Daily Archives: June 27, 2014

He Who Touches The Cables Dies.

In my native Country, below high voltage electricity poles a simple writing explained the situation: “chi tocca i fili muore”, “he who touches the cables dies”.

No money was spent to explain on TV to stupid teenagers that stupidity can cost one's life; with good reason, because a stupid teenager will be, in case, more excited than dissuaded by such nannying exercises.

Instead, the message was told very cheaply, and very efficiently, in very dry words. I have no knowledge of mass deaths of stupid teenagers willing to show to their friends how brave they are. It's fair to say simple words, and letting people free to pay for their own mistakes if they really want to, worked rather well. You “feel” that you are entitled to touch the cables? Your choice. But you will die.

Not so in XXI Century England, where a man can trespass just outside of Waterloo station, and the rail managers immediately proceed to interrupt electricity along the rails, and to completely paralyse one of the biggest stations of a big Western Country for more than half an hour, and cause delays of above forty minutes in total to every single train. You “feel” you are entitled to trespass on the rails? Fine…

Nor can it be said that, once it is decided that stopping the electrification of the line is the thing to do (with which even I might agree, on a good day) prompt action was taken to remove the trespasser. There is in this country either no rail police, or if there is it has no power, because if you need more than thirty minutes to arrest a trespasser outside of a huge station it is clear these people are completely powerless. Summa summarum: this country is run like a kindergarten in the hands of old aunts, only worried that the worst rascals do not catch a cold.

Let us think it further: if youth are seen climbing the pillars of the high tension cables, are tens, or hundreds of thousands, of people left without electricity so that the idiots may not harm themselves? Why are not all bridges built in a way that prevents people from throwing themselves from them? Should we suspend underground service in London, until all the lines are provided with security barriers preventing idiots from dancing on the rails whilst drunk? Why are the white cliffs of Dover deprived of barriers? Why are motorways not closed everytime some drunkard wants to cross them (yes, it happens…)? “There was a man walking on the M4 in the direction of Heathrow. The entire motorway will now be shut for 40 minutes whilst the police arrests the trespasser. We “feel” with all those who will miss their flight because of this trespass”. Not bloody likely….

This could go on forever, but you understand what I am aiming at: a society that negates personal responsibility to the most absurd extremes – albeit these extremes are not universally applied or, better said, are only applied where the populace can still swallow the consequences – is a society heading toward self-castration, and producing a huge mass of dumb oxes paying the price for the antics of a bunch of idiots.

People aren't expected to pay the price of their actions anymore. “He who touches the cables, dies” isn't good enough. On the contrary: everyone must be protected from the price of his own stupidity, no matter the cost.

This extreme nannyism goes hand in hand with the deification of human life that has followed the loss of faith. Once, in Christian time, it was very simple: by killing that man, you have renounced to your own right to live; therefore, you will swing at the lower end of a noose.

By touching the cables, you have met the destiny of those who do so. By trespassing and walking on a train line, you have accepted the risk involved and about which you had been warned. By taking part in an armed robbery, you answer for homicide even if not you, but your accomplice has committed the murder, and even if you were absolutely contrary to killing anyone. You answer for murder because, by deciding to take part to the bank robbery, you have accepted all the consequences of your action, even those you would not have brought about.

Why do I tell you all this? Because, as the Earl of Cavour used to say, tutto is tiene: everything is linked to everything else.

In a world in which Waterloo Station is paralysed for 40 minutes by what probably was a drunkard, a madman, or both, it seems perfectly normal that someone else should change Church rules to please the adulterers. No one is responsible for anything, you see. When the madman trespasses, you block the station. When the adulterer trespasses, you block the Church.

I am not sure (lawfully) refusing to switch the electricity off would be wrong; no one stopps rivers from flowing under bridges, either, and if – say – a drunkard throws himself from a bridge he knows that the impact it's going to be hard; but I personally would prefer to stop the electricity, have the idiot arrested in six minutes net (abundant time; it was near the station; near enough to block every train), let his teeth get acquainted with the police stick, prosecute him, have him convicted, frock him so hard the news goes around, and have all the trains running again in eight and a half minutes; ten, tops.

Similarly, I am not sure adulterers in this country should be told every week that they must refrain from communion, are giving grave scandal, and will probably go to hell unless they reform themselves. But boy, there should be enough common sense around to let them know what they are risking, the position in which they are, and what God has said it happens to public adulterers:

He who touches those cables to the end, his soul dies.







There is an interesting blog post of the Traditional Catholic Priest in which, among other things, he informs us that the efforts of hackers are often directed at sites like his.

I must say I am not surprised. It has been my conviction for a long time that nowadays to declare oneself “tolerant” means to think that one has every right to be as intolerant as he pleases, anytime he likes. By particularly “tolerant” minds this extends to the point of committing criminal offences, but I can't say the average “tolerant” person out there is very much better, and many of them are probably merely not proficient enough to become criminals.

If this were a problem of a tiny minority of cranks, the problem would be easily manageable. But the phenomenon has now become mainstream, to the point that episodes like the recent one with Firefox are hailed as great victories rather than extremely dangerous signs of the erosion of the most elementary freedoms.

I can compare this situation – I mean the legal, mainstream intolerance, of which the criminal activity is but the inevitable fallout – to pockets of Nazi thinking in the middle of free democracies. It this is not stopped it will end up in tears, then it is in the very nature of this mentality that the pockets will become increasingly larger, until the reaction to them will have to take place in the same way as every struggle for freedom has taken place in the past: with arms.

The Nazis are creeping in the middle of our society, and this increasing Nazification expresses itself in many ways, like the one mentioned by the good Father. Put them together with Firefox, with Apple censorship of Christian content, with the increasingly more aggressive intolerance of Christians in their own activity – a baker here, B & B owners there – and you get the picture.

The Nazis of “tolerance” are growing stronger; it isn't an hyperbole, but a very real danger.



Francis Proclaims Himself The Incarnation Of Orthodoxy.

One of the most alarming signs of the decay of Christianity in the West is the inability to put things in the proper context. In particular, this finds expression in the unquestioned acceptance of snippets and quotes used in a completely different way than the one meant by their original authors. The most dramatic example is certainly the “do not judge” quote, but one can see this mentality at work everywhere.

Say, a Pope of the past has criticised the abuse of riches: this is used to advocate a Socialist society that would have horrified that very Pope. Or, Padre Pio has stressed the virtue of obedience: this is used to demand that we be accomplices in every clerical abuse. I could go on.

The reason why this at the same time ignorant and subversive tactic “works” is that in the past the uneducated masses knew they were uneducated, and realised they had to rely on the guidance of people with a better understanding of things; besides, they were in fact guided by people who really had a sound understanding. In dramatic contrast, millions of barely literate people nowadays think themselves “educated”, and are persuaded that they are the ultimate metre of right and wrong; and are helped in this by a cowardly clergy intent in telling them all day what bright minds they are. It is, in such circumstances, certainly no surprise that every word of the past can be raped by contemporaries, amidst the applauses of the crowd.

The last example of this has been given, in the most shocking of ways, by Our Own Very Humble Jesuit-In-Chief. He has, during the crisis meeting with some FFI representatives about which Rorate and others have reported, apparently said two old things in new, and very scandalous ways:

1. The quip of St. Ignatius who said that if the superior says White is black, they must believe it, and

2. The assertion that the Pope is, tout court, the guarantor of orthodoxy, so whatever he says is orthodox.

The first phrase is most certainly a grievous abuse of a sincere call to obedience, made in times in which the spread of heresy within the Church in the measure we see today was unthinkable. The Unholy Father, the Humble Bishop, abuses of this to demand blind obedience no matter what, in the most shameless and most un-Catholic expression of Führerprinzip he has had the insolence of using up to now.

The second phrase is, if possible, even worse: it is an open invitation to shameless clericalism to the point of Papolatry, the arrogant demand that he be obeyed whatever he may say or order, because whatever he may say or order must, in virtue of his being the… Bishop, orthodox.

This isn’t Catholicism anymore. This is the talk of an Oriental Satrap, or of a Roman Emperor demanding to be deified.

Surely, Francis must accept that there is a Truth according to which his every action can be weighted and, if necessary, criticised? If he accepts this, every talk along the lines of 1. and 2. above must be balderdash. If he doesn’t, he thinks he is God, or at least wants you to treat him in the same way.

Francis is quite the Jesuit. The oh so humble Embracer Of Wheelchairs is the first one to abuse of his office with an arrogance that would beggar belief, if we would not know the man very well by now. The prophet of “do not judge” reveals his agenda, that can be summed up in: “do not judge me, whatever I do”. His demand that he be considered the true embodiment of Orthodoxy whatever he may say would be a scandal in any Pope, but it is the most so by one so evidently ignorant, so appallingly inadequate, so tragically incompetent, so shamelessly Jesuitical like this one.

Pope Uriah becomes more and more disquieting. And what disturbs more is his total lack of shame and self-control.





Bishop Galantino, And Mainstreaming Mundabor

In the staged pose of the wannabe cool idiot: Bishop Galantino.




Read on the usual Rorate the extremely strong article written by Antonio Socci, with a no-holds-barred criticism of the disgraceful Bishop Galantino, Francis’ own new Secretary of the Italian Bishop’s conference.

Whilst – as Rorate points out – Socci is not a Master of Orthodoxy, nor a Paladin of Tradition, I find the article very interesting not only because it is well-written and factually accurate, but most notably because the bunch of idiots now running the Church begins to be treated with at least one part of the contempt and ridicule they have richly deserved for betraying Christ’s Church.

The bishop in question, Galantino, has now after the atrocious sniping of the “expressionless face” of those praying in front of abortion clinics, forgotten all decency again, and I quote:

“We want to apologize to the non-believers because many times the way we live our religious experience completely ignores the sensibilities of unbelievers, and we say and do things that very often don’t reach them, but rather vex them.”

I will not offend your intelligence telling you all that is wrong in the words of this heathen. I will point out, though, that Galantino has, no doubt, wanted to make himself beautiful in the eyes of Francis. Strong reactions like Socci’s one not only signal the growing impatience of sound thinking Catholics with the continuous barrage of outrageous nonsense now administered to us, but they also show with great clarity that if the head of the Bishops’ Conference and clear protégé of the Pope can be criticised in such a way, the Pope himself cannot lull himself in the impious hope that whenever he says “black is white”*, the press will swallow it whole.

Everytime that the confrontation goes a notch higher – and the confrontation has just gone two, or three notches higher – the Unholy Father gets nearer to the same criticism. It is as if he could hear the shells from the cannons of sound Catholicism now falling increasingly nearer to the Domus Sanctae Marthae.

There will, of course, always be those who contract the Voris Disease and decide to become selectively blind; but in the same way as Voris’ criticism of everyone but the Pope merely exposes his own selective blindness in not criticising the Pope, the harsh – deservedly harsh; less harsh than he deserved – treatment of Bishop Galantino will train many to think in the right Catholic way; and when they start doing so, the army of those who see all the irreligious incompetence, boundless vanity and shameless populism of the Bishop of Rome will grow. At some point, the scandal will, Deo volente, explode fully in the Pope’s face, and will put an end to his dreams of boundless popularity at the cost of Catholicism. If you ask me, this will be the end of this phase of extreme enmity with Truth, because in my opinion Francis has no investment whatever either in Christ or the Devil, but merely in himself.

Kudos to Socci, then, who paves the way to a new tone in the way the press deals with Judas like Galantino.

Mundabor is slowly, but clearly, on his way to becoming mainstream among the sound thinking Catholics.



* post scheduled.


%d bloggers like this: