The last terrorist attack in London caused… 22 hospitalised people at last count. Knowing this Country, I suspect this includes everyone with a bruised toe.
I cannot but notice that, once again, the London population realises what an excellent work the security forces are doing, neutralising all but very few, and perhaps the most stupid attempts; which, being amateurish, can more easily be planned and executed fast, outside of the security radar.
Mind, though, that what is now sporadic terrorist violence, and can still be controlled, will be much more difficult to control when the number of Mohammedans grows and the episodes of violence become too frequent to be effectively controlled. Then it will be, at some point, open fight, and I am not sorry to say that the White Man will crush the posterior of the Brown Invader, as they have always done in the last many centuries.
Not without countless deaths, though, and widely spread violence. A violence we are attracting with our own stupidity, and which will make every suffering inflicted on us self-inflicted, and therefore amply deserved.
Terrorists are not what they used to be. The security services are doing sterling work. But you can't avoid civil wars simply with security services: when the tipping point has been reached, it's open, violent confrontation.
Often, in history, vast upheavals have been considered improbable merely years before they happened: the French Revolution and the Spanish Civil War are two well-known examples, right in the middle of Europe.
Our own stupidity might be preparing a horrible, possibly continental civil war for our children. A civil war I do not doubt we would win; but a completely avoidable one, brought on us by our own stupidity.
The Metropolitan Police (also familiarly known as “Scotland Yard”) today revealed a new, in time 600-strong “rapid deployment force” created to deal with what we all know (but the Met won't say) is the threat posed by Muslim terrorists.
Well-armed, trained for urban warfare, and motorcycle mounted, the 600 are supposed to be there very rapidly after a terror attack has been launched.
Alas, at that point you and many others will be dead already.
In line with the slightly surreal exercise of training 600 to protect 7 million, the police has suggested that, in case of attack, we should firstly “hide”; and, if it does not work, “run”.
What a continent of pussycats we have become.
This would be the time for the British Government to make new laws making it far easier for the sound population to get a permit to carry, obviously looking closely into the background of the applicant. This would be the time to say to the people of London that in the same way they reacted to the threat of the Blitz all together, they should now all together react to the new Muslim threat and protect each other. The new enemy does not come from the sky, but from the nearest train station, the underground carriage, the double decker bus. It is necessary that the defence is as diffused as the threat is. The best and most immediate defence is always the one put in place by the people who are there, not the largely psychological measure of a motorcycle policeman arriving after you have been executed.
Nor can one say that this is too dangerous, London having too many Muslims. I can't imagine a single Muslim terrorist stopped in his tracks by the fact of not having a gun permit; but I can imagine a huge number of decent citizen prevented from defending themselves for the same reason.
A Country whose police force suggests to grown men to hide and run (I am sorry, dear wife and child; you are clearly not fast enough; but I will remember you fondly…) instead of arming, training and preparing themselves is a Country that emasculates his own people, reducing them to sheep to whom it is told the biker-mounted shepherd dog should arrive fast enough to save, hopefully, some of them.
A man has not only the right, but the duty to protect himself and those he loves. A government that does not allow him to do is a government that conculcates a basic human right of his citizen.
But hey, we will soon have 600 needles in a 7 million haystack.
I have written in the last weeks (and before) rather often about strange liberal creatures with clear difficulties in reconciling themselves with Catholicism.
Their problem seems apparent – I would say, it is made by them very apparent – by the inability of these chaps to dress like ordained people. If they have an obligation to dress like clerics, they seem blissfully unaware of it. Let us see some example of this “liberal fashion”.
This is bishop Nourrichard, he of the Thiberville scandal
You can note from this photo that the man likes yellow, and green; that he doesn’t look particularly sober ( an impression of mine, for sure; pastis is not very strong after all…..) and that he has not been blessed with a familiar environment stressing the value of elegance or, at least, basic decency. Congratulations to bishop Nourrichard for the “country bumpkin” prize.
The next one is bishop William Morris, he of Toowoomba
This man was clearly raised up in a more tasteful environment. The shirt is well pressed, the tie well matched, the colours are elegant and dignified. Particularly so, because the sign of the Vatican boot on his backside is not visible on this picture.
The problem is that by looking at the photo you’d never say that he is, of all things, a Catholic bishop; which is, clearly, what he himself wants.
Don’t worry, though: having being kicked out by the Holy Father he is now a retired bishop anyway. If he is defrocked – as he should – he’ll have even more scope for his well-pressed, tasteful shirts. Or perhaps he will then decide to follow his vocation and will dress like a Morris dancer.
Next in line is our “priestesses subito” soi-disant Catholic theologian, Hans Kueng.
Herr Kueng prefers a sober, traditional style, with a white shirt complemented by a regimental-type tie and a sober London smoke jacket. This would be very fine, if said Herr Kueng were not a religious. The problem with the way he dresses is that he is clearly trying to let you forget that he is a Catholic priest. A circumstance which he has, very probably, long forgotten himself.
Dulcis in fundo, the hero of the hour; the idol of worldwide pedophiles; the staunch defender of sodomy with children; the -apparently – former Dutch Salesian Superior Herman Spronk.
Note the inquisitive, attentive, piercingly liquid eye. This is a typical expression that once would have been defined “tired and emotional” but we today, unaccustomed to the niceties of the past, simply call drunk. These expressive facial traits – you see in them a clear sympathy for the tragedy of good men, cruelly separated from the children they love by a ruthless Vatican hierarchy and oppressive superiors in Rome – are aptly matched to a factory-worker casual jacket and a dark blue, probably rather coarse, shirt. We all know how much children love blue, and the casual dress is also clearly meant to avoid being intimidating. Sinite pargulos venire ad me is the extremely creepy message here.
These are all examples of liberals of various kind previously dealt with on this blog, the last three in the past couple of weeks.
Once again, it is clear that symbols have power, and that the way one chooses to follow regarding his exterior appearance often accurately reflects his interior world.
The religious habit has a powerful symbolic force. It is not surprising that those who betray the Church start by betraying the habit.
I have written some time ago about the Anglican madness (not the initiative of some obscure hot head, but the brainchild of the board of education of what calls itself the church of England) of limiting the places reserved to the Anglicans in their own schools to ten percent. If you don’t believe it, please read here.
Thankfully, I now receive the news that, among the best Catholics, there are those who do things in a diametrically opposed way. The London Oratory School demands that the parents of the prospective pupils attend Mass at the Oratory in a demonstrable way ( I think that there are registers to sign; this must be atrocious for the 68-ers generations, but it actually makes a lot of sense). Already this shows the great difference in mentality between those who believe in God and those who believe in political correctness.
It would now appear that the rules of admission might go beyond that, extending to the participation of the parents to the parish life beyond Mass attendance. Whilst this may or may not be an efficient criterium, it is clear to me that we are in front of people to whom Christ is truly King; people who see their educational mission as directly linked to the Christian faith, and the Christian faith as the shaping element of the life of the family.
I can’t think of a better way to describe the distance now separating mainstream Anglicanism (once again: look at the source of the above mentioned Anglican proposal) and orthodox Catholicism.
Thank God for the London Oratorians.
On the newspaper of the Anglicans (called “Anglican Mainstream”) there is an article of Andrew Carey regarding the attitude of the Anglican clergy toward those who have decided to join the Ordinariate.
Basically, the Anglican hierarchy are refusing to give churches (even unused ones) to the converts for their own use; in addition, they are refusing the shared use of Anglican churches. Mr. Carey considers this attitude to be wrong as in his opinion a “broad church” like the Anglicans should “act differently”.
I disagree with Mr. Carey. I see in the refusal of the Anglicans to allow converts to use their own churches a last vestige of dignity and coherent thinking, the more remarkable because the Anglicans have been clearly losing both for many years now.
By all talking about being “broad” or “open”, it goes without saying that whoever is out is not in, and whoever has chosen to be out has consequently chosen not to be in anymore. The expectation (more or less strongly entertained) that there should be a moral obligation of the organisation that has been left to do something gratis et amore Dei for those who have left them is not very realistic and is, more importantly, utterly illogical.
For the Anglicans, the Ordinariates are a problem; certainly not a mortal one, but one that can’t be dismissed as irrelevant. To help those who go would simply mean to help to achieve one’s own demise. Glad as I would be to see the death of this heretical outfit born of whoring and/or bastard kings, I don’t think that this should be expected from them. If Anglicans have a remnant of dignity at all, they must still consider (wrong as this certainly is) their way the best one and conversion to Catholicism a mistake. If this is so (and it can’t be otherwise, logically) it certainly cannot be asked of them to help not only the achievement of their own demise, but the spreading of theological error.
In addition, it must be said that the Anglicans – wrong as they certainly are – are there to protect the interest of their own community. Their duty of allegiance is to those who are in, not to those who have chosen to go out. By all talk of ecumenism, this is a brutal truth that can’t be ignored without making oneself open to the accusation of working against one’s own shop.
As to the sharing of churches, the nicest thing I can say is that the idea is bonkers and I truly hope that it will never become a reality in any Ordinariate whether in the UK or abroad.
There is already an issue of letting the potential converts understand that Anglicanism is a completely different, utterly opposed, fundamentally antithetic choice to Catholicism. There is already the fear that many converts will prove fake converts thinking that they haven’t really changed anything, but have only continued to be the same in a slightly different setting (heresy and sacrilege I know; but browse around and you’ll read things that will have your hair stand on end). If to this danger of fundamental misconception we were to add the worship in the same church building as before, we would positively encourage the heresy and the sacrilege; this without even considering the practical problems of how to set the altar, how to care for the tabernacle and so on. Interfaith worship in the same building doesn’t make any sense, it merely confuses the faithful.
Does this mean that all those beautiful churches, now unused, should be left empty? Certainly not. In my eyes, in the coming years and decades some of these churches should be bought by Catholic institutions to be exclusively used as Catholic churches. As the Anglican so-called church has no use for many of them, their value is not very high and as they are mostly Grade I or Grade II-listed they can’t be knocked down to build shopping centres or garages, which circumstance further depresses the value of the land. Catholic dioceses could, in turn, purchase some (or more than some) of these churches and use them in substitution of their monstrosities of the Sixties, whilst the fact that most of the monstrosities are not listed would make it easier to sell the land to be redeveloped for other purposes; some of the newly acquired churches could then be shared by ordinariate and diocesan Catholics without any problem.
In this way, the Anglicans could do something useful for their own people (cash in, and less maintenance costs) and the Church would get a number of beautiful old churches, adequate worship opportunity for the Ordinariate Catholics, the disappearance of many ugly church building and perhaps, here and there, some rather nice real estate deal. A win-win situation, it seems to me, obtained without having to ask (or worse, expect) favours from everyone and without compromising the obligatory doctrinal rigidity of Catholic worship.
I am neither the first nor the last to notice that the announced closure of the seminary, church and ancillary structures of the Ushaw College is uncannily near to the announcement that the newly created Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham is looking for both a “central” church and a structure able to provide for their administrative and formation duties.
It doesn’t need a genius to at least consider putting two and two together here. Some say that the new HQ of the Ordinariate should be situated in (or near) London, but I frankly cannot see why as the Ordinariate is not steered from Westminster or from the Bishop’s conference, but from Rome.
On the contrary, establishing the heart of the Ordinariate far away from Eccleston Square would in my eyes more convincingly stress the operational independence of the new structure.
Furthermore, if one assumes that there will soon be a number of churches operating with the rite of the Ordinariate (a batch of further 50 former Anglican clergy ready to swim, it is purported), it is not unrealistic to assume that a number of these will be located in or near London; the opportunities to enjoy beautiful Catholic Evensongs in the Capital should therefore be there anyway.
We’ll have to wait and see what decision is taken, but I am sure that I am not the only one thinking that this episodes has a certain smell of less-than-perfect collaboration between different parts of the Church.
Nutcases, perverts and cruel people of all kinds have long understood that the best way to get their way through the barrier of societal disapprobation is to talk of their relevant cruelty or crime or abomination in terms of “rights”. No, make it “human rights”, it sounds so much better….
As a consequence, the mother wanting to kill her baby (provided she recognises him explicitly as such) will talk of murder in terms of her right to choose; sodomites will see their practices as something to which they are simply entitled; paedophiles will claim for themselves the right to sleep with consenting minors, incestouos couples will talk of their “right to love”, and so on.
It seems that nowadays everyone thinks that he has the right to do everything. I am waiting for the day where maniacs (of which there is no scarcity) will claim the right to self-maim themselves or to allow one person to maim and torture another to death. This has happened in Germany some years ago and I am not the one to withhold from you the information that the chaps in questions were both homosexuals. This last episode is very handy, because it is difficult to recognise every appreciable difference between one or two perverts weary of living (both “adults and vaccinated”, as they say in Italy) and desirous to exercise their “right to die” when and in the way they see fit and the new entry among the “right to do everything”-crowd, the Healthcare Professionals For Change.
This group (which Sky defines as “influential” without telling us why) is composed of “doctors and nurses” in favour of assisted suicide. The groups should have called itself “Death Doctors and Nurses” I’d have said, but “change” is sooo Obama…
The group wants to challenge the opinion of the vast majority of doctors and nurses in the UK, who are firmly opposed to any form of assisted suicide. “There is not a single Royal College or significant medical organisation in this country that backs the legalisation of assisted suicide or euthanasia”, says “Care, Not Killing” and in fact if one reflects that in the London area it becomes increasing more difficult to get an abortion due to the growing number of doctors refusing to murder babies in the womb one understands that the claim is rather credible and that these latest nutcases truly represent a tiny minority of health professionals.
Personally, if I were in a hospital with an incurable disease I would insist on NOT having any of these doctors and nurses dealing with me.
We all know what good intentioned nazi doctors were capable of.