Easter being phased out?

Is Easter the next Christian holiday to be suppressed? CBN News reports that the major candy makers have taken the word ‘Easter’ off the packaging of the traditional Easter candies.

“Hershey’s, M&M’s, Lindor, Russell Stover, Dove, Rolo, and Twix have all produced Easter themed candy without mentioning the word on the front of their candy, according to a press release from the Liberty Counsel.

[…]”Earlier this month, Cadbury dropped the word “Easter” from the advertising of its annual “Cadbury Easter Egg Hunt”  in England.  As CBN News reported, the new “Cadbury’s Great British Egg Hunt” caused an uproar in the church and the government.”

Some Christians will say this is fine with them because Easter is really a ‘pagan’ holiday, or at least the secular aspects of it, such as Easter bunnies, eggs, and baby chicks are pagan fertility symbols. The same people would probably say they don’t believe in Christmas trees, Santa Claus, and all the modern trappings of Christmas. And truth be told, all these things are not Christian in any real sense, though they have traditionally been part of our celebrations.

Personally I am on the fence about this; I can see the viewpoint of those who say Christians should keep to the religious symbols and avoid the secular and pagan aspects. However I still object to the obvious ‘war’ on Christian holidays and the symbols thereof, even if some of our traditions date to the pre-Christian generations of our European ancestors. To let the secularists and the anti-Christians do this without any opposition or objections is capitulating to their agenda.

And the companies who are purging the name ‘Easter’ as well as other Christian holidays from their products and advertising should be made to feel the pain of losing their Christian customers’ business.  However so far it seems that most boycotts by Christians have proven somewhat ineffectual overall; the Christian faith is still losing out to corporate anti-Christian policies.

This kind of incident is also symptomatic of the corporate world’s disregard for their customers and their indifference to their customers’ satisfaction and goodwill. How many have noticed that most consumer products and services have declined markedly in quality?  I know I’m not the only one who perceives this change. Once upon a time (long ago), businesses supposedly believed in the old adage ‘the customer is always right.’ I doubt the businessmen really believed that, but reputable businesses tried to build good relationships with their clients and customers. Nowadays, if you are unhappy with a product or a service, you can complain, but complaints, no matter how politely and articulately they are made, are usually met with indifference at best, and with surly defiance at worst. Businesses generally let it be known that they are ‘sorry’ you are not happy, but that they ‘feel’ that their products and services are adequate, and if you believe otherwise, you are free to do business elsewhere.  ‘This is what we offer; take it or leave it. We’re satisfied that we are doing a good job” is the implicit message.

Most products, American-made or foreign-made, are shoddier, flimsier, less durable, and often uglier than those made a few decades ago. Foods are of much poorer quality, and I’ve heard this from many people.

There is a general breakdown of trust between businesses and their customers. Apathy if not downright hostility is all too common. This business of eliminating Christian symbols and names from products made purposely for a Christian market makes no sense whatsoever. But it’s to be expected, sad to say, in a society in which the traditional common culture and shared customs have almost disappeared.

 

“Signed, White America”

Another hate hoax, this one with a slight twist.

“CHARLOTTE, N.C. (WLOS) – Police arrested a man who is accused of arson, ethnic intimidation, and committing a hate crime at Central Market in Charlotte on Thursday.

Curtis Dwight Flournoy, 32, is charged with burning a building of trade, malicious damage by use of an incendiary material, felony breaking and entering, ethnic intimidation, and anonymous or threatening letters.

Police searched for the man seen in surveillance video leaving a racist note, breaking a window at the business, and then setting a fire.”

When I read this, and saw the name of the accused, Flournoy, I jumped to the conclusion that the man charged was of Huguenot French ancestry; there are a number of people with names that are known as Huguenot names in that part of the South. My conclusion was wrong, as you can see by the photo of the accused.

In any case, it’s a relief to see that this ‘hate crime’ was likely not done by a White, but note this part of the story: the threatening note concluded with the signature “Signed, White America.”

Even without a signature like that, the media always, always assume that it is some White ‘hater’, when all too often the ‘hate crime’ turns out to be a ‘hate hoax.’ This fact is almost always swept under the rug by the mendacious media; when the crime is found to be a hoax, (usually by the person claiming to be the ‘victim’) they carefully bury that story on the back page somewhere.

In this case, it was not the victim who was the hoaxer, but Flournoy, pretending he represented ‘White America.’

But ultimately that’s the case with most of these kinds of hoaxes; the purported victim usually fakes the ‘hate crime’ with scrawled threats, ‘symbols of hate’ (so-called), usually a noose or a swastika or other such incendiary symbol. The point of claiming to have been victimized by some anonymous ‘hater’ or ‘nazi’ or [something]-phobe is not just to draw attention as we often assume, but to further the all-important ‘narrative’. As actual ‘hate crimes’ by White ‘bigots’ are pretty rare, once we subtract the many fakes, we see why it’s necessary, if you must have a ‘hate crime’, to act it out oneself. Pretty pathetic. Just doing the ‘hate crimes’ White bigots won’t do. If you want something done right, gotta do it yourself, as they saying goes.

In this case, the signature reveals the motive was not necessarily as much for the sake of threatening or driving out the Bhutanese man, but to keep the ‘White hater’ narrative alive. I would say that the perpetrator was targeting ‘White America’ more than he was this store owner. Just my opinion.

 

‘Austria’s richest man’ vs. PC

It seems that ‘Austria’s richest man’ has spoken out, in an interview with Kleine Zeitung,  against mass immigration to Europe and has denounced Political Correctness. According to Breitbart London:

“In the interview, Mateschitz took a stand against the “destabilisation of Europe”, which he said threatens the “uniqueness of [the continent’s] diversity and individuality with its different cultures and languages”.

“I hope I’m not the only one who’s worried that one of the highest officials in Brussels said that countries which aren’t multicultural should be wiped off the map”, Mateschitz told the newspaper, possibly alluding to comments made by European Commission Vice-President Frans Timmermans in 2015.”

How is it, I wonder, that Mateschitz is not spouting the same politically correct mantras we hear from most European public figures? What has enabled him to escape the straitjacket of political correctness?

The information I’ve read about him indicates that he is of Croatian origin, though born in Austria. (I half-expect someone to say that he is a Jew, though there is nothing to that effect in what I’ve read. Still, one never knows; name origins are often confusing. But if he were in fact of Jewish origin that would make his statements even more anomalous, given the fact that the default Jewish position seems to be for open borders and multiculturalism.)

Maybe the difference is that he is of an older generation, having been born in 1944 before ‘political correctness’ spread its poison throughout the West. Only those who remember things as they once were can truly know what has been lost.

Mateschitz alludes to remarks by the European Commission VP Timmermans, indicating that ‘any society, anywhere in the world, will be diverse in the future’, because ‘that’s the future of the world.’ The implication seems to be “or else.” There is to be no choice. That’s already been made clear, even though we’ve seldom heard it expressed so bluntly, and with such seeming finality, before. It’s more than clear that the European officials are totalitarians.

”Of political correctness, Mateschitz said: “It seems that no one dares to tell the truth, even if everyone knows what the truth is.”

“The elites want citizens to be frightened, and easily manipulated,” he added.”

Despite the fact that the occasional brave soul speaks up and says these things, it seems that most people in Europe (and too many here) are unwilling to break out of the mental prison. Are they frightened, or are they just unaware of reality? Surely there has to be an awakening to reality someday — surely?

Some of us have been saying this for years and have we come any closer to that day?

Still, every voice of truth and sanity is welcome, and the cumulative effect may one day be felt, even if it appears that the mass delusion is as strong as ever.

 

 

 

A glimpse into the millennial mind

As seen on Tumblr:

millennials

For those not up on lefty millennial jargon, ‘terf’ is an acronym for ‘Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist’, in plain English, a ‘radical feminist’ (is there any other  kind these days?) who does not accept ‘trans women’ as women.

I suppose you could say the ‘terf’ (who is being disinvited from following the Tumblr blogger who posted the above) still has some kind of tenuous grasp on what is called reality. No realists welcome in the lefty fold; it seems that’s a basic tenet of leftism in the millennial universe.

Then there was this gem from last November:

millennials 2016-11-23_025425

It appears that they didn’t do their job of ‘educating’ the wayward older generation, as their side didn’t succeed in electing Hillary — or even getting Bernie past the primaries.

But did ‘we’ win, after all, or did they? Time will tell. As I say, ‘they’ are winning the cultural/societal battles, handily. It’s about so much more than politics.

 

‘We don’t have to live like this’

The title of this post is the last line from Porter’s post at Kakistocracy, on the subject of the recent jihad attack in Sweden. It’s a very stark and effective commentary; if you haven’t seen it, please read it.

Beware, though, if you are squeamish about pictures of human carnage. Porter has posted a picture of one of the Swedish victims; it will stay in your mind if you see it. Some bloggers have refrained from including such images because they think it is too shocking and disturbing, and some readers have complained about seeing the photos. But unpleasant though it is (and I am one who is not inured to the sight of blood and gore) I think it may be necessary for those in denial to see the results of our stupid ‘welcoming’ attitudes towards anybody and everybody who enters our countries. Such willful openness is an  invitation to this kind of slaughter, given the state of our world.

Some would say that the world has always been an unsafe place to some extent, and they are right up to a point; however in this age of an aggressive and violent Islam on the move, acting out the precepts of their bloodthirsty belief system, it is foolhardy in the extreme to open our doors to them and give them the freedom of our countries.

Among the comments on Porter’s blog post, ‘nilus’ says, that the photo of the mangled victim should stop the cries of ‘false flag! crisis actors! fake blood.’  Yes, and don’t forget that the ‘bodies’ are really mere stuffed dummies.

Yet I fully expect to see those accusations appear on various blogs, if they haven’t already. Are there false flags? No doubt. Have we been lied to by our overlords about these kinds of things? Most likely; why would they make an exception on these incidents, since they habitually lie to us about almost everything?

britain_prophet_drawings_llp117

But it beggars belief to say that all these attacks are staged, acted out by ‘crisis actors’ using red paint and other stage props. If we follow out the ‘logic’ of this line of argument, then Moslems are really not attacking us; they are innocent victims of a blood libel. To believe that these events can’t be what they seem is to believe that Moslems are not capable of, nor willing to, kill us as they repeatedly threaten and promise to do.  Maybe all those hirsute men carrying signs like ‘behead those who insult Islam’, ‘death to Europe‘, etc., were all just actors too.

What’s happening to us is insane in that we are allowing it, as long as we allow those who are perpetrating the acts into our countries and making excuses for them. And a huge dose of reality all the way around is sorely needed, unpleasant though it may be.

We don’t have to live like this.’ Truly.

‘Unvetted’ refugees

I doubt if anyone reading this would be surprised to read in The New American that the majority of ‘refugees’ (and immigrants, for that matter) are not vetted, or are vetted very poorly. I’ve said it before as have many others, but the woman, Jill Noble, who is at the center of this New American piece is saying these things as one who has some direct knowledge. Josh Tolley’s interview of her on YouTube has attracted over 125,000 viewers, and apparently the information she offers is new to them.

Noble says that many of the ‘refugees’ are mostly men, from Africa and the Middle East — whose names are not even known for certain. And they obviously come from what used to be termed ‘backward countries’ where thorough documentation or identification are unreliable and spotty, to say the least. I will point out that this is true of most of the countries which are sending us ‘immigrants.’ Our media, much as they lie and obfuscate about these things, mention that many immigrants who are arrested have multiple identities and their true names are never known for sure in some cases. So it is not just the ‘refugees’, but many immigrants too. No need to point out the foolishness of our policy of taking these people at their word. Deception is not unheard of among them.

Surely Western countries — which seemingly are the only desired destination for these people who supposedly ‘fear for their lives’ — are viewed as the world’s pushovers, a lot of gullible and easily-duped people. We invite this attitude on their part by our lack of common-sense. Even “conservatives” who think of themselves as tough-minded are prey to the tendency to feel sorry for these poor people ‘just looking for a better life’. Then there are those squishy ‘conservatives’ who feel flattered to fill the role of the World’s Savior.

So, though Donald Trump promised to ‘vet’ incoming refugees, I think it’s just window-dressing, meant to assuage any doubts, and to reassure those easily-pleased followers, who accept a vague promise to ‘do something.’ The truth, which this video seems to reinforce, is that vetting incoming refugees (and immigrants from the Third World) is just not possible.

Those who are content to rely on ‘vetting’ are kidding themselves or they are simply blind followers of the leaders they admire. That in itself is the source of many of our woes as a country: blindly trusting leaders.

 

A persistent myth

Recently I made a list of a number of popular myths or canards of the ‘realist’ right. I wrote them in no particular order, and the last one on the list is the myth that goes something like this: ‘Mormons are the remnant of the old America. They are racially conscious and Utah is a mostly White state.’

This idea in some form crops up in the comments on this article. Oddly enough only a couple of commenters seem to disagree with the idea that Mormons are somehow the last guardians of the old White American ethos. Are so few people aware of what is happening within the Mormon fold in this decades-long reign of PC?

I have no grudge against Mormons; of course most of them are ‘nice’ people, as most Americans seem to agree, but then I am not a great admirer of ‘niceness‘. Modern ‘Churchianity’ is often little more than a cult of niceness, and I am seeing that phrase being used more often. Niceness is simply a counterfeit goodness, or at best, it’s a feeble, skin-deep form of goodness; goodness minus strength and conviction. Niceness is a passivist, pacifist simulation of goodness. Niceness won’t fight for its principles.

I say this as someone who has a close blood relative who converted to Mormonism, as well as another close relative who married into a strongly observant Mormon family. I’ve also known other Mormons in real life, and I know that in recent years they are very actively converting Third Worlders to Mormonism, championing ‘open borders,’ objecting to border enforcement, and welcoming refugee/colonists to Utah.

The last frontier is usually interracial marriage, and that, too, is becoming more visible and accepted, with White Mormons of both sexes marrying Third Worlders they have met on their sojourns in those countries.  The old religious taboos against miscegeny have been officially repudiated, though some apparently resist this change, as can be seen in this online discussion.

Utah may still have a high percentage of Whites, but that is rapidly changing with immigration, legal and illegal. Hispanics are a growing percentage within the Mormon Church and in the state of Utah. There are Hispanics in the Utah legislature. Another group whose numbers have grown are Polynesians (Samoans), as someone on the Sailer thread noted. Remember the case of the Salt Lake City mall shooting ten years ago? The shooter was a Bosnian refugee. And more recently, another mall shooting was perpetrated by an apparent Southeast Asian shooter. Utah is not a ‘Whitopia’, and the Mormons appear just as ‘cucked’ as the most hopelessly feeble Churchians.

Yes, Mormons are ‘nice’ people but niceness is not something we need at this time in our history. Niceness is in part what is killing us. ‘Thou shalt be Nice’ is not one of the commandments on those stone tablets.

And if I were looking for a place to hide from mandatory Diversity, Utah would not be on my short list. Mormons, at least the hierarchy, are working hard to escape their reputation as ‘racist’ and ‘too hideously White.’ They have no will to defend their ethnic/racial heritage, only their religious system, which for them takes the place of ‘tribe’.

The opposite of political correctness?

At TakiMag, Theodore Dalrymple — I mean (((Theodore Dalrymple))) offers some good points and clever turns of phrase in discussing political correctness. He describes it as a form of mass hysteria — which it does seem to be.  Then there’s this: “…the politically correct speak power to truth.

However, I felt as one of the commenters on the article said: this piece is an example of ‘bait-and-switch.’ It goes from being a scathing piece about PC to bemoaning and lambasting the responses to PC. The examples of rightist ‘hate speech’ which he cites,  are pretty over-the-top.

Did he cherry-pick those extreme examples, or are they more common than I realize?

I wouldn’t deny that some of the comments, ostensibly by ‘right-wing’ commenters online, can be callous, ugly, and sometimes objectionable even to many of us on the right. For example, I’ve seen comments over the years recommending that certain people be ‘incinerated’. I’ve seen comments from those ostensibly on the right  expressing approval over the rape or murder of certain people. I found this appalling. But these comments about ‘incineration’, rape, and murder were not directed at the traditional protected groups according to the PC hierarchy: they were directed at White people — but White people who are among the ‘out-groups’ for some on the right. The ‘incineration’ comment, for example, was directed at fat people  — and it was posted on that hotbed of ‘extremism’, Free Republic, of all places. Now, it may be that the comment or comments were later deleted by mods there, after all, the mods used to ban even mild posts perceived as ‘anti-Hispanic’ in the days before most people were so incensed about illegal immigration. The comments approving of rape and/or murder — by immigrants, actually, were in reference to baby boomers — who, according to many on the young right, deserve such a fate. However it appears that Dalrymple’s outrage about the ‘vile’ comments he cites was an outrage on behalf of minority groups/nonwhites. So who’s being politically correct?

Dalrymple should know that the left engages in worse rhetoric, or at least rhetoric equally bad, in reference to Whites/Christians/heterosexuals. One example of anti-White hatred on another blog was a social media post — Facebook, I think — calling for White women to be caught and killed before they produced more White babies. What’s that law about ‘equal and opposite reactions?’

All that aside, no one on the comment thread seems to question the authenticity of some of the over-the-top bloodthirsty comments Dalrymple gives. Considering what we know of the left, of their duplicity and dirty tactics — and the fact that they are known to employ online operatives to provoke, to derail and disrupt, and to deceive and slander, could it not be that the worst of those comments were written by lefties in order to direct anger at the right? The comments seemed almost to border on parody or caricature.

Whether or not some of the extremist sentiments are justifiable or understandable, it does seem that it’s counterproductive, at the least, to indulge in that kind of rhetoric. I don’t recommend being mealy-mouthed or so genteel as to be feeble in our self-expression, I think there’s a way to express strong sentiments without going beyond certain limits. Adopting the tactics of the left only escalates this trend of abandoning all discretion.

Who’s culpable?

It’s become wearisome to even post on a terror attack when they predictably happen. Don’t misunderstand me; I am not expressing indifference to the victims, or to the country, whichever European or White country, where the latest attack occurs.

If anything, I care too much about the victims, thinking of the waste of human life and potential, especially among our besieged folk, and about their families and all those who loved the victims. Lives will be forever changed. I heard from an acquaintance in New York, after 9/11, of a little girl, a classmate of my friend’s twins, who lost both parents on 9/11. That little girl would now be 22 or so. Surely her life was changed irrevocably.

No doubt what happens in Britain, where the bones of many generations of my ancestors are buried, troubles me especially. I understand that many Americans feel no particular kinship to people in Britain, and considering that so many Americans now lack any genetic connection to Britain, I suppose they can’t be blamed for that.

Kinship, blood ties matter, even in a country which conditions us all to ‘civic nationalism’, telling us that birth on American soil makes brothers of us all. Not true, and even less true in today’s Britain, as illustrated by this now-viral photo from London yesterday.aliennation

As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. There’s a reason why that photo, of all those available, went viral.

Meanwhile, the smarmy heads-of-state, after an event like yesterday’s, mouth their usual platitudes about ‘unity’, ‘coming together’ ‘reaffirming our nation’s values’, (meaning openness to outsiders, however hostile they are, and coerced diversity). Theresa May and as the Moslem mayor of London both recited such statements, though the London mayor was brazen enough to tell the British people that they had better get used to this kind of thing; after all, it’s “part and parcel” of life in a big city now. As I recall some official in France said roughly the same thing after an attack there. Will the passive and docile citizens of Western countries continue to accept this phony, condescending rhetoric about ”our values” or about “diversity and unity” — which, by the way, are opposites, and contradictory? Or is the passivity and docility merely an outward show, hiding inner misgivings and resentments?

The most disgusting bit of rhetoric, which is even used by many on the nationalist right, is the now-hackneyed statement that ”immigrants/Moslems are not the problem, only symptoms; they are just pawns in a game being controlled by the real powers, so it’s useless to direct anger at these pawns. They aren’t our real enemy.” The more liberal variation on this ‘argument’ is employed by the churchian types, who think ‘hatred’ or even honest anger, is wrong; if we give in to it, we are just reacting and playing into the hands of the enemy. If we do that, then ‘They will have won.’ Supposedly by refusing to show fear or act defensively, we are winning. Right.

Trouble is, who are the architects of all this? The shadowy ‘elites’, the globalist overlords? We know a few names; everyone’s heard of Soros. For some people, Jews are the ultimate cause behind the scenes, and the people who hold this view are often those who claim that immigrants are not the real problem. For others, the powers-that-be are simply the global corporate movers and shakers, the mega-rich, who are transnationalists and cosmopolitans, with no allegiance to any nation or people, faithful only to their own greedy interests.

Many Christians say only ‘spiritual forces of wickedness’ are truly to blame; everyone else is a pawn.

But without knowing who, exactly, is behind all this, and who is calling the shots — as they keep themselves mostly concealed — how can we act at all? Do we need to know the ultimate cause in order to save ourselves? Is it not more important to take steps against the visible agents of evil? It seems to me that that’s the only thing we can do: to focus on the proximate cause, the obvious and immediate actors in all this.

And who are the known actors? Elected politicians, hand-picked by corrupt political machines, who seem to be puppets acting for the shadowy elites. Then there are the traitorous and malice-driven ‘progressives’, antifa types. The media,  who seem to be nothing but lie merchants and ideologues, hostile to the real people of the countries they inhabit. And the Others, the colonizers, interlopers (whether legally or illegally), people with generational grudges against us and our countries.

The problem is not the Others alone, but at the moment it’s they who are killing us and our kinsmen in other countries.

The picture above illustrates that they are not of us; not us, can never be part of us.

The London attacker was born in the UK, showing that being ‘native’ to Britain no longer means much, if one is of foreign blood and origin, and especially if Islam is factored in.

Celebrities and ‘change agents’

The recent death of another rock ‘legend’ is still being lamented on social media sites like Tumblr, even though most of the people there are not old enough to remember the latest deceased rocker.

He had something in common with other such rock celebrities who died during the last year or so: he was a rebel against conventional sexual morality. His criminal record, however,  is mostly swept under the rug in recent years, even before his death. And articles like that linked just above, from the ‘History’ channel, seem to downplay the seriousness of the allegations and to minimize Berry’s culpability. The racial aspect of it is highlighted by mentioning that an ”all-White jury” convicted him (of course Whitey is prejudiced and willing to convict a black man at every possible occasion) and the article defends him by saying his intentions were strictly honest and honorable. He ‘offered legitimate employment in his St. Louis nightclub‘ — but to a 14-year-old girl? Maybe she was ‘precocious’ as some euphemistically put it, but in what state can a 14-year-old legally work in a night club? And the laws were more strictly enforced in 1959.

This article from NPR’s website unabashedly blames the Mann Act itself, stating that it was expressly written to be used against people like black boxer Jack Johnson with his White (white?) mistress. The article also implies that the Mann Act was a response to what the biased writers call ‘hysteria’ over what was called ‘white slavery’, or the abduction of young women into prostitution in the early 20th century. The writers imply that many such women were not forced into that life, but were simply ‘sexually active young women’ whom society wished to punish for their ‘sexual freedom.’

The NPR writers attempt to revise history, implying that the attempt to curb prostitution was based on “hysteria.” In the last couple of years, I’ve read a great many books from older eras, books actually written then, not written by (post)modern writers and their tainted point of view, and yes, there was an ‘industry’ if you can call it that involving trapping young women, many of whom were rather sheltered and naive in those days, into a life of prostitution. ‘Inexperienced’ girls were most in demand and drew high prices. There were interstate rings of what would now be called ‘human trafficking’.  Hence the need for the Mann Act. Most of the reports indicated Jewish domination of these rings. Transporting of these girls extended across national borders too, with many girls and women sent across the Pacific to China and elsewhere, where Christian workers found many of them being held literally in cages or cells, disease-ridden and sometimes dying, after having been sold into that life. It is not fantasy or ‘hysteria.’

Now our jaded age thinks that such things are just a matter of personal choice; I’ve had many younger people tell me that prostitution is ‘just another job, a way to make good money’, and as Madonna famously said back in the 80s, ”It’s not exploitation if I’m in charge of it myself.” So prostitution can be ’empowering’ for feminists.

Madonna is another prime example of a celebrity who is serving the function of a ‘change agent’ by altering people’s ideas of what is acceptable, and by helping to subvert traditional morality. Some people, maybe most people, today say that sexual morality is up to the individual; whatever people choose, and/or do in private, has nothing to do with anyone else. But it does. We are social beings. Nobody exists in a vacuum. The consequences of people’s private behavior often affect society, not just the invididual(s) involved.

Celebrities of course have a much-amplified power to affect others’ choices, especially young and gullible people.

People like Madonna, and the recently-deceased David Bowie and Prince — and in his time, Chuck Berry, have had more influence than many like to think.

Michael Jackson, too, with his ‘androgynous’ persona desensitized us to certain behaviors. And celebrity alone enables such people to get away with much, as his story illustrated. People tend, these days, to have almost limitless capacity to overlook aberrant or downright immoral behavior from those that are called ‘talented’ or ‘geniuses’. Society theoretically condemns pedophilia but oddly it can be overlooked if the acccused is a popular public figure. Please notice, at the first link on this page, from a blog which is not at all PC, that the commenters, can only praise Berry.

In 1959, people were not so flexible in their morality and not so forgiving.

In time, though, it seems that Berry has been forgiven. If one wants to be forgiven of anything, it appears, the answer is to be ‘talented and famous.’

Meanwhile society suffers the consequences.