Daily Archives: August 19, 2012

Pauper’s Burials And Changing Times

In Dickens’ “Bleak House”, Mr Nemo receives a pauper’s burial, having been found a corpse without any relative, or significant money.

I suppose pauper’s burials are still in place in the British Isles. Even at the point we are, I would be very surprised if they weren’t.

What I wonder is how long it will take until some strictly atheist moron (like, say, Cameron) will decide that it is too much of an expense to offer a burial to the poor deceased rather than putting him in the oven, which is certainly the cheaper solution.

In the end, a government that does not care for the unborn life and is trying to find every way to start killing old people must get rid of expensive traditions like a burial, surely?

Just a thought…


Russian Courts Don’t Give A Fag For Fags.

In one of those rather funny development our modern “a court for every fag” system is creating, the so-called European Court of Civil Right, with seat in Strasburg, “condemned” Russia to pay damages to a local faggot insisting to have so-called “pride” parades held in Moscow.

On the same day of the Pussy Riot sentence (your humble correspondent reported) another interesting sentence was made public: so-called “gay parades” (generally a show of public lewdness, besides being perverted in themselves) are still forbidden in Moscow, and the local judges don’t give a … fag about what some strange “court” in Strasbourg thinks.

The Buggers Broadcasting Communism are, of course, devastated.

Away from me the thought that Russia is a happy land of free and prosperous people. But I can certainly say they seem to be the only ones willing to maintain some sanity in these disgraceful times.


Sanger Reblog

Mundabor's Blog

Beautiful collection of instructive quotations from the mother of all feminazis: Margaret Sanger.

Choosing only some of the many pearls available on http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm ,  I would mention the following ones:

The genocidal baby-killing machine

“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

The eugenics Hitler forerunner

On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was “to create a race of thoroughbreds,” she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

The racist terminatrix

On the extermination of blacks:
“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by…

View original post 265 more words

Official: Obama Is Pure Evil

Don’t believe me?

Read here.


Dolan-O’Brien: Spot The Difference


Sandro Botticelli, “The Sodomites”

Cardinal Dolan invites his own (official) enemy to speak at a dinner meant to collect money against… him.

Cardinal O’Brien even refuses to meet his own chief of government, who has invited him to “talk” about “sodomarriage”.

I know only one of the two can be right.

I wonder who? Hhhmmm…


Three Cheers For The Wall Street Journal

Jacques Blanchard, “Allegory of Charity”

Seldom have I read such pithy exposition of Catholic thinking from a non-specialised media outlet.

Try this (emphases always mine):

Wealth and poverty are catalysts for bringing the rich and the poor together in community, and community is the hallmark of the church’s mission on Earth. Government is not community. Government is one of community’s tools, a coercive one we use when it is necessary to force people to behave in ways they would not otherwise behave voluntarily.

Already these three lines are of devastating effect for all those – very many in old, tired Europe – identifying Government with “good”, and the vehicle through which every “good” must be, well, coerced.

It goes on:

But that word—voluntarily—is key, and it’s where Mr. Ryan’s religious detractors go awry: Charity can only be charity when it is voluntary. Coerced acts, no matter how beneficial or well-intentioned, cannot be moral. If we force people to give to the poor, we have stripped away the moral component, reducing charity to mere income redistribution. And if one really is as good as the other, the Soviets demonstrated long ago that it can be done far more efficiently without the trappings of church and religion.

This is another good dollop of sanity which would (I assure you, oh fortunate American readers) surprise many a European, because they have been trained to think basically from the cradle – and from elementary school at the latest –  that coercion is the way to achieve an outcome considered “moral”. This is at the root of the oppressive Nanny-ism present in particular in the English society, with an army of busybodies intent in trying to crucify perfectly normal drinkers and smokers out of the completely bonkers persuasion that they must be saved from themselves. 

We see an extremely disquieting reflex of this thinking – Government legislates about morality, therefore morality is the monopoly of the Government – in the more and more automatic desire to ban whatever the Government does not approve of. For example, once Government has given sodomites official recognition, the questioning of their perversion should be made illegal  – under the guise of “hate crime”, “homophobia”, or “discrimination” – because if the Government has decided for the morality of a behaviour, this morality cannot be publicly questioned without being subversive. 

The article mentioned echoes this with the following words:

All people have the moral obligation to care for those who are less fortunate. But replacing morality with legality is the first step in replacing church, religion and conscience with government, politics and majority vote. 

  When you replace morality with legality, you give the legislator – and in modern terms, the Government – the monopoly over morality. A dictatorship of government-given oppressors ensues, because this mentality unavoidably tends to make opposition to one’s own moral positions illegal. It there is a menace to freedom nowadays, it is this tendency of thinking and legislating in terms of “hate”. 

Then the hammer falls directly on the genitals of the US Church hierarchy, so short-sighted and enslaved to easy populism for many decades and now about to pay the price of their inanity. The WSJ authors put it in these words: 

 The bishops dance with the devil when they invite government to use its coercive power on their behalf, and there’s no clearer example than the Affordable Care Act. They happily joined their moral authority to the government’s legal authority by supporting mandatory health insurance. They should not have been surprised when the government used its reinforced power to require Catholic institutions to pay for insurance plans that cover abortions and birth control.

The Church asked the government to be the coercive enforcer of morality, and now the enforcer wants to do the same with them. In a last beautiful warning, the article states:

To paraphrase J.R.R. Tolkien (a devoted Catholic), the government does not share power. Paul Ryan knows this. The bishops would be wise to listen to him.

Three cheers for the WSJ for hosting such enlightened minds on their columns.


Reblog of the day

Mundabor's Blog

I read around various posts more or less based on the fact that the degeneration (in all possible meanings) of the Church in the last 50 years is not (necessarily) due to V II, but to the changing times and the particularly hard challenges that came with it.

One would be tempted to say “yes and no” but, really, I think the answer is “no”.

Clearly, the world emerged from WWII posed great challenges to the Church. An explosion of unprecedented welfare challenged the traditional basis of society, based on charity and hope rather than on social services and long life expectancy. On the other hand, another unprecedented phenomenon took place: an entire generation grew up with a degree of instruction – at least in the traditional way instruction is measured – vastly superior to that of their parents, and as a result felt authorised to challenge their parent’s teaching…

View original post 801 more words

%d bloggers like this: