UKIP Gives Up To Faggotry
Some of you might have wondered why I have not endorsed the UKIP for last week’s elections.
The reason is that the UKIP is giving up to organised faggotry at alarming speed; therefore, whilst I would see with pleasure the once conservative Party bring harmed by them in a very same-sex way I did not think I could, in conscience, support them through this blog.
Today I got a further confirmation why. It has transpired the party has now suspended one of his just elected Councillors for calling Elton John and his live-in aberrosexual “perverts”, besides referring to perverts in general with fitting terms like “fags” and “dykes”.
Heavens, this is exactly the kind of people the Country needs! People who are not afraid to exercise their right of free speech, and forcefully react against the Gaystapo now trying to invade every aspect of this Nation’s life! But no, a party occupied with becoming as stupid as the Tories decides that facts are too much of an inconvenience, and decides to give itself the usual oh so tolerant face that is, in actual fact, a hammering on Christian values.
This is the first generation since the outset of Christianity in which perversion cannot even be called such without incurring the ire of people who call themselves “Christians”.
A clear sign that this is the first post-Christian generation in the history of Europe.
How fitting that even Popes would have as unofficial slogan “who am I to judge?”.
Mundabor
Share this:
Posted on May 29, 2014, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged homosexuality, UKIP. Bookmark the permalink. 12 Comments.
Mundabor's Blog 
There is going to come a time in the not too distant future….first across Europe and then eventually in America…..when “Christians” are wondering why muslims run their respective nations. The embracing of abortion and homosexuality will be two of the big reasons.
Their own political correctness and desire not to be “controversial” or “rude” will be the third.
It will not be the same tea and scones with the muezzin shouting from the minaret outside…
M
UKIP, by the very fact that it is a democratic political party, is steeped in enlightenment values, none of which is strictly compatible with traditional Catholicism.
I agree we shouldn’t water down or compromise our values; but equally, in the political game, does it make sense to tolerate prominent members alienating potential allies, when we have bigger fish to fry?
If a faggot hates the EU tyranny and will vote UKIP to end it, he is my ally and yours in that fight; I can see why the party wants to discourage impassioned preachments from prominent members on side-issues such as faggotry which risk alienating the electorate. When the EU tyranny is deposed, we can worry about faggots. For the time being, we need to build the largest, most united political front we can. If that means working with protestants, fags, atheists – many libertarians are atheists -, so be it. We’re all Englishmen, and we all have a stake in keeping this show on the road.
I’d never want to be a politician myself; I don’t think my faith would allow it, at least, I don’t think my faith would allow me to do it successfully, principally because I won’t keep schtum on issues such as e.g. contraception, divorce, and homosexuality. But if we decide we ought to vote at all, I think we ought to decide to vote for UKIP.
But the fact is, the tyranny of isolating those who say “faggot” is exactly the same tyranny in quality, if less devastating from an economic point of view.
Anyway, I do not cry for votes given to them. I think they merely do not deserve that I extol them as a party they should vote.
M
Fair enough.
It is for facts like this that I often wonder whether it is moral to vote at all. How could there ever be a bona fide Catholic “party”, when our natural mode of operation is charity, not force of numbers?
I look at UKIP as – at best – a blunt, rough-and-ready battering ram, to be discarded once the walls are breached. The UKIP brand of liberalism leaves a lot to be desired, and falls far short of Catholicism; but in the meanwhile if I have to choose from any number of evils, I’d prefer to have the least of them.
I share your view.
In the modern days, every party must be seen as a disposable broom; something you use to get rid of something else, and discard at your convenience.
UKIP can be useful is in killing a certain view of the tory party, according to which not being conservative is the new conservatism. From there, it can be hoped that a new conservative energy in the Tory party will emerge.
M
O well, I must write on this…
M
Yes, there are always two elements to this: the spiritual/religious and the practical. To be a purist means you win in the first but lose in the second.
To oppose the devastation that Francis intends to wreak requires being good at the second in order to build numbers, while not losing one’s soul, so to speak.
It would be enough if they were to state their programmatical opposition, and their intention to abort the law as soon as practicable. But they do not do even that. They have stated they would not change the law, as they punish their own who speak openly.
There is nothing spiritual in that.
M
What I mean is that no politician or party is “good”. All we can do is to say that one is not as bad as the others, or else never vote at all. Politics is a dirty world that is apart from spirituality.
It’s a difficult thing, to be in this world, but not of it.