Daily Archives: January 17, 2013
The inauguration of the Evil Bastard is now rapidly approaching, and two elements have emerged which I found particularly noteworthy. The first is the substitution of the already certainly very liberal pastor with another even more liberal. I have already written about this and today I will only add the poor idiot managed to not (as far as I know) officially retract his condemnation of sodomy, but still pointed out he hasn’t preached anything of the sort for the last ten years. He certainly thinks he is saved anyway, so where’s the problem….
The second is the vocal request from the usual suspects to renounce to the use of the Bible in the inauguration, coherently with the party’s view of life and society in which God has no place at all, unless to function as a comfortable alibi for their social engineering agenda. In fact, it seems to me those vocal atheists are, semel in anno, perfectly right. Why should you abuse a Bible for an empty ritual if your entire life goes against everything the Bible stands for? Isn’t it more honest to say “I am an atheist with an atheist agenda, and I do not want to swear on a book whose values I have opposed for my entire life?”
This seems more coherent to me, and it would perhaps serve to open the eyes of some of those who tell themselves Christians but then vote for the Evil Bastard and his associates. Some might say the Evil Bastard could then swear on the Koran; but seriously, Obama is not one bit more Muslim than I am. His often mentioned love for Muslim culture and respect for the Koran are nothing more than easy sentimentalism fed by childhood remembrances. In every orthodox Muslim society, a man like him would get in trouble really fast. Still, this is the way of the liberal. He will “adopt” and at the same time “adapt” whatever suits his way of thinking. He’ll warp Christianity until he can say himself a Christian, and actually many of them will warp every religion on the planet and say that they, actually, belong to all. Therefore, Obama will swear on the book he probably hates most, and will not make anything of it. It serves his purpose, and this is enough for him.
Welcome to the second Obama mandate.
The extent of Jimmy Savile’s perversion has now emerged in all its shocking dimension, easily realising yours truly’s prediction that the first wave of revelations was merely the tip of the iceberg. It has also become more than apparent Savile skilfully used his popularity to deter from personal attacks to him. Part of this game was, of course, seeking the vicinity of popular people, and using their own charisma, prestige or simple notoriety to build a protective shield. His ability to intimidate must have helped him, but he could only intimidate because he had his popularity and vicinity to the power to allow him to do so.
Among others, the Prince of Wales, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II had photo-opportunities or were linked to him; this has originated, from the usual quarters, the usual predictable criticism.
Still, there are important distinctions to be made. Neither John Paul II nor Margaret Thatcher ever worked with Savile on a regular basis, and for an intelligent man like him it must have been automatic to realise when in the company of prominence even for an extended time – as it was the case, it appears, of the Prince of Wales – he had to be on his best behaviour and do not give rise to any suspicion the vicinity to him might one day become a huge liability.
On the contrary, it is on Savile’s favourite hunting ground, the BBC, that his behaviour must have been noticed, as it is absolutely inconceivable he could have worked there for decades without his true personality as an extremely creepy person – to say the least – emerging. This we know because we know the freedom and impunity he enjoyed there. You don’t brag or make jokes about sex with 12 years old with the Prime Minister, but if you do with your colleagues at the BBC (as he most certainly did), well it must have reached a lot of ears, intimidation or no intimidation.
Why, then, was Jimmy Savile left untouched by his own bosses for so long? Very simply, because the BBC is an evil organisation filled with utterly immoral people with no clue about basic decency and no problems with perverted behaviour. When you see the BBC produced TV version of Dickens’ “Little Dorritt”, with strong lesbian undertones inconceivable in the original; or the BBC co-produced version of “Brideshead revisited” with a grotesque homosexual twisting of the main characters; or again many other BBC co-production like “The History Boys”, where the homosexual issue is heavily present, as it is in ” The best exotic Marigold Hotel”, another BBC Co-production unavoidably exhalting faggotry and sodomy, you know what these people’s plan is.
Basically, the BBC puts our money only in productions pushing their own perverted agenda, and they go so far in their madness they do not hesitate to sully classics of English Literature for the same purpose. Is it a surprise that in such an environment a Jimmy Savile may go on undisturbed for decades? What has happened with Savile is merely another facet of the general decay and perversion reigning undisturbed within the BBC walls. When Satan infiltrates such an organisation with his stupid champagne cretins, he will obviously not be happy with merely one perversion.
All this, of course, with money we are obliged by law to pay so that the Buggers Broadcasting Communism may go on undisturbed.
Well done, BBC. You should ask for an increase of the TV Licence.
I have written in the last days about the abrupt end of the sodomasses in Soho. It was on that occasion made known the “pastoral provision” for the unrepentant sodomites (whatever that means; I doubt it means “proper instruction and invitation to live a chaste life and pray that they may free themselves from their affliction”) would continue in nearby (but very different) Mayfair, Farm Street. This means of course the Jesuits would continue to gather the queens (as queens, which means: as unrepentant perverts trying to subvert Catholic teaching) and would celebrate Mass, which in itself (the celebration of Mass, I mean) is obviously nothing wrong.
In the predictable, very probably whining interview with the Tablet, the father who has put himself in charge of the queens was asked whether some of the, erm, particularities of the old sodomasses would continue; you know, innocent things like homemade (or rather, homomade) bidding prayers, rainbow “decoration” on the altar and elsewhere and such like rubbish….
Wait, this would make of the mass a homo mass, wouldn’t it? Still, the detail must have escaped the Tablet hack, who felt the need to ask anyway.
The answer leaves no doubt: no such things will be allowed. A Mass is a Mass and no mistake, and again every attempt to let the homomasses get back in from the window after having been kicked out from the door would let Archbishop Mueller look very stupid, and the Archbishop seems the type who doesn’t like to look stupid, at least when the SSPX doesn’t teach him Catholic doctrine. Therefore, no little tricks and subterfuges will be allowed on this occasion.
All this seems rather obvious to me, but it is nice to know it is now printed on the “Tablet”, too…
It gives one a kind of special satisfaction….
Beautiful blog post from Father Longenecker about the attitude of Catholics (or those who call themselves so) regarding the problem they encounter in understanding or accepting Catholic teaching on various issues.
Father Longenecker puts is very well when he writes that:
[…] a difficulty is the attitude which says, “How can that be so?” whereas a doubt is the attitude that says, “That can’t be so.” The first is open, engaged, intelligent and searching the tradition in order to understand the teaching. The second puts on above the tradition and the teaching by insisting that one knows better than Holy Church.
Catholicism is not easy. Some of the truths therein contained can be disconcerting, seem to fly in the face of common sense and sometimes are, in fact, a challenge to our ability to accept the Truth. It is only normal that, put in front of them, the Catholic be…
View original post 426 more words
UK Clergy Reblog.
Read on the Catholic Herald the Interview with the Conservative MP Nadine Dorries,, where the latter complains that the “churches” – as she wrongly says, but laissons tomber – have left her absolutely alone in her attempt to reduce the abortion limit to twenty weeks.
Dorries’ words are beautiful and deserve to be repeated in full:
“I need religious support. It is our core support. I need the churches being more involved, and the churches have been pathetic, pathetic, during the abortion debate in their support for what I was trying to do…The only person in the Catholic Church who made any comment was Cardinal O’Brien. Everybody was silent because the churches were weak and cowardly in their position.”
Please notice the following:
1) we live in a word where a conservative MP complaints that she doesn’t have enough support from religious organisations in matters of abortion. If our…
View original post 301 more words