Daily Archives: January 20, 2014
Vintage Mundabor: The Gay Scouts of America reblog.
The ongoing controversy about whether openly homosexual boys should be allowed to be members of the Boy Scouts of America is indicative of the confusion reigning in the mind of many people nowadays. I see a lack of elementary reasoning that is simply revealing of the utter failure of modern school systems.
You can read comprehensive articles with a short google research. My comments to what I read around are as follows:
1. Sponsors will withdraw money unless the policy changes.
Come on, this is stupid. If there’s one reason why the Boy Scouts exist, is to let boys grow with a moral spine. The idea that morals should be subordinated to sponsorship is exactly the kind of thinking a Boy Scout should never have.
In addition, the argument is self-contradictory. If it is considered discriminatory that there is a national ban on faggotry, it is only a matter of…
View original post 410 more words
I have already reported that Fags hate fags. It now appears fags, ahem, love fags!
Says here, I mean.
We are also informed this would be due to the fact that (emphases mine):
Oh, I forgot. Nearly suicidal activities? Like unprotected sodomy with other fags for whose life or death they do not give… a fag?
I suggest prayer instead. The smoke of hell is far more dangerous than the Marlboro Man.
If you think Ann Furedi is the worst Himmler existing in England, you may reflect on the fact she probably is merely being more honest.
Mssss Furedi has stated the obvious: whenever the doctors decide the “mental health” of the mother is in danger, the baby can be murdered. The hypocrisy of the British (or Italian) abortion law is that whilst the law pretends abortion is something meant only to address “extreme” cases, what it in fact allows is abortion on demand within a certain time frame. Everyone knows that, and the majority is very fine with it.
If, therefore, the “mental health” of a woman is endangered at the thought of this astonishing event – having a baby – it is not to be seen why she would not risk her sanity at the… same event, of having a baby girl.
You see, we must be inclusive and show appreciation for different cultures here: if it is a misfortune, or a disgrace, or even a shame in a different culture to have a girl, who are we to judge? Or do we want to impose our narrow-minded, Judeo-Christian mentality on people with a different set of belief? Are we not, erm, “tolerant” of different thinking?
Is is not so, that we now legally allow the slow and cruel slaughter of animals – once forbidden in Germany – in order to allow the production of halal meat? Is it not that abortion is, all over the West, undoubtedly allowed when fig leave conditions apply? Who are we to decide that a Hindu girl cannot abort her baby girl, but an atheist girl of British ancestors can? Does the fig leave only applies to Whites of British ancestry?
Look, we live in time when girls with children born out of wedlock, or of unknown fathers, are seen as rather normal, and the moral disapprobation is apportioned, rather, to those who have to gut to say this is very bad. How would, then, the “mental health” of the girl from the council house block, who already has several girlfriends with a baby – or from the posh neighbourhood, come to that, where nowadays everyone is so liberal – be endangered by a pregnancy? Is it not slowly becoming the new normality?
In addition, whilst we live in rather bad times it is not that fornication and children out of wedlock have been invented in the Sixties. They have always been there, and I wonder whether, say, the slums of London in the Victorian era had less illegitimate children than the vastly better “underprivileged” neighbourhoods of London in the XXI century. I have, then, no record of the madhouses of the time being full with young women driven to insanity by motherhood.
They must have thought, in those unenlightened times, that pregnancy is a natural consequence of having sex. Astonishing.
No, you can twist and turn it as you wish: there is no possible way it can be decided the White woman must be free to abort her baby, and the Chinese woman must not be free to abort her baby girl. Either it's forbidden or it isn't; and if “mental health” issues apply, then they must be applied to everyone.
Msssss Furedi is, therefore, not more monstrous than the society around her, that has happily allowed abortion on demand under the thin disguise of the “mental health” issue and now discovers the sexual and moral revolution is killing its daughters. She perfectly reflects the (im)moral reasoning at the root of the current abortion legislation and practice.
At least, she is a honest monster.
New data are now coming from Austria, where the number of Kirchenaustritte (actually possibly only the refusal to pay the absurd and simoniacal church tax, but a rather telling indicator of the situation on the ground) has increased compared to the last full Benedict year in 2012. You would think the euphoria, press coverage, and exceptionally favourable treatment from the press would have caused enthusiasm and a new wave of young, hip, enthusiastic supporters? Forget it.
Cartoon Catholics all over the planet are doing what their cartoon Pope – who does not even like to be called that way – is preaching: they are realising the utter uselessness and superfluity of the Church in a world in which God owes us everything – justice and joy in this world, and Paradise for everyone in the next – and we do not even owe I do not say our best effort as wretched sinners, but not even faith in His Son, or belief in His existence, much less of course fear.
Francis has degraded himself to “facilitator” of something that will come anyway to everyone – salvation – and simple participant in the extremely crowded arena of advocate for a “social justice” that is, in fact, whining socialism and enmity with the West. Those with a strong sense – no thanks to him – of what the Church is and why She is there will stay anyway; but the tepid, the Catholic by hearsay, the many rebels encouraged by 50 years of Bergoglio-style “pastoral attitude” are going to go away, now unable to see the difference between Bergoglio and Milliband (or Obama, or Merkel) beside the fact the latter have better cars. Other will move to the Evangelicals, or to other Christian (heretical) communities run by people who actually have fear of the Lord and respect for His rules: which both Francis lacks to an astonishing degree.
The real Francis effect is the acceleration of the deterioration of Catholicism all over the West, whilst the orthodox friars of the FFI are ruthlessly persecuted. If Bergoglio & Co. had been put in their places by the Castro family with the task of making the maximum damage in the shortest of times, I doubt the Castro could have been more pleased with the first ten months.
The “strategy” of self-destruction will continue – bar some extraordinary intervention from above – in the years to come, with a VII Church becoming more and more secular and justifying her progressive decay with the fact that the society becomes… wordlier. You don’t say? How ever could it happen?! A real mystery…
Others will, as they always do, blame the sexual abuse scandals for their own failures. An excuse grown now extremely old. What they fail to explain to you is how it can be, then, that the most conservative Orders grow like there’s no tomorrow, whilst the pastoral and caring ones – like, erm, the Jesuits – have reduced themselves to old nincompoops not taken seriously by anyone, not even their own red and/or perverted friends. What is it: the Catholics think the pervs came from the ranks of the Jesuits? Or are they looking for Catholicism instead of “gay rights” supporters?
In time, though, the likes of Bergoglio will become extinct, and the likes of Fellay will continue to grow. Give it two generations at most, and those who are still Catholic will be ready to start the work again. From the catacombs, perhaps; but they will.
This will be, then, the ultimate “Francis effect” of the next decades: the progressive dying of the suicidal “Presbyterian wing” of the Church, so that the real Catholics may emerge stronger in a Church now much smaller, but ready for battle.