Sweden is a sick country. Traits that were historically associated with our people such as self-sacrifice, duty, and family have been inverted and replaced. Children are a secondary concern. Individualistic spouses care more about themselves than their offspring and each other. This is especially the case with husbands who have abandoned their masculine duty to defend their family and nation.
One afternoon I stumbled across a court case that reveals how Swedish society has morphed into something unrecognizable and alien to those who came before us.
The story begins with a lesbian relationship, where one of the women has undergone “sex reassignment therapy” and thus legally became a man. The couple decided to procreate via artificial insemination and the so-called ”man” thereby became regarded as the father of the child via presumption of paternity. The newborn child was duly informed that the bearded lady taking testosterone supplements was her father. Better known as “the bearded mother”. After a couple of years the child’s mother decided, presumably for personal reasons, that the child should appeal in court so as to invalidate the bearded mothers paternity status. Why? Well, because the bearded mother is a sterile woman and could therefore not be the father of the child, despite the fact that legislators actually claim that ”he” is a man. Make sense? Somewhat confusing for an outsider to say the least, but the confusion is sanctioned by absurd family laws and the mawkish attitude of the Swedish people who lack the will to defend traditional values.
What the courts final decision was is not very interesting. What is interesting to consider are the choices the parents made to end up in this situation and why the choices are problematic, not to mention immoral.
Just to clarify: they’ve decided to artificially conceive a child, without reflecting on whether or not it is wise to let the child be born into a family without a father. This child’s father is a woman who has undergone surgery and testosterone therapy. The child will simply have to become accustomed and accept this state of affairs until, all of a sudden, the child is told that “he’s” really not her father because ”he” is actually a sterile woman and could therefore not be her father because “he” couldn’t have impregnated her mother! When the child is in her teens it probably won’t come as a surprise to any of us if she ends up in psychiatric care.
The oft-repeated platitude ”think of the children” is highly applicable here.
It is obvious that cultural marxism and self-centeredness are the concepts that these guide these people. They have made a row of selfish decisions without giving a thought in the world to the effect this might have on others around them. They have, with a clean conscience, ignored their duty to their surroundings and continue to act egocentrically at every given opportunity without ever putting the child first.
One can’t help but wonder if they are aware of their actions or if they are simply naïve. I guess they lie to each other and say things like: ”Why can’t two women raise a child? Isn’t the most important thing our love for each other?” and ”Does the child really need a present biological father?”
Even if ”rainbow families” try to become a normative part of our society, this example has to be regarded as one of the more extreme cases of Swedish decadence, nonetheless it describes the contemporary state of affairs well and reveals the need for a genuine opposition.
Source: Göta hovrätt mål nr T 2656-13.
Author is a Swedish law student