The jury has been out a long time – but only because we are charitable, and he the Successor of Peter – to decide whether the Bishop of Rome is merely a minus habens or a positively evil one.
It is somewhat difficult to say, because the man is so unconcerned with contradicting himself in the most blatant way, so utterly indifferent whether he makes any sense at all or not, that a case of sheer stupidity cannot be excluded. What is certain, is that if a politician went around spreading the same nonsense day in and day out Francis regales us with, the world would laugh out loud, and he wouldn't be a politician for long.
Very recently, the Bishop of Rome gave us another stunning example of this astonishing behaviour: first he assured us that the Devil exists, and then he told us one of his most evil actions is to lead people to gossip.
As to the first part, yes we can read, and we know even the Gospel mentions the devil. Francis must think his audience have no idea at all of Christianity to make such platitudes the object of a homily. I mean, some not well meaning heretics may think that no one goes to hell, but no sane Christian would doubt the existence of the Devil.
Note, though, that in Francis' Catholic Disneyland there is no serious consequence attached to this existence of Satan: if God slaps us in the wrist at most – most days, I mean; on other days he sends you to hell if you are a mafioso; on no day common people are in danger of damnation – and following one's conscience is enough even if one is an atheist, Francis' Satan is nothing else than a bearded and horned nincompoop spinning around for no real or lasting purpose.
This cretinous thinking is shown by the other “teaching” of the Destroyer In Chief: Satan's great effort in order to lead us to… gossip.
Let us say it again: the same man living under the roof of a sodomite tells us the devil wants to make you gossip. How a man could be so senseless is difficult to even fathom, which is why on the balance one might well conclude Francis isn't really stupid, he just hopes we think so.
And by the way, why this obsession with gossip? Can it be entirely casual that we are confronted with a Bishop of Rome who, whilst the entire West sinks in a pit of sexual perversion and threatens Christianity in an increasingly more evident way even in the West, is concerned about… gossip?
Could it rather not be that this rather strange character has every reason to fear revelations concerning his own past, his own character, his own very sexual behaviour at some point or other? And that he tries to prevent this by warning us about thinking ill of… him? How can, otherwise, this fixation with gossip whilst Christianity drowns in a see of perversion and he himself lives near to sodomites be halfway rationally explained?
And if this is so – and it might well be so: this is a former bouncer, and they aren't known for being innocent violets; nor would he be the first prelate who is blackmailed because of his past – would it then not provide a logical, rational, understandable (but not justifiable) explanation of the astonishing silence of this man, worrying about gossip as the West sinks in a pit of sexual perversion and, soon, outright persecution of real Christians?
I am no fan of conspiracy theories, because conspiracy theories are, basically without exception, outlandish in their very object and obviously aimed at explaining some absurd theory behind them. But here it is different: what is outlandish, unreal, utterly absurd is a Pope concerned with gossip as Christianity is threatened all over the West, and to try to give a logical explanation to this absurd behaviour is, in fact, the rational and logical thing to do.
There is a perfectly logical – if morally untenable; but then Bergoglio was always morally untenable – explanation for a man apparently so astonishingly blind as this one: thatvthe gay mafia – in the Vatican or outside – has him in his hands. Then, it all makes sense: the necessity to keep the pervert near him, basically controlling through his staff everyone who gets in or out; the countless episodes of downplaying of both sodomitical behaviour and gay mafia, and the slowly absurd attempts at deflecting the attention from the issue of sexual perversion when the entire West doesn't talk of anything else.
Mind, this does not have to be so. The man would be Modernist enough in his outlook even if he were to notice the gravity of the sin of the sodomites, and would not surround himself with characters like Monsignor Ricca; and that he isn't a genius, but is very fond of popularity, should by now be clear even to a very dim intelligence.
It does not have to be so. But if you ask me it is plausible to think that it might be so; because it gives a logical, plausible, rational explanation to the absurd, outlandish, unreal, beyond stupid phenomenon of a Pope blabbering nonsense about gossip as the world is excoriated by the flame-throwers of the Gaystapo.
Prompted by a recent comment, I thought it useful to give a semi-serious – in this blog everything is worth a smile, but everything is deadly serious – instruction about what I think is the proper behaviour at the dreaded moment of the “sign of peace”.
I propose three scenarios, and the appropriate behaviour for them.
1. You refuse to give the sign of peace. You are immediately branded as a dangerous Neo-Pelagian. An enemy of Vatican II. A Franco follower. Good! in time, there might be more like you. Catholic dictators are vastly underrated.
2. You get offered the sign of peace by someone near you, in a very dignified way. The poor chap (or chapess) is clearly suffering, too. Give him the hand as you would at a funeral. Let him know you feel his pain, so that he can feel yours. Offer it up to God. He will probably do the same.
3. You get offered the “sign of peace” by some aspiring Florence Nightingale (again, of either sex) thinking she is rescuing you from your miserable existence full of conflict and quarrel and transporting you in the Wonderful World Of Peace. Repay her with the same money, returning her handshake with such compassionate transport as to let her look like Gekko on a bad day; pay attention that your eyes and your entire facial expression exude Unspeakable Cosmic Goodness, and always remember to “make the roof” with your eyebrows: assuming the wounded and suffering, but sympathetic expression of Charity Confronted With Disgrace. You might have to practice a bit in front of the mirror, but “the roof” can be mastered pretty well if you are an eager student.
So, that was it with my little suggestions. Take them as you please, and practice them as much as you like.
If anyone should complain of your lack of sensitivity (point 1) or exaggerated zeal (point 3) act as follows:
1. Become extremely “hurt” and “wounded”.
2. Make sure everyone around you notice.
3. Go on until the offender apologises. Mercilessly, and with true “wounded bitch” passive-aggressive attitude. Then assume the convalescing expression of the one who might never get rid of the scar, but will – now that apologies were made – start to “heal” the wound. Possibly. And very slowly, anyway.
The Triduum is coming. You may have some need for these little skills.
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
This post is going to be harsh.
I mean, not pussycat harsh. Mundabor harsh. Keep reading at your peril. Complaints will not be published.
Where I grew up, divorce was a heavy social stain. It was already so in bigger cities; but far more so in littler ones.
The reasoning was, and is, very simple because in the end, life is a simple thing: marriage is a cooperation for life, for which two people decide to stake the only card they have. It is also the most important decision of their lives. Therefore, if the marriage fails they have – irrespective of the individual circumstances – both failed in the most important thing of their lives. It’s as simple as that.
I can’t tell you the times I have heard this music in my family, and I can tell you my family was not dominated by churchgoing Catholics –…
View original 1,656 more words
This is the statement of Bishop Jugis on “Charlottegate”.
That such an exercise in lameness and cowardice could be saluted with satisfaction in some quarters is a clear sign of how little we expect from our bishops, to the point that everytime they do not “pull a Francis” we see this as good news.
The bishop’s statement is below. My comments in red.
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
The past few weeks have been very difficult for Charlotte Catholic High School. We have all experienced a great deal of pain. During this difficult time I want to express my support and encouragement for all the parents, students, staff and faculty at the high school. We must move forward toward healing with charity, the hallmark of our Christian life.
There we are again. Some people have “experienced a great deal of pain”. No wait, we all have. What sissies we all are. We are such sissies that we now need the “support and encouragement” of the bishop for everyone. Are the janitorial employees “staff”? If not, should they feel excluded? Aren’t they “experiencing a great deal of pain”, too?
Different viewpoints regarding Sr. Jane Dominic Laurel’s presentation to students on March 21, 2014, have been discussed in a variety of venues.
At the parent meeting on April 2, 2014, many expressed concern about the lack of advanced communication with parents regarding the subject matter of the assembly. Apologies were made at the meeting for that lack of advanced communication.
I’ll take it “advanced” means here “previous”. You see, the problem is that nowadays you can’t teach Catholicism without giving fair warning. “Achtung! Catholic morality will be touched upon”! Apologies were made for not telling in advance Sister would talk sound Catholicism. This is less than lame. This is positively gay (in the non-sexual meaning of the term: “stupid, lame, weak”. Isn’t it wonderful how the the vox populi reacts to PC impositions…)
The content of the Church’s moral teaching was not raised as a matter of contention at the parent meeting. All of our Catholic schools are committed to hold and teach the Catholic faith in its fullness and with integrity. The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains an explanation of our faith and is accessible to all.
Church teaching is not contested. It is just not talked about. So much so, that when this happens without “advanced communication”, a mess ensues. Clearly, the Bishop sees the problem in this “advanced communication” not having been given.
During this difficult time I support the continued work of Fr. Matthew Kauth, the chaplain; Mrs. Angela Montague and Mr. Steve Carpenter, the assistant principals; and Mr. Randy Belk, the dean of students; and all they are doing for our Charlotte Catholic High School students. All of us are indebted to them.
More “difficult time” stuff. Everyone and his cat is hurt. How sad. But the bishop supports everyone. These are the people who run a school in which Catholicism gives scandal. How nice of the bishop to support them. Keep up the bad work, folks.
I am shocked to hear the disturbing reports of a lack of charity and respect at the parents’ meeting, and outside the meeting in conversations and in social media. There simply is no room in the Catholic Church for such displays of uncharitableness and disrespect. If we have failed in this regard let us make amends to God and neighbor. Even when we disagree, that disagreement should be expressed respectfully in love.
The words “shut up, bitch!” should not have been uttered. Shockingly uncharitable. I think we should agree with the Bishop. In future, please say: “with all due respect: shut up, bitch!”.
We ask the Lord Jesus Christ for His mercy and His healing as we approach the celebrations of Palm Sunday, Holy Week and Easter Sunday of the Lord’s Resurrection. Please be assured of our continued dedication to the mission to teach and live the truth of the Catholic faith at our Charlotte Catholic High School.
We bla bla, bla bla; bla. bla, & bla.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Most Reverend Peter J. Jugis
Bishop of Charlotte
A once successful singer marries a once rather famed TV presenter. Lately, he has reached his fame mainly with a “benefit” initiative that brought him a lot of Bono-like notoriety. His wife is, as said, known on her own.
They have, I think, two children. But husband and children is not exciting enough, and the wife runs away with another, far more famous rock star. The latter is also drug addict, and certainly unstable.
The two – actually, the three – start the usual war for the custody of the children. The wife almost dies of an overdose, but I can't remember if this is before or after the famous rock star commits suicide. Doesn't matter, because the original father manages to take the children anyway. But wait, I think first the mother dies of booze or drugs, too; it could be after losing the children, though, but I am not sure, because these aren't the people who say “let's try to be responsible, we have children”. The children she has – two from the not-so-fanous singer, one from the worldwide famous one – all have names you would give to cats, or rather names that children would give to cats.
The not-so-famous singer then gets the children, and actually adopts child number three, the one of the famous singer who has committed suicide. The famous singer, say his friends, would have rolled in his tomb knowing that his “enemy” got his own child. Could have avoided suicide, you might say. It's not so surprising the only father of this triangle who has not taken his life should get the children, is it now?
Predictably, the children grow up emotionally wrecked. Let us count: two of them had mama and stepfather taking their lives through suicide or excess (note the word, by the way), the third both his natural parents. The percentage of drug addicts at some time or other among the parents is thus never below 50%, with peaks of 100%. You can call this a very “interesting” family background.
The poor children have to cope with the mess, because only the idiots refuse to acknowledge that the sin of the fathers – and the mothers – will be visited upon the sons. At least one also becomes a drug addict; almost dies of an overdose – like her mother – but then recovers. Or says she does. She dies suddenly some days ago, for reason not easy to ascertain, probably simply medical ones because there are no obvious signs of suicide or overdose. She leaves children also named like cats. The sins of the fathers and the mothers have visited the children and, at the same time, grandchildren. You read all the names in the newspapers, and think the articles is about an institution for abandoned cats. No one seems to link the names – and the entirely de-Christianised environment they betray – and the tragedies.
I do. Go on, call me a “holy card face”.
This further tragedy in the family – I almost forgot: at twenty-five the young woman was already at the second marriage; but again the children of drug-addicted, suicides or both together rarely tend to make good marriage material; at least bar a conversion of which there is no trace here, as indicated by the children, all named like cats – leaves more children irrimediably scarred. The father expresses his sorrow, and seems not to have the faintest idea whence all these tragedies come. He seems to live in a planet where bad actions and their consequences are entirely disconnected, and tragedies just happen; mind, the last tragedy might have simply “happened”, but human actions are what caused all the rest.
The public is informed of this Hiroshima-style family, and you don't read anywhere a word of warning; I do not say a warning concerning the obvious truth that the sins of the father – and the mothers – will be visited upon the sons; but not even concerning the immense tragedy of having people taking drugs, quarrelling, committing suicide; leaving behind them people who take drugs, quarrel, and perhaps will, one day, commit suicide.
Not one word of warning. Too “judgmental”, you see. People simply register the facts, and consider them parts of the “lifestyle” of “celebrities”. What hell the life of such people must have been, must still be if they aren't such children that they can't even feel the pain of an adult, the public does not care. This is, most emphatically, not a cautionary tale. An excuse for easy emoting, at most.
It will be weeks before the causes of the death of the young woman will be made known. We can only hope and pray she died of natural causes, and at least, so to speak, halfway in the grace of God.
Looking at it coolly, the chances aren't great.
Let it be a cautionary tale. The sins of the fathers, and all that.
Two future parents are informed their unborn child will die shortly after birth. The baby is now 20 weeks old in the womb. The parents decide to bring the pregnancy to the end, and allow the child to live for as long as he can. They are, obviously, photographed with him. The child dies after around ten hours.
The usual Nazis mock the parents because they have decided to face months of difficulties – somehow these people don't get that pregnancy is one of the most natural processes one can imagine – for ten hours of life. To them, this is clearly what the old Nazis called lebensunwertes Leben, “life unworthy of living”. One must say XXI Century Nazis have learned Hitler's lesson by rote.
But this post is – stupid and blog worthy as the rant of XXI Nazis are – not about them. It is about the baby.
Has he been baptised?
In the article I have read from the “Pewsitter”, I found no mention of it. The controversy seems merely about the defence of human life. But this does not consider the fact that a human life is so infinitely worthy because it is the life of an infinitely worthy soul; and that issues concerning afterlife are, be definition, infinitely more important than the duration of this life's sojourn on earth.
And it pains me, it pains me to tears to think that perhaps the baby has been brought so near to an eternal destination of supernatural glory and the parents have thought of the photographer, but have not thought of baptism. They might have, of course, and the article has merely not informed us of it. But what a crushing thought to think that they might have not; or that they might have thought there is no need for it, because hey, God doesn't require that we follow His rules, right?
If the same article had appeared, say, sixty years ago about a child who died shortly after birth, there would have probably been no need for the information about the baptism. The child was baptised. Duh.
Nowadays, though, things aren't so easy. Pro-life doesn't necessarily mean “Christian”, or even “Believer”. It might mean either none of those, or some strange and vague belief in some strange and vague cosmic force. It might even mean a sort of home-made Christianity, that thinks it can do without Baptism!
If this is not so, and the child has been baptised, then even this sad event has a glorious happy end, and certainty of Paradise for a child now much better off than any of us, who are all at risk of damnation and struggling with sin, as the happy child is already enjoying inconceivable glory and supernatural happiness forever.
If it is not so, and the child has not been baptised, the child's destiny is – for all we can see, and as the Church teaches us to believe – Limbo, which is still an irreparable loss compared to the supernatural happiness of the Divine Presence; and for which, by the way, there was no need of the child being born at all. If Limbo it was, the child is – sub specie aeternitatis – not better off than if he had been aborted; earning the avoidance of a horrible death and ten hours of life on earth, but still losing the Great Prize.
Once again: I hope the child has been baptised. But it is very sad to reflect that in the middle of the sated, gizmo-saturated, HD Western society this might not have been the case; and that this might not have been the case because we are living in times of vanishing Christianity, in which faith in the Christian God is becoming for huge masses – and, in many ways, the occasional Pope – an echo, a vague and distant concept, or a faint belief in an all-forgiving, all-merciful, Hollywood-generated Force that does not require anything from anyone: not Christian morality, much less Baptism.
Kathleen Sebelius' destiny appeared, to external observers like yours truly, sealed for a while already. It was evident to any halfway skilled observer that a mess like Obamacare would need for people very high in the chain of command to fall on his sword, so that the Emperor may go on living. The approaching mid-term elections also made it utterly unthinkable to continue for much longer without an Officially Sacrificed Scapegoat. Therefore, the female was clearly a goner. Today, it was announced she was finally ordered to fall on her sword. No, they didn't put it this way. But you and I can see through the usual spinmeisters' crap, that persuades only those who don't need persuading.
I now predict Obamacare will undergo the same fate of Communism: as the real existing one continues to wreak havoc in the lives of countless people, the die-hard fans will insist the problem is merely in the implementation, which could have been better, but clearly not in the product itself. Whose fault it is, that Sebelius did not realise the Obamian Utopia, we will never be told. The locusts, probably. The earthquake. Certainly not the godless madness of the Emperor, who is Divine and therefore above success and failure.
Sebelius' political demise marks the day the Obama administration openly – though still not officially – admits Obamacare is a huge liability, and the situation is now called “red alert”. The attempt starts today to say the mess is not Obama's fault. He was betrayed by people he trusted. Not because he is an idiot, but because he flies too high for the dirt and little miseries of this world, where Christians demand that their religious freedom is respected, companies are fed up with having additional costs burdened of them, simple citizens discover every day the same, and everyone realises whenever Barry tells you you can keep something, you had better start saying farewell to it now.
Obamacare is in shambles. The Biggest Possible Scapegoat has been slaughtered today. All the problems remain. Barry has nowhere to hide, though the army of boot lickers will shield him as they can. I don't think the midterm will be a great joy to him, making him even lamer than he is now, and with the party scrambling for a face saving castration of Obamacare before the 2016 elections care for it themselves. We shall see.
But it's good to see Kathleen meet the same end as her almost identical twin, depicted above.
The Pope has started a series of talks about the Gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Can’t wait he arrives to the last: the fear of the Lord.
After the Firefox events, I stumbled upon the “Faith Driven Consumer” site.
The way I understand they work is that they put companies in relation to each other in matter of anti – Christian behaviour, allowing the consumer to be informed of alternatives that are at least less bad; which is, when it leads to punishing anti-Christian behaviour, just as good.
In fact, we live in a world that is becoming so corrupt that different companies can only be distinguished by their degree of studity. But even so, it is very useful to know that Apple is considered much worse than Microsoft or Acer, even if these fall short of the mark, too.
By choosing to punish the worst offender, you are already giving your little contribution in what interest these people, or rather their shareholder, most: the bottom line. Profit is a powerful motivator, and as the liberal troops have been using their boycott threats to cow big companies into submission, the same can be done, far more effectively, by the silent majority, actually even when it is not majority anymore.
If we only stopped to be always so darn “nice” to these bastards, and understood that this is not a time for tea and scones, things would change very fast.
I invite my readers to post links to similar sites, and to inform the others about the possibilities we have as informed Christians. Of course they do not have to be Catholic sites. Please also send to me links of sites in other languages like Spanish, French, etc.
If you visit a site like, say, “men are like wine” with Opera, Internet Explorer, or Chrome (or any other) you will be let in without problems.
But if you try to access it with a Firefox browser you get a site that says “Firefox is blocked for this site” on the title, with the caption ” Due to Mozilla’s policy of intolerance towards those who hold “the wrong views” we have decided to block Firefox from this site. Please consider downloading another browser”.
Unfortunately, for what I can see now this app is only available for WordPress.org, which is the more professional (and not free, and therefore not anonymous) WordPress platform. Yours truly is on wordpress.com (the free, and therefore anonymous one).
If anyone has ways (that are accessible to people not very versed into these things) to have such a page appear on a WordPress.com site, please give a shout.
Those of you who use the WordPress.org platform might, on the other hand, be interested in this app. It is called simply “browser blocker” and you can download it from
Enjoy the blocking!
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
A bakery refuses to bake a cake for a couple of fags wanting to pantomime a God-made institution for their perverted aims.
They say no, as they had done several times in the past. But this time, several death threats follow.
The fags also launch the usual facebook boycott campaign. As a result, the business increases substantially.
You see, what these cretins do not understand is that the more they agitate the waters, the more people wake up and discover that they have had enough of political correctness, and the time has come to take a stand. And so many honest, if perhaps tepid Christians march to the shop of the brave Christian, and spend money by him. Be assured that when they get out, they are a little less tepid already.
May God bless this brave man and prosper his business, and let us really hope judicial Gaystapo-activism…
View original 23 more words
We are informed that Bishop Campbell of Lancaster (the same, I believe, who silenced Deacon Nick of “Protect The Pope” blog fame) has now invited the Institute of Christ The King Sovereign Priest to take over a famous landmark in his diocese, St Walburge in Preston.
There are still, I think, thousands of Jesuits around, and one wonders why the Bishop has not asked some of those progressive and mercifu followers of the Spirit to take over.
Perhaps – just thinking out loud here – because their average age travels toward 75, they are now largely to be found in hospices and hospitals, and the Spirit hasn't treated them very kindly; though, I am sure, better than they deserve.
The reality is, I think, clear for all of us to see. The Bishop does not want the shame of having to close such a prestigious landmark, which would be an obvious witness of his failure as a bishop. At the same time, he recognises that inviting some old tambourine players to take over the place would not be a solution, because they would never be able to make a fairly expensive place like this one viable. The only solution seem, therefore, to see whether those can be persuaded who have the priests, the energy, the means, the faith, and the confidence in their mission to take over.
Which, I think, is what just happened.
The bishop has recognised that – no matter how many effort are made to stop this development – the future speaks Latin.
My affectionate readers already know Maria Miller, because I have already written how – bar a desirable but improbable repentance – she is going to hell.
What many of my readers might not know is that said Mrs Miller was forced to resign this morning, after her political backside had looked more and more threatened by that kind of torpedo-shaped same-sex loving she so eagerly celebrates.
In Mrs Miller case, the scandals had compounded. A first enquiry about her expenses had led to veiled threats to the press, as the female put – through third parties – her role in the proposed regulation of the press into play. Not very classy; not very intelligent, either; and in short, very Sicilian: capisci? Needless to say, the press was, erm, not impressed, and the female in trouble.
To these two scandals others were adding. The fine of around £50,000 proposed by an independent commission for the expense matter was reduced to around a tenth of the original amount by a committee of MPs, which in itself was scandalous and self-serving enough. But the same-sex-loving female made it worse, appearing in Parliament and giving the shortest and most arrogant of apologies. The men at the chronometer dissent here: some said 32 seconds, some 34, some actually 28. Whichever it was, it was another demonstration the woman is unfit to represent her cat, and a prime example of MP entitlement and arrogance.
When it turned out she had, finally, sold a property with more than £1m profit and not paid a penny of Capital Gain Tax through a trick legally allowed to MPs but morally not acceptable – and not open to the likes of us – it was clear she was, as the Italians so beautifully say, a political walking corpse. It is, in fact, indicative of the incompetence and lack of contact with the common people of this Prime Minister that he thought he could save himself and his government this embarrassment by defending her when the flak was massive and, even, strongest from his own party. But then again Cameron never cared for his party, so all normal here.
On Tuesday afternoon, even my cat was moving his head in disbelief. By late Tuesday evening, Cameron had given Mrs Miller, in a personal meeting, a huge Celebration Dildo – a metaphorical one, I know; but surely a very painful one nevertheless – as a “thank you” for her useful work on the side of the nation's perverts. Time to practice what she preaches, I am afraid. This does call for a celebration. By mid-morning today, the gift – and his metaphorical use – had been made public.
Good riddance to Mrs Miller. She will go – bar an always welcome repentance – to hell anyway. But it is nice to know that her political career, built very largely upon the promotion and celebration of sexual perversion, has now ended with her nose in full contact with a pavement concrete slab, and her name is now running for the prize of Most Arrogant MP After The 2009 Expenses Scandal.
I hope she enjoyed the metaphorical same-sex loving.
She deserved – metaphorically speaking, of course – nothing less.
A word that I read around more and more often is “healing”.
If I understand correctly, by that is meant that someone was said that “hurt” someone else, and this someone will now need some – or a lot of – time to allow the great wound caused by someone he doesn't know, and wasn't talking to him, has caused him.
Say someone is inverted – or divorced and remarried – and fully ok with it, but still pretending he is a Catholic. He listens to a conference or speech or whatever, where the Catholic speaker says that unrepentant sodomites go to hell, the sin of sodomy cries to Heaven for vengeance, and a couple of other things I knew as a child, before even making my first Communion.
Our “man” is then entirely incensed. As he was told facts of Catholic doctrine that apply to him, he is hurt; as a consequence, he has the right to be offended, and the world must now show solidarity and support to him, and help him in his healing process.
This happens nowadays, at least in some societies, not only in extreme cases – one understands a real trauma would require a real healing, because a real wound has occurred -, but everytime everyone hasn't liked something that can be referred to him. Then, the entire community feels bound to perform the exercise described above and finds it not only normal, but necessary.
If anyone within this very community – say, the local church – where, then, to point out that facts are facts and Truth is Truth, and those who are hurt by facts and can't hear the Truth should take a hard look at themselves rather than whining like wet pussicats would be immediately accused of being even more insensitive, even more hurtful, and causing the need of an even longer “healing”.
One truly wonders what has become not only of humanity, but of manhood.
I get promised hell with beautiful regularity on this blog, for no other reason than the author of the promise not liking some sound piece of Truth. Do you think I even consider being “hurt”, and write blog posts vilifying the commenter who “hurt” me so bad, and looking for “healing”? “Help me, dear blog readers! I am sooo hurt! Unless you show me full support, I will stop blogging, because I am soooo hurt!”
I push a button, the crap is flushed out, and that's that.
I wonder what has happened to a country where even boys and men – those who should be ready to die to defend their Fatherland and loved ones – can't even cope with abstract criticism without throwing a tantrum; and where women abandoning themselves to excesses of bitchiness are constantly encouraged to bitch even more by those – to wit: the men – to whom God has given the task to keep their bitchiness in check.
Nothing of this is to be seen anymore. It's a huge “hurting” and “suffering” and right to “healing”. Personal happiness is the new god. If anyone should cause Christ to disturb it, he should be vilified as the masses of sensitive heart bleeders run to the rescue of the wet pussicats, and feel such good people that Christ should learn from them.
What has happened in Charlotte is not only the result of a minority of bitching people; it is, tragically, the result of a diffused mentality that encourages and rewards bitching instead of taking a sound approach and react with chosen words chiselled by the wisdom of past centuries; like “take a hike”, “who cares” and the immortal, extremely pithy “shut up, bitch”.
Alas, we live in politically correct times.
The bitches run the show.
It's the others who shut up.