I am always wary of the people who seem to support us from the wrong perspective or, worse, from a perversion.
I have seen many times that great, multi-channel TV show that is the 2016 Election Night, and I distinctly remember a chap dressed – and with his face painted – in an extremely disquieting way in the ballroom of the Hilton, Trump’s Headquarters. The guy attracted the attention of the liberal cameras, which was very obviously why he was there in the first place. I can’t say that I can admire Trump’s work in the matter of sexual perversion – besides eliminating some of the worst excesses from the Military, which isn’t enough – . Trump just does not want to go there, which shows you that Jaranka’s influence (and his own New York upbringing) have left their evil mark on him.
Even more wary I am of people like Milo Yannopoulos; a guy who now lives with his “husband” and who has abundantly shown that, apart from the occasional brilliancy of his words (a brilliancy which is, in part, made more evident by the contrast with his being, actually, a homo), he is a creepy drama queen, in the game purely for his own self-aggrandizement.
Like many of these people, Yiannopoulos seeks a scene; or, rather, a gaudy, Liberace-style pulpit like the one Archbishop Paglia dreams he could have. I don’t mind if anyone praises something smart that he says (I have done it myself, because I think that everything that helps, helps…), but we must pay attention that the support for the single statement does not become support for the man. The man is, simply stated, not one of ours, and for reasons so obvious that if you need to be told them, it is useless to do even that.
The same happens for people like Bill Maher, who seems to get a lot of what is happening. Maher is like a man blinded by decades of leftism, who is now slowing seeing glimpses of where the ideology he has supported leads in the end. But he is not in any way, shape or form understanding the underlying issue: that leftism is a poison that ends up trying to destroy not only everything that is good and holy, but democracy itself. Instead, the man seems to think that the problem is not being a leftist, it is being a cancel culture leftist. This is like complaining that milk goes off when you leave it out of the fridge.
Given time, leftist thinking leads to BLM, talk of equality leads to talk of forced redistribution, the encouragement of victimhood leads to looting, talk of “hate speech” leads to cancel culture and Big TechBrother dictatorship.
We should give some space to people from the wrong side who support Trump, or fight against a common enemy, or oppose cancel culture (Michael Moore is another example I have quoted more than once). But in all that, we should never forget that Milo Yiannopoulos (and all those “homos for Trump” groups, however named) will never, ever be standard bearers for us, because they live under the banner of Satan.
He who has the Cross does not need Yiannopoulos.
You see them more and more often: “family” ads where the “family” is constituted by two fags, or two dikes. Tesco has them, and TalkTalk. No doubt there are others I have forgotten or not noticed.
I don't think it has to do with ideology. I think it more likely that it has to do with the gender terror imposed on UK corporations, with the Gaystapo threatening retaliation if they do not help them to smuggle themselves as normal, grow the children in an atmosphere or perversion and get near the “vulnerable” youth. Those companies, probably run by people largely indifferent to religion, prefer to cave in and let the perverts be perverts.
Theresa May's so-called Conservative Government does not seem to care. No one, in fact, apart from perverts, seems to care for the fact that an entire generation of British children is growing in a world that wants them to see sexual perversion as something normal.
It truly is a quest for self destruction, a cupio dissolvi of the Christian West that already sees a Muslim mayor in London and Mohammed as the most popular name for a child, even as those who are supposed to be Christian regress into the habits and the abomination of heathen.
When all this ends, only God knows. In the meantime I thank God for my strong faith, and let's hope I manage to give some strenght to others.
Pity Nancy Pelosi, old botoxed hag marching towards hell with a very solid faith in her divinity. As to the others, perhaps a couple of words are in order.
Firstly, Catholicism has never said that homosexuality is compatible with anything. On the contrary, Catholicism has always maintained that homosexuality is a sexual perversion, and not one iota will ever change in Christ's and the Church's teaching. Therefore, when the old hag claims that homosexuality is compatible with Catholicism, she is saying that Catholicism is a fraud and she does not know jack of Catholicism. She is, therefore, being stupid twice.
Secondly, I wonder whether there are still people who believe in basic decency in Washington or among Democratic voters at large. If you come to the point of thinking that sodomy is in any way normal, it is clear that your mind has already been perverted to the point of not seeing the stench and the filth of sexual perversion. And yes, the two go hand in hand, because it is impossible to be disgusted by sodomy and still think that homosexuality is compatible with anything different from a perverted mind.
Thirdly, these people just forget plain common sense. They think the human brain has worked the wrong way until their own botoxed mug appeared on the scene. Even the Bolscheviks loathed homosexuality, and the Gospel had nothing to do with it. It was just plain thinking, of which even those people were capable.
Pity the old botoxed hag. So old, so vain, so stupid, and such a damn fool.
The way language influences the political discourse is always a fascinating thing to behold.
I grew up in Italy, where the adjective fascista was considered the height of the offence if you were a leftist and, as a reaction, a statement of coolness for young people who were conservatively oriented. “Fascist, that new sweater of yours!” we would say to congratulate his or her owner; “Is this your new car? Fascist!” [the car]; “where do you go today, all beautifully fascist?” (“where are you going today, as you are so well-dressed and all trimmed?”). The same word was used, even if deprived of a political connotation – there was no implication whatsoever that the owner of the sweater was, politically, a Fascist – as an insult or a compliment.
The same happens, I think, with the word “gay”, used by a tiny minority of perverts and leftist to refer to homosexuals, and from a much larger percentage of the population – which, incidentally, tells you something about the lay of the land on the matter – as a synonymous of either disgraceful effeminacy, or outright dumbness and stupidity. As in Italy, the expression “did you really buy a Prius? Oh, this is so gay!” does certainly not imply that the unfortunate buyer of such a (say) crappy, useless, inefficient, PC vehicle is a troubled soul; but one gets the message anyway.
True battles are fought around the use of such words, because words are powerful weapons. The word “gay” was once a way homosexuals referred to each other, but has now become their flag. They want to decide whether the word “gay” was used in a way they approve; they refuse to be called in any other way that has not been officially approved by them (the one with the many initials is an example). They want to control the way they are called, because this in turn defines the way they are perceived. Therefore, not even homosexual is good enough nowadays; whilst perfectly correct, traditionally used words like “pervert”, “sexually deviant” and “sodomite” are clearly taboo.
The Conservatives have acquiesced to this for too long, and this subservience must stop.
It is time to admit that the liberals have been much better at playing the language game than the conservatives; that too much ground has been given away and it is now the time to take it back; that the use of words is an important battleground in the wars about social issues. That if you stop calling one what he is, you’ll allow him to cover the issue. Once again: would you call zoophiles “smart” because they insist on you doing so and claim to be oh so horribly, horribly hurt if you don’t? Nor would I….
A litmus test for this is Italy. Italy is a country blessed with a strong resistance to political correctness and language manipulation. As I have stated, the attempt of the left to demonise Fascism has been countered by applying the adjective to cool things and people; the word “gay” is used in an extremely ironic way; very few people (only the reddest around) shun from the use of very clear words to define sexual perverts, from the educated “invertito” and “omosessuale” to the fairly coarse “frocio” to the very common “checca” (a diminutive of Francesca, a female name) to the even more subtle “Marisa”; and attempts to change the reality of things (“non seer” instead of “blind”, “alternatively able” instead of “disabled”, and others) have been already abandoned, sunk by the loud laugh of the entire country. In short, the resistance of the Italians to language manipulation makes it more difficult to proceed to opinion manipulation, and vice versa.
It is high time that the Italian example is followed abroad. No more acquiescence to the homos’ language terrorism. No more calling them the way they want to be called, but rather calling them what they are. Language is powerful. You can almost completely sanitise the idea of abortion by calling it “planned parenthood”, or of contraception by calling it “family planning”. The very word euthanasia is un-Christian (actually, pre-Christian). If we let the perverts have their way, soon we’ll say “gender” as if it had nothing to do with one’s own sex!
Fortunately, things are slowly changing. The general population does tend to react to unnatural politically correct nuEnglish (the word “gay” used as a pejorative was certainly not planned by the homos, and was heavily fought by the BBC before having to admit defeat in the face of reality), and I even seem to sense a shift to a more aggressive language here and there, with for example Michael Voris now openly and assertively saying “homos” where he would once have said “gays” or “homosexuals”. But we must persevere on this. We must become more assertive. We must free the language from liberal distortions and go back to the proper use of words.
Chi parla male, pensa male. He who talks badly, thinks badly. (Nanni Moretti)