Daily Archives: January 9, 2015

Charlie Hebdo And Us

 

The bloody end of the man-chase in France – and the connected episode in the Jewish supermarket in Paris – are a good time to say a word or two about the matter of censorship, freedom, and “dialogue”.

Where I come from, no one would have thought that freedom of expression should extend to blasphemy. In Italy, blasphemy had been a criminal offence since 1930 (note: after the Patti Lateranensi), and rightly so. Everyone understood that. Even atheists understood that. The blasphemy was, though, only a criminal offence if levelled at the Catholic religion. Never was, in those times, thought that Jews or Muslims deserved a legal protection, and rightly so. The idea is that there can be no “moral relativism” of sort in matter of blasphemy; because religions are, most emphatically, not born equal.

This means for us that we cannot say that if we do not want our religion to be offended, we have a duty to react when the bloody cult of the child-screwing, bloodthirsty, wannabe prophet Mohammed is offended.

Christ is King. Mohammed is a child rapist, violent false prophet. Got the difference?

Now, the cartoons of Charlie Hebdo were so disgusting in that stupid, Beavis-and-Butthead, look-at-me way of liberals and atheists that not even I have smashed them in the centre of my blog posts as a sign of solidarity. But this does not mean that I think that such publications should not be free to publish their rubbish, provided (if you ask me, and if I had my way) it does not attack the Catholic religion.

And let us also say that Christian and Muslims do not have a common cause ongoing here: we are not in the same barque as the Muslims merely because publications like Charlie Hebdo attack both the true and the false religion. We are, in this, in the same barque of Western Civilisation with Charlie Hebdo – vulgar and juvenile as they are – and against the barbarism of Islam. The Muslims are way, way out of this particular barque. Actually, some of them are shooting at it.

Let us not forget on which side we are just because of the vulgarity of that particular magazine. We cannot go down the way of having laws protecting the child-rapist and his wrong religion. It truly does not serve anyone, Christianity the least.

We are on the side of Charlie Hebdo, because we are on the side of Western civilisation against Muslim barbarism.

We only think, and we should say out loud, that they are very stupid team members.

M

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Francis, The Humble Bitch

dear pope

Curiously, Francis never bitches them…

 

 

More and more often we hear sermons, homilies, off-the-cuff comments, whatever, in which Francis goes on to insult people not mentioned or described specifically, but rather depicting with a rather large brush all kind of people he does not like.

I am not the only one, I think, who notices that these kind of attacks are becoming more and more frequent. My very strong impression is that the man perceives that he is more and more isolated, and confronted with a good number of people who do what they can to limit the damage, both inside and outside the Vatican.

The last morning homily is just another example. The man wants to tell us that peace can only be found in the Holy Spirit, and then goes on to show he is, by his own metre of judgment, very far from Him. Try this: 

“And being closed can turn into so many things: pride, sufficiency, to think myself better than others, also vanity, no? There are mirror-men and  women, who are closed in themselves and constantly looking at themselves. These religious narcissists, no? But, they have a hard heart, because they are closed, they are not open. And they look to defend themselves with these walls that they have around them.”

I am generally not the one who cries “projection!”, as I think the argument is mostly used in a way that does not make sense. But this here seems an example fit for the manual. The man has described himself with uncanny precision, and if you go beyond the usual stupid third-class imagery you will notice no one corresponds to the description of these men and women better than The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH ™) himself. 

Someone should tell the man that to go around bitching relentlessly in public isn’t very fitting to a Pope; and it is particularly bad when people understand that he is merely throwing the toys out of the pram, after seeing that every time he makes a move the sane Catholic world is against him and those around him suggest more, ahem, caution… 

What Francis would love you to buy is the narrative of the Pope who is “open to God’s surprises” (a clear oxymoron if read in a doctrinal or sacramental perspective), but surrounded by people who are closed to his novelties; because they are so self-centred, you see; so “closed”; because they think themselves superior to him (which isn’t difficult); because they are “religious narcissists” (means: love the traditional liturgy, and take Catholicism seriously) and because they have a “hard heart” (read: are against sacrilege).

The man goes on and on and on. He sees himself in difficulty, and reacts by digging his grave a bit deeper, whilst bitching all around like an old queen with a hysterical fit.

Now that a new year begins, someone should tell Francis that it might be the case to scale down the scandal, pay attention to what he says, and stick to the protocol rigidly.

I bet many did, though, though in more mellifluous words.

They were, probably, those about whom he was thinking when he was speaking the words above. The “closed” ones, etc. To Francis, to be a Catholic means to be a lot of adjectives, none of them flattering in the least.

M  

“You Shouldn’t Feel A Thing, Sweetie”

Not carrying? Very sorry, Monsieur, but you will now have to die...

Not carrying? Very sorry, Monsieur, but you will now have to die…

 

Ann Barnhardt has an interesting approach to protecting oneself from fanatic Islamists. I can only approve of her stance, and it is in fact sad that the European culture is so hostile to citizen having firearms. There are historical reasons for this in many European Countries, that were very valid some years ago (Italy and France had around 20% to 35% of the population voting for the Commies; that’s not an argument for mass firearm ownership) but become in my eyes less and less valid as the danger of a communist insurrection vanishes.

One cannot avoid thinking that the massacre in Paris could take place in the way it has taken place because… the terrorists knew that no one of the civilians inside the building would have a weapon. The dynamic would have been very different – and, possibly, the outcome – if every one of the people inside the office could have been carrying a concealed firearm. As it was, there were either unarmed citizens ready for the Halal slaughter, or (I think) one or two policemen who were obvious targets, as one of the cartoonists was under police protection.

Police protection, but no own weapon? Was it so? If so, does it make sense?

A diffuse ownership of weapons to honest citizens is a great contribution to a safer environment. In fact, I can never look at the scene of the restaurant robbery in “Pulp Fiction” without thinking “I wouldn’t do it in Arizona”. In real life, one is much better off pulling such stunts in states like California, or New York.

From the point of view of the terrorist attacker, the deterrence due to the fact that everyone, from behind every desk, could be the one that sends him to hell is rather convincing. And even admitting one is truly ready and determined to die (very few are) the quantity of law-abiding citizens *with a weapon* is in direct correlation to the speed with which the murderous suicidal terrorists can be taken down.

I envy the Americans their love for individual freedom, and the self-responsibility and self-reliance that go with thinking that the right to bear and carry firearms is a fundamental aspect of it.

I am pretty sure all the French victims of the attack to Charlie Hebdo disagreed with me. They considered it unthinkable, I am pretty sure, that private citizens should be free to carry weapons, and that firearms be carried by honest, law-abiding citizens in schools, offices, bank branches, cinemas, everywhere. Therefore, these very people were executed by two fanatics who, clearly, did not care to apply for a permit (one of the brothers had a conviction for terrorism-related offences; both of them were on a US no-fly list).

I must say: I much prefer the Barnhardt approach.

M

 

%d bloggers like this: