Daily Archives: August 29, 2016

If We Want To Defeat Islamism, We Must Recover Christianity

_74725751_74725750

Forbidden. Ten years in jail. Brutal enforcement. See Islam start to recede fast in a matter of one or two decades.

 

I will leave the duckduckgo-ing to you, but in the last days three news have emerged: the French justice system has rejected the ban on the “burkini”. In Britain, a proposed ban on Friday prayer in jails has been abandoned. Lastly, in Germany it has been pointed out that a ban on full-face cover might trigger a ban on Father Christmas costumes (the extreme ones, which cover all the face behind a very thick fake beard). 

The reasons for this are all too obvious: taken in isolation, the Western system of freedoms opens the door very wide to an – ultimately always – aggressive Muslim invasion. Our Western democracies have no legal antibodies protecting them from the infection of Islam. The bacteria are actually invited to enter the body, in the name of freedom. 

Mind, I do think that, at some point, the body will react. When the fever breaks out in earnest, the body of Western democracies will, in fact, start to produce the necessary antibodies all right. This must be so because – as we have seen all too clearly in the past in Germany, in Spain, and in Italy with the RAF, the ETA and the Brigate Rosse respectively – European democracies have a successful record of “bending the freedoms” with overt or covert operations meant to – not to put too fine a point on it – “do what you gotta do”. I have read of these “adaptations” concerning Germany (Stammheim anyone?) and Spain (with the covert ETA killings). I have lived them directly, concerning Italy, in many ways. 

However, I do not think that this reaction will happen until a point has been reached where the pain is substantial and widespread. A pity, because there is a much simpler way to stop this cancer from exploding.

The way is to recognise the special place owned by Christianity in the West. Nay, the acknowledgment of Christianity as not only religious, but cultural matrix of the West. This special role would, without a doubt, justify a special treatment without this causing the cherished principles of freedom of expression, freedom of religion etc being imperiled.

The realm of applications would be vast: for example, it is allowed to dress as Father Christmas (thus completing covering one’s face in public) but not to wear a burka. It is allowed to wear a catholic veil on one’s head, but not a chador. It is allowed to build monumental churches,  but it is not allowed to build purpose-built mosques. It is allowed to have Sunday laws, but it is not allowed to have “Friday laws”. There are Christian public holidays, but no Muslim ones. There is no right to interrupt work for Muslim prayer times. Halal meat is forbidden because of the cruelty to the slaughtered animal.

The list is very, very long.

All this would stem, in a perfectly reasonable way, from a fundamental principle: the West recognises traditional Christian customs as its cultural blueprint, and protects them accordingly. This is what many Countries did in the past both when they had Catholicism as State Religion (Italy) or they hadn’t (the German Halal ban in the Nineties). They did this without anyone questioning their democratic credentials. They did this following one of those thinking principles which might be unspoken, but are deeply felt; that are, in fact, unspoken exactly because they are deeply felt.       

There would be no need to kick out anyone per se. But there would be need to enforce these rules whatever the noise – or worse – made by the Muslims. When enough perverts and atheists have been massacred, I think there would be a number of them actually ready to embrace this thinking without hesitation.

Also, the same rules would have to apply to every non-Christian religion: Hindu, Sikh, the whole lot.

The West is Christian. Get on with it, or leave. 

Will it happen? Again, at some point the pain will be acute enough to cause something of the sort to happen. The “cultural heritage way” would be the easiest, most peaceful, most efficient way to deal with the cancer of Islam. 

The sooner atheists understand this, the better for all of us. 

M

 

 

If Sodomites have “Human Rights”, Why Should Incestuous Couple Not Have Them?

Keep-Calm-and-Catholic-On-RED

 

It had to happen at some point. 

An incestuous “couple” (mother and son; just so you know why you are vomiting) have just started their very public “human rights battle”. 

Can’t say they are wrong. 

They are both adult, and willing. Thinking with the stupid XXI century, they are “not doing harm to anyone”. Actually, they are not causing any physical harm, whilst sodomy causes a lot of physical harm (ask any sodomite on the receiving side. Thankfully, I can’t say anything about the other one). So, let me ask stupid England once again: why should they not be allowed to live like Elton? 

The truth is this: people have Truth inscribed in their hearts. As they get perverted by strange religions (like the religion of peace, and the church of niceness) they forget the truth inscribed in their hearts, or better said these truths become so faint that they are easily overridden by the prevalent religion of tolerance. 

But this does not happen all at the same time, or in one generation. It happens gradually. One generation is “pitiful” of the fags they despise. Their sons think the fags should be able to “marry”, because they “lurv”. Their nephews will think it “lovephobic” than people do not want that a man screws his own mother.

It’s all in these little words, “not doing harm to anyone”, you see. Those who think that way have forgotten what a sin is, what fear of the Lord is, what decency and purity are. They have been so brainwashed by the “lurv” society, that they drift one sin at a time; and every time, they cannot understands why they were resisting that particular sin in the first way.

The next generation might call you “lovephobic” like this one calls you “homophobic”. The following one will cal you “dogphobic” or “sheepphobic”, and you know why…

The worst thing is that they might dare to call themselves Catholic.

They might  even have a Pope, Francis III, who encourages them in this thinking via ambiguous apostolic exhortations and extremely verbous and just as stupid encyclicals.

The good news is: Truth can never change. Unless they repent, those who scream “homophobia” in this generation, “lovephobia” in the next and “dogphobia” in the following one will at death go there, where they get an awful lot of time to reflect about their rebellion.  

We keep praying our Rosary, like our grandfathers. Keep believing what our Grandfathers believed. Keep praying, and waiting that this punishment goes to an end.

 M

 

%d bloggers like this: