Saturday, 17 August 2013

Elena Isinbaeva and the west’s self-righteous penchant for creating bogus enemies

By Stanley Collymore

In an episode of the much loved, British comedy series Rising Damp the quite canny and highly amusing landlord character known as Rigsby famously said to one of his student tenants that there were those in the British political establishment who if they had their way would not only make homosexuality legal but would also insist on it being compulsorily as well.

How very true, bearing in mind that many of these same people are the deeply inculcated products of our single sex male as well as female public schools where homosexuality is often seen and practised as a rite of passage. For those of you who aren’t aware of this farcical British term public school let me enlighten you that these rather elitist institutions have nothing whatsoever to do with the general public and are essentially exorbitantly high paying boarding kennels where the rich, privileged, powerful and those that can afford it social climbing snobs send their progeny to while they keep their dogs, the canine species, lovingly at home.

Hardly surprising then that effectively cut off from what’s generally considered to be normal everyday existences as well as finding themselves firmly isolationist but comfortably ensconced in a well-heeled bubble of unreality where they’re energetically schooled in the conceited belief that their destiny is to rule Britain that aberrant behaviour to you and me not only becomes the norm where these youngsters are largely concerned, but is also with relative ease and an endemic nepotism compounded by a mindboggling obsequiousness on the part of the general British public is readily and routinely translated into the exposition of their adult life as well as the careers they eventually embark upon, which invariably centre on politics and the law.

In a supposed democracy that Britain self-importantly likes to see itself as and even arrogantly takes to boasting about that belief that I supposed is as it should be, as long as those decisions and attendant private consensual behaviour don’t negatively, detrimentally or unwarrantedly impact on the lives of others. However with homosexuality of the male kind, the female variety was never a criminal offence in the UK as Queen Victoria: imbued with an intensely healthy heterosexual sexual appetite herself, adamantly refused to accept that women behaved in this way, and as the powers that be didn’t dare contradict this formidable lady the criminal penalties introduced for male homosexuality were never ascribed to lesbianism, which was never outlawed in Britain.

All that aside I nevertheless fail to comprehend why something that’s strictly a private matter between consenting adults, and the operative words here are consenting and adult, and frankly should steadfastly remain so between those directly involved, just as for instance the number of times that one masturbates should also be, although in that particular respect there are very few people among the general populace who’d candidly admit to ever having done so even though everyone does it and its quite commonplace, should any longer be an issue for public debate far less become an obsession with some people who grandiosely and rather asininely set themselves up as the self-appointed spokespersons not only for homosexuals across the UK but the world as well.

We each of us knows, or should do, what our sexual predilections are and whether or not we feel comfortable with them; but none of us under any circumstance has the right or obligation to force our sexual preferences or perversions, for that matter, down the throats of others however much we might conceitedly, rather stupidly or utterly preposterously think that we have and inalienable right to do so.

Britain sees itself as and is internationally recognized as a sovereign state and its elected and not so elected, as is the case with the House of Lords, legislators if they get a parliamentary majority in their respective house pass what laws they like or think fit and the British public customarily accepts that. We might not like those laws but we can democratically take a number of necessary steps to have them repealed; the direst of these from the standpoint of our elected lawmakers and the incumbent government is to oust them from office at the next general election.

But however objectionable we might find our laws, and there are many nasty ones on our statute books, the average Brit would be most offended and take great exception to interfering outsiders telling us what laws we should passively obey and those that we should object to. That sentiment however because of Britain’s imperialist and colonialist past doesn’t seem to resonate with Brits when they essay to stick their unwanted and unwarranted noses into other peoples’ business and that includes the domestic affairs of other countries.

We none of us can choose our biological parents or are we ever given the chance to do so and consequently we cannot or could we ever have determined what our race, ethnicity or skin colour will ultimately be. Incitement to racial hatred for example is a crime in Britain but it doesn’t stop the British police who are supposed to be protectors of the law from being racist against Britain’s black minority through racial profiling and even the summary execution of such people; and the same routinely goes for the USA, all of continental Europe, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, as well as those other areas of the world where white Caucasian hegemony prevails.

So to see bumbling and utterly conceited imbeciles in Britain childishly throwing their dummies out of their prams and having an almighty and spiteful go at Russia’s female world record holder and champion pole-vaulter Elena Isinbaeva for basically defending the honour and dignity of her country and saying and doing nothing more than what most Britons would do if the boot was on the other foot is not only obtuse but also absolutely hypocritical.

For it’s unreservedly up to the Russian people what government they elect and for that country’s parliamentarians to pass what laws they see fit in the best interests of their fellow citizens, and this has nothing at all to do with anyone else but the Russians themselves, who can take the same steps as Brits or other westerners would to remove regimes which don’t take cognisance of their best interests.

But the matter becomes even more offensive in my view when homosexuality which is a western obsession among the well-heeled, chattering classes and the puerile that really like nothing better than to ape their so-called social betters is premeditatedly and orchestratedly in the most vile and coercive manner rammed down the throats of others even in Britain, much less Russia, where the vast majority of us aren’t homosexuals or lesbians. Open tolerance and a total non-discriminatory acceptance of homosexuality is one thing, however haughtily seeking to brainwash, blackmail or pressurize others who aren’t the least interested in or inclined to that kind of sexual orientation is in my view just as aberrant as the perceived and paranoid notion that imbecilic homophiles have that all heterosexuals somehow have it in for homosexuals, when frankly most people globally couldn’t care less what homosexuals get up to among themselves as long as their conduct doesn’t impact in anyway on their own individual lives.

What next I wonder; the embracing of paedophilia? For all this hyped controversial Russian law seeks to do is to protect minors from the undue influences of those with pronounced homosexual agendas; no different in my personal opinion from British laws protecting promiscuous and even overly willing but distinctly underage, white schoolgirls from predatory sexual grooming. Or are those prized idiots who either can’t or intentionally refuse to see the glaring similarities between the two scenarios going to say there are none because they will it so; while secretly knowing that most of our paedophiles are rich, celebrity and highly privileged white Caucasian males?

Qatar which is to host FIFA’s football world cup after Brazil beheads those who are convicted of homosexuality; and that sexual act is a crime there as it is in other Persian Gulf Arab Bantustans. But I don’t hear these same western hypocrites vilifying this barbarous treatment of homosexuals or even calling for a ban on Qatar’s hosting of the football world cup, and for the obvious reason that these Arab Bantustans are sycophantic satrapies of Britain and the rest of the west that allow the west, notably the USA to exert its pernicious hegemony in that troubled region, while Russia is enviously seen and maliciously portrayed through its obsequious media as an infuriating buffer against its further expansionist, imperialist and hegemonic thrust globally. Therefore Russia must be castigated and any vile, trumped up pretext that can be used to whip up resentment among an ill-informed, daft British and other western public against that country must be made use of to do so.

Finally, if homosexuality, which is quite lawful in Britain is such a redeeming facet of one’s life, why is it then that several among our political and other privileged elites who surreptitiously are homosexuals or lesbians frequently and voluntarily opt to go through life and even the pretence of sham heterosexual marriages, and you know of some of these high profile public and political figures that I’m talking about, rather than choose to be entirely open and quite proud advocates of what they actually are? Astoundingly queer behaviour if you ask me; that’s why I’m asking.

No comments:

Post a Comment