Daily Archives: February 25, 2012

Reblog of the day

Mundabor's Blog

If you ever had any doubt that David Cameron is the enemy of every Christian in this country, every doubt must have been dissolved after the chap revealed of being strongly in favour of so-called “gay marriages” and to want to start consultations to introduce it next March.

Cameron’s behaviour – certainly not approved by many among his own people, but very probably accepted as part of the effeminate cowardice now become prevalent within the once glorious Tory party – is fully in line with the Cameronian idea that bed-and-breakfast owners who do not want faggots to sleep more uxorio under their roof are intolerant, and with his blatant mockery of Christian values under the usual veil of being “compassionate”.

I will not say what I think of the man, because you know already and I would avoid becoming too explicit.

What I will follow with interest in the…

View original post 581 more words

The Sensitive Nazi

A Sensitive Nazi caught in his natural habitat

One concept I shall never tire to express is that every Nazi needs to show himself sensitive. In fact, I do not recall many examples in history (the Vikings are certainly one; some Redskin tribes another; but these examples are few and far between) of populations and ideology making of cruelty an accepted part of social behaviour.

Generally, even the most cruel people will want to show themselves sympathetic, and desirous to help.

Take the killing of babies. Monstrous, right? Certainly so, until The Sensitive Nazi appears on the scene. Being he/she a Nazi, the child who is to be killed is conveniently put in the background, and substantially ignored. He is immediately downgraded to collateral damage of the Sensitive Nazi’s goodness. But you see, the Sensitive Nazi is so good: he thinks of the suffering mother, and will create pitiful stories about abortions obtained with the most atrocious means – in Italy the knitting needles are very popular for the purpose; apparently, in the UK cloth hangers are preferred. That a child should not be aborted in the first place is completely set aside, forgotten, ignored. This has the same logic as to complain that as your robber doesn’t have the money to shoot you in the head, he should be sympathised with when he skins you slowly with a kitchen knife, and we should find ways allowing him to kill you in a humane way and at no discomfort for your killer.  With the not irrelevant difference that you are not likely to be killed in an extremely painful way by a robber armed with a knife, whereas an army of babies is killed in an extremely painful way by the likes of Planned Parenthood.

At this point, the Sensitive Nazi has already managed to put the real victim very much in the background, and to put in the centre stage the “suffering” of the one who wants to kill him. I know, there is no logic or humanity in this; but again, this is why they are Nazis.

Once come at this point, the Sensitive Nazi will proceed to introduce his plan by installments. Let us admit abortion only in some extreme cases, they will start to say. In case of rape, say. This is very interesting, because the Sensitive Nazis knows once you have put the foot in the door, there is no way to avoid, in time, a complete opening. If you allow abortion in case of rape, which girl who sees herself terrified by her pregnancy will admit she has, well, not been raped? And when you have decided that life is sacred, but not always, how will you avoid the ambit of this “disposable sacredness” to be widened more and more with the time?

As always, if you compromise with the principle at the beginning, you will end up losing the entire principle at the end: divorce in cases of horrible cruelty and bla bla becomes divorce at will; abortion only in strictly circumscribed cases becomes abortion on demand; decriminalisation of scandalous sodomy becomes “civil partnership” and from there, the step to the “homo marriage” is but a short one; next on a screen near you, the euthanasia initially practised with the thousands safeguards now promised everywhere becomes killing by order of those who are deemed to be in charge for the poor old man or woman.

You don’t believe it? Strange, because this is exactly what happens already in the case of abortion.

The Sensitive Nazi is around you. He talks in a mealy-mouthed way about being tolerant and progressive, and sensitive to the suffering of people. He will sell all that is Christian one bit at a time, telling you all the time how good he is. In England, he is Prime Minister and is planning to attack another mainstay of Christian civilisation – marriage –  in order to show himself oh so tolerant, and sensitive.This, after he commented favourably a sentence forcing the Christian owners of a bed-and-breakfast to have sodomites under their roof.But you see, he presents himself as the “sensitive” guy all the time. Seriously: what a little Nazi bastard.

After the end of Communism, the Sensitive Nazi is the biggest single threat to Christian civilisation.


Missionary Goes Native And Refuses To Baptise

Radical Missionary

This is not a joke, but apparently something some kind of people are even happy to talk about.

As we read in Rorate Caeli, a wannabe “missionary”, now 90 years old, refused to baptise the natives. I report below the English translation of this delirious – or as at Rorate Caeli is commented, satanic – reasoning below:

 It is a project with a radical view of the evangelization that expresses itself in a unique way: “We do not baptize any Yanomani – Sabatini says – because we are convinced that it would make no sense to baptize a person outside the community, and that it is the culture that should be evangelized: man has the right to have his culture, and he must find in it the way to express himself christianly. Baptizing outside the community would have meant establishing a double personality in Baptism.” Which is why, Zaccaria says, “Sabatini responded thus that monsignor anxious to know how many Yanomami he had baptized: ‘not a single one, thanks to the Good God.’ “

Note here the following:

1) The person interviewing the wannabe missionary describes the unbelievably un-Christian attitude of the man as “a radical view of the evangelisation”, which actually consists in not evangelising, “that expresses itself in a unique way”, which actually consists in not expressing it.

It is as if sodomy was called “a radical view of conjugal love”, or murder “a radical view of brotherly love”.

2) Christianity is seen as an exercise in socialism. It does not make sense to baptise individual, says this vecchio malvissuto, and unspeakable ass. We all know Jesus said “go and do not baptise anyone unless the entire culture has been evangelised”, don’t we?

Seriously, what an unspeakable ass.

3) The novel concept of “dual personality in baptism” is introduced. I never heard of it, but it must be my fault. It would appear most baptisms performed in all regions on their way to evangelisation has a  “double personality”, including all those performed in the times of the Gospel. One never ceases to learn, does he?

4) An anonymous Monsignor apparently knows our “missionary” isn’t baptising anyone, “thanks to the Good God”, and does… what exactly? We aren’t told and he may, in fact, have informed the chap’s superiors something is seriously wrong with the man.

Personally, I would have thought – being a mistrustful person, which latter trait serves me rather well in life – that someone who wants to be a missionary without baptising might well be someone who went out there in the amazon forest to have sex with the local women – or worse, boys – without running the risk of being exposed, or with some other sort of grave perversion requiring him to live retired from the western civilisation. Seriously, such a one can’t be normal, and “progressive” religious turned out to be, say, lovers of boys rather than of Christ are, pun not intended, legion. Also, consider a chap like this is solidly in the hands of Satan, and when this happens it generally shows in a plurality of ways.

I have reflected for a while how to write about these events and remain charitable in my approach. But seriously, in front of such abominations the most charitable attitude is to speak the truth and point out that whilst perversion does not have to hide behind such astonishing thinking, it is rather often the motivation behind the “radical views” of their proponents.

Please pray for the doting ass. He is in dire need of prayer, and hasn’t much time left.


%d bloggers like this: