In Spain’s Prado Museum, there hangs one of the world’s masterpieces. Painted by Diego Velazquez, it is entitled Las Meninas.
Though the focus is on five-year-old Margarita Teresa of Spain, to the right of the young princess are two dwarfs. The woman, a German named Marie Barbola, gazes intently at the viewer.
It is hard for us moderns to realize that during the 17th century, little people like Barbola were considered less than human and were traded like toys among royalty for entertainment and amusement. Thank God for the contemporary changes in attitude toward little people.
But it is even more shocking to realize that in the past and in our own times, people are purposely made little in both body and mind in order evil ideologies are ratified or money is made–sometimes both.
Victor Hugo famously exposed the 17th century trade in children who had been deliberately deformed for fun and profit in his novel The Man Who Laughs. Gwynplaine, the hero of the story and the prototype for DC Comics’ “The Joker,” was deliberately disfigured; his face twisted into a permanent, hideous grin. Hugo writes:
“…[I]ndustrious manipulators of children had worked upon his face…[A] mysterious and occult science, which was to surgery what alchemy was to chemistry, had chiseled his flesh, evidently at a very tender age, and manufactured his countenance with premeditation…His face laughed. His thoughts did not.”
Hugo called those who crafted people as others formed bonsais Comprachicos:
“The Comprachicos worked on man as the Chinese work on trees. A sort of fantastic stunted thing left their hands; it was ridiculous and wonderful. They could touch up a little being with such skill that its father could not have recognized it. Sometimes they left the spine straight and remade the face. Children destined for tumblers had their joints dislocated in a masterly manner; thus gymnasts were made. Not only did the Comprachicos take away his face from the child; they also took away his memory. At least, they took away all they could of it; the child had no consciousness of the mutilation to which he had been subjected. Of burnings by sulphur and incisions by the iron he remembered nothing. The Comprachicos deadened the little patient by means of a stupefying powder which was thought to be magical and which suppressed all pain.”
Some scholars like John Boynton Kaiser have hastened to discount Hugo’s accounts of the comprachicos, even while acknowledging his scholarship on other matters. But the practice of deliberate deformation of children is unquestionably not obsolete, despite Kaiser’s revulsion over the practice and his scholarly state of denial concerning the cruelties of humans toward children. As he himself noted, the disfiguration of children for sport and profit has been a recorded practice from time immemorial. The practice has never been eradicated from any civilization.
In fact, in recent years, CNN featured true stories about the deliberate mutilation of children by gangs in Bangladesh and India. Little kids were and are deliberately mutilated and then sent out to beg for money which their tormentors then collect, only to send the children out on the streets yet again. The film Slum Dog Millionaire portrays such trade in maimed children with brutal honesty.
But Westerners should disabuse themselves of the idea that deliberate mutilation of children is not a problem within their own societies. On the contrary, the torture and mutilation of children and youth is quite in vogue, completely supported by the most radical wing of progressive ideology; namely, transgenderism.
What else but torture and mutilation would anyone term the processes deemed necessary to “transition” to the sex supposedly opposite of the one a person was born as? What else does one call the deliberate excision of perfectly normal uteruses, breasts and penises in order to create a distorted facsimile of the opposite sex? What else other than torture should we call the deliberate, life-long injection of hormones in order to transform men into “women” and women into “men?” Why are such ghastly practices allowed by and even approved of by legislatures that are hastening to remove any opposition to cruelties most people with consciences have rejected for punishing even sex offenders? Not many continue to advocate chemical or physical castration for convicted pedophiles; but there seems to be little opposition to castrating kids who are “transitioning.”
Is the current practice of bonsaiing children into a facsimile of the sex opposite from that with which they are born any different from the mutilation Comprachico surgeons practiced on Gwynplaine? Is “transitioning” children and youth by hormone therapy and surgery different than the practice of creating eunuchs to watch over harems, castrating male children in order they sing divinely or binding the feet of women so they were considered more sexually attractive?
No. It isn’t.
It is time for Americans to grasp what is really happening under the cover of “consent.” An insidious and evil sex cult is being allowed to convince children and youth that the bodies they have been given at birth are inherently arbitrary containers subject to malleability at will. They are being told a cure is available for the perceived malady of being born male or female–a cure that will irreversibly change their bodies into what they supposedly wish for. The result is that dozens of “clinics” devoted to enabling the mutilation of children are escaping the wrath and disgust their advocates and proprietors deserve.
Click here to read more.
SOURCE: Christian Post, Fay Voshell