Blog Archives

Get This, Bitch!

We have recently learned that, if you asked the text writers at the CDF how they call people in favour of killing a baby in his mother’s womb, they would (shrug their shoulders and) call them “pro-choice”.

I would love to ask the same people whether their would call the architects of the Holocaust “pro-final solution”. Because you see, if the wilful murdering of innocents can be called being “pro” something , they would not have a problem, surely?

We are, as always, in front of one of the biggest tragedies of our time: the adoption of the language of the enemy in order to look “moderate”.

The enemy uses words with positive connotations to mean something intrinsically wrong or evil. As a result, in the long run in becomes impossible to effectively criticise with arguments what we cannot even criticise with words.

This is, as I have often written – but I will keep doing this, because it is one of the most important fronts of the culture wars – bound to end up in defeat.

Any criticism of sodomy starting with the word “gay” will not force anyone on the other side of the argumet to think; because, by using the word “gay”, the criticism has been already devalued and made to sound whiny and petty. But use, and explain, the real word, and the argument will suddenly appear to the reader to have a different force, quite a new energy. Similarly, it is utterly senseless to go on around the dangers of having “undocumented” immigrants if you have already castrated your argument from the start.

Now, why does the CDF (or even Breitbart!) use the wrong words? Because they want to appear moderate, or measured. In the meantime, your adversaries will call you racist, white supremacist and all sort of insults for merely disagreeing with them, and they will not care one straw for your attempts to appease them and show them that no, you are quite the reasonable guy.

You know what? They have the better strategy, and you are being a fool.

We need to react to this by ditching all language conventions that are remotely stinking of leftism; from the horrible “they/them” instead of “he/him” when you don’t know the sex (not “gender”) of the person you are talking about, to the use of stupid leftists fake words like gay, polyamorous, transgender, Latinx, undocumented, reproductive rights, pro-choice, and the like.

The Culture War can’t be won when one side keeps bombing, and the other side keeps appeasing.

Also, use liberally those words that actually mean something: bitch, bastard, concubine, illegal, etc. Make them feel the heat. Soon you’ll see more and more will start getting out of the kitchen.

And for heaven’s sake, stop trying to be nice.

They aren’t, and so shouldn’t you.

Taking Back Our Values

The attempt to completely destroy the integrity of the vote on a National scale might be doomed to fail, as Senator Manchin appears to have put another nail in this particular coffin. It’s not the first time he does it, and I can well imagine that his position allows others (like Sinema in AZ) to stay in the shadow without being forced to speak against it, if they want to save their job.

Simply put, the Democrats’ hold on the Senate is, at least in some matters, much weaker than the 50+VP official position makes it look.

You know that I, like many in Europe, look at the United States as a luminous example of Western Civilisation and a Country that – still – can teach liberty to everybody else. But there is no denying that this liberty – and, in fact, the very way in which America sees itself – has been under constant, massive attack since Michael Brown at least (very possibly, since Occupy Wall Street; which was different, but equally Marxist), and that this is going to stay with us for some years.

The main issue, as I see it, is education and his cascading issue, language. The Country has allowed a cabal of Marxist to take control of vast part of the education system in the US. In time, this has created a wave of nutcases that are, already, numerous enough to cause trouble. In pure Marxist style, these people do not – in their vats numbers – openly support Marxism (some do; Black Lives Matter before they got smarter is a point in case). What they do, is supporting proxy causes that they can then use to push a covert, Marxist agenda. They use language to push their agenda. They take horrible things and give them a new facade.

“Gay”.

“Undocumented”.

“Gender equality”.

“Reproductive health”.

Every time that you hear words like “racism”, “social justice”, “oppressed”, “reparations”, and the like, know that these words are pronounced either by a closeted Marxist or by a person to dumb to understand he is working for them.

—–

How have conservative reacted to this? Very badly. Actually, as stupidly as they could.

In their pathetic, effeminate efforts to look “nice”, the milquetoast Conservatives (that is: the majority of them) ended up adopting their enemies language, at which point they make their victory in the issue inevitable. To make a point, “civil partnerships” and so-called same sex “marriage” have started to win when conservatives have started to say “gay” instead of homosexual, sodomite, deviant, or the like. “Perv marriage” doesn’t really sell well.

If you adopt the language of your enemy, you adopt his underlying ideology. When that happens, you will have to cede terrain one bit at a time.

Let us go back to Senator Manchin. He can oppose the prospective legislation because there are enough people calling it a fraud. If Conservatives were to start saying “I hate voter suppression, but…”, this would, in time, be the end of this battle, too. You don’t espouse the narrative of your enemies because you want to look understanding or inclusive. You counter it from the first centimeter, and never give up one inch of ground.

Conservatives need to ban from their vocabulary words – when used in the sense of the enemy – like “gay”, “Lgbt”, “voter suppression”, “of color”, “gender”, “transgender”, and many others.

Gay means debonair, happy. LGBT means assorted perverts. “Voter suppression” means “attempted ballot fraud”. “Of colour” means “non White”. “Gender” means a language tool, or sex. “Transgender” means “transsexual” or “freak show”, and so on.

When our side starts using the language of their opponent, we lose. When they don’t, and call a spade a spade, there is hope.

Banish from your vocabulary any word meant in the wrong way and only use it in the proper way.

“You seem very gay today, Mark!”

“I am not gay!”

“You mean that you are not a sodomite? I know that!”

Let’s take back our values, one word at a time.

REBLOG: Let’s Stop Talking The Language Of Our Enemies

Only days after the Orlando massacre, the wrong vocabulary is everywhere. “Gays”, “LGBT”, “homophobia”, all that rubbish.

It angers me no end.

When will people understand (even conservative pundits) that you can never win a battle by accepting the vocabulary of your enemy?

The Libtards have created a new vocabulary to reprogram the brain of the simple. If we want to deprogram the brain of the simple, we must go back to the old vocabulary.

It’s not “gays”, it’s “homosexuals” (which refers to the sexual perversion) or “sodomites” (which refers to the acting on the perversion). It’s not “LGBT”, it’s “perverts”. It’s not “homophobia”, it’s Christian feeling and Christian decency.

This, if you write for an official publication, or if you are a priest.

All the others should, if you ask me, be more assertive than that, and assertively use language to shame wrong behaviour. Fag, Dyke, Fudge Packer, Pillow Biter, Elton, and so on. It’s like flying a flag. It does get noticed. Be ready to double down whenever necessary.

It astonishes me how many people do not understand this simple concept: words shape thinking. We can’t escape this reality. We can avoid the issue, but it will came back to bite us when we are then forced to fight with one hand bound.

Let’s stop talking the language of our enemies.

Let’s start talking the language of our grandfathers instead.

M

 

Let’s Stop Talking The Language Of Our Enemies

Only days after the Orlando massacre, the wrong vocabulary is everywhere. “Gays”, “LGBT”, “homophobia”, all that rubbish.

It angers me no end.

When will people understand (even conservative pundits) that you can never win a battle by accepting the vocabulary of your enemy?

The Libtards have created a new vocabulary to reprogram the brain of the simple. If we want to deprogram the brain of the simple, we must go back to the old vocabulary.

It’s not “gays”, it’s “homosexuals” (which refers to the sexual perversion) or “sodomites” (which refers to the acting on the perversion). It’s not “LGBT”, it’s “perverts”. It’s not “homophobia”, it’s Christian feeling and Christian decency.

This, if you write for an official publication, or if you are a priest.

All the others should, if you ask me, be more assertive than that, and assertively use language to shame wrong behaviour. Fag, Dyke, Fudge Packer, Pillow Biter, Elton, and so on. It’s like flying a flag. It does get noticed. Be ready to double down whenever necessary.

It astonishes me how many people do not understand this simple concept: words shape thinking. We can’t escape this reality. We can avoid the issue, but it will came back to bite us when we are then forced to fight with one hand bound.

Let’s stop talking the language of our enemies.

Let’s start talking the language of our grandfathers instead.

M

 

Words Win (Culture) Wars

Self-mutilated, insane Trannie freak show.




The Libtard fights your morals and Christian identity by criminalising the way you express them. From “microaggression” to “hate”, he will dissect every word you say until you learn to either shut your mouth, or only open it in a way that is convenient to him.

The worst of this is: the more you comply, the more you get cornered and silenced; one “microaggression” after the other. And as you express your ideology less and less, every word that expresses it becomes more “extremist”, and Christian morality becomes “hate”.

Conservatives have been very bad at this game. Pathological “nice guys” fighting against the shameless bastards of Sixty-Eighter sluts, they have given away the battleground.

They stopped saying “fag”, and started to say “gay”; because it should not be thought they were unkind. They stopped saying slut, dyke, whore, bastard, pervert, adulterer, because they were told calling things with their name is uncharitable. They modified, watered down, and even adulterated their own language in countless ways to please a far more aggressive enemy.

As it always happens, a changing vocabulary changed the perceptions, and with it the morals, of entire Countries.

If being a bastard isn't a source of shame, why would it be a source of shame to give birth to one?

If being a slut is something we should not “judge”, will there be more or less sluts around?

If being a heretic isn't so terribly bad, how can heresy be so terribly wrong?

If public adultery is not publicly stigmatised, how long will it be before we are told they should be admitted to receive communion?

—-

Words make minds. Language shapes culture. You re-appropriate your traditional heritage by claiming your right to harsh words in order to describe harsh facts.

Let, therefore, your words resound in a very clear manner. Protect your right to be truthful, lest truthfulness be one day outlawed in the name of liberal ideology. Call a fag a fag, a bastard a bastard, a heretic a heretic, and a whore a whore.

Public stigma works. Our forefathers knew it. But then again they were too smart to believe in effeminate “niceness”.

M

 

 

Homos And the “P Word”

I stumbled upon a rather good article about the obscene celebration of sexual perversion to which St. Patrick's Day Parade has been, well, perverted by, oh well, perverts and those who are accomplices in their sin crying to heaven for vengeance.

However, it seems to me that in this way no battle will be ever won. The way I see it, this article and the many contributions like this have one serious shortcoming, that should be addressed.

You will notice that the “P” word is never spoken. Sexual perversion is a serious matter, which, by its own very nature, cannot be reduced to simple “immorality” as the one caused by the weakness of human nature. I wonder how many would write that child abuse is immoral and, well, premarital sex is also immoral. Some sins cry to heaven for vengeance, and some not. Some sins go with our nature, some sins go against it. We must make this distinction, or we will give the impression that sexual perversion is just on the same level as common human weakness, or that all grave sins are much of a muchness. They aren't. Hell isn't a common room, either.

Words convey messages. If the message is to be strong, the words used to convey it must be strong, too. I do not expect a priest to write “faggot” in his article, but if words like “gay” and “LGBT” are used in in implicit acceptance that they are the proper way to describe perverted people, then I do not see how we can persuade anyone that is not already persuaded.

The garden variety homo (or dyke, trannie, and all the circus tools of the sort; perverts all of them) never hesitates in employing a very emotionally charged, inflammatory language against you; and if you answer to his accusations of “homophobia” without telling him that he is just a pervert who would, in better times, have gone to jail for his perverted scandal*, then we are going to go absolutely nowhere; because we will be perceived, and rightly so, as people afraid of their own argument, and therefore unable to oppose more than a meowing to the roaring of Satan's lions.

They insult us. We answer by adopting their own language, and being oh so attentive not to hurt their feelings. No battle was ever won sounding the trumpet of the enemy.

The “P” word must come back in the debate about… perversion. There is no other way of tackling the issue than by saying loud and clear what the issue is. Similarly, the word “gay” and expressions like “LGBT” must be refused legitimacy and be used only in an ironic or mocking way (yes, mocking; mockery wins wars), never calling perverts the way the want to be called, but always calling them what they are.

Refuse to do so, out of a misguided sense of “charity” or politeness, and it will not be long until the very use of the word “pervert” will make you persecuted. A persecution which you will have called on yourself out of your own desire to be polite with people with no desire at all to be polite to you.

The Italian says: “chi agnello si fa, il lupo se lo mangia”, or “he who makes himself a lamb, the wolf eats him”.

Perverts are wolves. Be a lamb with them, and you will be eaten.

M

*In some European Countries the homosexual scandal, not sodomy in itself, was a criminal offence.




 

 

Reblog: On The Matter Of Language

On The Matter Of Language

 

 

Reblog: On The Matter Of Language

The “Faggot” Reblog

Mundabor

Words Win Wars

obi-faggotry-afoot

 

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.

Mundabor

 

Girl Sings In Latin: A Miracle?

She sings in Latin. Who'll explain it to Rev. Reese?

Creative Minority Report has an interesting contribution about the “America’s Got Talent” TV transmission. It would appear that a young (Catholic) girl called Jackie Evancho was allowed to sing unintelligible songs like Pie Jesu (the nation wondered, stunned, what this may mean) and Panis Angelicus (this was really too much, I suppose)

The last performance was also titled in the same impossibly dead language, called Latin, and the lady sung – incredibile dictu – not only the title (something incomprehensible, Ave Maria I think, who knows…), but the entire song in Latin.

This can, of course, not be true. Let us think about the reservations recently expressed by some progressive priests and bishops, like Rev. Reese about the great difficulties now facing English-speaking faithful having to cope with some modification of the Mass in English.

Having read the profound considerations of Mr. Reese, it is utterly impossible to us to believe that a little girl may have learned an…. an…… entire song not in English, but in a….. a….. foreign language!

It must be a miracle. Otherwise Mr. Reese would look entirely stupid and I am sure that he considers this absolutely inconceivable.

Completely different is then the question how the sender could authorise the singing of something as incomprehensible as that. It is clear that the audience will never, ever be able to grasp the beauty of the music or get to know what it means. You could give them subtitles of course, but this would be such a shock to them! Think of how much they’d have to get accustomed to! It can’t be.

I therefore must assume that:
1) it has been a miracle, or
2) Rev. Reese has been ridiculed by a girl.

Mundabor

%d bloggers like this: