I do not know of any pre-1989 Western Democracy where Christianity is not rapidly declining and unChristian or antiChristian legislation is not on the march. I do not know of any pre-1989 Western Democracy where democracy itself is not being used to damage or destroy Christianity.
Let us now turn our attention to the Country those very same pre-1989 Democracies loves most to hate, and whose oh so unEuropean ruler attracts the secretly excited rage of overweight feminists and males thinking they are females trapped in a male's body: Putin.
Putin has been supporting the local Church (a Schismatic church, granted; but Christian nevertheless) from the start of his activity as President. This is both a cultural and a political operation as it is a religious one, but this does not make it one iota less good. The mingling of religious and political power, the emphatic non-separation between church and state, has been for many centuries a very distinguishing trait of Czarist Russia. This happened to a degree unknown to us for the last several centuries. Few people know that the Kremlin in Moscow was the seat of the highest religious as well as the highest political authority. This wasn't a coincidence, and it indicated that the one does not go without the other. May it be that this collaboration led at times to the wrong results (it's a schismatic church anyway), it can't be denied that it was at the root of the traditionally very deeply felt religiosity of the Russian people before the end of the Czarist regime.
Intelligently, Mr Putin has recovered this tradition. It is obvious that a lot of money and energy has been invested by the Russian government to not only tolerate or not obstacolate, but to positively promote the re-Christianisation of Russia after 70 years of Bolshevist rape. Whilst this is a task that will need more than one or two generations, it can't be denied it is proceeding at very good speed and with excellent results.
Now a trebling of St Petersburg's churches is proposed. I do not know any Western European (pre-1989) Democracy where such requests are made. Do you?
Nor can you say that Christianity is a pure instrument of power for Putin. Once built, a Christian mentality cannot be undone via ukase. Not even Stalin managed to destroy it completely, and Putin isn't Stalin. No, when Putin pushes for a Christian country, he knows that these very Christians will turn on him if he betrays Christianity. The deal is very clear, and very Russian. Christianity is not only a pillar of whatever autocracy Russia now has. It is, at the same time, the price this however accomplished autocracy has to pay, and this will become more and more so as the decades pass, the old Bolsheviks die, and a new Russia slowly emerges.
Please also note the paradox: the once Christian Democracies yell without cease at a Country where Christianity is actively promoted, and bash it without end for its being… Christian, which is now generally expressed with the word “homophobic”.
The West has forsaken Christianity and has now embraced new gods: democracy and sexual perversion. Putin has a very Russian understanding of the first, and a very Christian attitude towards the second. Strangely enough, Putin's understanding of democracy seems extremely liked by the Russian people, and they are being extremely responsive in embracing Christianity too, at least at a superficial level of Christian mores and understanding of moral boundaries. In short, their model works and it is largely accepted. Ours does not work and it is largely despised.
We sell our churches. They might (in places) treble theirs. We become a bunch of heathen. They become (slowly, but at a beautiful pace) more and more Christian. We hate and despise our politicians, and do not trust a word of what they say. They support and admire their own leader in a way unknown in Europe or the U.S., and like him the more when he asks them to suffer more deprivation for the sake of the Fatherland.
And we criticise the Russian government and people, and tell them that they are not good enough, because they do not conform to the gold standard of worship of democracy and sexual perversion as we, the ungodly worshippers of democracy, understand it.
More churches in Russia, say I. With God's help, one day the Orthodox will go back to the fold, and it will be all hay of the Only Church. As it stands, the Russian Orthodox are creating an impressive bastion against the satanisation of pretty much everything which our oh so accomplished, utterly satanical democracies want to achieve.
Give me one Putin and I will give you Merkel, two Renzis and three Hollandes; and to add some real value I will throw in Van Persie, half Messi and Pogba on loan for two years. *
* you don't get this? Ahiahiahi!!….
It should be evident to many already – and it will be more, I am afraid, in the years to come – that Western democracies are becoming the biggest threat to Western freedom.
In a world more and more devoid of Christian values, and made more and more stupid by lack of proper education, freedom is dying a slow death.
In Anglo-Saxon countries, millions of young men and women think they are educated because they have a degree, though they cannot even write. Their cultural horizon stops at the X-Factor and Lady Gaga. They inform themselves from the crappy free “newspapers” they find at train stations. They are children making children – outside of marriage, now almost as a majority; but hey, “who am I to judge?” – who would not be able to assess any situation other than by following what the army of equally ignorant sheep around them does.
Add to this that, more than twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of Communism as a global threat, the West has remained without any significant external enemy, and even the wave of highly-organised Islamist terrorism has been, if we are realistic, almost completely destroyed and certainly reduced to a social irrelevance in less than a decade by virtue of smart intelligence work, and determined military action.
As a result, the already dumb sheep, unable to even spell but – other than the illiterate of centuries past – with an extremely high opinion of themselves, have never experienced a real threat to their societal structure, and have never had in front of their eyes the spectacle of a vast number of European countries deprived of elementary freedoms. They have, therefore, neither the intellectual not the practical instruments to understand the value of freedom.
To these people, other perceived “values” are more important than freedom. Not believing in God, they make gods of themselves and need to be utterly persuaded of the fundamental goodness of the little gods they think they are. Everything that threatens the perceived picture of their own goodness will have to be sacrificed in order for them to continue to feel good with themselves.
At this point, words like “hate crime” begin to emerge; the sheep, too stupid to understand that in a free society hate – even the real one – can never be a crime, will soon run to the help of the allegedly “hated”, firstly because they feel like as many little gods of niceness, and secondly because they desperately need to feel they are not the dumb idiots they in the end know they are. In an orgy of self-satisfaction, the measures against “hate” will become more and more harsh, and their application more stringent. “Hate” will become everything the majority of dumb sheep clearly sees as different from themselves. All this, cela va sans dire, in a perfectly democratic manner; then when the majority doesn't care for freedom, their democracy will make the work for them without the need for any blood to be spilled.
This society – the society the West is creating every day – will be eerily similar to Nazism, at least to the Nazism perceived by the usual German sheep in the Thirties: nice, harmless, friendly people loving their beer and pretzel, and seriously persuaded they are actually the best people on Earth whilst living in the middle of abortion, euthanasia, heathenism, and ferocious thoughts-control. It will be instructive to keep in mind that, though certainly in different circumstances, the Nazis went to power in a fully democratic way.
It is a legend that democracies protect freedoms. Democracies do not protect freedoms. People do. If a people's understanding of basic freedom deteriorates, their democracy will soon reflect the change.
If you think we are very far from a situation like this, I seriously invite you to think again. More likely than not, some of yours neighbours already wouldn't really object to you being put to jail for expressing “hate” if they think it is a serious threat to the image they have of themselves (say: by being a Christian, and saying it). The number of such people is clearly on the increase. They might not necessarily oppose your faith as long as it remains in your bedroom, but will consider it not tolerable – and worthy of detention – if it goes against the pagan god of their own goodness and, astonishingly, tolerance. They are stupid, and illiterate. They do not understand freedom, much less Christianity. They are in love with themselves, and will desperately cling to their love until the day they will have to die, and their friends will “celebrate” their “goodness”. This cult of one's own goodness requires the “intolerant” to be punished without any… tolerance.
Some people think the usual Nazi of the Thirties was a “hating” beast filled with hate for a world or perceived enemies. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nazi Germany was a perfectly ordered, peaceful, prosperous society enjoying their tranquility and defending themselves against the, erm, “haters”; haters clearly recognised as such by society and one's better, and therefore uncritically accepted as such whilst enjoying one's tea and scones (or rather, beer and pretzel).
Do not make the mistake of thinking your own neighbour is much different that the friendly lady or lad in Nazi Germany. Your own neighbour already accepted “hate” legislation and homosexual marriage, and would say to you “bullying” is so very bad, it must be severely punished, surely? They might soon start resembling their counterparts in, say, Magdeburg circa 1937. It will merely take more time.
The world was freed from the horrors of Nazism by kicking and bombing their ass to the tune of around, if memory serves, eight million dead when both soldiers and civilians are added (the number might be different, but you get my drift). But there is no seeing what earthly power can be a threat to the extremely wealthy, technologically advanced, and militarily powerful Western societies, now slowly sliding toward Nazism out of lack of faith in God, and a strong belief in their own goodness.
We must pray, and pray more. We must stop being appeasers now, if we want to have some chance of becoming the persecuted of tomorrow. Most of all, we must resist this horrible climate of political correctness, and stop being nice with the Nazis.
If you think yourself too fine to say “faggot”, you will one day have to be fine enough to have them instructing your children, making your laws, ruling your life, and oppressing your religion.
Still is not too late. But the number of Nazis next door is growing. Only a robust cultural offensive – also consisting in the rejection of political correctness – will stop the Nazi sheep.
I have written on another post that if the Catholic clergy dared to wage open war on sodomy, their efforts would not fail to be crowned with success. Let us see why.
One of the greatest fallacies of democracies is the diffused thinking that as every head has one vote, every vote was born equal; this is simply not the case.
In England as in every other democracy, a politician looks for the approval of lobbies and pressure groups, and tries to follow the popular fashion. What terrorises him is a negative press. This counts, and nothing else. The vast mass of voting sheep do not interest the politician. He doesn’t care for the fact that most people abhor sodomy, because this abhorrence is diffused and not organised; it’ s not opposed by any organised group threatening to put an end to his career, nor is it a fashionable issue able to give him some nice headlines.
Homos, on the other hand, do have organised and vocal pressure groups, and they have managed (through the cowardice of the common man and the silence of religious authorities) to create a narrative that lets them appear –incredibile dictu – in a favourable light. The professional politician, who in the end is often nothing better than a better dressed prostitute, registers all this, and acts accordingly.
How do you, therefore, persuade this kind of person to follow the Christian line? By following the rules mentioned above. He must be terrified of the flak that will be unleashed against him if he does not comply, and the Christian group must be recognisable as a biting organisation determined to get his scalp. Do this, and you are assured to get the attention and the compliance of the majority of your MPs and local politicians.
If you think that it does not work, please reflect about the influence gained by fringe groups of perverts: they did not do it through numbers (which just aren’t there) but through the powerful (if effeminate) voice their being organised and ready to fight gives them.
Now please reflect: if your MP is scared of a tiny minority of perverts, how terrified will he be of the Catholic steamroller moving towards him? The steamroller doesn’t have to be fast: it is sufficient that everyone should know the Church has time, and once a fight has been picked it will be continued until the flattening of her opponent. Imagine being an MP who has just noticed the Church will fight him to his complete atomisation (this means: taking care he can’t even be elected to represent a borough, and can’t be put in a quango to save his backside unless the government is looking for trouble) and think the effect this will have on all his colleagues. Being (the concept is a bit harsh; but again, life is…) whores, the said elected representative will run to espouse those principles the opposition to which is so dangerous to their political survival, and will do so more and more as the Church slowly starts getting a grip on the Catholic masses.
Lenin really was right in this: that democracy or not, the organised and motivated minorities are those who call the shots. The vast majority of voters are a herd of uneducated lazy me- too followers without own opinions, who will gladly absorb whatever trend and dominant “climate” they see around them. Do you want proof? Three years ago every cretin was an environmentalist; what has changed now is not that they have become smart, but that environmentalism is not the attitude that one must have to be deemed smart anymore…
Finally, let us consider that whilst perverts are a tiny percentage of the population, Catholics are a much vaster cohort; not only in sheer numerical terms, but in the speed with which they can make it “uncool” for the herd to oppose them. To do so you don’t even need to mobilise the 5 million Catholics in the UK, or the 1 m weekly churchgoers. Perverts don’t mobilise even a tiny part of their (very scarce) basis! What would suffice is to give your average politician a taste of what is rolling towards him; instant conversions to the arguments of the Catholics will be the result.
There is a time for peace and a time for war. Dear Catholic clergy, please lead us in battle instead of endlessly waffling about peace.
“Cordileone” is clearly a dialectal version of the Italian “Cuordileone”; that is: cuor di leone; that is: Lionheart.
Nomen omen, you would say as Cordileone is the name of the Bishop of Oakland, California. Bishop Cordileone is the author of the most assertive, argumented, aggressively Catholic attack to the neo-paganism en vogue among the Washington so-called elites and part of the judiciary I have ever read. The man truly is astonishing and his clear desire to tell the entire Catholic Truth irrespective of any possible accusation of “engaging in politics” (which, let us remember, in the US can have heavy tax consequences; a good excuse for cowards btw) does him great honour.
You find the link to his intervention here, but I’d like to report some excerpts for your convenience and, so to speak, as an appetiser.
It is a curious irony that in this moment of history, when people in a number of countries in the Middle East are agitating for change from dictatorship to democracy, here in our own country, the oldest democracy with a written constitution in the world, there is a movement of the ruling class toward taking more and more power into its own hands. The flashpoint for this movement? The hot-button issue of our day: marriage.
In an explicit denial of his public duty, the then attorney general of the state of California (now governor) refused to defend the law of the state in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case concerning the constitutionality of Proposition 8. His reason? He is personally opposed to it.
Irony No. 2: after decades of hearing Catholic legislators (whose job, admittedly, is to make the law, not enforce it) claim that they could not let their personal views on a public issue (in this case, abortion) influence their public role, we now have the chief law enforcer in the state doing exactly that.
When the City Council of Washington, D.C., passed a local ordinance to allow same-sex “marriage,” the citizens organized to put it to a vote so they could decide for themselves. The City Council obstructed them from doing so every step of the way. Bear in mind that the city of Washington has a very large African-American population. […]
Thus, irony No. 3: a small group of political elites (almost all of them white), in a claim to expand rights, deny one of the most fundamental rights in a constitutional democracy — the right to vote — to the masses of black citizens.
Irony No. 4: During the presidential campaign, Obama stated that he favored preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In a change of course, he more recently had said he favors the repeal of DOMA, but asserts it should be done through the legislative process, not the courts. Now, he has taken an action that does exactly that, i.e., repeals DOMA by the decision of a federal court judge.
[……] irony No. 5: In the court case challenging the constitutionality of the legislation that allowed the revival of cases of sexual abuse of minors by clergy that had expired long in the past, the federal district court judge ruled against the plaintiffs. With regard to the argument that the Church was targeted, he did not deny this claim (the evidence was apparently too overwhelming that we were). Rather, he argued that it is not unconstitutional to target a religious group, as long as their access to worship is not impeded. Why, then, would it be unconstitutional to target a sexual minority (which defining marriage in the law does not do, anyway) as long as their freedom to engage in sexual activity as they choose is not impeded?
The fact of the matter is, wherever “gay marriage” has become the law of the land, it has happened in a way that avoids the democratic process, and sometimes even goes directly against it. On the other hand, whenever the people have had the chance to vote on marriage, they have consistently affirmed it. And this, despite the proponents being outspent (sometimes by huge margins), facing opposition from the cultural elites and enduring strong media bias
Regardless of one’s position on the marriage issue, these and so many other moves by our public officials should give cause for concern about the fate of democracy in our country. I urge all of our people to inform themselves of the facts, to inform their consciences from the natural moral law and Church teaching — understanding that marriage is not discrimination against anyone, but benefits everyone and that we must treat those who disagree with us on this issue with respect and compassion — and then to take action by speaking truth to power, advocating for this fundamental good of our society and voting their conscience at the ballot box.
I so wish we had one (nay, half; nay, one quarter!) of these good men of God among our bishops.
As already anticipated yesterday, I’d like to say one or two words about the Proposition 8 sentence. The sentence is very long, so I am going to isolate and comment those parts which have been most commented.
Beforehand: please note that Judge Walker – who has decided over the legitimacy of 7 million people to decide whether he is a pervert or not – is himself an outed homosexual.
Anyway, the most relevant phrases found are the following:
“A private moral view that Same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples is not a proper basis for legislation.”
This is absurd judicial activism and is wrong on so many levels that one doesn’t know where to start
1) It is not for a judge to decide what is a proper basis for legislation. If this be so, the judges of this land would squarely invade the role of the legislative organs as they would just decide that every principle they don’t like is “not a proper basis for legislation”.
2) The expression “private moral view” has no sense at all. Every moral view is private and the sum of the private moral views is what constitutes public morality. That incest be bad is no more and no less a private moral view than that homosexuality be bad. But the fact that the majority believes that it is so gives a social moral dimension to the issue.
3) I’d love to know which piece of legislation going beyond the purely technical and involving people’s behaviour is not the fruit of a moral view. What is forbidden is, in his essence, what is considered immoral. There’s no way one can take morality out of the equation.
4) I’d love to know what is, according to Mr. Walker, a moral view which is “not private”. Not stopping at a red light? Not paying taxes? Murdering people? Why should the evaluation of all these behaviours be anything else than the sum of private moral views?
5) I don’t know whence the judge takes his idea that same-sex so-called couples be “couples”, but discriminated because considered “inferior”. Same-sex couples are an abomination, “inferiority” is nothing to do with that. Two siblings happily screwing each other are not a “couple” being “discriminated” because considered “inferior”. They are two perverts, period.
Basically there is not a single word in this hallucinated phrase which does not show a total lack of respect for people’s morality, and for democracy. The only thing we read here is that a homosexual doesn’t see the right of other people to democratically decide what is moral.
“Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.”
This is another astonishing feat of ideological bias. I’d like someone to show me where the American Constitution (in light of which Mr. Walker was called to rule about Proposition Eight) has been amended saying that marriage was once, but is now nothing to do with gender anymore. This is pure activism. Legislation from the bench. It reminds me of the pretori d’assalto in the Seventies’ Italy, an ideological aberration rapidly corrected in the following years. It is obvious that the United States are suffering the same problem (ideologically motivated judges wanting to reshape legislation according to their wishes) now. Again, with this logic “marriage” should be extended to incestuous couples as “equals”. This goes to show what happens if you allow a homosexual to decide about sexual matters.
“Because of Proposition 8, same-sex couples are not permitted to engage in sexual activity within marriage”.
More absurdities: if you don’t allow perverts to marry, it is obvious that they will not have “sex within marriage”. With the same train of thought, Judge Walker could complain that forbidding incestuous marriages is unconstitutional, because it does not allow siblings to engage in sexual activity within marriage.
This seems to me enough (for the moment at least) to properly consider the baffling amount of bench activism going on here. That it comes from a judge who is himself affected by the same perversion against which his fellow Californian have voted makes the entire process even more absurd, as it is absurd to think that his own perversion has not played a decisive role in his ruling.
To have a homosexual decide about the right of homosexuals is the same as to have a paedophile decide about the legality of pedophilia, or to put the fox in charge of the henhouse.