Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
In my neck of the wood it is becoming more frequent to see pregnant women wearing a “baby on board” badge. Whilst this is very nice, it must also be noted no one asks the women in question where is the baby they are supposed to be carrying, or whether they have forgotten him at home. Everyone knows the baby is the human being inside her mother, a human life obviously and naturally perceived as such.
Isn’t it strange that a society which so unquestioningly accepts the creature in the womb is a baby also unquestioningly allows this baby to be killed, perfectly legally and basically – if not formally – on demand?
But then again this is the same society which claims to value marriage and family, but allows perverts to live together as faggot & faggot (or lesbian and lesbian) without any problem. Par for the course, then.
View original 1 more word
I continue to not understand the confusion and disorientation of many Catholics – even readers of this blog – when confronted with the horrible deeds of Pope Francis. It is as if they realised that they have a horrible Pope, and found the fact unprecedented and very difficult to cope with.
The crude reality is that Catholicism has already seen it all. A Pope openly siding with heresy, to the point of excommunicating Athanasius and forbidding the Creed in Church? Check. A Pope declared a heretic by no less than an ecumenical council? Check. A Pope openly espousing obviously and gravely heretical ideas? Check. A Pope announcing that he is minded to make of his heretical ideas a dogma of the Church? Check. Popes who were fornicators, thieves, gluttons, corrupts, or curruptors? Check, check, check, check, and check.
We must realise that the protection given by the Holy Ghost to the Church is of limited nature, and is meant to safeguard nothing more than the core of her activity, without which she would not be able to fulfill her function. It is to the clergy and the laity to provide for many vocations of sound quality and a diffused expectation of sound clergymen, in order for the Church to grow and prosper. But there is no guarantee of growth, of prosperity, even of continued existence in your particular country or even continent.
Whilst the comparison has the limits of all comparisons, you can make a parallel between a Pope and a history professor. History has an awful lot of incontrovertible historical facts. Facts can't be changed, or interpreted away. If a professor starts teaching that Abraham Lincoln was born in Ghana, and Jesus in Rome, does it mean that he is not a professor? No, he is still one. He will, bar further episodes, for the moment still have the same job, with the same title, the same job description, and the same wage. But his pupils will understand that he is a horrible professor; one who, in fact, is unworthy of the job and should never have been allowed to teach in a primary school, much less a university.
Does the teaching of the stupid, ignorant, arrogant professor change the facts? Of course not. Can you say “either his statements are right, or he is not a professor”? No. Can you deny the acts that he puts in place in his quality as professor? No.
What you have there is an ugly professor, nothing more and nothing less.
Now, the Holy Ghost merely guarantees that a Pope will not proclaim a heretical dogma, something a professor can't do even with an orthodox one. Every rubbish a teacher can produce, a Pope can, too; but he will, of course, not be able to change truth; no more than a professor could change historical facts, or mathematical rules, or laws of physics.
Truths are things. They are, in fact, far more solid than them, because they will be there when the entire universe has been dissolved in a spark. Can Popes make universes? No? Well, then….
Then there is the other question: what's the big difference between saying that we have a rubbish Pope, and saying that we have no Pope? The difference is simply immeasurable.
Bad Popes are as much a part of the fabric of the world as bad people. Popes are people. Some Popes will be bad, or very bad. Unpleasant, but physiological. Like having to walk near a field in the time of dunging.
Sedevacantism, on the other hand, is a way to the abyss. If the Pope is no Pope, his Cardinals aren't Cardinals. Therefore, his successor is also an impostor. And at this point there is no way to say how – bar having Angels coming down from Heaven – the legitimate office of legitimate popes and cardinals can be restored. It is every bit like shooting yourself in the head because you have a severe headache, and thinking that God, in His mercy, will restore your brains to full functionality punctually by tea time, when the headache has gone.
