Author Archives: Mundabor
I would like to develop the considerations made very recently about (really) progressive pro-Life legislation and extend them to rightly intended judicial activism.
Libtards and perverts have libtard, perverted judges remaking the laws of the Country for them; as seen in the matter of so-called “marriage equality”, when a perverted judge in California, and subsequently others, blatantly abused of their power to create a subversive environment in due time picked up by lesbians and cowards sitting in the Supreme Court.
It can work the other way, too. Let a small number of brave judges unhinge abortion laws with lower court decisions, and a climate of challenge to the iniquity of abortion laws will be created in time. This in turn will make it easier for other judges to strike down abortion laws in more states, and the matter will land on the Supreme Court, who will then be under massive pressure to conform to the new – real or perceived, it does not matter – spirit of the time.
Alas, the US seems to be a Country where most conservative judges are extremely respectful of the limits to their role, and many libtards judges completely lack this perspective and use their office to act as substitute legislators.
Let this sword cut from both edges, say I. Let us start to encourage conservative judges to be just as militant as their libtarded counterparts. Let us start to create an environment in which it is good that a judge attacks with the sledgehammer what goes against common sense, Christian decency or basic humanity. If this is not done, we will end up with good people protecting those evils their very evil colleagues have contributed to creating.
I am sick and tired of seeing godless idiots striking under the belt line whilst our own keep playing by the rules. Go for their balls, and strike hard. Very hard.
The role of the President is in Austria (like in Germany) more than largely ceremonial. Therefore, the very narrow defeat of Mr Hofer must not dishearten anyone who has the destinies of Europe dear.
What has happened yesterday is a further demonstration that the electorate in Europe is slowly waking up. This process can be made slower, but it can clearly not be stopped by the usual character assassination of everyone even moderately on the right of centre. 49.7% of the Austrian voters clearly do not care how they themselves, or their candidates, are called. They want their own representatives to do their job or go home.
People are having enough of this madness. As more and more elections are held and, one after the other, European voters start to express their rejection of the betrayal of their own elected representatives, more voters are encouraged to speak out among friends, and to put their ballot where their brains are; and political correctness be stuffed.
The Austrian people have clearly had enough. The German people are beginning to show they have almost had enough. A huge rally against this immigration madness took place in Rome only days ago. Even the most effeminate Countries in Europe, the Nordic ones, begin to show signs of returning sanity.
It will take more times, I am sure. But every smart politician (not many around I am afraid) must slowly start to understand that old slogans won't work, and accusation of quasi-Nazism to everyone who dares to speak the truth will be their grave in the end. It is time now for those who want to keep their job to try to save face and slowly go into reverse gear; because it is by now clear enough that to keep going forward means to crash against a wall that will destroy countless careers.
Wake up, cowardly European elected representatives; and start doing your job properly, or face the sack.
Alas, the Governor of Oklahoma has vetoed the law making of abortion a felony in most cases. However, the reason seem to be the way the law is formulated – too vague and too open to challenges – rather than the principle in itself. It might be just an excuse, of course. But the sounds are encouraging.
We need this kind of legislative activism. History shows us that constitutional courts all over the West “adapt” their interpretation of the Constitution to the popular mood. If they do it when the results are evil, they can do it when the results are good, too.
Roe vs Wade must be chipped away one piece at a time. It must be put under siege like it's Jerusalem in 1099. The entire US population must be made to see – and cheer – the soldiers and the catapults ready for the attack on the citadel.
At the same time, a favourite tactics of the Liberals should be used: the narrative of inevitability, of a tidal wave coming anyway, of the abortionists being “on the wrong side of history”. Laws made by the representatives of “We, the People” are a very good way on sending this message.
Soon, the perception would be created – and it would not even be wrong – of a Country seeking elementary justice, and stopped by justices stuck in an Evil Era. This is when the right justices will be appointed, and Roe vs Wade will be overturned.
Every legislative activism that works for the right side must be welcomed. The probability of survival in court of such laws are neither here nor there. Perceptions shape reality.
First create the right climate.
The right decisions will follow.
“I remember him with esteem and in friendship. I think he has left a human and spiritual legacy of some significance; candid relations, free expression and generous civic and political commitment towards others, especially for the weak in need of solidarity” said the Pope’s spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi. “Pannella was a person with whom, in the past, we were often in disagreement. However, his complete, disinterested commitment to noble causes cannot but be appreciated.”
These are the words Father Lombardi, not coincidentally a Jesuit, found for the man responsible for all kind of abominations, from the killing of countless unborn babies to public adultery to legalisation of drug use to, even, sexual perversion.
One polite way to call such a man in Italy is leccapiatti (plate licker). This is complete, abject submission to the world’s false values.
Note the inversion of logical thinking here. Pannella’s satanic thinking and decades-long acting is downgraded to “disagreement”; what really counts in appraising the man is the fact he wanting to do something for jail inmates. Unsurprisingly, he loved Pope Francis. Well, this is certainly not news, but rather to be expected. The two are, clearly, birds of a feather. Father Lombardi licks the world’s plates as he licks his boss’ ones. Complete, abject surrender to the world. Disgusting.
One does not demand that Father Lombardi uses his press conference for a strong tirade against the perverted man. His diplomatic role probably prevents him from this. But once he expresses (of his own volition, or because asked) his own opinion about the dead bastard, as a Catholic and a darn priest he should feel the need to express words of warning for the fact that such a man has now met his Maker, and the encounter must have been a frightful one.
This isn’t simple dereliction of duty. This is praise of the satanic enemy, and therefore indirect but very clear help given to the Enemy.
“For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me”, stays in Psalm 69. Exactly the contrary is the case for Father Lombardi. Pannella insults the Church all his life in deed and words, and Lombardi is so appreciative of him. He, Lombardi, will get no reproaches.
I am sure the Angels in heaven looked on Father Lombardi. It is enough to keep my adrenaline below danger level.
I suspect Father Lombardi and Marco Pannella will (how shall I put it…) meet again one day.
I read around considerations about modifying Amoris Laetitia, perhaps getting rid altogether of the worst of the worst (footnote 351). Whilst something is better than nothing, and a modification is better than doing nothing, I do not think it can be said that such a view would be the best one; much less that the other view (withdrawal) should not be pursued or is impracticable.
It may well be that never an official papal document has been withdrawn. However, never was a papal document as horribly wrong, sacrilegious and blasphemous as this one is. New ailments require new medicines. Besides, as far as I know entire councils have been withdrawn. We aren't, therefore, so much into uncharted territory here.
The decision or the evaluation whether a document should be withdrawn does not depend from the factual probability of this happening. It depends from it being right, or wrong, that such a document be withdrawn. If it is right to withdraw the entire document, then this demand must be made unceasingly.
Nor is it relevant that Pope Francis will never withdraw the document. Again, if the battle is right, the outcome has no bearing on its righteousness. Besides, papal documents are destined to exercise an influence well beyond the Pope who promulgated them. The battle for the withdrawal of Amoris Laetitia will outlive Francis, and possibly all of us, but it will be victorious one day.
It also cannot really be said that if Footnote 351 were to be removed, then the world would be if not right, at least acceptably wrong. Amoris Laetitis is rotten at its core, in the very secular thinking which inspired it. The rejection of AL must be just as total as the secular principles behind it are totally wrong. This blog and many others have shown that the problem isn't the footnote, it's the document as a whole and the mentality that gave birth to it.
Another argument can be made in favour of withdrawal: that seen the number of weaklings within the Vatican, only a robust call for withdrawal can achieve the result of amendment. Asks for amendments, and you'll get either nothing or cosmetic reformulations (insert Pollyannas' little cries of joy here). But let a powerful call for withdrawal rise from the Catholic world, and suddenly robust amendments become a very concrete option, perhaps even in our lifetime.
Finally, there is a broader consideration to be made. The request that the document be modified, (that is: improved), still allows the Evil Clown to, in a way, save face. In sharp contrast, the demand that the document be altogether withdrawn is, unavoidably, an indictment not only of AL, but of Francis' pontificate itself. This element is not to be underestimated, because the ability of the Evil Clown to confuse Catholics is directly linked to his credibility as good, or bad, or obscenely evil, holder of the sacred office entrusted to him.
For all these reasons it is absolutely right that faithful Catholics insist, not only now or as long as the Evil Clown remains in power, but for all generations to come and until victory, that AL be withdrawn.
And it came to pass the Evil Clown really angered the Bear (you should, as we all know, never anger a bear), and the latter called him “a malignant buffoon”.
I do not know if this is the first time this excellent Bear becomes so angry, but if memory serves it is the first time I read him doing so.
It is good that the laity speaks frankly and tells it like it is, because priests cannot be expected to call the Pope “a malignant buffoon”; though I am absolutely sure very many think every bit of it, and worse (that is: better for their own soul).
It is for us, the Catholic laity, to warn in very clear terms the uneducated, often confused sheep about the scale of the evil unfolding under our very eyes. Every time a comment like the one above appears in a blog, many read it and start to seriously think, or are at least cured from their ignorant preconception about the Pope who must perforce be a saintly man.
Well done, that bear! Well done, all you bloggers and commenters out there who look at reality in the face and just tell it like it is!
I like that.
Marco Pannella, who just died at 86 extremely badly lived years, was the embodiment of the true bastard.
Starting from the Mid-Fifties, the man was at the forefront of everything that is evil in Italy: abortion, divorce, drugs legalisation, abolition of life prison, and many other evils. Everything that is bad, he tried to accomplish. Everything that is good, he despised. A born showman and talented clown, he would do everything he could to get the limelight. His hypocrisy was legendary, his “hunger strikes”, begun, then suspended, resumed, suspended after the insistence of “friends” the matter of infinite jokes among sound thinking Italians. But he knew how to catch an audience with the endless love of Marco Pannella for Marco Pannella. Most people considered him an entertaining maverick. Some took it seriously. Many more never realised how much he was slowly corrupting them.
The lover of Emma Bonino, the genocidal mass-abortionist later promoted to slut-heroin of the Republic, the man admitted some years ago to homosexual sex with Lucio Magri. I have written about this other bastard when he chose to put an end to his days in a clinic in Switzerland. However, Magri was a bastard of much higher quality than Pannella. Pannella was just a disordered clown with an infinite love for himself, very publicly displayed.
Marco Pannella has now met his Judge, and it is very difficult to imagine the outcome was any other than hell. What is certain is that – excluding the sacraments, which I really don’t think he requested – hell could have been avoided only in case of perfect contrition, that is: reneging of everything Marco Pannella was for his entire life. You can make a guesstimate of the probabilities here. However, know that once again God won: if he repented, because he repented. If he did not repent, because he met his just punishment.
Can’t wait to read what praises Francis and the others will pour on the bastard. Make no mistake: Francis and Pannella are birds of a feather.
Good riddance, Marco. A bastard like you seldom disgraced the soil of my once wonderfully Catholic Country.
We might have deserved a plague like you with our infidelity. But this does not make of you less of a bastard.
P.S. please let not anyone come out with the nonsense of de mortuis nil nisi bonum. What applies to private individuals must carefully be avoided for public characters, particularly in times like these. When it became known that Hitler had shot himself, I doubt there were many exercising their Latin.
I try to take a mini-holiday from the Evil Clown, and I miss this.
I will say it once again: if you do not see the evil exhuding from every pore of this man something is very, very wrong with you.
This is diabolically wrong in several ways. It is astonishing how much evil this man can pack in a few sentences. If he had a drug-addicted Trannie as Pope he might be more Catholic than this tool here.
It is, firstly, satanical that a Pope would encourage the mass immigration of infidels in Europe.
Secondly, it is satanical that the violent conquest of the planet be seen not as an intrinsic element of Islam, but as a phenomenon specific to ISIS.
Thirdly, it is ridiculously contradictory that Francis factually admits, in the following breath, that the idea of conquest is, in fact, a part of Islam.
Fourthly, and in order to show even the most stupid how much he hates Christ, he produces himself in the explanation of the moral equivalence, which “could be stated”, between the Great Commission (given to the faithful) and the violent subjugation of the planet (by infidels).
The mind boggles at the thought that this man is the Pope. The sins of fifty years of V II have been terrible indeed, for us to deserve this satanical clown as, of all people, the Pope.
Pray for the end of this pontificate.
I would like to develop of my post of yesterday, about the way words win culture wars, to make some additional considerations about the role of a Catholic in his environment.
I see around me – and see blogs around; some of them good Catholic ones – an attitude that seems to say: “I will show and say that I am a Catholic, but I will not engage or antagonise you in the matters in which we disagree”. I am afraid this is not sufficient.
We are called to be Catholic in season and out of season. Therefore, we must accept that confrontation will come to us, and we will have to accept – nay, to embrace – it. Particularly so, when confrontation is all around us.
There were times – particularly where I grew up – when Catholicism was so culturally dominant that discussions about Catholic values were almost never necessary. People simply shared the same values. Perhaps they did not go to church, but their Weltanschauung was pretty much the same of those who did. Almost no one would come out with outlandish, openly anti-Catholic ideas.
This changed little by little, whilst the silent Catholics kept “doing their thing” (penance, prayer etc), and renounced to antagonise those who showed worrying signs of detachment from the common system of values.
Millions of good Catholics did not become vocal about contraception. There was no “march for life” about it, though opposing contraception is undoubtedly about it. Next, you had divorce, and again the Catholic country decided to shut up and “spread the joy of Christ”, which consisted in shutting up when out of season. Next, you had abortion, and here things became a little more heated, but not really much, as Italy went on to abort more than 100,000 babies in the womb every year.
I do not doubt countless Catholics were faithful to the end. But were they really the salt of the earth? Forty years later we can say that no, the salt had already lost its saltiness, and it was no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
The trampling is happening now.
It is not enough to just “do your thing” in private. It is a very naive thinking that people will notice our “joy” (as I keep hearing in stupid V II homilies) as if Catholics were a bunch of Hare Krishnas whom people see on the street and say: “look, those three friends over there are are so joyful! They must be Catholics, then!” We must engage people, confront them if must be, do all we can to let the scales fall off their eyes.
That prudence must be applied in the process does not mean that the process is wrong; and by the way, prudence can dictate that one picks the time, but it does not dictate that one remains silent when his values are challenged.
I can try to engage an atheist friend in a smart way; I can never shut up if he professes his atheism. It is, in this case, my duty to warn him of hell. Not “next time”, and not “when the time is right”, but now. Silence makes us accomplices of the sins of others.
This goes, I believe, also and particularly for bloggers. If a blog deals exclusively with how to pray the rosary today, how to be a better Catholic wife tomorrow and how to provide for meatless Friday the day after tomorrow whilst a war for the soul of the West is raging, there is a lot of escapism in this Catholicism.
War rages around us. Even bathrooms are enrolled in an all-out attack against Christianity.
Telling others about meatless Friday, or the “joy of being Catholic”, truly is not enough.
The Libtard fights your morals and Christian identity by criminalising the way you express them. From “microaggression” to “hate”, he will dissect every word you say until you learn to either shut your mouth, or only open it in a way that is convenient to him.
