I have already written in the past about what an important weapon -in many ways, a decisive one – language is. Today I feel compelled to make some additional observations.
Most people are, as we all know, shallow and easy to manipulate. Nothing has changed in this respect from the time Alessandro Manzoni spoke of popolo bue, thus highlighting how dim witted and easily steered the masses are. Lenin, who by all his shortcomings was a very smart guy, knew that too. Organised perverts are acutely aware of it, and at least in this we should learn from them.
Modern social battles, almost always pacific, are fought largely with words. Short and punchy slogans are repeated obsessively, until the steers (the masses) start going that way. Words like “gay”, “homophobia”, “inclusiveness” or “LGBT” have been used in this way with great success. When their use became mainstream, people at large simply forgot (respectively) that homosexuality is a disgusting sexual perversion and an abomination in the eyes of The Lord, the repulsion towards perversion is a healthy instinct and the sign of a healthy conscience, moral distinction must always be made in life and sexual perversion comes in a variety of form, all of them revolting.
The newest slogan is “marriage equality”. “Equality” sounds awfully good, you see. Uncritical, or unthinking minds will not enquire whether the case is one in which equality is justified; rather, in their shallowness they will tend to think the one who says “equality” has already won the battle, as how can anyone be against “equality”?
How do we react to this, you may ask. My answer is that we must learn to use the weapon called “language” to our advantage rather than leaving the initiative to our enemies.
For countless generations, shame and ridicule were attached to sexual perversion, and rightly so. Insults and mockery linked to wrong behaviour are an extremely powerful instrument of social control. When perverted behaviour is the target of mockery and devastating remarks, the taboo going with them will be perpetuated and, besides limiting the damage to souls, will make it utterly impossible for the perverts to put themselves at the centre of the public debate.
All this starts to change when the language changes. When a sodomite is not called (I use only one of the many words) a faggot anymore, at some point he will be called… “gay”. When this happens, the stigma has gone, the taboo is dead, and from then on the slippery slope of political correctness will take its course undisturbed.
At this point, the faggot will start wailing like a mutt in a summer night, sure that every mockery directed at him will be stigmatised by all the “nice” people who have long lost the concept of what an abomination faggotry is. The devastating effect of ridicule (so well-known in fact, that during wars no cartoon character escapes the “draft”) has also been voluntarily abandoned, and this will make it very easy for the pervert to pose as victim, and to accuse sound thinking people of discrimination. At this point his game is easy, because most people will have forgotten the extent of the abomination (if it can’t be mocked, it can’t be so bad) and will find themselves at a loss to explain why what their guts tell them about perversion is also the right attitude towards it. The more so, when disgraceful people like Cardinal Woelki, Cardinal Schoenborn and, most recently, Archbishop Paglia pop in, confusing the faithful even more because they are very confused themselves.
When we gave away the mockery and the stigma attached to it, we started to lose. When we recover the consciousness that we have not only the right, but the duty to contribute to the stigmatisation of perversion, we will start to win again, because the shallow unthinking masses now uncritically accepting the rather suave adjective “gay” will be terrified of being even remotely associated with perversion properly called.
You might have noticed no one says “some of my best friends are kiddie-fiddlers”, either.
If you thought you knew how bitchy a fag can be, wait until you read this. In short, some homo-activists running the place (the place is, clearly, in San Francisco; I bet he/she/it votes Pelosi) has decided that “any celebration of straight marriage” is banned. Basically, perverts are supposed to be the only one who have right to “celebrate” what they (being pervs) call marriage.
This is not even the stupid – and to be refused, erm, straight – idea that marriage as God intended and that abominable parody attempted by perverts be “equal”. We are already beyond that. This is the idea that there is only one marriage worthy of celebration, and it is the non-existent one.
I am tempted to tell you where I think these people have their brains.
Of course, I must also disagree with the idea of the author of the article, who has no problem with what the wannabe girls are doing.
I have. I can’t imagine a Christian society “ok with perversion” and if it must be that we Catholics have to live with such abominations until the time comes when sanity prevails and sodomy laws are reintroduced (astonishingly, this appears to be now a very naughty things to say; two thousand years of Christianity look at us and cry), this does not mean we are ok with it. Freedom can only exist within the boundaries God has given us, and freedom of this kind has simply no right to exist.
Why, oh why have we to cope with a joke called Vincent “Quisling” Nichols when the US have so many Bishops who could be sent here to relieve us of our misery?
You can read here what has happened in Minnesota, where Bishop Nienstedt has refused to give communion to a group of militant homos wanting not only to receive communion notwithstanding their open rebellion to the Church, but even do so wearing a visible sign of their revolt, rainbow buttons and sashes.
The decision of Bishop Nierstedt would be to commend unconditionally, and a rare good news worthy of being shouted out loud, if the fact had not been tainted by a grave episode of scandal after the mass, when a priest obviously squarely on the pro-Homo side has hastily celebrated a Mass for the homosexualists, during which they were allowed to (try to) receive communion by the same priest.
It is now the clear duty of Bishop Nienstedt to bring his disobedient priest rapidly and clearly into line, then isolated episodes of orthodoxy are – whilst always commendable in themselves – much diminished in their importance and in their teaching value if dissent is allowed to flourish among the very priests of an orthodox Bishop.