Daily Archives: February 23, 2017
Well, there is no good way to convey this.
The terrible news is here.
Vennari is (with Ferrara, Matt and Verrecchio), one of my Four Musketeers. One had a selfish hope he would stay with us for many years more.
It was a selfish hope. It appears the Lord has sent the message, that He wants Vennari with him at some point in the, alas, not too distant future.
Sad as the news is, one tries to see it from a broader perspective. A life of such beauty that goes now slowly towards its end should fill our hearts with consolation, not sadness. We will all be called one day, and I wish so ardently I could, if it came for me today, take the call with the serenity Mr Vennari shows in his post, and with the same quiet assurance of a life well spent.
God calls the good and faithful servants to him, that he may have them near. We, wretched sinners, will have to fight for who knows how long still, and I doubt we will go to our judgment with the same confident serenity of this good man.
John Vennari requests our prayers. Let us do for him a tiny fraction of the good he has done to all of us.
And let us pray that, one day, we may go to our Lord with the same strong faith he has graced us with, with the same serenity he shows in this hour, and with the same chances of salvation with which he will present himself to His Judge.
Please pray for John Vennari.
There Is No Need For Dangerous Faggots: On Milo Yiannopoulos And The Liberace-Style Of Making Politics.
The very recent news of Milo Yiannopoulos’ “resignation” from Breitbart allows me to share with you a couple of reflections of – as is typical in Yiannopoulos himself – very politically incorrect nature.
I visit Breitbart every day, and in the last week or two I was peeved not a little at seeing those very disgusting pictures of Yiannopoulos on the site almost every day. My impression of the man was that, whilst he said a lot of things that were sensible and reasonable, he had a very basic, very fundamental flaw: like in most homos, his perversion was clearly his dominant character trait, the “feature” that defined who he is. Nor have I ever believed his repeated protestations of being a, so to speak, involuntary fag who would very much like to be straight, as everyone who really thought that way would avoid dressing and behaving like a flaming queen immediately afterwards. For this reason I have often read what the man wrote, but I could never stomach any video of his, nor have I ever given him any meaningful space on this blog. Basically, the man was like a well of fresh water in order to reach which you have to drill through thick strata of excrement. Thanks but no thanks, Mr Liberace. There will be other wells.
The specifics of Yiannopoulos – momentary, I think – fall are also less transparent that many would want you to believe. It is true that the man has not – literally – advocated sex with pre-pubescent boys. However, I think this is fairly irrelevant from our perspective. Like most homos, the man has clearly no problem with sex with very young boys, and be they grown up physically. The “growing process” crap with which homos tend to snare confused boys of questionable virility is obviously present in him, too and no, I don’t care a straw that he says he has been “abused”. Sodomy is always abuse. Homos tend to like very young, very thin boys. You wonder how deep behind the surface the paedo is lurking.
Most telling to me, though, is that Breitbart decided to ditch Yiannopoulos, which I think indicates a high probability that they know more than we do and have decided that they are better off without him. Everyone who knows Breitbart a little realises that, if they had had confidence that Yannopoulos is sound – at least on pedophilia -, a) they would have started a crusade and extermination war against the liberals clamoring for his scalp and b) they would have relished the fight. They can be such pitbulls that they surprise even yours truly, which in my eyes makes their decision to “resign” Yiannopoulos the more telling.
And what is the moral of the story? It is that you can never trust a homosexual, particularly one that has “outed” himself and thinks he is Liberace. The very fact that he is homosexual tells you that something is very wrong with him; and as a Catholic you know full well that when Satan has already made such inroads into a man’s conscience, chances are he will do further damage. Thinking that a homo will be a perfectly decent man besides the “detail” of his homosexuality is – particularly in the presence of openly effeminate behaviour and associated circus antics – as naive as to think that a fox can gain her way in the hen house and be happy with one victim or two. The high rate of suicides and psychosomatic diseases, and the high percentage of pedophiles who are homosexual, make it clear enough. Unfortunately, this is not the kind of matter-of-fact, sensible information you will ever read from the Buggers Broadcasting Communism.
Conservatives have tried to make excuses for him, because they liked what he had to say. “He uses his homosexuality as a weapon against the attacks of the liberals”, some said, or “this is only a vehicle used to spread the message among the young”.
Rubbish. No decent person can condone indecency in the name of turning an indecent generation away from it. Yiannopoulos’ antics could have never been justifiable, much less “good”, in the name of a higher good. You see how these people often end up anyway, because their own deep seated disorder is a constant menace to themselves.
Breitbart does not need Yiannopoulos, and Yiannopoulos needs to put his life where his mouth is and convert to decency, living the morality he preaches.
It always peeves me when libtard scalp hunters can claim a victory. But this wasn’t a very difficult target.
There is no need for dangerous faggots. There is, in fact, no need for faggots of any sort.
Pope Francis had, with usual hypocrisy (I do not call him The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History, or TMAHICH, for nothing) pretended he was on the sidelines during the synod, allowing the “debate” (including perversion, and sacrilegious undermining of Sacraments) and then intervening at the end like the good uncle who cares for orthodoxy.
Well, that was another blatant lie, as we all knew but is now officially official.
You must notice a couple of revealing elements here. Emphases mine:
1) Cardinal Baldisseri’s bomb: “The documents were all seen and approved by the Pope, with the approval of his presence,” “Even the documents during the [Extraordinary] Synod, such as the Relatio ante disceptatationem [the preliminary report], the Relatio post disceptationem [interim report], and the Relatio synodi [final report] were seen by him before they were published.”
2) The reason Cardinal Baldisseri gives for dropping the bomb: “This point is important not only because of his authority, but also it puts the Secretary General at ease,”
I can see a clear pattern here. Baldisseri is feeling the heat for his scandalous behaviour at the Synod. He is more or less fed up of being identified with it by all the mainstream Catholics (the informed Catholics know Francis was behind everything, because they think). He then separates his responsibility from the one of the Unholy Father, and lets the bomb drop: “don’t blame me”, he says, “this is Francis’ work”.
Baldisseri is obviously the little lapdog of Francis, but it is true that in this case the responsibility for the text lies entirely by Francis. Francis is in charge, Francis read, Francis green lighted the text, Francis answers for it.
Another difficult day for the Pollyannas, then.
But don’t worry. They are stupid enough. They will swallow new excuses.
The text of the relatio, and the scandalous events happened before and after, do demand that we pose the question: is this Pope homosexual?
The relatio post disceptationem was a piece of clearly homoerotic rubbish. It cannot have come from the mind of a normal, healthy, straight man because normal, healthy, straight men are disgusted by homosexuality.
Therefore, even Francis has such a dirty mind that he has some sort of lewd sexual excitement by mixing with sexual perverts (as the latest example of the Trannie has proved once again), or he is homosexual himself, and promotes the homo agenda at every step.
Either very lewd, or outright pervert. Tertium non datur.
I continue to pray for both his immortal soul, and the end of this pontificate.