Blog Archives

Hitler With Breasts Introduces Herself (Reblog)

Hitler with breasts introduces herself

 

Goodness According To Nazis

It’s for your own good, my dear…

 

 

The President of a feminist/abortionist organisation has given us another example of the utterly evil, hallucinated “logic” of XXI Century Nazis. 

 Abortion has, as she puts it, two positive effects: 

1) It avoids the pain for the death of a child, and 

2) It prevents mothers from dying of childbirth. 

One truly wonders at what must go on in the brains of these people. At the same time, one becomes chillingly aware of how all the atrocities of the Nazi regime could happen. Dr Mengele could have said the same things, and in reading his words people would have been chilled at the cold-blooded murderous intent. But put on Nazism a thin varnish of feminism, and everything will be fine. 

I will only touch in passing the huge elephant in the room: the obvious observation that for most of Christianity the difference between dying baptised or unbaptised is so huge, that only a dyed-in-the-wool atheist can even think of ignoring it.  

No, let us see this from the perspective of an atheist. 

If the reasoning of Mrs Mengele makes sense, only complete eradication of child birth will eliminate the problem of the bereavement whenever the child dies. Because you see, every child who is born is already condemned to both die and cause severe pain in those who love him. The only thing that may change is that the mother might not be there when this happens; because she has, in turn, caused a huge feeling of loss to other people. Oh, the cruelty of all that! If a birth is bound to cause pain, than it is better that there is no pain… for the living. The unborn clearly do not count. 

Similarly, maximum security for women could be achieved simply by forbidding them to undergo such a dangerous and disruptive, ahem, unnatural process like… pregnancy. Maximum security for the living and, pretty please, no disruption at all in their serene, godless life. Humanity will be wiped out, of course, but who cares…

The unborn, as we have already seen, don’t count. 

Mundabor 

 

Nancy Pelosi and Jesus’ Right To Life.

The Word according to Nancy

The American Catholic has this delightful video about that hideous fake Catholic, Nancy Pelosi.

The video has first an excerpt from a speech of the same Pelosi on the 6th May. If you go for a moment beyond the unspeakable smugness of the woman, you’ll notice that she says that her favourite word is… the Word and then she launches herself on a (most disgusting, coming from her) lecture about how “beautiful” the Word is (easy emotionalism) , and says that it, ooohhh, “contains everything” (more emotionalism) and that we must, ooohhhh, “give voice to the Word” and be judged according to how we do it in this life or in the next (and here she doesn’t even know how much she is right yet).

At a recent press conference, a CNS News journalist made reference to the 6th May smug fest and asked along these lines: “so when was the Word made flesh, was it at the Annunciation as the Scripture says or was it at the Nativity?”. Simple question, right? Well, the same woman you have just seen feeling oh so emotionally involved in her need to “give voice to the Word” and feeling oh so pure and beautiful whilst talking about it has the effrontery to answer “whenever it was (sic!), we bow our head when we talk about it….. in church, and that’s where I’d like to talk about that”.

This scarcely believable answer contains the following elements:

1) a refusal to admit that the Word was made flesh when Mary said her “Fiat” (or whereabouts), which doesn’t match with Pelosi’s ideology. She just doesn’t know when, poor lamb. The Word must have had some static noise at the time, or perhaps she was just so busy feeling smug that she didn’t pay attention.

2) a refusal to answer the question (“I’d like to talk about that in church” obviously not being an answer).

It gets even funnier as CNS news, not having had any answer, follows up with an email re-phrasing the question in: “Did Jesus have a right to life from the moment of conception?”. Frankly it doesn’t get easier or straighter than that. Once again, the answer is dodged with the usual shamelessness: “the speaker answered the question. Thanks” is the answer from her press office.

I do hope that, wherever she goes, nancy Pelosi will now be persecuted by questions of this kind. She will obviously not answer them, but it might take away some of the smugness we have seen in her 6th may speech.

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle.

Mundabor

%d bloggers like this: