above for the explanation. And then kick yourself for having gloated prematurely. Probably not the only time in your life premature ejaculations have left you with a red face, eh? How many children did you say you have? Did you have trouble figuring out where to put it? Or perhaps it just kept falling out. I’m told that can happen in extreme cases of atrophy…

          • Is it because it was an American and Canadian who were right and you were wrong?

          • Well, you go-ahead sun shine.

          • CliveM

            Thing is it would involve reading the whole of his posts, who has time?!

          • Who has the strength of mind?

          • CliveM

            Or wouldn’t prefer to watch paint dry?

          • Nobody’s fool is our Linus. Jack has tried but can find no person to adopt him.

          • Linus

            Ah well, I stand corrected then. I suppose it isn’t the first time the English have murdered a perfectly good French word. It certainly won’t be the last.

            What a language English is! It’s the linguistic version of the fat mirror at the circus, isn’t it? It turns a slim, elegant and well-dressed Frenchwoman into a fat, dumpy, tattooed, Primark-adorned Englishwoman, with extra ugly thrown in for good measure. And then there’s American, although you need two mirrors for that…

          • William Lewis

            What a shame you couldn’t manage a slim and elegant retraction. I suppose it’s hard to recover from the entanglement of ones own trap with much grace when so much pride has been invested in the snare before hand.

          • Linus

            And here was I thinking I’d been as pithy as pithy could be given the shocking discovery that your language can’t even borrow vocabulary from mine without simplifying it in a manner that a brain-damaged two year old might be ashamed of.

          • William Lewis

            Neither slim nor elegant nor pithy. And one can kiss goodbye to any kind of humility. Just the usual pride and venom.

          • CliveM

            “self-pity competing for the high ground with vanity.”

            I saw this in today’s Telegraph.

          • William Lewis

            Le nivellement vers le bas, Clive

          • You hide your hurt pride so well ….

          • Linus

            I should be ashamed of not realizing how low-rent and primitive English can be?

            Perhaps I should be. It’s a language I’ve spoken with reasonable fluency since childhood, so I should know how demotic things can get when its blunt accent tries to deal with a word absorbed from an enunciated tongue.

            One imagines the Neanderthal process of language acquisition must have been very similar. Complex words uttered by their Cro Magnon enemies would have been overheard and copied, and then simplified, and rendered as grunts, whistles and burps. And thus you transform four clearly enunciated and balanced French syllables together with their pre-pausal vowel into two grunted and seemingly unrelated “Ing Glish” monosyllables that any caveman might be proud of.

            Have fun in your “piss wahr”. All that grunting will give very little clue as to what’s actually going on in there…

          • …. actually, not so well.

          • Pubcrawler

            Pithy.

          • William Lewis

            It’s a pithy that Linus doesn’t know the first rule of holes.

          • Pubcrawler

            But it makes for such fun!

          • *chuckle*

          • Eh?

            Ah … digging and all that.

          • Pubcrawler

            Don’t give him any clues!

          • Pubcrawler

            Oh, and then there’s this:

            http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/pissoir/61178?q=pissoir#60778

            Plus this:

            https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/pissoir

            Earliest citation in French: 1773. Compare earliest citation in English (according to OED Supplement): 1919. And that’s Mencken, so strictly speaking USan.

            Because I don’t find it hard to check things even in a French dictionary.

          • He, he …

          • Linus

            Ah, the ignorance of the ill-informed Englishman knows no bounds, I see.

            The word “pissoir” does not appear in the Dictionnaire de l’Académie française, therefore it is not part of the French language.

            Some commercial dictionaries such as Larousse may include slang terms, or even words from other languages, along with notes regarding the approximate first date of known usage. But the mere fact of being commonly used (which “pissoir” most certainly is not BTW) does not make a term French.

            The only official lexicon of the French language is the Dictionnaire de l’Académie française. I invite you to look up the word “pissoir” in it and see what you find. There’s an online version available if you read enough French to be able to understand basic instructions. All attempts to find the word in question will result in the following message: “Aucun document ne correspond à ces critères”. In other words (and translating it into the form of English I expect you best understand) “it ain’t bloody well there, innit?”

            Of course “pissoir” may well be considered to be part of the English language. That’s a point I’m perfectly prepared to concede, or at least not dispute, because who knows what constitutes a correct English word? From what I gather, all it takes is for an editing team in a publishing house – ANY publishing house, no matter how slapdash or disreputable – to include a word in their dictionary and lo and behold, English has gained a new term. It doesn’t work that way here. If it hasn’t been approved by the Académie française, it isn’t French. Point à la ligne.

            So I repeat, “pissoir” is NOT French, and your paltry attempt to “catch me out” therefore falls flat on its face. This is what happens when you try to attack someone on terrain you know absolutely nothing about.

          • Pubcrawler

            How spectacularly you miss the point.

          • Linus

            And how gracelessly you admit defeat.

            A word of advice. When planning an attack, make sure you know how the land lies before sending in your troops. If they sink up to their necks in mud and quicksand, you’ve lost the battle no matter how strong your position seems to be at the outset.

            Dear oh dear, such lack of foresight! How is it you people ever won two World Wars? Oh of course … the first one we helped you with, and the second one the Americans took care of for you.

          • carl jacobs

            In point of fact, it was Britain that had the option of remaining neutral in 1914. Britain helped France at the cost of 5% of its population. Had it not done so, the world would this year be celebrating the 100th anniversary of the German Protectorate over France. When has France ever stood up to Germany by itself?

            It was the British who stood alone against Hitler from June 1940 until June 1941. And why were they alone? Because the French Army shattered into shards of fine crystal at first contact with the enemy. The heroic French resistance at the Meuse lasted all of 24 hours. If Britain had collapsed like France, then Hitler would have won his war. There isn’t a Nazi Germany today because Britain had the stones to keep going. Which means there is a France today because Britain had the stones to keep going.

            France has no standing to talk about the war. It should keep silent about the achievements of those who carried the battle to a successful conclusion. Collaboration should not dare to speak in the presence of courage.

          • Linus

            Britain’s forces collapsed just as quickly as the French army in the face of the German onslaught. The only difference is they had an island to run back to and hide on. We did not.

            American bravery can be measured in nautical miles too. Without that vast ocean separating you from the rest of the world, I wonder how many invasions you would have experienced by now.

            But things have changed since the last war. English defences have now been breached by a tunnel. England is at last experiencing what France has always been beset by: invasion. And it’s massive and deeply destabilizing in a society used to isolation and standing apart from the rest of the world.

            I’m told that the US is also being invaded, and that soon enough, WASP Americans will be a minority in their own country, which may become Hispanophone within a very few generations. So who will have the last laugh, I wonder? Arrogant Anglo-saxons swamped in what they thought were their ultimate strongholds? I doubt it.

          • carl jacobs

            The BEF didn’t collapse. It was hardly engaged. The German attack in the North was a diversion intended to pull the Allies into a trap. The strategic position of the BEF was hopelessly compromised when the trap was sprung by the French collapse at the Meuse. Don’t blame the British for an absence of French intestinal fortitude.

            The French contribution to the war was to 1) hide behind the Maginot line, 2) run away at the first shot, and 3) give the German army a nice easy vacation spot in the Reich. There is a reason all those women had their heads shaved after the war. The image of France as German concubine had to be erased somehow. It didn’t work, though, did it?

            For the sake of this massive display of bravery you feel authorized to criticize those whose courage kept alive even the possibility of your liberation. Come to terms with Laval. Come to terms with France laying down in the grass and spreading its legs for the Nazis. Then you will be able to speak to the British about their conduct in the war. But I suspect you won’t want to say a word.

          • Linus

            Your mindless francophobia is astounding. I knew you hated us, but reveling in the death and destruction wrought upon this nation by the Germans during the war shows a level of hatred that surpasses rational understanding. Good luck explaining that to your imaginary messiah.

            For the sake of all those who died resisting the German occupation of my country after our brave British allies so bravely ran away when their “strategic position was compromised” (i.e. they realized they’d better scarper or be annihilated by a superior force), I’ll refrain from further comment. To discuss these things with the hate-filled descendants of the men who abandoned them to their fate would be disrespectful to their memory.

            My husband and I will be spending a few days with friends in Normandy next week. They don’t live very far from one of the American war cemeteries. If I were interested in revenge, I could give it a visit and pay the same respect to your war dead that you show to ours. Only my stream of urine would be real rather than virtual. But I won’t be stooping to your level. I’m French. We don’t go that low.

          • CliveM

            Carl

            The French know all this, it’s one of the reasons they hate us.

            His response says it all.

          • William Lewis

            What a hypocrite you are. Who would take lessons from a man who denigrates someone for not using a dictionary and then fails to use it himself? Your credibility is shot. Your pompous attacks are ridiculous, projecting your impotent rage with pathetic school boy taunts.

          • avi barzel

            Perhaps, although Carl does indicate otherwise. In any event, they had those lovely contraptions in Vienna in the 70s and they too spelled it “pissoir.” I remember this distinctly, as I wrote the word on my friend’s locker in indelible marker and got a whupping for my efforts by Herr Schueler, who in spite of his tendency to resort to his wooden ruler whenever our minds wandered, inspired my love of history.

          • carl jacobs

            Let’s pause for a moment and reflect upon the exact words of Linus:

            What exactly is a “pissoir”? I think I can guess, but the missing syllables do your intelligence no credit at all. How hard is it to look up a word in a dictionary? Too hard for you, apparently.

          • William Lewis

            Ouch. It seems Linus needs to take a little more care priming his petard. Too much vitriol can do that to a man. I am sure the apology will be issued shortly.

          • avi barzel

            Hahahaha!

          • Ooooo …. below the belt … do they have ‘cottages’ in France?

          • The Explorer

            What’s wrong with ‘pissoir’? A small building in which people can urinate. A cover for urinals. I vaguely remember the word as the subject of ‘Clochemerle’, but if I’ve got it wrong I’m sure you’ll enlighten me.

            While we’re on the subject of language precision, three points.
            1. Hysterical? How can calling you a judge, without any supporting adjectives, be hysterical abuse? You might have a point if he’d called you a banker, or a politician, or a French postmodernist critic.
            2. The point about a tirade is that it is long. How can a paragraph be a tirade?
            3. ‘Obsession’ would suggest repeated reference. This is the first time I’ve been aware of Avi referring to your moat: and only because you raised the topic (and no doubt the drawbridge) in the first place. You told us; we didn’t ask you.

          • William Lewis

            Err. There may be time for questions at the end. Currently our foremost Gallic thinker is in mid flow so will you kindly desist.

          • The Explorer

            Is it a flow in a pissoir? As in taking the?

          • William Lewis

            Probably into his moat to help keep the tourists out, either way best not to “stem the tide”.

          • Linus

            1. Hysteria doesn’t require adjectives.

            2. Stitch all of his responses to me together, which it’s easy to do because they’re all pretty much identical, an you have your tirade.

            3. Check back through his previous comments and you’ll find plenty of ironic references to moats.

          • The Explorer

            1. Maybe not, but an hysterical woman generally has a good supply of them.

            2. Yes, I’ll concede that that paragraph, fitted into ongoing dialogue, could be part of a tirade.

            3. I’ll take your word for it about the previous comments. Case of the moat in your brother’s eye, eh? (And, yes, I am aware of the variant spelling.)

          • avi barzel

            You stitched all my comments together? Into a quilt, I hope? Before the tall Rumford fireplace with the Gothic revival gargoyles in the drafty great hall, no doubt. You flatterer, you!

          • avi barzel

            I wouldn’t call my worst enemy a French post-modernist thinker!

          • carl jacobs

            But … but … “Waiting for Godot.” How many repeat performance have you seen? Three? I’m detecting some inconsistency here

          • avi barzel

            One can’t get enough of it. Make an evening of it and don’t forget to pin a “do not resuscitate” on your lapel.

          • carl jacobs

            It’s far too sophisticated for we simple Americans. I’m sure it would be lost on me. I’ll stick with ‘Our American Cousin.”

          • So, what would you call him – French?

          • Well spotted Explorer. Do you suppose Linus is prone to exaggeration and hyperbole?

          • Goodness what a shy little peacock you are.

          • Pubcrawler

            A peacock when his finery is past its prime and discarded is a very sorry sight.

        • Jack was aware of that, Inspector. However, do remember, Jesus’ direct action was against those abusing His Father’s House, the Temple. One would say He had full authority to do so too.

          Jack is not aware of Jesus making any political statements – except in so far as He acknowledged Pilate’s authority ultimately came from God and God would hold him accountable for its exercise.

    • michaelkx

      Inspector dear chap did not our Lord have something to say on harming children?
      “If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. (Mat 18:6)
      and a quick glance though the old testament and you will see what GOD thinks of those nations that harm children I.E. ‘pass them through the fire’

  • preacher

    All the Newspeak why doesn’t she just say dead babies or living but disposable babies ?. It’s 101 Dalmatians in real life but with babies instead of puppies, whatever belief or lack of belief one has, the ethics stink.

    Money is their God & profit from the bodies of dead children is their cause, truly, these people must be inhuman.
    Surely, the dangers of Cameron’s legislation against ‘ Non Violent Extremists ‘ is exposed for the dangerous gagging of free speech that it will be used for by these & similar unscrupulous immoral elements in society.

  • David

    Wickedness swells pridefully and grows, feeding on the blood of the innocent.
    All who place their trust in Our Lord and Saviour must adhere to the Truth, preparing for battle. But our fight is not with ordinary mortals, as it is a spiritual one, against the forces of evil and darkness. We can be confident that ultimately God will triumph.
    The grace of The Lord Jesus be with all the saints, Amen !

  • The Explorer

    I googled ‘Planned Parenthood’ to see what the Americans are saying on the subject. It’s a hot topic. The pro-choice New York Times had this:

    “There is neither illegality nor profit in what PP does. The organization follows federal law in allowing women to donate fetal tissue for research, and in charging small amounts to cover the costs of storage and shipment.” Women’s welfare paramount etc etc.

    That all sounds fine and clear cut. Even I can understand it. But “baked in”, “get creative” and “diversification of the revenue stream” sounds evasive by comparison. I think anyone who uses that kind of language has got something to hide.

    • CliveM

      Maybe she is simply trying to hide from herself the enormity of what she is involved in.

      De-humanising makes things so much easier.

    • She’s an ice cold business woman hiding the profits! There’s a roaring trade from the cosmetic, plastic surgery and private medical anti-ageing therapy trades. Those human fresh cell injection ingredients have to come from somewhere.

      • Ivan M

        Is it any wonder then, that those who go for anti-ageing “therapy” end up looking like demons after a few years?

  • The Explorer

    Planned parenthood by abortion may have had some meaning back in the days of Maragret Sanger, but surely planned parenthood in 2015 (especially for those without any religious convictions) should mean that you don’t need to get pregnant unless you want to?

    With the pill, the morning after pill, sex education, feminism, safe sex consciousness raising etc why is there still such a need for abortions? I don’t get it.

    • Ivan M

      Come on, now you are talking like an extremist.

      • The Explorer

        On the contrary, I am praising all the efforts of the secular world not to reproduce itself.

        • Ivan M

          All babies are born secular until they are indoctrinated by their reactionary caregivers. Can a newborn pray? We are onto you, kulak!

          • Orwell Ian

            Can a newborn choose? Do humans really have some inborn default to secularism? Or is an undeveloped mind indoctrinated by the secular caregivers that surround them?

          • The Explorer

            ‘Kulak’ is a clue as to the spirit of Ivan’s comment.

          • Martin

            Ivan

            We are all born with God’s image, that means we all know, as part of our nature, that God exists.

          • carl jacobs

            The kulaks were a “class enemy” of the Russian Revolution. They were “rich” Ukrainian peasants who held “bourgeois ideas”. They were slaughtered in the millions (literally) by the Communists. More Ukranians were killed in the Winter of 32/33 than Jews were killed by the Nazis over the course of the war.

          • Martin

            Carls

            So we can clearly see what he thinks of Christians.

          • carl jacobs

            I perceived that he was being ironic.

          • Bingo !

          • Are you American, Martin?

          • Martin

            HJ

            Check my spelling.

          • avi barzel

            Reactionary!! The Great Comrate Dzhugashvili scientifically established that all are born with an innate love of the collective and with fully correct conscousness of the proletariat, eager to engage in Marxist-Leninist dialectics.. You have been secretly spooning the opium of the people into the mouths of trusting babes! Report yourself immediately with your workers’ card to the nearest People’s Tribunal for a session of self-criticism and maybe even a show trial after the harvests!

            Anyhow, Comrade Ivan was jesting.

          • Martin

            Avi

            Self criticism is what I do all the time, theirs is more likely to be ignored however.

    • faithfulpublishing

      FYI, Margaret Sanger was not the least bit shy about why she started PP. She is often quoted as saying she believed the Negro race needed to be exterminated. And it continues that more black babies are extinguished than any other race. And yet the black community disregards this significant fact. One can only wonder why.

      I am an American, one among a significant silent majority who knows the truth about what seems to be the complete takeover of our culture, value system and way of life by evil forces. We stand mute, eyes all wide, like deer in the headlights. It’s come to this, we let the fox in the hen house while we were busy wondering what Kim Kardasian was going to wear today.

  • Hmm … extremists indeed.

    Surprise inspections catch 3 Planned Parenthood clinics doing illegal abortions

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-surprise-inspections-catch-3-planned-parenthood-clinics-doing-ille

    • The Explorer

      Some of those clinics have obviously been getting creative with their activities.
      Actually, getting creative is a nice irony: given that the primary purpose of these places is the prevention of new life. I don’t buy the contention that the primary purpose of all these body parts is research for the treatment of sick babies. If that were true, I don’t think the assistant would have been laughing about the bits all jumbled up together.

    • Orwell Ian

      There was a bill that would have restricted federal funds from flowing to Planned Parenthood but it was killed in the Senate. However some State Governments have reacted to the videos that uncover PP’s ghastly and allegedly illegal tissue trade.

      These States have already moved to defund PP:

      Alabama: “I respect human life, and I do not want Alabama to be associated with an organization that does not,”– Gov Bentley

      Louisiana: “Planned Parenthood does not represent the values of the people of Louisiana and shows a fundamental disrespect for human life. It has become clear that this is not an organization that is worthy of receiving public assistance from the state.”– Gov Jindal

      New Hampshire: The Executive Council voted 3-2 to defund the organization.

      Let us pray that more States will follow suit.

      • Jack understands Obama had already indicated he would not support any move to end PP’s funding.
        There are signs the American public is waking up to this issue and also to the fuller implications of homosexual marriage. Jack prays Pope Francis has the moral fortitude to condemn this organisation and all abortions when he visits America shortly and not just focus on the more populist issues of climate change and poverty.

  • Dreadnaught

    This must have been a very trying composition to put together, I found it particularly hard to look at it dispassionately and difficult simply to read it. Total admiration to the fortitude of the author in making this presentation that should reach the big question mark that lurks or should lurk within anyone with a conscience.
    It is indeed harrowing stuff to realise that even today with all the access to the evidence of the inhumanities of WW2, that there are people who can deal with elements of human life in such a matter of fact way that the practices of Mengele and experimenters of his ilk could so easily be compared to this.
    Truly a cause for concern for a wider ethical debate.
    One does not have to be religious to be deeply affected by that which HG has published. Abortion per se is the side issue in my opinion: attitudes hardened in pursuit of financial gain, can not be the plea of the accused for this attack on the moral state of what is accepted as ‘descent’ in humanity.

  • This stuff is absolutely ghastly, but you have to remember that when people stop believing in God, anything goes so long as you don’t get found out. After all, these unborn children are just accumulations of molecules, they can’t vote, they can’t campaign or withhold their taxes, so who cares? In the words of Ebeneezer Scrooge, Planned Parenthood are merely ‘reducing the surplus population’ and making a wee bit of profit our of it.
    .
    However, fulminating against it all and anathematizing all those involved will get us nowhere. Only the Gospel has the power to change people’s hearts, and until hearts are changed these things will go on however much the Inspector gnashes his teeth against them. So sack all your useless Bishops and replace them with Gospel preachers.

  • preacher

    These people are capable of this evil because they have life, but are really the living dead. Many are like them, maybe it’s not as apparent in some, but they try to fill the empty void of their existence with shallow ‘things’ which decay & fade in time, they are walking & talking but there eyes are empty their minds soulless their hands reach out like tallons for blood money to satisfy their greed. When the light shines they hide for they know it will show their evil deeds. They stumble on until their appointed time & then into a Godless, lost eternity.
    Their Only hope is to repent & beg God’s mercy through the Cross & the Blood of Christ.
    For everyone’s sake, especially their future victims I pray that they do !.

  • len

    When there is no ultimate ‘Law Giver’ then man will rely on his fallen nature to guide him..That is why we are seeing the horrors being enacted worldwide….Their is only One God (of Abraham Isaac and Jacob) and His Law is the ultimate judge of man and there will be accountability for every action taken by those who hold His Law in derision.

    • Yes.

      The choice is either mans law or the Law of the Holy Scriptures.

  • William Lewis

    Excellent piece, Your Grace. This Conservative administration’s determination to police our speech, and very beliefs, was all too apparent during the last parliament when they were at least tempered by the Liberal Democrats who do demonstrate some liberal inclinations from time to time. However, liberal secularism has no answer to the Islamist other than to be generally illiberal.

  • CliveM

    Something I am finding very interesting is the pro abortionists refusal (or inability) to engage with the question about the morality of abortion. We have had a lot of distraction but no justification. The opponents are extremists. The video has been carefully edited. All morality is relative etc, etc. it’s all b?’&€$^t. It’s hiding behind word games. Every year millions of lives are terminated, in the main for the convenience of the carrier. Not because their life is in danger, but because they can’t be arsed. It involves to much sacrifice. You know I would be willing to concede and allow ao orations for rape, danger to the life of the mother etc. these are hard cases deserving of sympathy. But the numbers are so infinitesimally small, millions of lives would be saved.

    But that wouldn’t be enough for the proponents, so although they hide behind these cases, they don’t really care for them. They are simply a fig leaf, to distract from the holocaust that is happening.

    • Morality doesn’t apply to “conception material”.

      • CliveM

        Hmmm, it’s one thing to sanitise issues like redundancy by calling it downsizing, it shows have far we have fallen when we call human life conception material.

  • The Explorer

    Apparently, there are several more videos to come; although the company releasing them is now being sued.

    The firm doing the suing apparently received intact dead babies from PP: which raises the interesting question of whether or not the babies were alive at birth. That’s the first issue.

    The firm doing the suing does not want the world to know it received intact dead babies, and since the interview given by its director was subject to a confidentiality clause, details of the interview cannot be released. On the other hand, if the firm was involved in illegal activities, should it still be protected by confidentiality? That’s the second issue.

    Potentially interesting times ahead, but since the Democrats fund PP, and PP makes massive donations to the Democrats, the two might combine to crush the firm causing them trouble. The corruption issues go way beyond abortion.

  • Lord Chatham

    For those interested in how the Church might respond, I refer you to the 40 Days for Life campaign – http://www.40DaysforLife.com.

    From their mission statement: “The mission of the campaign is to bring together the body of Christ in a
    spirit of unity during a focused 40 day campaign of prayer, fasting,
    and peaceful activism, with the purpose of repentance, to seek God’s
    favor to turn hearts and minds from a culture of death to a culture of
    life, thus bringing an end to abortion.” http://www.40daysforlife.com/mission

    There is a 40 Day campaign – with prayer, vigil and fasting – coming up from September 23 – November 1.

    I registered for the one nearest me in Silicon Valley, but there are seven locations in the UK: Birmingham, Hallam, Leamington Spa, Leeds, Llanelli, London and Manchester. http://www.40daysforlife.com/browse-campaigns

    It is obvious to all that “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers,
    against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and
    against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” EPH 6:12

    In the words of Our Lord, “this kind shall only come out through prayer and fasting.” MARK 9:29

    Blessings to you all!

  • Happy Jack has an investment opportunity. Perhaps a profit sharing cooperative?

    Planned Passage“opening doors to a happy shedding of your mortal coil”

    And …. we will recycle parts.

    • Pubcrawler

      Are you sure you’ve thought through the name properly?

      • Lol … it’s a working title. Jack is hoping to attract French interest.

        • Pubcrawler

          Best avoid Calais. (This is an eternal truth.)

    • avi barzel

      I like it, though it sounds better in the plural, Planned Passages™. Better register that one. Use the Macdonalds franchising model and automate the processes so that any teen twit can snuff out a happy customer while texting. One day you can display the sign, “A Billion Passed!” Meanwhile, I’ll open up Go Green with SoilentGreens® …”Best Sausages from Planned Passages!”

      • Of course the price will be fair. However, think man. They’ll be more money to be had in broking the likes of healthy lungs, livers, hearts, livers kidneys and such things.
        What’s really cool is that public monies will be readily available grow the business. It’s a dead cert.

        • avi barzel

          True, and the younger generations aren’t too keen on livers, lungs and sweetbreads anyway. Btw, the tune from “Time Passages” could be your jingle.

          • Aim the “remains material” at the animal market – chickens, perhaps.
            Jack was hoping to adjust the words of D’em Bones.
            Blowers …. you around? Need a dainty ditty.

  • David

    Slowly but surely the tide is turning against the baby killing industry.
    We just all need to keep pushing.

    We know that the last 50 years, The Church Universal has been overwhelmed by the pace of social change resulting form moral relativism, mainly. With so many fronts, on which to fight, it has been difficult for Christians to know where to fight the main battle, hence the rout. Could it be, that picking just one place where resources could be focussed, wining that battle first, in the court of public opinion, and then selecting another, wining and advancing again, is now the way to a broader based victory ?

    Please discuss.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      David, I think the tide will turn, and it will be only partially due to our efforts. Sure we must stay on the right side and say the right things, but I also believe that a system that is rotten to the core, as much of our Western “civilisation” is, will ultimately fall into decay. This has happened many times throughout history where man has become too arrogant and tries to live out his own delusions. The manner and timing of the downfall is usually unpredictable, but it happens. It is a pity of course that many in the church, including it’s leaders, are also on that nihilistic path

      • David

        Yes. Let us work, hope and pray for a rebirth of our culture, once again safe on its deep bedrock which is the Christian faith.

  • The Explorer

    Rebecca Watson, an American defender of planned parenthood, has argued in a blog and video that instead of fetal tissue being thrown away the patient can choose to donate it to medical research. Now that’s interesting. Is the patient the mother or the foetus? If it’s the foetus, its tissue is being donated without its consent being sought. What price choice?

    Watson further argues that there are two possibilities: throw the tissue away, or use it to save lives in the future via subsequent medical breakthroughs. Actually, there’s a third possibility; leave the foetus intact to grow into a human being. I’m not saying that must be done; I’m saying it’s untrue that there are only two possibilities. I’m not sure if the problem is her logic, or her veracity.

    Planned Parenthood presents itself as a humane and caring organisation, but its founder had quite radical things to say. “The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” Or, “We don’t want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” I’d say any organisation with that sort of thinking in its ancestry is worthy of close attention. Especially when one of its contemporary lab workers says dealing with body parts is sickening (reassuring), but also kind of fun. (Alarm bells).

  • Inspector General

    There is a Wiki article worth reading…

    “Legalized abortion and crime effect”

    The Inspector offers this and makes no personal comment

    “In Orange Is the New Black season 3, episode 1 (“Mother’s Day”), “Big Boo” finds “Pennsatucky” memorializing her six unborn children (five aborted and one miscarried), asks her if she has ever read Freakonomics, and summarizes the book’s findings in the section, “Where Have All the Criminals Gone?”, about the decrease in crime statistics after abortion was legalized.”

    • The Explorer

      An even quicker way than abortion to decrease crime is to decriminalise certain activities. The Americans have come up with a new word for it: ‘de- policing’. Not going certain places or intervening in certain situations because they are too dangerous for officers of the law. But marvellous for crime statistics: if you didn’t see it, you can’t record it. (The no comment above was because this was in the wrong place.)

    • avi barzel

      Thank you for that intetesting link, Inspector.

      So, basically, with the messiness of the data and uncertainties over the interpretive models, we still can’t draw conclusive statistical correlations between abortion and crime. Alas, Sanger and the eugenics crowd in the US and Germany winged it, went on a hunch, and ran with their hypothesis without any worries about empirical evidence.

      All that”s changed in this “eugenics momentum” then, is that we’ve transfered the focus and rationale from “racial” and “societal improvement” to “women’s rights” as we go on our merry way. Creepy stuff.

      • Inspector General

        It was a badly written article of course, Avi, from a contributor trying to hide the truth. And that is the undeniable correlation between abortion and crime reduction in the US, which the Inspector discovered a couple of years ago when he researched US inner city crime.

        • avi barzel

          Perhaps, but that doesn’t solve our problem for us, Inspector, as we are obliged to apply ethics. Abortion may well decrease crime rates and intuitively it makes perfect sense…but so would carpet-bombing of high-crime neighbourhoods. Even better, I reckon.

          I salute you for your willingness to plug your nose, dive in and explore the depressing and icky sides of life, such as PN goings-on and abortion and crime stats. I hope you plunge down in a good diving suit and wash it down really well after you surface.

          • Inspector General

            Oh, absolutely Avi. Perhaps the Inspector should have continued and explained that these tragic foetuses destined for the inner city would invariably end up consuming themselves in the rat nest surrounds they will live, no others, if they be allowed to come to full term. If ever the use of the phrase sticking plaster was valid, it would be in the context of abortion to lessen crime.

  • The Explorer

    .

  • Politically__Incorrect

    Deeply disturbing video. I wasn’t sure i was going to be able to watch the whole thing, but I did. if any video should go viral, it is this one. The hypocrisy is that if they were doing this to say dogs or cats, the animal rights people would probably have burned the place to the ground by now. Somehow, Because we are talking about humans, they fall within society’s moral blind spot, that place in our minds where our cognition and morality don’t seem to operate. That is presumably the result of our culture and it’s twisted values.

    I believe that on the liberation of the concentration camps, many Germans, including the Nazis, were taken there and forced to confront the reality of what was being done in their name. Likewise, these videos should be compulsory viewing for all politicians at least. i would also include all feminists and those who call opponents of abortion “extremists”.

    • The Explorer

      The future videos, if they are allowed to be released, promise to be more disturbing still.

  • The Explorer

    Apparently, foetal tissue is being used to search for a cure for Parkinson’s Disease. The ethical questions then move into the same sort of territory as vivisection.

    • Replacing lost cells

      Doctors and scientists think cell replacement therapy will work because of
      the results of transplantation studies done in the 1980-90s. In
      particular, Swedish, American and Canadian researchers have
      transplanted the developing nigral dopamine-producing neurons from
      human fetuses into animals and human patients with PD, with major
      improvements in some cases but only modest changes in others. These
      initial studies led on to bigger studies which then reported some
      side effects in some patients in receipt of such grafts in the form
      of involuntary graft induced movements – similar to those seen in
      many patients on long term L-dopa treatment. The basis for this is
      still debated but may relate to the transplantation of non-DA cells
      found in the human fetal midbrain grafts. In addition it has also
      been noted that some patients have also developed some PD pathology
      in their grafts, even though the transplants are less than 20 years
      old. This has led to he suggestion that PD may involve a process of
      disease spread through the passing of abnormal forms of alpha
      synuclein from one nerve cell to another.

      A new study, TRANSEURO, is looking again at fetal human dopamine
      transplants and aims to address issues of consistent efficacy and
      avoiding the side effects of the involuntary graft induced movements.
      This new study will involve a new clinical trial.

      Scientists remain optimistic that introducing young cells into the brain could better treat Parkinson’s disease, but not enough fetal tissue is
      available to treat the large numbers of people with Parkinson’s,
      and the use of fetuses also raises ethical questions. So at the same
      time, they are looking at stem cells as an alternative source of new
      dopamine cells for Parkinson’s patients:

      http://www.eurostemcell.org/factsheet/parkinson%E2%80%99s-disease-how-could-stem-cells-help

      • The ultimate search and prize is discovering how to stop and reverse human aging.

        Imagine if they ever work that particular process out – and many are confident they soon will. How much will the “immortality pill” command on the market? Just how will it be rationed?

        And the very same people urge artificial population control to save the planet and promote the ending of life – for the not born, the old, the disabled and the depressed and weary.

        • As we explore space for other habitable planets and it could be that we may have found one, man will have to not only build craft that are faster, but will need to live longer and be fitter to be able to endure the journey, live on a space station and eventually one day get there and survive.

          • avi barzel

            There is an alternative and it’s creepy.

            In a dystopic sci-fi story I wrote for my high school mag (to a tepid reception), I premised the tale on the hypothesis that with sufficiently advanced bio-technology, the human brain can be miniaturized and reduced to the essential neurons which produce our cognitive functions and what we call consciousness. This means that we won’t need our bodies, which after all, are support systems for keeping the brain alive by providing it with nutrients and keeping it mobile and engaged in the physical world for stimulation we require for brain and personality development.

            In my story, which I wrote in 1980, in my senior year, humans packed millions of virtually immortal brains into shielded, computer and robotics controlled refrigerator-sized space ships and shot them off into deep space to escape a predicted collision with a rogue star and our Solar system.

            Initially, as my tale went, the colonist-brains planned to find habitable planets and teconstitute full human bodies with cloning, but as time went on, they discovered that they could build virtual realities by manipulating their neurons and have robots look after maintenance of their ships’ systems, so decided to just float around in space, enjoying eternity of hedonistic, drugged-out purpose-free pleasures …and ending humanity in the process. What gave me the idea for the story was the way many of my school mates lived for “partying”, which meant veging on a couch with head phones or the TV, smoking pot and living on pizza.

            Anyway, I projected the story about a millenium into the future, which is when futurists predicted advances in computers and other technologies which would make this possible. In looking at where we akready are and reading about what is going on with AI and bio-tech, I’d say we might be able to do this within 50 years. Be afraid for our kids’ future.

          • Hi

            That sounds like a good story.

          • avi barzel

            Perhaps, had it been written by someone else. As it was, it was a work of jejune and pompous adolescent preening with gaps in plausibility and stilted dialogues. Fiction is not my forte, in part because I don’t read enough of it, but mostly because I’m not a natural story teller. I actually sent off a carbon copy MS…the real kind, my instrument of torture being a portable Underwood with a mis-aligned “t”… as an unsolicited MS to Analog sci-fi mag and never heard back from its then-editor, Stanley Schmidt, who had recently taken over from Ben Bova.

            Part of the problem was the premise itself; the concepts were repulsive and at the time, implausible. Mainstream sci-fi was an altered Western, with heroes and villains, exploration of new territories and happy endings, whereas mine was a dystopia drowning in technical jargon. Herbert”s Dune series had plenty of that, but he had solid themes, story lines and interesting dialogues, whereas I was mainly showing off neat ideas. I have published since, starting in my early 30s, but in a dry technical field, for a college textbook and on local historical topics and all with vigorous grammar corrections by editors.

          • Hi avi

            I’ve got to admit I prefer stuff like honor Harrington and space opera to hard sci fi. Unless Stephen Baxter is writing.

          • avi barzel

            O, I stopped reading sci-fi after ripping through Herbert’s Dune books; nothing compares. Comfort fiction for me now consists of techno-thrillers and reading through Patrick O’Brian’s 20 or so 1830s Royal Navy adventures.

          • Hi avi,

            You mean like captian hornblower?

          • avi barzel

            Way, way better; more depth, complex characters, history, science, religion, food …and the language, the rich, colorful language! O’Brian is the master of the genre, he is what Herbert was to sci-fi and it’s hard to read the lessers.

          • CliveM

            The Tales of Flashman are right up there as well.

          • Well we all enjoy your little tales and stories here, Avi. And, apart from Linus (hehe), overlook the grammatical errors.

          • avi barzel

            Maybe, maybe not. But it won’t stop either AI or bio-tech and the unpredictable changes they’ll bring. The point is that the futuristic ideas of humans as we know them moving out in slow star ships to colonize G-type planets is already outdated.

          • Hi

            Oh, okay.

          • Thank goodness you grew up!

          • avi barzel

            Maybe, maybe not. But it won’t stop either AI or bio-tech and the unpredictable changes they’ll bring. The point is that the futuristic ideas of humans as we know them moving out in slow star ships to colonize G-type planets is already outdated.

          • But isn’t the challenge and also the fun to be able to go there oneself? And if we can achieve getting to New York from London in one hour then I’m sure we can design and build a super fast space craft.

            We can and do build robots to collect data and samples to bring back for analysis. I suppose eventually they could colonise different areas depending on who on Earth owns them. But eventually the robots will breakdown and degrade. Everything has a lifespan so how will they reproduce? Man will have to keep building new ones to send or will they have thought of ways using resources on the new planet to build new models of themselves? Will they fight each other like we do on Earth I wonder?

          • avi barzel

            Superfast is relative. There are limits to how fast a physical object can travel through space and it’s a fraction of the speed of light and star systems with possibly viable planets are few and thousands of light years away. Sending robots out to bring back samples is therefore impractical. “Wormholes” and “Star Gates” which would allow us to zoom across galaxies are merely literary devices which make sci-fi stories readable.

            Realistic theorists on space colonization have moved away from the idea of sending out intact humans on space ships and are looking at sending out genetic material to be “hatched” and nurtured by robot space ships.

            Robots don”t need to degrade; a robot colony can be self sufficient, with repair, rebuild and redisign managed with AI. We are a decade, two at most, away from this.

            Of course we’ll fight! If we retain our humanity to the fullest, either in our homosapien bodies or as replicants with all the authentic chemical, hormonal and environmental functions, we should remain our lovely and inimitable selves.

          • Lol ….

          • William Lewis

            Rather prescient I’d say, Avi, and what with recent advances in virtual reality combined with, for instance, deep learning algorithms your warnings for our kids’ immediate futures should not be taken lightly.

          • Wow! Do you still have the story Avi? Would like to read it.

        • avi barzel

          The estimate is that we can achieve remarkable longevity in as early as 30 years through various gene therapies. This effort is partially responsible for the market for aborted fetuses. Who would have thought that our age-old search for the magical aqua vita would take us to our own embryos. But, as the saying goes, man plans and God laughs.

          • Some primitive peoples eat infants to achieve longevity. Man hasn’t made any progress.

          • Or as Psalm 2 says, Man rages at God, who first laughs, then warns, then reaches for a rod of iron.

            C S Lewis arguably anticipated the idea of artificial immortality in his indispensable novel ‘That Hideous Strength.’ The boundary shifters didn’t do too well at the end of that story.

        • avi barzel

          O, and Jack, for that stealth vaping we talked about, try invisible e-juice. Hete’s a shop in your neck of the woods:

          JAC EDINBURG
          245 Morningside Road
          Edinburgh
          EH10 4QU
          Jacvapour.com

          Or, if you have a good provider, ask him to make your mix with an all propylene glycol base, without the vegetable glycol, which makes the steam. It’s not perfect, but pretty good. With my own mix and pen mod I made to look like an actual pen, I vape anywhere and anytime without anyone noticing.

          • But part of the pleasure is playing with the vape, Avi. Mind you, crafty idea that one with the pen. Interesting website too, thank you.

      • The Explorer

        Thanks for that. I’ve been looking at American reactions to the videos. Clearly, there’s unease, but the overall view seems to be that if you have foetal tissue, it’s better to use it to research something like Parkinson’s than just to dump it or use it for plastic surgery or anti ageing cream. Clearly, also, there’s disquiet about a non-profit organisation making $120 000 dollars a month from the sale of tissue: far more than is required for storage and transportation.
        What the impact of future videos involving whole babies will be, who knows; assuming they are not impounded before they can be released.

        • Politically__Incorrect

          The problem is that when people find a use for something, then demand for that thing grows. If supply cannot match demand, then supply has to be increased. In the case of foetal tissue that means procuring more cadavers. At that point, abortion stops being a requirement of the mother, and becomes a requirement of tissue consumers. It reminds me of the film “Coma” where otherwise healthy humans are destroyed in order to harvest their useful organs. PP is a living manifestation of that horror, and one which society is happy to condone.

    • There is no ethical “question”, Explorer. Unless, that is, one uses this to remind oneself of Exodus 20:13 and the full implications of Roman’s 3:8.

      • Benton Marder

        What makes us think that the delivered intact fetus is dead? Was it really dead or was it ‘helped’ to die? The Kermit Gosnell case indicated that some of these aborted babies were delivered alive and then immediately murdered or just abandoned to die. For all we know, many aborted babies were murdered upin delivery. We have not seen the last of these videos. Bimeby, future videos will demonstrate far worse than we now behold.

  • len

    ‘A line’ was crossed once before and God acted to stamp out the evil.

    ‘In the days of Noah’ Human DNA was being corrupted as Satan tried to prevent the Messiah being able to come through the human race…

    ‘But now once again man (without any moral foundation ) is experimenting on human DNA

    Geneticist Xingxu Huang of ShanghaiTech University in China, for
    example, is currently seeking permission from his institution’s ethics
    committee to try genetically modifying discarded human embryos. In
    February 2014, he reported
    using a gene-editing technique to modify embryos that developed into
    live monkeys. Human embryos would not be allowed to develop to full term
    in his experiments, but the technique “gives lots of potential for its
    application in humans,” he says.’ (nature.com)

    “As It was in the days of Noah” ( Matthew 24:3)

    We are there again…..

  • The Explorer

    In the fight back against Senate threats to defund Planned Parenthood, the Left has represented PP as an organisation dedicated to the welfare of poor women. To attack it is to attack the poor.
    This is only a partial truth, if one looks at the origins of Planned Parenthood. It is true that Margaret Sanger saw large families as a cause of poverty; so that aborting a member or two was a financial blessing. But she was also a eugenicist. In addition to wanting to eliminate negroes, she wanted to target low IQ whites. These, in her view, were to be found among the poor. So encourage the poor to abort themselves – or prevent them from breeding – and as well as reducing poverty you would raise the IQ level of the American population.
    Modern Planned Parenthood has distanced itself from some of the views of its founder; certainly from the way they were expressed. But it should not be seen as an organisation committed to serving the poor as if it were some secular version of the Salvation Army. Planned Parenthood was founded in a spirit of hard-edged cynicism, and some of that spirit still pertains.

  • The Explorer

    Writing in the ‘New Republic’, Dr Jen Gunter argues that these are not baby parts, they are “the products of conception”.

    To me that’s like arguing that this is not an arm, it’s a limb. (Or ‘un bras’ if one wants to get French about it.) What is a baby, if not the product of conception?

    • Politically__Incorrect

      Indeed, Dr Gunter herself is a “product of conception”; just an assembly of body parts. I wonder if she thinks of herself in that way?

    • carl jacobs

      A baby is a human being for which the mother has acquired legal obligation. A fetus is a human being for which the mother has no legal obligation. We aren’t dealing with biology in this argument. We are dealing with law. A fetus is a legally-defined “unperson” who can be killed by his mother so that his mother can avoid the legal obligations of motherhood.

      “Product of conception” is a nice euphemistic way of saying “unperson.”

      • The Explorer

        Yes, a foetus is not a baby; a foetus is only a potential baby. It’ s not how it ends up that’s the language issue for me, but how it starts. A foetus is the result of conception, but a baby is also the result of conception; only further along the line.
        The way she says it makes it sound like a baby isn’t the product of conception; only its foetal parts are before it is born.
        The most powerful argument about all this doesn’t lie with words, but with the image of the lab assistant picking out a tiny hand from the assorted products of conception.

    • len

      ‘Depersonalisation’ is a process of legitimising murder.We have seen this so many times even in recent history..The motive is the same….