Daily Archives: April 23, 2012

Starbucks Says “Sodomy Good, Insects Bad”.

The always rather biting Daily Mail informs us Starbucks (the politically correct, probably homo-ridden  coffee-house chain for the perverts and those who would like to be it, but only if they can pay too much for the privilege) wanted to go away from artificial dyers and, in a move to please the limp wrists of their clients, moved to natural ones. In this case, they took many little cochineal insects and squeezed them to a red pulp, which then landed in the frappuccino of some wannabe Elton and his, as they call each other nowadays, “civil partner”.

Things turned sour for Starbucks when a group of vegans (sexual orientation not known, but I never found one who doesn’t eat meat an archetype of masculinity, either; more fitting to querulous women, for sure) complained they don’t want to be eating little red animals with their frappuccino without even knowing it; and when they know it, they don’t want in the first place.

Now, Starbucks is a very, very faggoty company. Sodomarriage is, apparently, one of their core values, or something like that. Therefore, they must have imagined their clients abandoning themselves to shrill little cries of disgust at knowing those horrible, horrible animals are in their favourite strawberry latte skinny non macchiato something. As a result, they have decided to abandon the little insects and switch to a tomato extract. I am waiting for the next group of fanatics to complain this is against their principles.

My reflection on this is that Starbucks is so gay one has to be afraid of even being seen there. Look at Eddie Murphy above, and think if you want to be put in the same basket with them.

Avoid Starbucks, folks. You don’t want to be seen there.

It’s so, so, so gay.

Mundabor

The Witch Files, And The Meek Popes.

Strong Pope: Urban II.

Absolutely wonderful blog post from Father Z, which I suggest you click before you do anything else.

The list of astonishing evil – or pervert, or both – females, all of them nuns, who have reached some notoriety through their satanic positions is shockingly long.

Particularly dismaying is the fact some of these nuns were (are; will be?) not only tolerated, but supported by their own order. The scale of demonic devastation is barely conceivable even in the eyes of an average  European.

At this point, I wonder how this could be allowed to go on for so long, and why the reaction is still so mild. I do not doubt the phenomenon will be destroyed one day. But my impression is it will be rooted by biology, not by Rome.

I personally see the root of this evil in the root of pretty much all the evils which have affected the Church in the last half century: Vatican II.

Vatican II was not only a shift – a seismic shift, I would say – in the way the clergy looked at their own role; most tragically, it was a shift in the way Popes have begun to interpret their role. Fifty years after the start of Vatican II, millions see it as somewhat wrong that a Pope should punish or threat anyone; a thought that must have been simply inconceivable to the Church of the past; the Church which started crusades, put heretics under trial, and openly defied Emperors.

Modern Popes are seen, rather, as decorative old men dressed in white, helping us to feel good every now and then by reminding us of things we all agree about, and therefore conveniently uncontroversial (the news of today: Pope criticises sex tourism. I frankly struggle to see the headline here). The idea that Popes may have, and legitimately so, teeth is not really there. A world who wants to make of Jesus an environmentally friendly pacifist will obviously insist in making of a Pope a decorative practical irrelevance.  

This is, if you ask me, why it took many decades before the Vatican hierarchy started the work of eradication, and this is why the work will be so long and unduly gentle as to make the biological solution probably more effective than the theological one.

We do not know what will happen in future, but my take is the witches will continue to bark around as aggressively as they always did, and the Church reaction will be limited to some expression of disapproval from this or that high prelate.The leitmotiv will be, as always, that the Church doesn’t punish.

When this happens; when some slight verbal condemnation has been expressed, all moderate Catholics will start to say the Church has reacted, because we live in times in which words are confused with acts.

If you ask me, this mentality – this meekness that is not an absence of aggressiveness, but an outright weakness; and weakness is always recognised by the Enemy – not only causes countless souls to get lost in the end (and I can frankly not imagine any sincere Catholic doubting of this very simple fact) , but it is even bad PR politics.

People are naturally attracted from leadership. The more so, when this leadership is exercised by the man who has a right to it more than any other on earth. A Pope with the guts to wage open war to heresy and secularism, rather than being “meek”, will attract the hate of the progressive crowds (who want the death of Christianity anyway; see HHS mandate), but will, in time, deeply impress all those who still keep in themselves a small flame of Catholicism alive. 

There is no organisation on earth who can mobilise as much as the Church. No other organisation has the helping hand of the Holy Ghost, and no other organisation has the profound grip on people’s soul the Church has. After fifty years of devastation and attempted suicide, the Church in the US can still make Presidents tremble. Just imagine where they would be now if the work had been started ten or fifteen years ago.

Whenever Popes recognise this and act accordingly, they are hailed as great Popes; when they are meek and weak they are remembered, if ever, as a lost occasion.

O for a warrior Pope.

Mundabor


 

Reblog of the Day

Mundabor's Blog

In my eyes, one of the main keys to a proper understanding of every apparition is one simple but at the same time very difficult word: obedience. Obedience is what we saw when the Fatima apparitions were initially – as it was very natural – seen with scepticism from the local clergy and obedience is what we saw when the apparitions to St Faustina Kowalska were considered not authentic by the Vatican. Obedience is, therefore, not only an obvious element of sainthood, but the path clearly indicated by many (perhaps: all) approved apparitions. Most certainly, no approved apparition ever incited to disobedience. In fact, it has never been prescribed by the doctor that an apparition be immediately recognised as authentic, but it has always been prescribed by the Church that Her decisions in the matter be accepted and obeyed.

God doesn’t need disobedience to have His will recognised; on…

View original post 748 more words

%d bloggers like this: