Pretty bad news (for the Gaystapo) from Sweden, where an extensive research has showed homo “couples” are three times more likely to have one committing suicide than normal couples.
Sweden is a country where it is not reasonable to assume that homos are the object of any kind of I do not say discrimination, but even the lightest reproach. Unless, that is, from the growing number of Arabs; but they are very welcome, so it does not count.
The same article states the same is happening in the Netherlands, for many decades now at the very forefront of sexual perversion movement. Quoting from the article:
Studies done of homosexuals in the Netherlands, which is the country most accepting of homosexual behavior in the world, have found that homosexuals suffer from significantly higher rates of mood disorders, anxiety disorders, substance abuse disorders, suicide attempts, eating disorders, and panic attacks.
The conclusions are not difficult to draw. However, since the article quoted does not go as far as that, yours truly will allow himself to connect the dots for you at no charge.
Homosexuality is a repulsive, destructive sexual perversion. The person who has fallen prey of this perversion (better: who has consented to falling prey of this perversion: no one is “born that way”, and a perversion can only fester in one person’s consciousness through his repeated, willed assent to it) is already a wreck. It is, therefore, not surprising that this very grave disorder will show itself together with all kind of other disorders: then the homosexual is not normal, he is gravely damaged at the very root of his consciousness.
Or you can observe exactly the same phenomenon from the other side of the coin. Satan corrupts a soul through this soul’s attachment to a perversion. Once in, Satan will ravage this soul destroying as much as he can, eating this soul alive from inside, devastating it like a fox devastates the hen house. The ultimate aim of Satan is not, in itself, to make of this person an homosexual, but to gain his soul. Homosexuality is purely an extremely efficient way to achieve the objective. But for Satan, victory is not achieved until the soul has died in mortal sin. Hence, the ravaging must be continued in order to either speed the achievement of the desired outcome, or to make the path to hell safer and more assured. And this ravaging will be so much easier, because the soul is an awful mess already.
Depression, alcoholism, drug addiction, the daily madness of a homosexual’s world (extreme hate for self, the properly called “homophobia”; extreme hate for other perverts, to the point of killing dozen of them in one go; extreme hate for all the others, who “reject” him) follow.
Whenever you meet a pervert (in the office, or the “friend of the friend”) know that he might not show it, but his life is hell. And this hell is there to make him wish the end of it, and speed him towards the real hell. Disgust of self, and hate of sacredness and purity, cannot but ravage one soul.
There is always hope, of course. Even Elton John has a guardian angel trying his best even as I write this. But realistically, many of those who have sunk so deep will never recover, and will one day be in the company of Satan. Some will get there faster, and some slower; some after an obviously tormented life, some after an apparently successful life; but they will, bar repentance, all end there in the end.
In the matter of homo suicide, “Homophobia” (aka “Christianity”) is neither here nor there. Homos kill themselves not because Christians hate them (Christians are disgusted from them, but they pray for them and wish them salvation), but because Satan has ravaged their soul to the point of definitive victory.
RT reports (yes, I know; no, I don't care) about the Spanish corrida organiser who dared to state that it is harmful for a child to be exposed to sexual perversion.
Predictably, the homo Mafia was all in a tizzy. But the way it happened is why I write this blog post.
If you displease the Gaystapo, they will immediately go after your livelihood. In this case, the call was immediately made for a man guilty of such a criminally sane thinking to not get public structures for his corridas, which certainly equates to severely damage, and probably destroy, his activity. The poor chap had to apologise to those who were offended by his words.
This is how it works in once Christian Europe. The most obvious banality is now a crime against the God of Sodomy, and everyone who dares to make a remark against the new satanical deity is threatened with economic destruction.
Our democracies are becoming a farce. Our freedoms are becoming a joke. A bunch of fags and their liberal friends decide what you can and cannot say. The populace (stupid and easy to manipulate, like the populace always is) is fast asleep and cannot see the danger, nay, the persecution already in place.
Meanwhile, the Pope complains about air conditioners.
Once upon a time there were, and there still are in our present day, the Nice Catholics. The Nice Catholics considered it rude, or otherwise inappropriate, to condemn sodomy. Whenever confronted with the issue, they preferred to just change the subject or mumbling fluffy words about the fact that the Church “accepts everyone”. More recently that huge deception was put on the table, that “homosexuality is not a sin”. Pedophilia isn't a sin either, of course; but that wasn't said, and the distinction between the perversion (pedophilia, homosexuality) and the sin of acting upon the perversion (the act of sodomy, or of child abuse or child rape) was very conveniently ignored.
It was so nice to get along, you see.
When some people (among whom a somewhat cantankerous chap of your acquaintance) pointed out to the huge danger for our Christian societies represented by the creeping acceptance of sexual perversion, it was fashionable to call them (and him) “obsessed”, and dismiss the problem as secondary and not relevant.
Fast forward five or six years later, and a wholly new vocabulary has entered the political arena. “Marriage equality”, a word unknown before – outside perhaps of the lunatic asylum – is now all the rage.
It's all about “equality”, you see. Therefore, if you disagree with the perversion of pretty much everyone (bar pedophiles; for now) you are just “oppressing” others, and limiting their “human rights”. You are no better than a racist. You are the Ku Klux Klan.
The stupid will obviously laugh at this; but they would have laughed, ten years ago, at the concept of “marriage equality”, too. They will now find other ways to be “nice”, and will begin to say that the perverts down the road are not sinning, merely making a somewhat uninformed choice; whilst of course never forgetting the many “blessings” they have: because isn't having a son always a blessing?
One is tempted to say that one hopes the stupid surrender monkeys of niceness will be persecuted first; but the truth is, they will never be persecuted. They will simply adapt to the PC mantra of the day, and after marriage equality they will celebrate “love equality”, and welcome the threesome down the road, or the “nice” lady married to her Alsatian. Hey, aren't we all sinners after all?
We, the Catholics who still deserve the name – sinner as we all are, of course – will be treated as pariah, face discriminations of all sorts in our lifetime, and perhaps open persecution – as in: jail, or reeducation camp – in one generation or two. We are on our way to become the Ku Katolik Klan, and there's no saying we did not have it coming.
Is there a lifeline here? The Catholic hierarchy is now studying new ways to avoid saying what must be said whilst falling short of openly denying it. There is, in the natural sphere, nothing to expect from them, and the worthy minority of good priests and prelates will see their message drowned in the ocean of politically correct clerical inclusiveness. It will not work.
A more solid defence than our own clergy might well be the Muslims, of which there are far too many in Europe already. The Muslims – not the Catholics – were a major concern in 2006, when a proposed new project of “hate law” would have made not only the Bible (Blair & Co. didn't care for it, of course) but, very obviously, the Koran itself illegal. Therefore, the whole thing was killed in the cradle, or I shall say late term aborted.
Then there is the love for individual freedoms very developed in most – not all – Western Countries, and which will let many understand that what is about to happen to Catholics today may happen to that tomorrow. But this is a weak line of defence, because the tactics of the Gaystapo do not go through the official denial of freedoms, but through the KKK-isation of Christian morality. I am not illiberal. They are monsters.
The ultimate, and in the end only line of defence is Our Lord, and the loving assistance of Our Blessed Lady, and the commander in chief of the heavenly army, St Michael the Archangel. Persecution may come, but destruction won't. Even if Christianity is eradicated in our own countries – never officially, possibly; but it is obvious that a rite of reception of a Trannie in the Anglican community in his new “identity” is to all intents and purposes a new, pagan religion – we know that the Church will never die.
We must get the habit of praying St Michael more often. We must get into the habit of thinking that we must never cease our fights with words and acts, but we must at the same time conduct “parallel warfare” with our prayers. We must understand and interiorise that the heavenly army is aligned in heaven and ready for battle, and when the trumpet sounds there will be no chance and no hope for Satan and his minions.
Still, as we write the Year of Our Lord 2015, I think it's fair to say the Muslims in Europe are a far better guarantee for persecution than our clergy.
Which really says it all.
Sanity is slowly beginning – I am the eternal optimist, I know – to go back in the consciousness of the mainstream, as more and more people realise the oppression of the Gaystapo methods.
This article here makes a very simple point:
Let me pose a hypothetical intellectual challenge: The law that forms the basis for the action against the Giffords in New York is a provision that bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Yet, isn’t that precisely what is happening to the Giffords? Are they not being coerced to accept and approve someone else’s sexual orientation? Are they not permitted to hold their own sexual orientation, one that acknowledges their God’s definition that marriage is a union of one man and one woman? The Giffords are not campaigning to prevent other people from following their own conscience as to their sexual choices and activities. It’s just the opposite. They are being coerced by the state to take part in the sexual choices and activities of others. Isn’t that obvious?”
The man is, of course, perfectly right.
The simple fact is that at some point perverts will lose their “protected status” as a sort of Indian Reserve in the US legal system, and the silent majority will discover that they have, obviously, perverted the very concepts of freedom, equality, or decency. Slowly, normality will start to creep in. We have seen this phases of hysteria followed by (relative) sanity in many issues: from nuclear plant to global warming and from rayon clothes to quartz watches; even abortion is now under strong attack.
Nothing is irreversible. Nothing stupid, anyways.
I hope this faggot-mania will be next. It will take some time, very probably decades, as the debate sets in and new generations grow up for which the faggot isn’t “oppressed” in any meaningful sense of the term, and is rather the oppressor of anyone who does not want to be I do not say in agreement, but an accomplice in his perversion. But I think it will happen one day. Communism seems triumphant in 1979, and was already dying in the most painful, inglorious way only one decade later. Two years later, it was slain even in Russia. When the pendulum starts to swing back, it can go fairly (as world changes go) fast.
It will take time. Let us salute every little step.
Victory is ours anyway.
There is an interesting blog post of the Traditional Catholic Priest in which, among other things, he informs us that the efforts of hackers are often directed at sites like his.
I must say I am not surprised. It has been my conviction for a long time that nowadays to declare oneself “tolerant” means to think that one has every right to be as intolerant as he pleases, anytime he likes. By particularly “tolerant” minds this extends to the point of committing criminal offences, but I can't say the average “tolerant” person out there is very much better, and many of them are probably merely not proficient enough to become criminals.
If this were a problem of a tiny minority of cranks, the problem would be easily manageable. But the phenomenon has now become mainstream, to the point that episodes like the recent one with Firefox are hailed as great victories rather than extremely dangerous signs of the erosion of the most elementary freedoms.
I can compare this situation – I mean the legal, mainstream intolerance, of which the criminal activity is but the inevitable fallout – to pockets of Nazi thinking in the middle of free democracies. It this is not stopped it will end up in tears, then it is in the very nature of this mentality that the pockets will become increasingly larger, until the reaction to them will have to take place in the same way as every struggle for freedom has taken place in the past: with arms.
The Nazis are creeping in the middle of our society, and this increasing Nazification expresses itself in many ways, like the one mentioned by the good Father. Put them together with Firefox, with Apple censorship of Christian content, with the increasingly more aggressive intolerance of Christians in their own activity – a baker here, B & B owners there – and you get the picture.
The Nazis of “tolerance” are growing stronger; it isn't an hyperbole, but a very real danger.
In seven languages.
With email wording at the end.
As I write this, the count is above 75,000.
Read on Rorate Caeli the shocking, but unfortunately not surprising initiative of the archdiocese of São Paulo, with an homosexual agenda only covered by the thinnest of veils; arguably, not covered even by the thinnest of veils.
We see here one of the most typical tactics of these satanical people at work: the condemnation of an abuse to push the acceptance of a use.
Is the case of perverts, the mechanism is very simple: you wait for one or two episodes of violence against them and then, with the excuse of the “violence”, you push for the acceptance of the victim's behaviour.
If, say, a known pedophile were to be found in the morning on the pavement, beaten to unconsciousness, I doubt any “committee” of any progressive diocese would abuse of this episode to openly push the pedophile agenda.
Not so, at least when fags are involved, for the “Justice and Peace Commitee” of the Archdiocese of São Paulo. Their support for sexual perversion is so obvious and so shameless, so brazen in its aggressive pushing of the so-called LGBT agenda, that there is no way in hell Cardinal Scherer can avoid responsibility for this bunch of idiots, arrogantly spending the name of the Church for their own evil ends. One reflects that Scherer is (was) known as a kind of “moderate”, and has all the tragedy of the XXI Church in front of his eyes. But perhaps the Cardinal thinks if he doesn't sign this satanical drivel himself, he'll get away with it.
Read the press release, and behold Satan at work: the “safety” becomes one with the “dignity”, and “dignity” here clearly means “acceptance”. The use of the many adjectives to describe sexual perverts also clearly indicates the detailed and complete acceptance of their “lifestyle”. The “prejudice” clearly refers to the Christian prejudice against perverts (yes, I have prejudices against perverts; I would, for example, never allow them to remain alone with children and adolescent; ask the Church why) and is taken as an excuse to call for the acceptance of their “culture”.
The acceptance of their culture. This is the point to which things have come. This is a “committee” of one of the biggest Archdioceses of the world. Gay mafia (real or honorary) as it breathes and rants.
Cardinal Scherer has the full responsibility for this shame. By simply allowing this bunch of deluded perverts to speak in the name of Holy Mother Church he makes himself their accomplice, and he must accept the paternity of their statement in full. He is in charge of the diocese. He has nowhere to hide.
People like this allegedly “moderate” (probably, “progressives” are to be found directly in the “gay sauna”) Cardinal Scherer have obviously lost the faith a long time ago, because if a shred of fear of the Lord had remained in his obdurate heart he would have most certainly, most certainly never allowed such “committees” to issues such delirious, satanical rants without crushing them stante pede and radically reviewing the way these dratted “committees” work.
It's his committee. It speaks for the Archdiocese. It speaks for him. Cardinal Scherer is being taken by Satan for a walk like the obedient lapdog he is. Can you imagine a Cardinal allowing such things to happen in any one whatsoever of the pre – V II centuries of Church History! You can take your pick!
Once again, we see the gradualism always used by Satan to attack everything that is holy.
The ruin begins when an Archdiocese thinks it needs to have a “Justice and Peace Committee”, thus disgracefully mixing a worldly social agenda with the real aim of the Church, which is the salvation of souls.
This apparently “neutral” committee (hey, who is against “peace”? Or “justice”? Strangely, no one asks for “sword committees”, though Jesus did not come to bring peace, but a sword), then becomes the vehicle used to bring among the people the concept of a certain peace and a certain justice, and from there the step to making of every abomination a matter of “peace and justice” is a very short one.
Let us stop apportioning the blame everywhere but where it belongs. The bucks stops by Cardinal Odilo Scherer.
Unfortunately, with the present structure of power in Rome, I doubt anything will happen. Rather, such abominations will likely become more and more frequent.
In the “age of mercy”, Christ is mercilessly trampled.
The masses applaud.
The unspeakable Gaystapo scandal at Firefox is only some weeks old, but the reaction is getting traction out there in the cyberspace.
The story might be, for the moment, out of the big headlines, but there are always people who care for more than the headlines of the day.
They write, they blog, they make their voices heard. In time, they manage to have the shame stay attached to the target company. In time, it can really hurt.
The images you see below have been found in a matter of a couple of minutes after googling “boycott Firefox”. The reaction is clearly growing fast; not in the headlines of the mainstream media, but in the world of the common people.
Please pick one or more of your images and mail it to your friends; blog them if you run a blog; post them in discussion fora; make them go around. Let them become a more and more diffused presence on the net. In time, this will really hurt.
This is a fast and effective way to let the word spread.
The sad news is that if you belong to a Christian Group called Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, the Canadian Arm of the Gaystapo will try to prevent you from entering Canada.
The good news is that the Canadian Arm of the Gaystapo will immediately get some sex-sex loving from the “appeal” instance, which if I understand correctly was merely an administrative on the spot decision without the need to address any immigration court.
Yes, the Gaystapo will try to silence Christians wherever they are, or wherever they go. Yes, they will bully public officers – in this case, frontier police – to do their bidding. But no, it won't be so easy as the West hopefully wakes up to Gaystapo oppression as it woke up to Global Warming liberal hysteria.
There is a long way in front of us. But we have a strong tradition of freedom of expression on our side. I trust in the end – not without time and trouble, and losses – this tradition will prove stronger than the Gaystapo offensive currently under way.
If you visit a site like, say, “men are like wine” with Opera, Internet Explorer, or Chrome (or any other) you will be let in without problems.
But if you try to access it with a Firefox browser you get a site that says “Firefox is blocked for this site” on the title, with the caption ” Due to Mozilla’s policy of intolerance towards those who hold “the wrong views” we have decided to block Firefox from this site. Please consider downloading another browser”.
Unfortunately, for what I can see now this app is only available for WordPress.org, which is the more professional (and not free, and therefore not anonymous) WordPress platform. Yours truly is on wordpress.com (the free, and therefore anonymous one).
If anyone has ways (that are accessible to people not very versed into these things) to have such a page appear on a WordPress.com site, please give a shout.
Those of you who use the WordPress.org platform might, on the other hand, be interested in this app. It is called simply “browser blocker” and you can download it from
Enjoy the blocking!
I have refrained from defending Mr Eich, the CEO elect of Firefox. I have refrained to do so because mr Eich – who as far as I know does not earn money from Firefox and could therefore easily afford to be outspoken – put Firefox before his convictions and decided to resign rather than cause a very public mess about Firefox ousting him – or not, at that point, as the case may be -.
But with Firefox it's different.
Firefox has now acquired Starbucks-Status in their sodomitical madness. The software developers who have started this mess need to find another hobby. We must react to this Nazi thinking, that is exactly the contrary of what every decent person should stand for.
Like Starbucks and like Barilla, Firefox must be made to pay their madness on this earth before their owners and accomplices are made to pay it in the next.
This chap here says it beautifully, though no, it is also a matter of defence of Christian values, so blatantly attacked.
There are a lot of browsers out there, for desktop computers and mobile devices, and it does not have to be Internet Explorer, either.
Use your browser to select one or two of the others. Then kill that fox like a good English hound would.
Uninstall Firefox. Say it around. Don't let them get away with it.
And it came to pass an American working for some kind of medical research institute in Uganda was arrested because suspected, after days of investigation, of both sodomitical behaviour and pro-homosexual propaganda. As a result, the organisation employing the alleged sod announced the suspension of all their activities in the country.
Yours truly would like to make a couple of observations.
1. Only an organisation dominated by fags can send – or allow to remain – a sodomite in a country where his behaviour is – and rightly so; it was so in all Christian Countries as long as they remained… Christian – punished with jail terms, and long-ish ones at that. These people think that just because they bring Western money the laws of the land will not apply to them. Every sensible employer would have asked to the man in question – I am assuming here they not only know, but approve of his inversion – whether it's not better to examine moving to another country, or refrain from inverted behaviour if he wants to stay. I very much doubt this has happened; rather, the impression is engendered they thought the position of the man gave him some sort of de facto immunity. Which is, by the way, exactly what they are demanding now by suspending their work.
2. I thought these people worked selflessly for the community. I thought they were moved by high ideals. I thought they considered it normal that the laws of the land are,min principle, respected. They wouldn't send women in conservative Arabic countries with uncovered head, would they now? The country punishes faggotry? Send there some darn heteros, then! Does it take a genius? Unless, of course, the real aim is not to advance medical research, but to advance faggotry instead. Which one is very much led to suspect.
I truly hope Uganda will not cave in to the economic pressure and will insist in a vigorous defence of Christian values, denouncing the false philanthropy of those whose only aim is to corrupt poor foreign Countries with the excuse of “Aid”. I would love to be able to tell you that the Ugandan government will not cave in to economic pressure; but In the end, who knows.
Let us pray that the turning of the tide will come soon and, as already seen in recent years with the global warming madness, at some point the pendulum will start swinging the other way.
I have just managed to make a manual back-up of the content of this blog in my computer (both the physical hard drive and a USB key), in case the Gaystapo calls for a boycott of WordPress unless they sanitise their platform and they decide to cancel my blog.
WordPress has created a so-called .xml file.
This file is supposed to contain all the text (including the links) of this blog, that is: no photos and no videos (but probably the link to the external videos, I should say, as when you see a video I have merely posted a link).
The entire content (the posts themselves, the special posts that WordPress calls “pages”, and the comments) amount to 40 Megabytes. In my inexperience I should think all texts have gone there and the files have been properly saved, because in my book 40 MB might not look much in a video (I doubt you would want to see “The Life of Brian” in a 40MB file) but they must surely allow one to read for a while.
This means that – if I remember to regularly backup the blog, which is to be hoped – in case of sudden Gaystapo-induced censorship mania yours truly would be able to replicate his blog on a more decent server.
Not “Blogger”, very probably. They belong to Google, which means to think one can find asylum there would be like a Moscow anticommunist circa 1937 seeking asylum in a building he thinks a foreign embassy, and discovering it is called “Lubjanka”. Rather, I would seek some other free service unafraid of anonymous content.
The persecution is probably coming. How harsh and for how long, we do not know – democracies have rather remarkable self-healing mechanisms; but only after a while – but it might well be coming.
If and when it comes, it will be because of all those idiots who, well knowing what atrocious perversion certain types of behaviour are, have preferred to be “inclusive” and “tolerant”, and to be the first to take the word “homophobic” in their mouth to insult Christians.
The “Lubjanka” is rather away from us for now. For the moment, a backup is enough. But stay vigilant, and stop treating faggots as if they had a “human right” not to be called the perverts they are; which you can do only in one way: calling them “faggots”.
For the past few days I have been engaged in an e-mail conversation with officials from the Heritage of Pride parade, New York’s annual gay event; the dialogue has been cordial. I asked to join the parade under a banner that would read, “Straight is Great.” The purpose of my request was to see just how far they would go without forcing me to abide by their rules. It didn’t take long before they did.
Today, I informed Heritage of Pride officials that I objected to their rule requiring me to attend gay training sessions, or what they call “information” sessions. “I don’t agree with your rule,” I said. They responded by saying that attendance was “mandatory.”
The St. Patrick’s Day parade has mandatory rules, too. It bars groups representing their own cause from marching, which is why pro-life Catholics—not just gays—are barred from participating under their own banner. But only gays complain: they refuse to abide by the rules. Indeed, they went into federal court seeking to force a rule change. They lost. In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that private parades have a First Amendment right to determine their own rules.
It is hypocritical for gay activists to complain about having to abide by the mandatory rules of the St. Patrick’s Day parade, and then inform me that I cannot march in their parade unless I respect their mandatory rules, rules that I reject.
Good luck to the Heritage of Pride participants. I may be watching it from afar, but I sure won’t be downing a Guinness afterwards.
This is what the Catholic activist Bill Donohue writes about his experience with the oh so inclusive fags in New York.
The double standard is astonishing, the hypocrisy stinks to heaven.
He has said everything already, so there’s not much to add.
You may want to renounce Guinness and the other Diageo beverages (Google will be your friend) for Lent, and give your preference to other products more often afterwards.
It astonishes me how most have not understood (yet) what kind of monster we are all nurturing with our tax money.
Brussels is becoming more and more a supranational Big Brother (the dictator, of course), where the opinions about freedom prevailing at any time – and widely shaped from extremist interest groups, perverts’ lobbies, and easy populism of the day – are happily imposed upon hundreds of million of people, whilst we are told this is salutary, and for our own good.
The latest (or one of the latest) madness is the proposal of some former EU Heads of State to create a “surveillance unit” for “intolerant” citizen.
The Gestapo mentality of this is mind-boggling: no judicial control, no suspicion of criminal offence (which would require a criminal investigation; which is not what this is about): a purely administrative surveillance machine, spying on the lives of all those they don’t like and tarnishing them with the official EU stamp of “intolerance”.
How seriously incapable these people are of understanding freedom is shown at the very clear words of the report:
“There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant,” it states, especially “as far as freedom of expression is concerned.”
This thinking is the democratic understanding of people raised in Communist states (a number of the proposers actually are). The very principle of tolerance demands that, whenever tolerance is offered – and it must not be offered in everything – it protect everyone, including the intolerant; then otherwise it is not tolerance at all.
The second part of the statement quoted above shows all the absurdity of the thinking: if freedom of expression is not tolerated there is no freedom of expression, period.
I grew up in a country where the freedom of expression was limited only in very extreme manifestations that went against the very grain of common sense and pointed to an system of values superior to democracy (say: blasphemy, whereas this is meant as blasphemy of the Lord, not of Manitu or the Great Teapot In The Sky), but was otherwise considered the very blood of freedom; where it was normal to find publications from extreme right to extreme left; where you could – and still can – openly deny the Holocaust if you feel so inclined – which I find stupid; but it’s not for me to demand that people don’t say stupid things – without any fear of being put under surveillance by some obscure apparatchik; and where you could buy old racist, Nazi-like publications like “La Difesa della Razza” from street sellers without anyone taking scandal. I marched into the then Rizzoli bookstore in Rome and asked to buy “Mein Kampf“, just to see if I could. I could. The very courteous employee did not even raise an eyebrow.
This, my friends, is freedom.
In this XXI century, the dictatorship of “tolerance” is advancing fast; words do not mean anything anymore; “tolerance” is a one-way road, and this is openly admitted and proudly stated.
The proposers of this measure are all former Heads of State or Government, either directly or indirectly democratically elected. They are either to stupid to understand freedom, or cynically ride the tiger of “intolerance with the tolerant” to pursue their own interests. They must be really deranged in order not to see where this leads to: more power for the Gaystapo.
It tells you something about the erosion of the very concept of freedom that is taking place in the minds of the people; an erosion positively driven by supranational entities (like the UN, and the EU) presenting themselves as the good teachers slowly raising us kids to correct understanding. There is no tell you what a danger this creates, as measures adopted in one single country would cause immediate suspicion in many others, whilst the EU allows Brussels committees to work as incubators of illiberal policies that are then imposed on all countries as a European policy by way of decisions of organs whose degree of representativeness can be defined laughable at its best, and too far detached from the people of the European Union anyway.
The European Union is a diabolical construct. What started as a way to improve commerce and economic relationships – a worthy aim on its own – has long become the political project of a Big Nanny superstate with the same respect for thre freedom of its citizen of a Leonid Breznev. This is not about a better economic environment anymore, or about closed ties making wars more difficult.
Your own freedom is at stake. Not in the obvious manner of, say, an Anschluss, but in the far more subtle way of having your brain moulded, since a child, according to the wishes of a small clicque of people who have nested itself in the vital centres of power (the organisations and lobbies and donors who influence the appointments to key places) and, from there, steer the immense herd of stupid cows – yes, you – into believing absurdities like “there is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant,” especially “as far as freedom of expression is concerned.” In fact, the very fact that such proposals are aired and proposed a EU policy by certainly influential people show the fullness of the decay of the concept of freedom in Europe, and how Brussels is the perfect incubator for every threat to it.
The EU must die.It must be killed as a political project and be scaled back to what is sensible: the easing of commerce, the opening of markets, the economic benefits deriving from the (sensible) standardisations of common goods, from screwdrivers to potatoes and from gherkins to car tires.
The best way to vote in the upcoming elections for the EU Parliament (a misleading expression anyway; in no European democracy the organs of the Executive have so much power as in Brussels) is to give contributions to the dismantling of this immense repressive apparatus.
US Secretary of State Kerry is so stupid that he compares the recent Ugandan measures against sexual perversions to Nazi Germany.
Some facts for Mr Kerry:
1. There was only one Country in Europe or North America that allowed Abortion in the Thirties. It was Nazi Germany. Abortion in its most extreme forms is a flag of the Obama Administration.
2. Sodomy laws were in place all over the West until a few decades ago. Including all the Western countries that defeated Nazism.
Who is the Nazi, then?
On another note, and as you read in the same article, the World Bank has frozen aid money for Uganda after the adoption of the law. Unfortunately for them with no results, at least for now. But make no mistake, the bullying will continue.
Leading the charge are countries like Norway, Danemark and the Netherlands; all of them heavy sponsors of sexual perversion, or euthanasia, or both.
Let us pray countries like Uganda – last time I look, a success story for African standards in the last decades – find the economic and spiritual strength to go on without the bribes of an increasingly nazified West.
And it came to pass a faggot recovered in the hospital after a heart attack told the priest giving him the last rites (I imagine the risk of death must have been rather serious, then…) how beautiful he found it that Francis is one who “does not judge” those whom he calls “gay”.
(Let us stop for a moment here. Several months after Francis' disgraceful slogan, this has become the banner of sodomites the world over. Francis does nothing against it. If he himself is popular, then clearly everything must be fine).
The fag allegedly asks the priest if he has a problem with him being a pervert. Allegedly, the priest says “no”, but then inexplicably – according to the report – refuses to administer him the Sacrament. If it doesn't seem to make sense, it's because it doesn't.
Let us, then, reconstruct how things very probably went, if Catholic priests do what they are supposed to do.
An obviously unrepentant fag is in the hospital after a heart attack, and is either looking for a fight and some headlines, or wants the priest to tell him that homosexuality is next to holiness. The priest might have been more or less orthodox and sensible, and might have told him – or not, as the case may be – what an atrocious perversion homosexuality in itself – qua homosexuality; not talking of the sin of the sodomites here – is.
At some point, though, the priest must have asked the fag if he is fine with his perversion; because you see, if one is openly impugning the known Truth he is clearly not in the position to receive the sacrament, and it is therefore fully irrelevant whether he has a live-in Elton at home or is rather like Daffyd, “the only gay in the village”.
Now, let us see the facts: a priest goes to the rather unusual step of refusing the sacrament to a man officially at risk of dying: was it because he didn't like his mug, or because the conditions weren't there? Yeah, I thought that, too…
You see again here how militant faggotry works: they attack Catholicism and try to force it to bend to their own perversion. They do so often with malice aforethought, so that it is certainly possible the man called the priest precisely in order to provoke him with the “are you fine I am a pervert” thing.
Last but not least, the idiot. This must be the man, or woman, or perverted mixture of the two, who told the press the hospital expects those “working” in the hospital to “adhere to our values”.
Which values? Sodomy? Should the priest have blessed the fag's perversion? Does he work for the hospital?
Or the value is “Tolerance”, perhaps? Well, if tolerance is a value, why it is not tolerated that a Catholic priest does his job? And what does this idiot think, that he/she/whatever can tell to a Catholic priest how to adhere to his own values?
Obviously, there might have been some supreme cock-up from the journalist here; this one here is able to say that the Church “suggests” that “gay couples” are “living in sin”. No she doesn't “suggest” it, you nincompoop. Stop getting your Catholic theology from nonsensical interviews. You're supposed to be a journalist, not the washerwoman.
So there you are: fags and their minions want to impose their own perversion on everyone, and be accepted – otherwise you are raping their “human rights” – as normal, or even good. Heck, they even think they can pick and choose which sacraments they can receive!
We must stop this aggressive militant faggotry at once. We must react as we did with the ” Man Made Global Warming” madness. It can be done. Just let us stop being the sensitive sissies, and the humous for outspoken journalists, politicians and even bishops will be created.
This, or prepare for a Nazi dictatorship of the most intolerant kind.
It won't be funny. Just look at what they do with each other's backside.
And so President Putin did what everyone knows, but it is slowly becoming one of the biggest taboos in the otherwise almost completely taboo-free Western societies: linking homosexuality and pedophilia.
You can now make some popcorn and wait for the immancably incensed reaction of the liberal troopers, most of whom would never be as stupid as to allow their own child to spend time alone – not occasionally, much less regularly – with an homosexual.
The figures concerning the unspeakable scandal of pedophile priests speak a clear language: the evidence available, like the Murphy report, indicates the vast majority of those involved (you will have to do your own googling yourself for exact details if you are so inclined) were homosexuals. Now, many of these cases were of consensual sex with adolescents considered “children” in some Countries, but again the numbers are generally clear in creating a strong link, and indicating that a homosexual priest is far more likely to be a pedophile than a heterosexual one.
Putin poses, therefore, an implicit question that the West refuses to answer: how much higher will be the probability of being the victim of pedophile adoptive parent for an unfortunate child “adopted” by an homosexual “couple”, compared to the child adopted by normal people?
Let us reflect: if priesthood is an attractive way for a pedophile to get – at least in the past – near children, isn't adoption the safest way for him to reach his objective? How much easier will it be for him to create an environment favourable to both the crime and its impunity? What more can a pedophile wish than being the adoptive father of his own child, manipulating or terrorising him in all possible and impossible ways?
I dare to make here the very easy prediction that in three or four decades' time the phenomenon of the children abused by homosexual “parents” (parents? Really?) will explode, as the “parents” slowly die or become harmless and the victims slowly realise what was done to them, and why. At that point, either society will have become so rotten that it will ignore or even “celebrate” the matter, or – more probably – an awful lot of people will start to realise that the devil, once he has taken a stronghold in a soul, will use this wretch to make as much damage as it can.
Putin sees this obvious connection, and throws the question – implicitly, but clearly – in the arena. The West keeps ignoring it, basking in the smug feeling of the maddest blindness for the sake of the celebration of its own “tolerance” and “inclusiveness”.
Putin will, of course, not obtain much in the short term, at least not in what concerns the West. But in the long term he might cause one or five people to wake up, and his sterling work in keeping Russia Christian – Schismatic, but Christian – can only be praised.
Oh for someone, only one, leading a great Western Democracy, able to think and act like him…
“A lot of people complain and don't tolerate it but with all respect I say that homosexuality is a defective way of manifesting sexuality, because that has a structure and a purpose, which is procreation,” Sebastian told Malaga newspaper Sur.
The interview was published Sunday, a week after the Spaniard was named as one of 19 new cardinals chosen by the pope, to be officially appointed February 22.
“We have a lot of defects in our bodies. I have high blood pressure. Am I going to get angry because they tell me that? It is a defect I have that I have to correct as far as I can,” said Sebastian, who is the archbishop emeritus of the northern city of Pamplona.
“Pointing out a defect to a homosexual is not an offence, it is a help because many cases of homosexuality can be recovered and normalised with adequate treatment. It is not an offence, it is esteem. When someone has a defect, the good friend is the one who tells him.”
These words come from the interview the non-voting soon-to-be Cardinal Aguilar gave a couple of days ago. Predictably, the Gaystapo is having a hissy fit.
Let me make a couple of short observations:
1. Homosexuality is a sexual perversion, not a physical “defect”. To put it on the same plane as high blood pressure (something that can be simply hereditary, and is simply that: a health issue) is to downplay the entire issue atrociously. The way the Cardinal puts it, homosexuality simply “happens”; one “has it” just like he might have high blood pressure. Don't expect many to be impressed by his words. Unless we start to call things with their name, things will never change.
2. The cardinal wanted to speak out, but what came out was a meow. He says “with all respect I say etc.” Would he say “with all respect I say pedophilia is a defective way of manifesting sexuality?” By being such a pussycat, he is formally asking the Gaystapo to attack him. They would attack him anyway, of course; but to attack a lion is rather more difficult than to attack a pussycat.
Political correctness has led to such an oblivion of the most elementary rules of Christianity that even those very rare princes of the Church who dare to say something against homosexuality do so in a whisper, not without saying “with all respect” beforehand, and making the most harmless of comparisons.
Meowing never changes anything. Roaring does.
Nice post from the better Archbold on the National Catholic Register . It deals, like many others articles from US commentators, with the rather funny developments in the Phil Robertson matter.
I quote the salient part:
What we need now is for our leadership (and all of us as well) to stop mitigating and downplaying the deadly effects of the homosexual lifestyle to mind, body, and of course the soul.
Preach it. Talk about it. Stop accommodating it all the time. It is not love or tolerant to look the other way when a person imperils his life and soul. Saying that homosexual acts are gravely sinful is no more intolerant than telling someone not to touch a hot stove.
20 years of softening our position of homosexuality has pushed us to the brink. If there is a lesson to be learned, it is one that any general could teach you. A softened position eventually becomes indefensible.
So we must stop softening our position and fight for the whole truth, even the uncomfortable parts. We must abandon the Church of nice and choose again the Church of truth.
The lesson we should learn from all this is that if we stand for truth we can win the day. If we will not, we have already lost.
The man is obviously right, and touches an issue many times mentioned on this blog: niceness in front of perversion lead to persecution, and we must be vocal and outspoken if we want to avoid it. This blog uses strong words (like “faggot”) to give one’s little contribution so that the Gaystapo does not criminalise people for even saying contemptuous words to describe perverts. The war on freedom goes through the war on words.
This effeminate love for niceness at all costs and in all circumstances will be the undoing of Christianity in the public square and push us back to the Catacombs.
We must stop it at once.
And it came to pass the most outrageously evil faggot of them all dared to say in public what goes through his mind.
His extermination fantasies may, in a way, be hidden behind a thin veil of “darker moments”, but there is no way of denying people who aren't freaking Nazis would not have such thoughts in their most suicidal moments of darkest depression.
The man is, very simply, pure evil, and Gaystapo at work. His concept of a “dangerous idea”?
“Population control: there's too many Goddam people on the planet. [Audience applauds like lunatics]. You know, I'm pro-choice, I believe that women should have a right to control their bodies. Sometimes in my darker moments, I'm anti-choice. I think abortion should be mandatory for about 30 years.”
Whilst it is clear there is nothing good in Dan Savage (his guardian angel must be crying all the time, and who can blame him) it is obvious that there is something good in these bouts of unspeakable, abominable cruelty, said by a sober man, in public, and in front of the media: they show to all those who have eyes to see and ears to ear how fundamentally evil these perverted homosexualists are.
Make no mistake, this will not be the end of Ms Savage's public career. Many are those who belong to Satan and will be snatched by him in the end. But it will at least be a warning among the stupidest of those who still want to have a shot at salvation.
To my knowledge, it is not known that Hitler or Himmler or Goebbels had such thoughts, not even in their darkest moments. It goes to show with what kind of bastard we are dealing here.
The Gaystapo is out to get you. Fight them before it's too late.
The usual Nazi suspects have called for Google to censor a smartphone app helping them to overcome their homosexuality.
Note the mentality of the Nazi faggots: they do not disagree with you, they want to silence you. Everything that goes against their faggotry must disappear.
These people truly are not only a danger for their own souls, but for democracy.
I have written on several occasions on how societal trends move like a pendulum, with an issue slowly developing, then exploding – greatly helped by the media, who love these things – in a collective craze, and after a while deflating again. Sometimes the process takes a long time, on other occasions the pendulum swings more rapidly. To make some example, Roe vs Wade is now clearly under attack, and I seriously doubt it will survive another 40 years, whilst – to mention just some other cases – the AIDS-craze, the Mad-Cow madness and the Environ-mentalism all were much more short-lived.
On a smaller scale, perhaps another pendulum is slowing starting to swing the other way: the intimidation of Hollywood through the Homomafia.
I have just seen “Seven Psychopats” (a brilliant movie, if you like black humour) and couldn’t avoid thinking this will have the queens up in arms, screeching like it’s the first day of sales at Bloomingdale’s. What makes the (several) jokes more relevant is that the film has its first ending (yes, there are two of them…) with a joke so obviously uncaring of the screeching of the homo-lobby I can’t believe this was done by coincidence. On the contrary, the impression I had is that the message here is very clear: we’ve had enough of being intimidated and won’t put up with this anymore.
You could obviously say this is just one movie, and a swallow does not a summer make; but this is a $15m movie, not an indie aiming at Sundance Film Festival glory.
I couldn’t avoid thinking that just a couple of years ago a famous actor (Vince Vaughn, if memory serves) had to make a public apology because he had one line in which he said the Toyota Prius is “gay” (which it clearly is; readers of this blog obviously excluded). Heavens, if the Gaystapo gets bitchy because of a line like this, ” Seven Psychopats” will be bad for their coronaries.
I will continue to follow the trend, but I hope the infamous “Friends With Benefits” will be remembered as the low point, a romantic – if rather immoral for Catholic standards; most romantic movies today are – comedy utterly raped by the presence of the homosexual “friend of the lead character”, interpreted by a rather improbable Woody Harrelson. Interestingly, Woody Harrelson – whom I had not seen for a while before his homo role, and I suspect had to accept it to get back in the big game – now gives an excellent, gritty interpretation in “Seven Psychopats”, and I can well assume the man is trying to get rid of the bad odour left by his homo character; still, the man is clearly a liberal, so I might be wrong on this.
We will see how this pans out; but I must say I was so surprised I thought I would share this with you. More of this, please, and let us put an end to this insufferable climate of bitchy intimidation.
A bakery refuses to bake a cake for a couple of fags wanting to pantomime a God-made institution for their perverted aims.
They say no, as they had done several times in the past. But this time, several death threats follow.
The fags also launch the usual facebook boycott campaign. As a result, the business increases substantially.
You see, what these cretins do not understand is that the more they agitate the waters, the more people wake up and discover that they have had enough of political correctness, and the time has come to take a stand. And so many honest, if perhaps tepid Christians march to the shop of the brave Christian, and spend money by him. Be assured that when they get out, they are a little less tepid already.
May God bless this brave man and prosper his business, and let us really hope judicial Gaystapo-activism does not try to force shopkeepers to serve openly homosexual initiatives just because the state allows some form of official sexual perversion.
In case you had any doubt about the extremely repressive nature of the “gay” mafia, consider that Canada has now opened a “register” of “homophobic” expressions clearly meant to intimidate right thinking citizens from saying what they think.
Stop one moment and reflect what would have happened if some conservative organisation had proposed the creation of some “Faggot Register”, where all expressions favourable to sodomy/lesbianism/whatever form sexual perversion takes are registered for – there can be no other aim – present intimidation or future use.
Of course, everyone would have cried “Nazism”, nicht wahr?
Well, it appears the Gaystapo is intent in doing just that, and if they think we will be intimidated they must be a bunch of hysterical bitches thinking their voice must only be shrill enough and they will get their way (wherein, I prefer not to think…).
Still, and irrespective of the – miserable – prospects of success, intimidation it still is, and sponsored by the Canadian taxpayer to boot. These faggots must really be taught to behave.
Yours truly would like to be one of the first to be inscribed in the register, and therefore humbly asks to be recorded with the following:
Perverts. Faggots. Disgusting cretins. It would be better to lie than to live in such dishonour. Not only are their passions satanic, but their lives are diabolic. They are even worse than murderers, because a murdered only separates the soul from the body, whereas they destroy the soul inside the body. Their sins against nature are abominable and deserve punishment whenever and wherever they are committed.There is nothing, absolutely nothing more mad or damaging than this perversity. For if the sins of the flesh are commonly censurable because they lead man to that which is bestial in him, much more so is the sin against nature, by which man debases himself lower than even his animal nature.
In the meantime, the taxpayer-sponsored initiative has certainly already started to localise other names worthy of inscription; all of them extremely dangerous fomenters of discord and intolerant homophobics. Let us see a couple of them (all emphases mine):
1) There is Tertullian, who is on record with the following:
“All other frenzies of lusts which exceed the laws of nature and are impious toward both bodies and the sexes we banish … from all shelter of the Church, for they are not sins so much as monstrosities.” (Tertullian, De pudicitia, IV, in J. McNeil, op. cit., p. 89)
2) Then there would be Saint Basil of Caesarea. The poor chap was so homophobic (the new ways of saying “Christian”) that he wrote the following:
“The cleric or monk who molests youths or boys or is caught kissing or committing some turpitude, let him be whipped in public, deprived of his crown [tonsure] and, after having his head shaved, let his face be covered with spittle; and [let him be] bound in iron chains, condemned to six months in prison, reduced to eating rye bread once a day in the evening three times per week. After these six months living in a separate cell under the custody of a wise elder with great spiritual experience, let him be subjected to prayers, vigils and manual work, always under the guard of two spiritual brothers, without being allowed to have any relationship … with young people.” (St. Basil of Caesarea, in St. Peter Damien, Liber Gomorrhianus, op. cit. cols. 174f.)
3) I wouldn’t forget Saint Augustine, the daddy of all Catholic womanising chauvinists and, basically, a walking homophobic threat:
“Sins against nature, therefore, like the sin of Sodom, are abominable and deserve punishment whenever and wherever they are committed. If all nations committed them, all alike would be held guilty of the same charge in God’s law, for our Maker did not prescribe that we should use each other in this way. In fact, the relationship that we ought to have with God is itself violated when our nature, of which He is Author, is desecrated by perverted lust.”
Elsewhere, he finds other words worthy of inscription in the bitching faggots’ register:
“Your punishments are for sins which men commit against themselves, because, although they sin against You, they do wrong in their own souls and their malice is self-betrayed. They corrupt and pervert their own nature, which You made and for which You shaped the rules, either by making wrong use of the things which You allow, or by becoming inflamed with passion to make unnatural use of things which You do not allow” (Rom. 1:26). (St. Augustine, Confessions, Book III, chap. 8)
4) Then there would be Saint John Chrysostom, and you have already started noticing that “homophobia” was rather well represented among saints. Let’s read him:
“All passions are dishonorable, for the soul is even more prejudiced and degraded by sin than is the body by disease; but the worst of all passions is lust between men…. The sins against nature are more difficult and less rewarding, since true pleasure is only the one according to nature. But when God abandons a man, everything is turned upside down! Therefore, not only are their passions [of the homosexuals] satanic, but their lives are diabolic….. So I say to you that these are even worse than murderers, and that it would be better to die than to live in such dishonor. A murderer only separates the soul from the body, whereas these destroy the soul inside the body….. There is nothing, absolutely nothing more mad or damaging than this perversity.” (St. John Chrysostom, In Epistulam ad Romanos IV, in J. McNeill, op. cit., pp. 89-90)
How about that, boys’ n girls? Would it do for some years in a Canadian jail?
5) This list would of course not be complete without the Doctor Angelicus. Saint Thomas Aquinas (another saint! You don’t say!) was so ashamed of this abomination – as we all were until some years ago, when the rampant homosexualism around us forced us to talk openly about disgusting things like zoophilia, or sodomy – is on record with the following:
“However, they are called passions of ignominy because they are not worthy of being named, according to that passage in Ephesians (5:12): ‘For the things that are done by them in secret, it is a shame even to speak of.’ For if the sins of the flesh are commonly censurable because they lead man to that which is bestial in him, much more so is the sin against nature, by which man debases himself lower than even his animal nature.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Super Epistulas Sancti Pauli Ad Romanum I, 26, pp. 27f)
and I am sure he has deserved the inscription in the above mentioned bitching faggots’ register, with a special mention.
If you want to expand your knowledge, please click the site whence I took all this useful information, which seems rather thoroughly researched, and say a prayer for the person – or the people – who have taken the time to inform us about basic Christianity, talking to us not only through common sense and basic decency, but through the voice of great men of the past.