Category Archives: Unspeakable Cults

They’re Putting What in Skin Cream?

Posted on by

OK, I’ve heard of some disgusting things being put in face cream. Horse urine, sheep placenta, and other things more at home in a sewer system than on a woman’s face. Women seem to have a stronger constitution than me when it comes to what’s in their beauty products. But this story I just saw on Gateway Pundit seems like it should be the limit for even the toughest stomach.

Beauty has its price, but this is just disgusting:

TENNESSEE, Oct. 27 /Christian Newswire/ — Children of God for Life announced today that Neocutis, a bio-pharmaceutical company focused on dermatology and skin care is using aborted fetal cell lines to produce several of their anti-aging skin creams.

“It is absolutely deplorable that Neocutis would resort to exploiting the remains of a deliberately slaughtered baby for nothing other than pure vanity and financial gain,” stated Executive Director Debi Vinnedge. “There is simply no moral justification for this.”

For years Children of God for Life has been a watchdog on pharmaceutical companies using aborted fetal cell lines in medical products and they have received thousands of inquiries from the public on the use of aborted fetal material in cosmetics.

Until now, this was the first time they have encountered any company bold enough to put the information right on their own website and product literature.  A quick investigation into the science behind the products revealed the shameless data.

Neocutis’ key ingredient known as “Processed Skin Proteins” was developed at the University of Luasanne from the skin tissue of a 14-week gestation electively-aborted male baby donated by the University Hospital in Switzerland.  Subsequently, a working cell bank was established, containing several billion cultured skin cells to produce the human growth factor needed to restore aging skin. The list of products using the cell line include: Bio-Gel, Journee, Bio-Serum, Prevedem, Bio Restorative Skin Cream and Lumiere.  But Vinnedge is calling for a full boycott of all Neocutis products, regardless of their source.

I’m pro-choice and this sickens me. Lest you think this is just “Christianist” anti-choice propaganda check this out from the company’s Web site:

Through years of research, physicians discovered fetal skin has a unique ability to heal wounds without scarring. Inspired by this, medical researchers at the University Hospital of Lausanne, Switzerland created a biotechnology process to extract the rich proteins responsible for scarless wound healing from cultured fetal skin cells. A small biopsy of fetal skin was donated following a one-time medical termination and a dedicated cell bank was established for developing new skin treatments.

Lovecraftian to say the least. Who runs Neocutis, the Church of the Starry Wisdom?

The Progressive War on Religion

Posted on by

“Liberalism” today, or what used to be called progressivism, is not so much a political stance as a cult, a semi-secular creed that blends the worst aspects of 60s “radical” theology, Marxism, and post-modern deconstructionism into one soul shattering, thought obliterating package. Like any emergent religion, it is in direct competition with other cults and creeds for adherents and influence in the popular culture, and due to the essentially anti-Republican nature of today’s liberals the cult of progressivism is a creed that believes in what I call Monodominance. And yes, I’m stealing the term from a popular dystopian science fiction setting.

For our purpose here, I’m defining the Monodominant philosophy as promoting the view that only one set of morals and values should have the right to public exposure. In other words, progressives and modern “liberals” believe that opinions and beliefs contrary to leftist dogma should be expunged from all aspects of public life and given no public venue for expression. Thus, the left wants to shut down conservative talk radio and Fox News, even though they are really the only outlet for non-Marxist opinion and commentary left in the old media. Education, entertainment, literature, and the arts are all being transformed into propagators of dogma by the left and contrary views in those fields are now too rare to even be considered a minority. At this point, a movie with a conservative message or a work of art that promotes rightist beliefs would be an anomaly, a curiosity that would lead to the personal ruin of the artist.

But it is in the “liberal” attacks on religion that we see the leftist cult most clearly, and at its most vicious. Christians are often the targets of these attacks, but Jews are just as frequently assailed by leftists as we saw recently in the case of anti-Semitic comments made by ousted Honduran dictator Manuel Zelaya. Zelaya’s claims (which included accusations that Jews were secretly torturing him with radiation and toxic gas) that Jews were plotting against him were reiterated by leftist radio hosts at Radio Globo, a station which the Hondurans had shut down, but our own state department went to bat for to have it re-opened. One Radio Globo host added in this nugget to the anti-Jewish hit parade:

“There are times when I ask myself if Hitler was or not correct in finishing with that race with the famous Holocaust. If there are people that do damage in this country, they are Jewish, the Israelis. I want to name, this afternoon here in Radio Globo, by name and last name, who are the two officers of the Jewish army who are working with the Armed Forces of our country and who are in charge of carrying out all these conspiracy activities and undercover actions and everything else that is happening to the President of the Republic.

“After what I have learned, I ask myself why, why didn’t we let Hitler carry out his historic mission. Forgive me for the grotesque expression. But I ask myself after I have realized this and many other things. I believe it should have been fair and valid to let Hitler finish his historic vision…”

The American “liberal” reaction to Nationalists who describe themselves as Socialists praising the Holocaust and claiming Jews are destabilizing their countries are predictably approving as the comments in this Huffington Post piece show. Armed with links to pro-drug, anti-American Socialist propaganda site NarcoNews, the commenters claim there is no anti-Jewish sentiment here. Often while throwing out some blood libels themselves:

Look up the name Kay Griggs and watch her interview. She reveals that the United States does use mercenaries, many of them Isreali to do their d i r t y work. That technology is American and has been used against detective and conspiracy theorist Michael Ruppert and forced him to leave the country. It seems that the criminal right wing is trying to turn Honduras into a safe haven. American corporate business interests have a long history of working with rogue elements of the CIA to suppress workers’ rights and to keep what they feel is a favorable business environment.

Kay Griggs is a con artist who makes a living claiming her husband was a mind controlled assassin trainer for the Illuminati (he was a Marine) who worked for a secret program run by fiends who trained Jeffery Dahmer, Tim McVeigh, and Lee Harvey Oswald to be the perfect assassins. You know, because they so stealthily achieved their objectives? Anyway Griggs ultimately claims “Zionists” run the world. Are you surprised to see HuffPo commenters promoting this? How about Democratic Underground members?

That all this has a whiff of Mein Kampf to it is obvious, but where exactly are the “progressives” speaking out about it? What could be the reason for them to minimize and in some cases defend attacks on Jews? I too used to think the answer was simply anti-Semitism, but that is only part of the picture.

Christians have, as they will sometimes too readily tell you while you’re simply trying to enjoy a steak dinner, been the frequent targets of attacks by left leaning groups that are frankly bewildering in their motivations. The most recent and obvious example is this story where Belmont Abby College is being sued for gender discrimination by eight workers (only two of whom are women) because they won’t offer contraception and abortion coverage on insurance policies:

On September 10, the college retained the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty to appeal an August 5 ruling by the EEOC, charging the school with discrimination. In a letter to Thierfelder, the EEOC stated the college “is discriminating based on gender because only females take oral prescription contraceptives. By denying coverage, men are not affected, only women.” Thierfelder objected with a letter posted on the school’s website, saying: “Belmont Abbey College rejects the notion that by following the moral teachings of the Catholic Church we are discriminating against anyone.… We are simply and honestly exercising the freedom of religion that is protected by the Constitution.”

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air sums up this partisan lawsuit quite well:

The case started when BEC mistakenly bought insurance coverage that paid for contraception, which violates the doctrine of the Catholic Church.  After realizing their mistake, they had that coverage removed.  Eight employees filed suit with the EEOC as a result, claiming that the motivation for the change was gender discrimination.

How could anyone working at a Catholic college possibly come to that conclusion?  Whether or not one agrees with the church on contraception and abortion, their position on those two issues is both well-known and fundamental to doctrine on the sanctity of human life, reaffirmed constantly and publicly.  Anyone who goes to work for a Catholic institution and expects to get insurance coverage for either is acting out of intellectual dishonesty.  If the church position on contraception and abortion offends them that much, they shouldn’t agree to work for a private Catholic institution.

Which may not be the point. The president of the school has said that should the E.E.O.C. rule against them he’ll shut down the school rather than go against Catholic teachings, which the complainants and whoever is funding them certainly know is the case. Understand that what the college is being asked to do is take an action they believe will imperil their very souls, risk their salvation and ascension into heaven. And in return they get the “pleasure” of helping gainfully employed staff members defer the costs for elective medical services that the Catholic Church explicitly says are despised by God himself.

Unless you believe the eight complainants, only two of whom are actually women, are so hard up they can’t afford to pay for their own contraception or suffer from a sexual compulsion that keeps makes them have unprotected sex, this entire case makes no sense. It makes no sense unless you see the motive here as political, the removal of Catholic doctrine from public life, starting with Catholic universities.

I just recently wrote about several “human rights” groups who are working to get states to allow registered sex offenders to have access to churches and other places of worship that also house day care facilities and teen programs. The Southern Center for Human Rights, the A.C.L.U. and Human Rights Watch are all cooperating with sex offender advocates to allow pedophiles and rapists access to places where they can more easily victimize people. Why? What would happen to a church in which children were found to have been molested? What is the motive for these groups to force churches to take in dangerous repeat sex offenders?

A few days ago I spoke with a reporter who was interested in Republican candidate Dan Halloran’s run for the New York City council. Halloran is the “First Aethling of Normand” which for the Theodish means he’s roughly the equivalent to the Archbishop of New York, though that really isn’t a perfect example. The reporter was quite shocked to hear that I, a Biracial Republican Pagan, had never had any run ins with racist Theods, Heathens, Asatruar or Odinists. Though I must admit that I’m hardly the type to keep company with racists anyway.

He was actually quite interested and I’m sure his article will be very good, but after the conversation I kept thinking about how ubiquitous it is for people to assume all these “Northern” style pagan groups are racist. When I was getting my Bachelor of Arts in Religion, there was a book I don’t remember the title of (and I wouldn’t promote anyway) which falsely claimed a connection between militias, heathenism, and Christian Identity. The head of the Religion department swore by it even as I pointed out that much of this was bogus. More than a decade later and people still believe that any Pagan who’s not a Wiccan is a secret Nazi. Why?

Because Wicca, which I’ve pointed out before is not a real religion but simply a liberal subculture, has worked hard for almost three decades now to create the perception that non-Wiccan pagan traditions are full of racists and other undesirables by dominating the Web and publishing. In essence, Wicca is practicing a kind of Monodominace of neo-paganism by creating animosity toward non-Wiccan traditions in people entering the movement. This has meant that other traditions have grown at much slower rates than Wicca, whose promoters were able to get their smears of Northern paganism mainstreamed, which makes the entire neo-pagan movement a Wiccan, and thus de facto leftist, movement.

It has admittedly also meant that scum of various sorts, including anti-American racists, have slithered into Paganism and publicly shamed us much the same way Satanic criminals use fundamentalist Christian descriptions of Satanism as patterns for their criminality. In other words, Wicca successfully destroyed any hope of a non-Wiccan pagan movement being taken seriously and challenging their hegemony.

When leftists mainstream the myth of the sinister Jew, force Catholics to withdraw from public intellectual life, and make it unsafe for parents with children to attend church services, they too will reap the benefits of their perfidy in the form of more adherents, more progressive cultists for whom spiritual salvation and metaphysical contentment are achieved through adherence to social dogma and political ideology. But as long as there are competing belief systems in America and the world, the progressive Utopia cannot be achieved because it requires the complete submergence of our differences and total obedience to the god-like state. So then we see modern “liberalism” is inherently hostile toward all other faiths, just as any totalitarian philosophy.

Christians, Jews, and Pagans, all being attacked and driven from public life by a radical and aggressive form of Socialism. Where in have we seen that before?

U.N. General Assembly Chief Says Homosexuality is Unacceptable

Posted on by

My friend Damien sent this story to me and I have no idea how I missed it. The new General Assembly chief of the United Nations is a Libyan Muslim named Ali Abdussalam Treki who shares many of the basic Muslim values Islam has taught for centuries uninterrupted by an Enlightenment of Reformation. One of those values is that Homosexuality is a crime that needs to be severely punished:

From The Last Crusade:

Ali Abussalam, the newly-installed president of the United Nations General Assembly, Ali Abdussalam Treki, said yesterday that homosexuality is “not really acceptable” and that homosexual acts should be treated as crimes.

Treki, who is the Libyan secretary of African Union Affairs, opened the 64th session of the United Nations General Assembly Friday with a press conference.

One question concerned the UN resolution which calls for the universal decriminalisation of homosexuality.

In reply, the new UN chief said: “That matter is very sensitive, very touchy. As a Muslim, I am not in favour of it . . . it is not accepted by the majority of countries. My opinion is not in favour of this matter at all. I think it’s not really acceptable by our religion, our tradition.”

Attempting to clarify his remarks, Treki added: “It is not acceptable in the majority of the world. And there are some countries that allow that, thinking it is a kind of democracy . . . I think it is not.”

Queers for Palestine may want to examine that statement before their next protest. Homosexuals are routinely executed by Muslim governments around the world, including by Hamas which Queers for Palestine support politically and rumor has it financially. The Infidel Blogger Alliance points out that more than 4000 gays have been executed in Iran alone since 1979. The number when you include all the Muslim countries that execute gays is probably closer to 40,000 but no one really knows for sure.

So far Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) has been the only politician I’ve seen come out strongly to condemn this madness. Via GOProud:

“The anti-gay bigotry spewed by this Qaddafi shill demonstrates once again that the UN has been hijacked by advocates of hate and intolerance.

“Likewise, the leadership of the UN Development Program is held by the Iranian regime, which denies the presence of gays in Iran even as it murders them and other innocent citizens.

“We must ensure that billions annually in U.S. taxpayer dollars no longer foot the bill for the UN’s anti-freedom agenda without significant reform.

“Congress must demand better by enacting pending legislation that would leverage our contributions to the UN to produce sweeping, meaningful reform of that body.”

Isn’t it time to pull out of the United Nations, at least until it becomes something more than an international  facilitator of Islamism?

Elitism, Europhilia, and Roman Polanski

Posted on by

The basic theme of Bram Stoker’s Dracula was the nightmare of a modern virtuous society invaded and corrupted by decadent “Old Europe” style nobility, who act in ways that defy morality and flaunt the laws of society due to their belief that they themselves are beyond the reach of man’s justice. Stoker wrote Dracula at a time when England was surpassing Europe as the cultural center of the West, and his novel was a reaction to the antinomian and often blasphemously obscene art and literature of men like Huysmans or Baudelaire. Dracula in Stoker’s work represents not only the dark antiquity of Europe, where men of low character could, by nature of their birth into noble households, literally get away with rape and murder, but the fin de siècle movement’s seeming embrace of that sort of depravity and decadence.

Dracula, the noble who defied even death (and thus God in Stoker’s universe), took what and more importantly who he wanted without regard to common decency. He murdered, raped, and stole his way through the story, acting as the ultimate metaphor for the evil of Old Europe’s degeneracy for decades. Then something peculiar happened. Post-modern society began seeing Dracula not as a metaphor for the sexual predator protected by his wealth and power, but as an anti-hero rebelling against Victorian morality. There is no Humanities or Literature department, book publishing house or film studio where this is not the prevailing interpretation of the Dracula character. Perhaps those that see themselves as the cultural “tastemakers” of our society, the university professors, leftist “artists,” and the business interests that surround the arts, have vested interests in reigniting the noble-worship of Old Europe, in creating a society that believes in the noble’s exception including their privilege to assault and otherwise molest non-nobles. But anyone having been exposed to some published poet or author (and I’ve meet far too many) knows that this reimagining of Dracula, and vampirism in general, is simply another expression of these people’s misanthropic elitism.

A common expression of this elitism is also academic Europhilia, by which I mean the adoption (primarily by the left) of what they assume are prevailing opinions in Europe and the pretense of a disdain for America. Those of us on the right are mistaken to think the modern academic’s tendency to scoff at “dead White males” and their contributions to civilization as in some way Europhobic. To the contrary, academics have merely adopted two of Europe’s most pernicious and degrading philosophies outside of the idea of the hereditary divine right: Marxism and multiculturalism. So entranced by Europe’s ability to project the air of cultural superiority, the self-appointed elites here have entered vassalage with the new “nobility” of Europe.

Which brings us to Roman Polanski, hackneyed artist, peripheral character in the Manson murders, and violent rapist of children. Roman Polanski drugged and violently raped, both vaginally and anally, a 13-year-old girl. He then skipped bail and fled to Europe where the arts community there, with the open approval of the “tastemakers” here, helped the degenerate continue to work and prosper while avoiding justice. His recent arrest exposed how the people who consider themselves part of the most sophisticated sectors of American society are little more than living caricatures of the gypsies who followed Dracula, doing his bidding and aiding him in his most heinous crimes.

Even though (to her credit) racist Amanda Marcotte tried to commit herself to justice, the negative reaction of Pandagon’s readers made her temper her attacks on Polanski by claiming we on the right are only disgusted by him because we don’t understand his works. No one on the right, you see, is in reality disgusted by rape because of course we’re all rapists. This clearly says more about Marcotte and her relationship with some authority figure she sees as conservative, but since I’m not Marcotte’s therapist I’ll never know for sure. What’s important here is that Marcotte, even while braking ranks with the left, cannot stand to “lower” herself into being on the same side as those she sees as beneath her.

This is elitism in its most obvious form. Pathological, spiteful, and based largely on reinterpreting reality to make these supposed elite minds less sadly pedestrian than they are. In fact, attacking Polanski is the one thing Marcotte has done in her entire life that would set her apart from millions of 15 to 45-year-olds who even now are thumbing through their copies of Poppy Z Brite’s Lost Souls.

But since she fails to understand Polanski’s work herself (implying Rosemary’s Baby is a feminist statement against the patriarchy) I find the suggestion that we righties simply hate art thus we hate Polanski (even though we love raping children apparently) to be the kind of textbook projection those whose identities are dependent on being seen as smarter than others (but who simply aren’t) tend to throw around when they angrily realize that those they hate the most are actually those who they should hate the least.

But at least Marcotte hates rapists as well.

There are 100 filmmakers who signed a petition to “free” Polanski who clearly do not. Whoopi Goldberg characterized the violent vaginal and anal rape of a child, while she cried and pleaded with her tormentor to stop, as not being “rape-rape.” Long time Red Alerts hater and admitted pervert Robert Lindsay claims “sane” people are outraged by Polanski’s arrest. Supposed feminist Joan Z. Shore claims Polanski’s arrest is shameful. She’s a Vassar graduate from New York City who lives in Europe. John Farr claims Polanski deserves leniency, just by nature of being Roman Polanski. Farr thinks movies he enjoys should be given the same status as Classical Literature, and oddly doesn’t think the overrated 28 Day Later was essentially an amalgam of plots from Romero’s Dead trilogy stuffed into one awful movie. Movie critic Kim Morgan thinks that despite drugging, raping, and sodomizing a little girl, Roman Polanski “understands” women though she’s clarified that doesn’t mean she condones his actions. Only letting him off the hook for his actions.

I do not point out these disparate defenders of Polanski and child rape to show that in contrast to Marcotte’s views on rape apologia it is the left that produces the majority of it because this isn’t a political point. This is more of an ethnographic sketch of those Americans who consider themselves culturally and intellectually superior to their fellow citizens. No doubt there is a vast difference between Robert Lindsay, Kim Morgan, and Amanda Marcotte, which is illustrated by the slight variations in their views, but there is an overarching theme here that I would suggest makes these self-appointed elites more of a subculture. They are the American thralls to a mythic Old Europe, where a person’s corpus of work is more important than their penchant for sexual criminality. They believe in a social order in which there are nobles (themselves) and a peasantry (the rest of us) who are devalued for our inability (or unwillingness) to participate in their decades old masquerade. Roman Polanski is who they aspire to be, his victim a meaningless indiscretion for which a man like Polanski cannot be expected to suffer.

Maybe a man named Ronnie Pulaski who worked construction, but not Roman Polanski!

Considered a genius, unencumbered by morality and the complete opposite of what Americans have long considered the ideal, Polanski challenges society in real life the way Dracula challenges Victorianism in Stoker’s novel. Were they better read, they would perhaps see Polanski not as the Gary Oldman version of Dracula, a tortured loved-starved creature punished by a hostile and puritanical God, but as I see Polanski. He is like the Don Juan of Tirso de Molina’s The Trickster of Seville, sinister, spiteful and ultimately damned. But to see that in Polanski is to look past the European trappings and artistic prestige, and to see the man as equal to all others and thus worthy to be judged. This is a step these self-appointed elites cannot take, lest they admit they too can be judged by their true equals, their fellow Americans.

We have our own royalty in America, the celebrities we build up and tear down as part of our entertainment industry. But there is something seductive in the royalty of Old Europe, the idea that a person could be considered worth more than another and never really have to prove it. We all have such pretensions if we admit it, and the best of us cast off this burden to meet the world and all in it as equals, and rise and fall according to our abilities, our sweat, and our blood. Polanski represents for some the easier way, the illusion of class and worth, the comforting lie of elitism. For those who embrace that outlook there is no action too wicked to defend if it props up the lie and reinforces the artificial distinctions between us.

Especially if it happens to those of us they consider beneath them.

“Heartless Bloodthirsty Robot” Susan Atkins Facing the Wrath of the Gods

Posted on by

the-lord-of-the-gallows.jpg

No sinner escapes the wrath of the gods!

(09-25) 05:20 PDT CHOWCHILLA, MADERA COUNTY — Susan Atkins, the Charles Manson follower and convicted murderer who lost her last chance at parole this month, died Thursday at the women’s prison in Chowchilla (Madera County), state corrections officials said.

She was 61 and had been suffering from brain cancer.

Ms. Atkins was convicted of seven murders committed in the summer of 1969, including the stabbing of actress Sharon Tate, who was 8 1/2 months pregnant.

The bodies of Tate, coffee heiress Abigail Folger and celebrity hairdresser Jay Sebring were discovered Aug. 9, 1969, in the home Tate shared with her husband, film director Roman Polanski. He was not at home at the time of the slayings.

Ms. Atkins admitted she had stabbed Tate to death as Tate begged for her life and that of her unborn son. Ms. Atkins said she and other cult followers acted on orders from Manson and were on LSD.

She was sentenced to death, but her sentence was changed to life imprisonment when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the death penalty in 1972. The death penalty was reinstated in 1976.

Between 1976 and this year, Ms. Atkins was denied parole 13 times. The state parole board rejected her final bid on Sept. 2, after Ms. Atkins had undergone a cancer-related leg amputation.

Parole Commissioner Tim O’Hara said that he and the other commissioner who presided over the hearing, Jan Enloe, based their decision on the “atrocious nature” of the 1969 killings and said that Ms. Atkins never fully understood the magnitude of her crimes.

It is a joyous day indeed when justice, long denied by liberals to the uneasy spirits of Atkins’ victims, finally came for a woman who Manson prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi described as a heartless bloodthirsty robot:

With the death of Manson follower Susan Atkins, the man who prosecuted her for first-degree murder said Friday that one of his lasting images was that of a “heartless, bloodthirsty robot.”

Vincent Bugliosi, however, said that image has become more ambiguous with the passage of time.

Atkins, who died Friday, played a central role in the 1969 slayings of pregnant actress Sharon Tate and others in a two-night rampage in the Los Angeles area. She later said she killed Tate even as the woman pleaded for mercy.

[…]

Atkins had given conflicting statements around the time of her trial, Bugliosi said. Still another version is found in the book by Charles “Tex” Watson, the main killer in both the Tate and LaBianca murders.

Watson said that Atkins boasted about killing Tate and her unborn baby to get attention but that Atkins actually held her down while he stabbed her.

“It was my hand that struck out over and over until the cries of ‘mother, mother’ stopped,” Watson wrote.

Atkins told two cellmates after her arrest for the murder of Manson family associate Gary Hinman that she stabbed Tate telling her, “Look, bitch, I don’t have any mercy for you.” She repeated the claim to Bugliosi the night before he called her before a grand jury.

Atkins likely didn’t kill Tate, instead holding her down while Tex Watkins killed her which is just as bad. She should have been electrocuted in the 70s but was allowed to stain the earth with her evil for decades. Now she is being punished for her actions, and the spirits of the dead she helped butcher rest a little easier. Bugliosi wrote the definitive work on the Manson cult, Helter Skelter, which describes their depravity in detail, if you can stomach it.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.