Religious academics KNOW they target Children with the LGBT message!

From the Church of England’s refusal to discipline William Yate when he was banished from Northland almost two centuries ago, until today, the churches have long been responsible for covering up those abusing children here in NZ. These same religious leaders are now openly targeting the sexualisation of Children into special communities with the LGBTQI++etc philosophy (that sex with anyone is ok because they claim our evolution from animals means that it’s only natural to follow our carnal instincts).

As lauded feminist lecturer Helen Bergin (Catholic Institute of Theology) claimed in her Auckland University School of Theology classes, “…life would be so boring if there were only two genders”. It was her desire that children be given opportunities at a young age to experiment sexually so they can chose their new gender. It was from these classes that Eugene Sisneros graduated while at St Matthews, only to take the Anglican Church to the Human Rights commission to normalise his behaviour as a role model for Anglican children. St Matthews recently held the thanksgiving service for the 2018 Pride Festival.

There needs to be a Royal Commission of Inquiry into NZ religious organisation’s child sexual abuse, modelled after the recent Australian one.

Making Milo: A recipe for Abuse.

Making Milo: A recipe for Abuse.

Ingredients:

1 Catholic priest,
1 young boy,
1 parish congregation,
1 Catholic Bishop,

Method:

Mix: 1x Catholic priest and the 1x young boy by leaving them alone together, in privacy.
Cover: with a parish congregation who ignore the homosexual priest in their midst thinking it will harm the church to identify him.
Garnish: with 1x local Bishop in denial who facilitates priests movements around the world.

The first recorded case in New Zealand occurred before 1900.
Catholic priests who abused New Zealand children will not be investigated.
Cost to American Parishes (as at 2002): over US$572M

It is interesting to note that Milo’s attitude to youth sex was exactly mirrored by the Catholic Nuns teaching theology to future Anglican priests at the University of Auckland School of Theology when the subject turned to women’s rights to chose what is good for them without patriarchal influence.

Milo, CPAC, Homosexuality, and Pedophilia

Milo has provided a window into a disturbing aspect of gay culture.

By Michael Brown Published on February 20, 2017 •
milo

Conservative gay activist Milo Yiannopoulos is surrounded by controversy yet again, first because he was invited by the conservative giant CPAC to keynote their next conference, then because he was dropped after critics posted several audio clips in which he apparently endorsed pedophilia, and now because of his statement strongly denouncing pedophilia, speaking as a child abuse victim himself. What are we to make of all this?

What to Make of Milo

First, it was an error for CPAC to invite Milo to keynote, despite his rhetorical brilliance and his ability to dismantle and expose today’s ridiculous PC extremes.

It’s one thing for Milo to speak on college campuses and other settings, where he can also be himself, including using his full range of profanity, vulgarity, and gay flaunting. It’s another thing for CPAC to celebrate an out and proud homosexual as one of its champions (after all, that’s part of being a keynote speaker at a conference of this kind; you are invited because of your leadership and your voice).

I gladly interviewed Milo on my radio show and would gladly do so again, but I would not invite him to be the graduation speaker at my organization’s school of ministry. And while CPAC is a political organization rather than a religious one, if it fails to hold the line on gay activism, it will cease to be truly conservative.

Second, while denouncing pedophilia (which is something every gay man I have ever talked to about this has done, without equivocation), Milo drew attention to the fact that many older gay men are involved with much younger gay men (commonly called “boys,” according to Milo), a practice defended in 2013 by the influential gay journalist Michelangelo Signorile, who noted that, “Historically, gay men have engaged in intergenerational sexual encounters, brief romances and long-term relationships — among consenting adults — probably much more than straight people have.”

And although Milo alleges that these aforementioned “boys” are all of the age of consent, it is no secret that gay activists have often been at the forefront of pushing for the lowering of the age of consent. (For a 2010 example from England, see here.) It is also no secret that gay literature through the centuries has celebrated the “love” of grown men and boys, and in these cases, there is no doubt that they were minors rather than young men.

8 Principal Arguments to Defend “Man-Boy Love”

As I demonstrated in painstaking detail in A Queer Thing Happened to America, the identical arguments that have been used by gay activists to defend homosexuality have also been used by advocates of so-called “man-boy love” (or, in its sanitized form, “intergenerational intimacy”).

The 8 principal arguments I listed were:

  • Pedophilia is innate and immutable. (This is increasingly accepted by scientists, who now call for sympathy for the pedophile’s struggles, while continuing to denounce their actions. It is also becoming more common to classify pedophilia as a sexual orientation.)
  • Pederasty is richly attested in many different cultures throughout history.
  • The claim that adult-child sexual relationships cause harm is greatly overstated and often completely inaccurate.
  • Consensual adult-child sex can actually be beneficial to the child.
  • Pederasty should not be classified as a mental disorder, since it does not cause distress to the pederast to have these desires and since the pederast can function as a normal, contributing member of society.
  • Many of the illustrious homosexuals of the past were actually pedophiles.
  • People are against intergenerational intimacy because of antiquated social standards and puritanical sexual phobias.
  • This is all about love and equality and liberation.

As I noted in 2011, “none of these arguments should surprise us. After all, the age of increasing sexual anarchy in which we live is a fruit of the sexual revolution of the 1960’s, and the seeds of sexual anarchy were sown already by Alfred Kinsey in the late 1940’s, as Prof. Judith Reisman has tirelessly documented. And it was Kinsey, after all, who relied on the research of pedophiles to document the sexual responses of infants and children.”

To repeat: Every gay man who has ever commented to me about pedophilia seemed as repulsed as I was to the thought of an adult sexually abusing a child, and I’m absolutely not equating homosexuality with pedophilia.

But I am saying that, whereas most heterosexual teens who lose their virginity do so with their peers (schoolmates and the like, perhaps just a few years older than them), there is a disproportionate amount of intergenerational sex among homosexuals, often involving older men and boys (by which I do mean boys).

In the aftermath of the arrest of child abuser Jerry Sandusky, I noted that the acclaimed gay journalist Randy Shilts stated that “at age 11, [gay icon Harvey] Milk began attending performances of the New York Metropolitan Opera where he met with ‘wandering hands’ and soon was engaged in ‘brief trysts [with grown men] after the performances.’ While still in junior high, he ‘dove headfirst into the newly discovered subculture,’ and by the age of 14, Milk was ‘leading an active homosexual life.’”

This led to the obvious question: Were the men who were sexually involved with Harvey Milk much better than Jerry Sandusky? And can an 11-year-old give truly informed consent to such acts?

Shilts also wrote that as Milk grew older, the pattern reversed itself to the point that, at age 33, he hooked up with a 16-year-old named Jack McKinley, one of a number of younger men with whom he was intimate. How common was Milk’s experience among gay men?

I suggest that Milo has provided a window into a disturbing aspect of gay culture, one in which gay men do not abduct children and abuse them but one in which they do engage in sexual and romantic relationships with minors — unless we are actually to believe that when gay men speak about having sex with “boys,” they mean, “but only those who are consenting adults!”

I think not.

PRESS CONFERENCE: Milo Yiannopoulos Resigns from Breitbart, Tells Story of Past Sexual Abuse (FNN)

Paedo-theologians

Paedo-theologians (or Paedosex-theologians) are those religious academics and clergy advocating that young children should be sexualised by the state, in state run schools, encouraging them to experiment and chose a gender, and be trained up, by the state, as to how that gender behaves.

Paedo-theologians have campaigned for the normalisation of homosexuality knowing that the next step is to normalise their sexual bahaviour for children.

The Paedo-theologian’s consider that their desire to sexualise children follows naturally from the normalisation of the GLBTQi+ spectrum within the wider church community. They seek to identify potential futures members of their sexually orientated communities earlier in their lives to enable them to practice their new sexual behaviours without discrimination. This would enable them to further flourish in their lifestyle choice when they grow older.

The normalisation of the GLBTQi+ community throughout all New Zealand churches has been demonstrated by the teaching of the Catholic Institute of Theology, the legitimacy of which was tested in the Human Rights Commission trial of the Anglican Church in 2013, and the resulting Motion 30 which has split the church of New Zealand.

The theology of Paedo-theologians follows broadly the Theology of a paedophile.

Priest Sex Abuse Is All About Homosexuality

I have realised that I am not the only one to come to the conclusion that I have after 5 years of theological Education here in New Zealand. The issues are the same all over the world. This article below was written in 2015, and matches my observations while I was volunteering in the child sex wings at Auckland Prison, in that most of the resident inmates of these programmes were bisexual or homosexual. And they know their scriptural justifications for their sexual preference (see the section: Theology of a Paedophile).

One of the biggest lies of the sex abuse scandal is that “pedophile priests” were the culprits

The homosexual subculture has always involved sexual attraction to youths, and is a well-accepted part of the gay lifestyle. (The term “twink” denotes an adolescent sex partner, a common occurrence among active homosexuals.) And evidence shows homosexuals abuse children at far higher rates than heterosexuals. According to one study, “homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls.” This bears out: Although homosexuals comprise only 1–3 percent of the entire population, they are committing up to 33 percent of all sex crimes against children. 
Priest Sex Abuse Is All About Homosexuality

Loosing our Religion? or is it being stolen from us?

It’s now common knowledge, and has been for some time, that Christianity is on the decline in New Zealand. But why? In a recent article, Losing our religion: Kiwis losing the faith in record numbers, Professor Peter Lineham attributes the loss to a diminishing middle class society.

So what’s behind the decline?

Massey University professor Peter Lineham has studied religious history in New Zealand for decades, and says today’s society does not value religious commitment, as our free time and financial circumstances have changed.

“Historically, religion flourished among what we would call middle income people, the middle classes. Now today, that’s the area of tremendous decline in religiosity.”

This seems to imply that it is forces from outside of the church, our financial and leisure commitments, that have caused this lack of faith. Having just completed five years of religious education in this country, I propose an alternative theory. I propose that the rot has originated from within the Church, rather than from without. Here is why.

For four years I studied at the School of Theology based at University of Auckland. Lectures were provided by some of New Zealand’s most influential academics who were a mix of Catholic nuns and priests, Anglican priests, Presbyterian and Methodist ministers, and others including a self confessed “lapsed Catholic”. The staff were sourced from the Catholic Institute of Theology. The students included a range or laypeople and potential ministers from the various denominations, and were predominantly Anglican, including Eugene Sisneros.

This School of Theology was promoted, when I visited before I enrolled, as being “scientific” in the academic sense, and not into the hocus of former generations. What I expected from this description was that we would have access to the latest in archaeological discoveries, verifying, or not, the biblical text. After all, surely Christianity is based on historical fact. And that we would investigate each moral issue from every different perspective.

Different perspectives were presented, but not as I had anticipated, from each angle. It was in the presentation of these differing perspectives that I contend that Christianity is being stolen from New Zealanders. Biblical history and theology was presented from the Enlightenment perspective, that it was something created at a much later date because writing wasn’t known back then. With the Bible out of the way, the feminist theologians were trying to ban patriarchal structures such as the family and church so they can justify uninhibited sexual freedoms for women. We were descended from animals, it was only natural for women to be free sexually. God created us that way. Children grow up perfectly fine without fathers. The church was evil for it’s suppression of women. Men were evil. Men were not allowed to question in class. I wanted to point out that animals exist in a pure form of rape-culture. Homosexual theologians were trying to legitimise their sexual preferences and ordination, while suppressing the damage homosexuals have created within society and hiding the abuse. I could not question their logic or reasoning, I was straight. They had science on their side. The self termed queer theologians were likewise trying to legitimise their sexual escapades, because if it is good enough for everyone else to behave like they want, it is good enough for them also. Then there were the liberation theologians, non-whites who could blame white man Christianity on all of their woes, and join forces with the eco-theologians and were due large financial payouts so that they could travel the world promoting global warming.

And there was a category of theologians, who haven’t yet named themselves,  drawn from all of the above categories, that I will name Paedo-Theologians.

Paedo-Theologians are those religious academics who promote the idea that children should be sexualised, by the state, in state run schools, at an early age, so that they can experiment and chose a gender, and be trained up, by the state, as to how that gender behaves.  

And yes, we have them amongst New Zealand Christian academics. Children should be free to chose their sexuality, and the earlier they are identified the sooner they can be started on whatever medications/ drugs they need to help them transition. It’s wrong for men to try and tell their daughters how to behave. It’s natural for women to want to have sex early, men couldn’t possibly know what it’s like to be a woman. All of these statements, and more, came from our classes.

All of these Theologians had the common denominator of an Enlightenment view of Biblical history. There was no exodus, no David or Solomon, no literal virgin birth, no literal resurrection, no actual miracles. Jesus didn’t really say those things. Paul didn’t write that. All you need to do is love.

In the fourth year we learn Karl Marx was the way, the truth and the light. So that all that is necessary for the Church to do is preform Social Justice, and try and over throw the Patriarchy to make everyone in society totally equal and then life would be fair.

This is the way the truth and the life. All to be administered by the world-wide council of churches and enforced by the UN. All religion is the same anyway, so we are taught.

If you objected to any of this, you were intolerant, a bigot, a fascist misogynistic homophobe.  All you need is love.

So this has been the training Anglican, and other, priests and laypeople for the last 15 years. Students graduating from this institution are now teaching Christianity throughout the Pacific.

This education is what I term cultural Marxism. I’ll define Marxism as pitting the economically poor (oppressed) against the wealthy elites (oppressors). After a revolution, everyone becomes equally poor. The only winners are those at the very top who manage the system. They get remembered in the hallowed halls of Academia. This is their glory, this is their fame. Cultural Marxism aims to achieve the same levelling with culture; family, race, religion, gender. Wives are the oppressed, husbands the oppressors, women are oppressed, men the oppressors, blacks are oppressed, whites the oppressors, homosexuals are the oppressed, heterosexuals are the oppressors. Islam is oppressed, Christianity is the oppressor. The Cultural Marxist utopia is one where true is relative, morals are irrelevant, drugs are plentiful and sex is commitment free, everyone is free to do as they please for we are all paid equally by the state.

Cultural Marxism has always aimed to take away the middle class. Marxists know that the middle classes were the reason their wars have failed. Trump represents the middle class.

And with so many Catholics tied up in sexual abuse, it is not surprise that their Academia are fighting for sexual freedoms!

So while Peter Lineham attributes the loss of religion to outside forces, I contend that it is predominantly forces inside the church that are turning people away. Lineham notes that people are still searching for spirituality. They are just not finding God at a Church any more. When people head to church, this Cultural Marxist teaching, based on Enlightenment history and Biblical studies, is often what they are presented with. This is why the church is in decline. God is not there. Academia has stolen him away.

Inspiration for this site, well, a part of it.

So I am one of two guys sitting in a home-group of one of Auckland fastest growing modern style churches along with a handful of women. (This is several years ago.) One is explaining what a difficult time she is having with winz. She can’t get full time work because she needs to be home when her 11yo son comes home each day. He cries and sits on her lap for a couple of hours.She can’t work, she has to be there for him.  All the other women are naturally very supportive. She’s got a nice property in trust in a wealthy suburb. Son goes to a good school. His boyfriend has left his school once he turned 16 and is no longer around as much to defend her son from those kids who tell him that he should not be gay. The mother gets lot of support from this group. She’s such a progressive mother. Those children are bullies. He son has a right to be gay if he wants. She is so wonderful for supporting him and encouraging him to make sure he doesn’t give up this relationship. She is feeding off of all this encouragement. Without much else, her kids are her life. This home group meeting was a great encouragement that she was on the right track and they all prayed for the situation and those horrible bully children that told her son that he should not be in a homosexual relationship. I notice the other guy in the home group also sits in silence, like myself, trying to be invisible. I can’t help thinking it must be so hard for an 11yo to talk to a mother like this about anal bleeding. He, too, knows what she will say. Well, it was your choice. I can sort of understand why so many kids commit suicide, not being able to handle the consequences of the choices they make.

Sans nuts

When Christians are no longer allowed to tell a man that chopping off his di*k, and then tucking his nut sack inside himself will not turn him into a woman… then the whole of society is in trouble!
#ThingsMenDoToGetIntoGirlsBathrooms

make-up