The implications of Sedevacantism, the wheels that the thinking would set in motion if thought to the end – which most Sedes accurately avoid – are absolutely immense. They are tantamount to destroying the visible Church out of love for the visible Church. It is Dr Strangelove's approach to the crisis in the Church.
And as we are there, allow me two words on the Western Schism.
There never were two Popes, or three. There always was only one, and Rome always knew and said who he was. There can never be two Popes, or three, in charge. This is why Benedict is merely a Pope Emeritus, one who used to have the office of the Pope; but now only keeps the title, without the function, like every professor emeritus does. It's also not so that at some point all those popes resigned, paving the way for the end of the schism. Only one Pope has resigned. The others were not Popes, period.
It's not complicated, or confusing, in the least. The confusion only begins when the faithful start to attribute some kind of almost magical power, or alternatively an almost magical divine protection, to the Pope; making of him a man who can't ever be heretical, not even a material heretic, without their own understanding of the Papacy crumbling.
Of course a Pope can be a material heretic. History teaches this as an incontrovertible fact, that is not for me or you to accept or refuse, but merely to acknowledge in its hard reality of crude historic event.
Learn to cope with the events, and Catholic teaching will make wonderful sense exactly concerning papal infallibility and the Indefectibility of the Church. Take refuge in a fantasy world where no Pope ever behaves theologically badly, and you are on your way to Dr Strangelove's solution.
For the second time in a matter of weeks, the combox of a blog belonging to the egregious commercial enterprise for those of all faiths and none has been closed; and for the second time, the closure was obviously occasioned by the number of Catholics reminding the blog author of what Catholicism is, and making him – or her – look rather stupid in the process.
Mind, these commenters still are the rose water Catholics, those who are generally fine with the rose water approach to these turbulent times. Still, even among those Catholic feelings are often still developed enough, that when the blog author tries to sell the adulterous and homosexual lie as Jesus' Very Truth the reaction is nuclear.
Of course, these are not the first blogs to shut the combox. But in all other cases I know, the reason was an authentic enthusiasm of the commenters, who flocked to take part to the battle; and then became too many, say, or at times too heated. Comment moderation takes an awful lot of time.
This here is different. These here are comboxes closed in order to prevent their very own authors from being utterly exposed as – I am being gentle here – weathervane Catholics.
Close the combox, then. Keep writing for the mainstream of either non-Catholics or very vincibly ignorant Catholics desirous to read what pleases them. It makes commercial sense. For an angry commenter on the combox making clear what a bad Catholic the author is there will always be ten, thirty or fifty ready to delude themselves that dissent is an acceptable position, or truth changes according to the Pope of the day, or the Church will change her doctrinal positions if they are but patient enough.
Fake Catholics readers need fake Catholic bloggers; and as the readers are by far the greater number there is no doubt the fake blogs will continue to prosper, catering to the “emotional needs” of adulterers, abortionists and sexual perverts.
That's were the numbers are. That's what makes certain commercial blog operations prosper. That's what the ignorant, self-deluded “mainstream” wants to hear. That's how you sell the lies of the world as the Truth of Christ.
The recipe is simple: flattery and lie. Tell your, say, perverted readers Jesus would march with the perverts.
They will never stop supporting your lifestyle.
Nine attention whores who desecrated Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris in a “protest” occasioned by Pope Benedict's abdication have been acquitted.
This means, more or less, that it will now be possible to repeat such “performances” with very little fear of big trouble; like, for example, a real conviction with real jail time. As there is no scarcity for this kind of exhibitionist whores, expect these episodes to be on the increase.
I wonder what would happen if the very same whores did the same in a Parisian Mosque? Perhaps they should try? It would be interesting to see whether the judges put them in jail, or it has to be ritual beheading.
The persecution is coming. Fuelled, among others, by all those marshmallow Catholics always ready to have understanding for everyone and everything, and for whom being a Christian means firstly, secondly, thirdly and lastly to avoid any confrontation.
The intrepid Pontiff has given us another example of his half-childish, half-socialist mentality.
Speaking about the works of mercy, the Pontiff has conveniently omitted to remind his audience of the fact that there are not only corporal, but also spiritual works of mercy; of which some, like “instruct the ignorant, “admonish the sinner” and “counsel the doubtful” are so accurately avoided in this pontificate that one wonders whether the old man is aware of their existence in the first place. Unless, of course, admonish the sinner would mean, for him, making the Traditionalist aware of the grave sin of loving Catholicism, and so on.
The problem, though, does not stop here. It seems that everything that does not reek of call for redistribution does not appear in Francis' radar. You will, for example, not see him embarking in a, erm, crusade in favour of that very endangered work of mercy: to bury the dead. You won't, because it smells of Catholicism, and Francis simply doesn't like Catholicism. But give him an excuse whatsoever to plead for more Socialism, and he will embrace it with enthusiasm whenever he is not writing he a stupid, anti-Catholic and anti-Capitalist apostolic exhortation.
A three years old who thinks himself wise has become Pope; or, alternatively, an evil man caring only for his own popularity.
One of the works so mercy is to bear injustice patiently. There's no doubt we are been trained strongly in that.
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
Guido Barilla just gave us a wonderful example of stupidity and cowardice united in the same person.
First he gives an interview in which he says Barilla is for the traditional family and faggots are welcome to buy their pasta somewhere else; when the latter predictably get screeching like it’s going out of fashion, he backpedals in such a furious and shameful way you wonder if he isn’t one of them himself.
This is so gay.
One can one be so stupid that he does not understand that these days if you say a word against the Gaystapo you must expect retaliation, at least in words. How can he be so shameless that he does not understand he will look like the French army in 1940. How can he, most of all, be such an hypocrite as to first try to play the “family” card and…
View original 72 more words
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
It is, as always, difficult to know what generic affirmations really mean – better said: you know what they mean; you do not know to what extent the intent will become concrete action – but if what is brewing is what is hinted at in this “Homograph” article, we are in for a mess on a planetary scale.
The core is issue is the one described below:
“Cardinal Maradiaga is hinting that the Pope is asking the fundamental question: What can be decided in Rome and what at local level? How can the Roman Curia serve bishops instead of being an office of censure and control?”
Note the two concepts:
1. The Roman curia should “serve” the Bishops. I thought the Roman Curia should control them and pay attention that they transmit the faith whole. A huge shift of power might be taking place here, with the dioceses making…
View original 461 more words
I do not know if it a case of solidarity among gluttons, but you can read around – if you visit the wrong places; which at times I must do so you don’t have to – that some bloggers will have no problem whatsoever in hypocritically and blasphemously comparing Cardinal Dolan with Our Lord. May He have mercy on them if they die unrepentant; though honestly I don’t think he would.
The fashionable way to adress the clergy’s prostitution to the modern fashion concerning sexual perversion is, nowadays, to say that as Jesus sent away the adulteress commanding her to sin no more, Cardinal Dolan is miraculously authorised to be a willing promoter and accomplice of sexual perversion.
These people simply pretend that Jesus went around participating in Jewish festivals enriched by the presence of the Jewish Whores Association, or hosting the banner of the Child Scandalisers Of Jerusalem, or supporting the presence of the Getsemane Section of the Sodomy Awareness Group. It truly is beyond belief how we are deemed so stupid that we should now throw out of the window a 2,000 years’ old understanding of what is scandal and complicity with sin, and substitute it with a new “hermeneutic of faggotry” according to which as Jesus ate with sinners – of course he did; we are all sinners – everything must now be allowed to everyone, and there’s no scandal a Cardinal is called to condemn.
We are also informed the adulteress of the Gospel probably went around slutting it again; this, after a life-changing encounters with Jesus who has just saved her from a very concrete risk of death, and which must have been the greatest shock and spiritual experience of her life at the same time; this, of course, supposing the adulteress was not Mary Magdalene herself, a thesis that does not persuade me anyway. Still: Magdalene or no Magdalene, one truly wonders about the workings of certain people’s mind.
It needs a highly secularised person with a great attachment to sin and a low level aversion to adultery to not understand that Jesus’ presence must have been awe-inspiring, towering above everyone else’s, and life-changing for very many. Particularly so, when the life-changing encounters involves a huge sin.
Jesus’ magnetism, and the extremely deep impression he made on people is so frequent in the Gospel, that the assumption that an almost executed adulteress would very probably happily go on whoring after hearing from Jesus’ very mouth the command “go and sin no more” indicates a truly disquieting mentality. Would you invite for lunch a woman telling you with a smirk, between the pasta (double portion) and the roasted lamb (triple): “oh well, the woman almost certainly went on to sample other men…( and can you pass the potatoes, please?)”.
The modern wolves have no respect for anything. Jesus himself must be depicted as the prostitute to popular opinion they have reduces themselves to.
Do you want another example? Jesus does not “shame” the adulteress, we are informed. Doesn’t he? Really? Has he affirmed her sexual tendency, then? Has he said to her “hey, it’s complicated”? Has he said to her “perhaps you’re going through a complex emotional phase?”. No, he hasn’t. The sin is there, very square and very public. Not with one word Jesus belittles or relativises what is for everyone to see, under the sun, and punished with death. In addition, Our Lord very imperiously commands her to immediately and definitely cease behaving that way! Sheesh. I wonder how stupid must a reader be, in order to swallow the fat lies of these wolves…
Beware of the obese wolves; of which as I write I have two in mind, of either sex. Beware of commercial “small c” catholic sites whose only aim is to tell people what they are already thinking, and reinforce them in every error; timorous of letting readership – and therefore, kar-ching – go if they were to challenge the modern “inclusiveness” fashion. Beware of this new habit of bending Jesus to every fashion and every perversion, construing his behaviour as the exact contrary of how it has been seen these last two thousand years. These people are of the devil, and he tries to seduce you with soothing words through them.
These small “c” catholic sites are made for people who live in ideological opposition to Christian values, and look for a validation of their revolt. Not simple sinners – we all are it – who still upheld Catholic values and have the fear of the Lord; but adulterers who want to be affirmed in their adultery, perverts who want to be affirmed in their perversion, and cowards looking for excuses to have a conflict-free life.
Beware of the obese wolves.
The article linked here is a rebuttal of a Sedevacantist criticism of John Salza, already mentioned on this blog and a proposer of classical Traditionalism in SSPX style, which they call “recognise and resist”.
I have read the article in its entirety, and it seems to me both the original article and the rebuttal are worth reading; and whilst I do not doubt that the Novus Ordo Watch troops are composed of good and sincere Catholics, I find the one or other criticism levelled at them to be rather well-chosen.
The article deals mainly with the matter of Papal infallibility and the correct reading of the Conciliar documents; apart from the little and understandable blunder of calling Francis' torrential apostolic exhortation “encyclical letter”, I find the author's every sentence worthy of careful reading and agreement.
The article does not deal with the other, so to speak, missing leg of modern Sedevacantism: the impossibility to reconcile the Indefectibility of the Church with the strange theory that a fake church is now confused all over the planet and believed to be the right one; whilst only a bunch of very smart theologians and their very perceptive readers understands that the NO Church is an impostor and the real Church is a teeny weeny spot on the Catholic world radar.
One thing is to say that a Pope is, even, a formal heretic. Quite another is to say that the entire system has short-circuited 50 years ago, and is now unable to produce valid priests, deacons, bishops and yes, Popes, without any idea of how God will set things right.
The article also has useful references to past Popes, and some interesting details about the apparently factual occurrence of the “deposition” of the offending Pope by the Roman clergy and, transposed to today, some (or better: many) good Cardinals. A thorny issue, this one, but again one showing there isn't much new under the sun, and the problems we have now have been encountered in the past already.
The article is certainly is worth your time.
The announced pregnancy of the Duchess of Cambridge moved me to think, again, of the future of the British monarchy.
As it is, the British monarch is less than totally irrelevant. He, or she, mainly kisses children and opens kindergartens. There's nothing else, really. Not only can the Monarch not take any active part in the matters of government; to him it is not even allowed to express any political opinion whatsoever. The British Monarch might well be the only sovereign on the planet whose “speeches” in front of the Parliament are – have to – come from the Prime Minister, verbatim, and no off-the-cuff “improvements” either. It is, basically, required that he or she can read. That's it.
In short, the British monarchy is an investment in decoration for the sake of tradition, gossip, and tourism.
Why do I say this? Because this modern irrelevance had to conform to the times in order to survive at least as an irrelevance, and it now resembles an autumn leaf waiting for the inevitable, as the necessity to become like the world makes it even more redundant and superfluous than it already is. The irrelevance of the Crown is perfectly seen in the fact that in the now raging debate about Scotland's independence, the Monarchy which first represents the union between England and Scotland is nowhere to be seen as an argument, or an at least emotional element. The British monarchy is irrelevant not only politically and constitutionally, but in the minds of the Brits. It has become one of those old pieces of furniture that have always been there, no one really knows why.
The present Monarch is, God knows, decent enough; but a horse-faced wannabe Francis already looms in the not-so-distant future. If he is offered the Crown – important note for foreigners: there is no automatic succession on the throne. It's the Privy Council that sanctions the right of the next in line to actually take on the job, or decides to skip him altogether if he's unfit for the job – there is no saying what might happen, as a Proto-Muslim environmentalist half-loony might well decide that kissing children is not enough after all.
William appears, to all intents and purposes, far “kinglier” than his father; but he will very probably have to wait for his father to kick the bucket before he can try to give some dignity to the throne, and he might well never see the day.
In the meantime, everything could happen. Even today, there is no reason to believe a referendum for the abolition of the monarchy would see them survive it. The only hope of the Monarchy seems at the moment to rest on the strategy of being as reassuring, as irrelevant, and as unnoticed as possible, whilst happy photos of the Duke and Duchess keep the mob entertained. But let some big scandal happen – say: the refusal of a Monarch to assist to the funeral of her whoring daughter-in-law – and all bets are off. The Queen is expected to be as immoral as the rest of the Country, and woe to her she dares to give an example. The people will be enraged. Who on earth does she think she is, the Queen?
In time, we might have a King who also is.. a Queen. Or a trannie. Or a “lover” of dogs. We might have a monarch in a polyamory situation. We might have any or all of the modern “it's complicated” stupidities. Whilst none of this would necessarily damage the Crown – it could be argued a “gay queen” would be much loved by the mob as per today, and the newspapers would praise the “modernity” of the institution – it would fester that role as cheap entertainment and gossip reservoir, which has been its unofficial function for many decades now.
At some point, the people will simply decide that a monarch is not required anymore, because – say – a head of state is better elected in a TV competition show, or the wife/companion/significant other of the Prime Minister can do the same job, or the money is just wasted, or a Republic more modern.
As the newspapers theorise about the time for the newborn George to become king, I wonder if William will ever become one. I wonder, in fact, whether the time will come when the monarchy is abolished simply because most Brits don't even know it exists, much less care; unless, that is, the occasional slut or trannie reminds them of the fact.
The Monarchy does not represent anything anymore. Not the unity of the Kingdom, as the impending Scottish Independence Referendum shows. Not the main reference of a long-lost Empire. Not any moral stance, as showed by the fact that when they had to choose between their Queen and a slut, the Brits clearly choose the latter. Not the role as head of an already ridiculous “church”, as even sodomitical “marriages” can be approved by Parliament without the Monarch having the right to utter one single word. Not one thing. Not one.
Decorative gossip material and tourist attractions. This is the role of the British Monarchy as I speak. But a Country with same sex “marriages” has no need for tradition, or decency, much less religion. It has, simply, no need for a Monarch, unless it be for cheap entertainment.
An entertainment to which only Elizabeth still gives some dignity, gravitas, and sense of decency; but of which the people might become tired very fast when she has gone.
The Duchess of Cambridge has been diagnosed with another clump of cells.
It is thought the clump will not be removed, albeit it is making the Duchess sick rather often.
If the removal of the clump does not take place, it is widely believed this clump of cells will gradually grow inside the host. At some point next Spring, the clump of cells will expel itself from the host. The process generally goes under the popular name of “birth”. After the self-expulsion, the clump of cells will, if its heart beats, legally become a human being and be entitled to various rights; like, for example, the one not to be thrown in the bin with other clumps of cells, who were removed from the host in order the prevent the self-expulsion process from taking place. .
Now, let us see if this is the way the generally oh so liberal BBC looks at it. Let me look…
yes… it’s here…
hhhmmm…what is this?
“Expecting a second child”
“Yet unborn girl or boy”
Look, it appears even the satanic buggers at the Buggers Broadcasting Communism get it: a baby in the womb is… a baby. Entitled to be considered a human being, a human life, one of us, even if not yet born. He is, already, a child. He is, in fact, an “unborn girl or boy”.
Is it so difficult, you satanic buggers? What is in this that needs an effort of understanding?
It’s a baby. It’s a baby. It’s a baby. You say it yourselves, several times. You find it utterly natural to say so, exactly as everyone else. You employ the same language of common sense that has always been used, and corresponds to a most obvious reality.
Why, then, do you forget this obvious reality when the victim of your abominable thinking is not the baby of a Duchess, but a poor baby in the womb of an unknown young woman? Why the first is considered, to all intents and purposes, a human being, and the other not?
It’s because you are satanic buggers.
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
I am so awfully, awfully sorry to have to blog about strange things I see happening (or better; I heard happened, because I most certainly refused to follow the ceremony) on this joyous day. Still, I try to be a Catholic blogger and I hope that even the most royalist among my two dozen readers will have some understanding for what I am going to say.
What strikes me as odd in today’s ceremony are 1) the vows and 2) the so-called indissolubility of the Anglican marriage.
As to 1), I was very surprised in reading that the then Kate Middleton (now Duchess of Cambridge), chose not to promise obedience. She promised instead to merely vow “love, comfort, honour and keep” to her royal husband. Now if the vow of obedience were not in the traditional formula one wouldn’t object very much to her not vowing it. But…
View original 323 more words
Read it here.
the journalists at breitbart seem to do their homework. The linked article also mentions the recent scandal in New York and the tougher predecessor in reprimanding of Monsignor Pope, Father Guranizo.
No word has come out of the Washington, DC, Chancery office if Pope will be punished beyond having his column taken down. They kicked one South African priest out of the Archdiocese and the Holy See Mission to the United Nations after he criticized Cardinal Dolan for allowing the proposed closing of a small parish which serves the Catholic traditionalist community in New York. And just last year a priest visiting from Moscow, Father Marcel Guarnizo, was tossed from the Diocese of Washington for refusing to give communion to a lesbian at her mother’s funeral.
It is good to know that the betrayal of Catholicism perpetrated by our stinking shepherds is slowly going out of the Catholic circles and finding a wider audience. I can imagine many Breitbard readers slowly becoming more interested in these people: the priest telling it .. straight to the dykes, the other so attached to the Latin Mass, a third criticising the Cardinal Archbishop of New York.
One blog post, one forum comment, one article at a time, we will one day manage to put many, many Catholics in front of the fundamental questions:
what the heck it’s happening? What kind of Catholics are these? And why have I not opened my mouth before?
I was in Berlin for business some years ago, and in my free time I was visiting the place using the public transport.
On the Berliner S-Bahn, a human being sat opposite me, and I could not make my mind whether “it” was a man or a woman.
It was, probably, the future.
Endowed with manboobs that could have been real – if very ugly – boobs, “it” sported a masculine haircut in John Wayne style. The expression was fully neutral, and deprived of that angry, vaguely aggressively look you never fail to notice in the fat lesbian, at least when you notice she is a lesbian; a fat lesbian who will also generally accompany her bitchy attitude with other distinctive signs of the breed: extremely short hair, or tattoos, or a general air of “I don't give a damn what you think of me”. (I think extremely bad of you still, dude).
At the same time, “it” had a clearly delicate skin, such as I had never noticed in a man. His facial traits were not masculine, but not feminine either. He looked in the void with an expression fully unable to express any feminine or masculine trait.
I continued to observe this freak show as closely as I could without being noticed, sure that I would have found some sign allowing me to clearly state whether that strangest of being was a strange man or a strange dyke. I did not dare to ask, as I did not want to be unkind to a person who might simply be un-feminine or not masculine, but perfectly straight otherwise (a phenomenon rather spread in Germany).
I could find any answer. The person remained a riddle. Ten good minutes of observation were not enough to find an answer. To this day, I haven't made my mind as to what it was. Never have I experienced the like again: not even here in London, where freak shows abound; but you see, they are willing freak shows, whilst the other one seemed utterly oblivious of his/her/its own disquieting strangeness and with no desire to advertise any particular agenda. The episode left me puzzled and mildly shocked, like seeing an animal that is either a strange dog or a strange cat, but none of the two.
It never happened to me again; but it is very clear to me that gender confusion is on the march. The number of people walking around London who, whilst clearly being males, do not walk, talk, or behave as such is clearly on the rise.
They are invariably young; they dress in ways meant to let them look ephebic; they speak in a hushed, soft manner, and gesticulate in a delicate way. They walk as they were afraid to thread the ground, often with inward-looking feet. The obvious, eternal signs of manliness are clearly not there, and by that I do not mean walking like a gorilla and spread one's legs like an aspiring street criminal, but simply the quiet assertiveness, the implicit strength a man will put in everything he does. Look at not only the way of walking and talking, but at the different way a man and a woman even take a glass from a table and you'll know what I mean.
These people cannot be all fags. Some of them certainly are, but the phenomenon is far too spread.
What I think they are is: the sons of single mothers.
Grown up without a father, and probably very often without any male relatives near them; now largely deprived of male teachers; bombarded with an image of the male that all too often conjures an idiot, a good for nothing, or a pleasant servant of his wife (cue countless movies, or TV ads), these poor boys grow up unwittingly absorbing not only some of the mannerisms of the women around them, but the general outlook toward life. Gone is the assertiveness, the chutzpah, the dominant attitude; in come the sensitive attitude, the soft tones, the walking on eggs, the espousing of the most stupid causes, the support for she males of all sorts, and the increase of uncertainties about their own identity.
A mother can't really say “man up!” to his own boy. She is very unlikely to pat him on the shoulder when he dared to confront a bully, or to cross fists with some minor idiot. She will probably not encourage him to be competitive, to give his best, to win and be proud, to lose and do better; least of all, she will teach him to be proud for his black eye.
How will, then, these poor boys grow? In a world deprived of manliness. Of course, many of them will grow up to be straight. But it will be the uncertain, or at least the weak straightness of mama's boy, the sensitive attitude of the sissy, the castrated vision of the world that sees in men a problem, and an enemy in patriarchy.
How such a sissy can be of any satisfaction, or give any real assurance of security, to a woman who is not a flame-throwing drake is beyond me. Nor will even the drake be ever satisfied with the sissy, because God has made things so that two dysfunctional individuals will never make for a functional marriage.
And so we see more and more of them, the faggot-trousered, sissy-coiffured boys walking on eggs, with inward bent feet; talking like girls, because they don't know any better.
Have pity of them. They are the last victims of the feminist culture of emancipation.