The worst of this is: the more you comply, the more you get cornered and silenced; one “microaggression” after the other. And as you express your ideology less and less, every word that expresses it becomes more “extremist”, and Christian morality becomes “hate”.
Conservatives have been very bad at this game. Pathological “nice guys” fighting against the shameless bastards of Sixty-Eighter sluts, they have given away the battleground.
They stopped saying “fag”, and started to say “gay”; because it should not be thought they were unkind. They stopped saying slut, dyke, whore, bastard, pervert, adulterer, because they were told calling things with their name is uncharitable. They modified, watered down, and even adulterated their own language in countless ways to please a far more aggressive enemy.
As it always happens, a changing vocabulary changed the perceptions, and with it the morals, of entire Countries.
If being a bastard isn't a source of shame, why would it be a source of shame to give birth to one?
If being a slut is something we should not “judge”, will there be more or less sluts around?
If being a heretic isn't so terribly bad, how can heresy be so terribly wrong?
If public adultery is not publicly stigmatised, how long will it be before we are told they should be admitted to receive communion?
Words make minds. Language shapes culture. You re-appropriate your traditional heritage by claiming your right to harsh words in order to describe harsh facts.
Let, therefore, your words resound in a very clear manner. Protect your right to be truthful, lest truthfulness be one day outlawed in the name of liberal ideology. Call a fag a fag, a bastard a bastard, a heretic a heretic, and a whore a whore.
Public stigma works. Our forefathers knew it. But then again they were too smart to believe in effeminate “niceness”.
There is a beautiful and instructive article of Patrick Archbold on the Remnant about the purpose of prophecy in the life of a Christian. I suggest you follow the link and read it there.
I would also like to add a couple of reflections. Nothing new to my affectionate readers, but again repetita iuvant.
In the sixty or sixty-five generations of Christians which have preceded us, there has never been scarcity of those who predicted that the end is near. Every time of war, famine, drought, pestilence, or relaxation of customs (that is, basically: every time) has brought about a great number of believers in the Imminent End. Our time is no exception.
Most lose – or do not have – the historical perspective. The Great Plague and the Thirty Years War (just to mention the first two examples that came to my mind) brought suffering over great part of Europe sheer unimaginable to modern sensitivities, acutely suffering for the plight of the Panda. The world did not end then, and it did not end during WWI, or the French Revolution, or the Russian one.
Every age has its own challenges. Every age has its own way in which we are asked to remain faithful. Our generation has remained untouched by all-out war, pestilence, and famine, but it is marked by a level of godlessness and heresy even within the Church that is, indeed, a test of faith of its own kind. I suspect that the heresy within the church – and the abandonment of the sheep by their own shepherds – is about to bring an age of outright persecution: the wolves are now ready to attack an unprotected flock, even as the shepherds ask us to welcome the wolves instead of fighting against them.
It astonishes me when a man of low intellect like Francis; a lewd, hypocritical old man, stupid even in his way of being evil, is believed the False Prophet or even the Antichrist. Boy, they have set the bar low! Francis couldn’t deceive a thirteen years old boy who has reflected seriously about the faith. He does not look like the False Prophet – much less the Antichrist – to me.
The lesson I learn from the time we are living is this: nihil sub sole novi. Heretical Popes have plagues the Church before, and one is doing exactly that now. Persecutions have come and gone before, and the next one may be coming now. Challenges have come and gone, substituted by new ones. We live in our time, and we have our own mark of heresy, our own type of challenge, our own way to resist the devil and remain faithful.
We do not know when the world will end. The worry is largely academical as our own end can happen anytime anyway, and is vastly, vastly more probable that it will precede the end of the world. Therefore, I prefer to worry that when the world ends for me, I am prepared. Prophecies, and the way I put them in their own proper historical context, help me in that; but I do not going around saying to you what sixty-five generations of “world-enders” have said before, being wrong all of them.
Let your focus be your own end, instead of the world’s.
Methinks, it will profit you much more.