Both Dolce & Gabbana (the two fags who created the brand of the same name) expressed themselves against so-called “gay marriage” and other modern ills, calling in vitro children “synthetic” and in general defending the only family that can be called such.
Invariably, Eltonia Joan (whom the world knows as Elton John) got a tantrum, and I can picture him whilst shredding all his – certainly numerous – Dolce & Gabbana clothes whilst insulting the two with a very high pitched voice, wowing never again to look like a fag clown in Dolce & Gabbana's, but only in other people's clothes.
What do we learn from this queenfight? That there are degrees of evil exactly as there will be degrees of punishment in hell. The ones, if they die in sodomitical mortal sin, will be damned. The others, if they die not only in the same mortal sin, but having vocally furthered even a mock sacrament and the adoption of the little ones by their own ilk, will truly desire that they were never born.
As Eltonia Joan abandons herself to her latest tantrum, the reality of hell is as concrete and inescapable as it always was. May the one or the other repent and go back to sanity one day, there should be no illusion that the modern inhabitants of Sodom will be punished as harshly as the biblical ones. Perhaps more so, then Eltonia & her oh so “gay” partner can't even claim they do not know what God's position on the matter is.
Fags call for the boycott of fags. This is not going to be pretty. Perhaps Dolce & Gabbana will backpedal like the Barilla family (another set of prime candidates for hell, if you ask me) already did. Perhaps they won't, and who knows, this controversy may spark in some fag some serious reflexion about right and wrong.
I will stop short of praising two open promoters of a perverted lifestyle like Dolce and Gabbana, because it would seem to me the same as praising Hitler for not gassing Italians qua Italians. Still, I can't avoid noticing that Italy is, as we write the year of the Lord 2015, a country where even scandalous fags have a higher probability of having a modicum of common sense within them, whilst the likes of Eltonia are treated by heroes by an entire Country, desirous to send itself to hell with the express train.
Satan is having a big party. But I doubt he dresses as badly as Eltonia Joan.
Some days ago, Bishop Scicluna of Malta said something very normal about adoption and sexual perversion; better said, he said something that would have been normal, even banal, in usual times, but attracted predictable criticism in times of pope-sponsored “religion of mercy”.
The Bishop replied that he had spoken in the same terms with the Pontiff himself, and the latter had been so gracious as to express dismay at children being adopted by faggots, or dykes, and encouraged him so speak about it.
Predictably, the neo-con Pollyanna fraction was uncorking the bubbly, utterly in ecstasy at the prospect that the Pope might, this once, in private, allegedly, have spoken like a Catholic. Perhaps it would be useful to explain here a couple of concepts:
1. The Pope’s statements related by third parties do not make lasting headlines. Very probably, they aren’t even noticed by any other than those who read the specialised press or the Catholic blogs. The world at large will never know what the Pope would have said. They are, to all intents and purposes, little more than rumours. Particularly so, when we have a Pope clearly afflicted with a rather serious case of logorrhoea, and whose interviews and exhortations alone are now rapidly approaching 100,000 words.
2. If the Pope thinks about the issue as strongly as reported, that is, is “shocked at the idea of same-sex adoptions”, he has to do nothing else than say so himself in no uncertain terms. It would make worldwide headlines. Unsurprisingly, he just doesn’t. Worse still, when confronted some time later with the girl “raised” by the two dykes, he manages not only not to say anything openly critical, but even to fuel fears he might become “pastoral” in matter of pervert couples, happily throwing Catholic teaching out of the window in this matter as he has already done in so many others.
3. It’s rather easy to be a champion of orthodoxy when 100% of the intended audience (in this case: of one) agrees with you. It is rather more difficult when there is a price to pay in terms of popularity. Francis has his popularity very, very dear.
4. It is clear by now that Francis is a professional of the agreement. He say what people want to hear, and who cares about the Truth. He will agree with Scicluna in the same way as he agrees with Scalfari. He actually says to Bishop Scicluna to speak out about his concern when the latter says him so. The problem is clearly Scicluna’s, not Francis’. He mocks people who pray rosaries with “progressive” nuns, but says the truth must be said whole in front of his bishop. Then he speaks with Scalfari, and suddenly the truth must be denied. In this case, one can imagine the polite conversation. “Really, bishop? Shocking, eh? Is this issue near to your heart? By all means, do speak out about it…”.
Methinks, Francis calls this behaviour being “pastoral”. I call it being a Jesuit.
I am eagerly awaiting for a clear and public statement of Francis saying that he is appalled at perverts adopting children; which latter can’t be credibly done without explaining what is wrong with homosexual couples; which latter can’t be credibly done without explaining what is wrong with homosexuality; which latter can’t be credibly done without explaining what is wrong with him, still tolerating Monsignor (note the title) Ricca as his host and even promoting him to an important position within the Vatican bank, all the while shrugging his shoulder at the rampant homosexuality within the Vatican (they do not have ID cards, you see), and liquidating Ricca’s elephant in the room with a Presbyterian “who am I to judge?”.
I think I might be waiting for a long, long time.
We are informed in a place like Connecticut it is possible for a couple of perverts to adopt nine children. Since when have fags been so motherly? Or are they perhaps chasing the transfer payment? What about having at home material to satisfy their pedophile perversion? Who on earth allowed them such adoptions? Are they straight? Are they pedophiles themselves? How were such decisions motivated?
It seems to me that here something utterly tragic is brewing. Let us think of the homosexual priests’ child abuse scandal. What has happened on that occasion? It happened that homosexuals were allowed to enter the Seminary and become priests in droves. Now, we must understand that there is a univocal (as opposed to biunivocal) correspondence here: whilst it cannot be said that the vast majority of homosexuals are pedophiles, it can comfortably be said that the vast majority of pedophiles are homosexual, as are of course the totality of ephebophiles. The statistical basis provided by Catholic priests involved in sexual scandals is in itself a crushing evidence of this, but if you have any doubt you only need to look at those behind the calls to remove the age of consent to have any possible doubt dispelled.
The same mistake – only with much worse consequences, as it puts the intended victim in a much more vulnerable position – is happening with the so-called “gay adoption”. In the Seventies and Eighties homosexuals were allowed to enter the seminary in droves, either because the deciders were homosexual themselves or because their homosexuality was seen as harmless and anyway irrelevant in their dealing with children. Only many years later the devastation appeared in all its tragic scale, as it took a decade or two to individuate a pattern of behaviour, particularly given both the obvious reluctance of priests to admit they are homosexual (which is supposed to cost them their job) and the disgraceful episodes of cover-up all too known to all of us.
Notice, then, how the pattern is repeating here. Homosexual or ideologically perverted officers allow perverted couples to have small children at their disposal in an environment that is the most favourable for them to act on their perversion; and whilst many of those perverts will not be paedophiles, the worst paedophiles among them will be motivated to seek adoption. You can imagine from this the scale of the problem that is being created; and this, completely irrespective of the other massive problem of the raising of a child in a sexually perverted environment.
Some might say that heterosexual couples may hide a pedophile too, but this does not address the issue. A family made by a man and a woman is the only possible family in a proper sense, and therefore the normality; disfunctions in the normal setting of things do not negate the appropriateness of normality as a working model. On the contrary, the experience among the huge statistical pool of Catholic priests shows us with blinding obviousness that homosexual perversion is a huge factor in the incidence of pedophilia.
The only possible conclusion that can be drawn from past experience and common sense is that the incidence of sexual abuse among children adopted by homosexuals will be a big multiple than among those adopted by heterosexuals. It also tells us that many years will pass before the incidence of such devastation – literally, the satanic work of pedophilia building upon the satanic work of homosexuality – becomes apparent, as both the cover-up of the statistical reality and the insisted denial that homosexuality be a factor in the episodes of pedophilia will slow down the discovery of the ugly truth by the population at large.
This is where we are now. Common sense and a huge statistical basis already tell us where things are headed; but the deluded and perverted – or outright minions of Satan favouring the adoption through pedophiles – will be allowed to accomplish their devilish work by an electorate drunk on “equality” and “sensitivity” to the point of senselessness.
We are in a bad way, and as Christianity slowly but surely fades away from the collective consciousness of once Christian countries our clergy is mainly focused on misinterpreted “social issues”; or content to feed the sheep with insipid waffle about going out of church with a smile on their faces and give witness of their “joy”.
But again, we got where we are largely because we have the clergy we have, and we got the clergy we have largely because we haven’t reacted strongly enough to them for now 50 years, and counting.
Thankfully, the Russian Government appears on the brink of banning international adoption of Russian children from so-called gay couples not only towards the US (this has already happened in January) but worldwide.
In a world drunk on emotionalism and feel-good rubbish, oblivious of the very basics of Christianity, it is beautiful to see there are Countries willing to protect these basic principles.
Please also note that the upcoming ban extends the already existent prohibition concerning co-habiting perverts in the US following the recent French “developments” in the matter. Therefore, those who have dismissed the ban on US perverts as a purely politically motivated measure against the United States will have some difficulties in reconciling their views with the now proposed measures.
Besides, it is very salutary that a bunch of Western Countries are told, for all the world to see, that they have strayed from Christianity to such an extent that they are seen as potential menace for children from Christian countries.
I am eagerly awaiting for the Pontiff's hard statement on so-called “gay lifestyle” in general and adoption from perverts in particular. Being so keenly aware of the need to protect the weak, the Pontiff is certainly appalled at the trend, all over the Western Europe, for delivering defenceless children to the perverted influence of militant deviants. I also notice the Pontiff made very clear poverty is also to be considered as spiritual poverty – in fact, a more dangerous threat to one's salvation than material poverty -. Consequently, I am sure he will consider there can be no direst spiritual poverty, and no bigger threat to one's salvation, than being raised by perverts.
It is ironic, but at the same time indicative of the ways of the Lord (whose sense of humour must be absolutely divine) that the Western countries where Christianity is more keenly felt are the ex communist one. Poland, Hungary, and Russia seem to be at the head of the movement.
The latest noises from Russia are a further confirmation of this, with the local government indicating a ban on adoption of Russian children to France and England is on its way because of the so-called same-sex marriage legislation in the planning.
Now, the Russian officials are clearly wrong in that such an abomination as the adoption of a poor child from a couple of perverts can be obtained, at least in England, even before the other abomination of a mock marriage. Such a ban should, therefore, be enforced immediately.
Still, one can forgive Russian officials for being unaware of all the kinds of monstrous perversity not only allowed, but “celebrated” in this once great country.
Kudos to the Russian government. I hope they implement the measure fast, and say very loudly why.
A lesson in Christianity can’t be wrong, and might sway the one or the other even among an utter godless generation.
I like the UKIP in many ways, and I like most the fact that being a conservative alternative to the Tories, they force at least those Tory MP in “endangered” constituencies to wake up a bit before it’s too late. Still, this is a young party which has to develop a coherent thinking yet as it grows out of the one-issue grouping it used to be.
Let us take the controversy about “gay adoption”. A UKIP politician says he is against to his local newspaper in Croydon; predictably, the usual crowds starts to bark; the man tweets desperately around saying (more or less) “gay” is fine, but “gay adoption” isn’t.
If it is fine being “gay”, it really can’t be seen why such a “fine” man could not enjoy all the rights the law gives to his heterosexual counterparts. He should, then, be allowed to adopt as everyone else, and Christianity was simply wrong in maintaining that a homosexual is a sexual pervert. Those heretics and hypocrites like our beloved Archbishop Nichols could then “charitably” assume they live a chaste lifestyle, and give a child in adoption to a sexual pervert (or perhaps two? Nichols is even nuanced about “civil partnerships”…) without blinking.
If, on the other hand, the idea of some “gay” (that is: a homosexual; a man suffering from a very grave form of sexual perversion; a perversion so abominable it has been a taboo for 2000 years, up to this pervert generation) adopting is repugnant and utterly abominable, this is not because gays happen to be, say, “inhospitable” or overly grumpy, but exactly because…. they are sexual perverts!
The argument of “gayness” being fine and “gay adoption” wrong is, therefore, entirely contradictory and rather the fruit of the omnipresent fear of the Gaystapo than of reasoned thinking. The fear the UKIP people have of the Gaystapo shooting the usual “hate” and “homophobic” salvos is what prevents them from saying what they clearly think: homosexuality is a perversion. If it were not so, why would they not support “gay adoption”? How can they say with a straight face to homosexuals “you are fine, but you can’t adopt”? Why, then, can they not adopt? Will it not be because………Yes! That’s why!
We see here at work a disease much spread among politicians: the irrational fear of saying the truth. Therefore, they say half the truth, but refrain from saying the other half. Their argument remains unconvincing, because it is contradictory, and their reputation will suffer, because they will be rightly seen as pliable to the mob’s wishes.
I think this is the wrong strategy. In my eyes, the UKIP should give itself a solidly and rigidly conservative programme in all social and religious matters, and should go and harvest their votes among the disaffected Conservative voters in rural England, where people still (more or less) have fear of the Lord and believe in traditional values.
I can’t see them winning a seat in, say, Croydon any time soon anyway; but if they did, they could only do it at the price of “Cameronising” themselves, which would mean sure death outside of the London area, or a life at the fringe of the British Conservative life.
I truly hope for the UKIP that they will grow to become a seriously conservative Party, but if they keep trying to avoid the serious questions they will never be an alternative to the Tories, and their men will be forgotten as soon as the Conservative party comes back to sanity. Better be a good replica of the Tory party of Margaret Thatcher, than a bad copy of Cameron’s. That it doesn’t really work anyway we can see at what is happening to Cameron himself.
To do so, they must stop the nonsense of allowing a perverts’ group in their midst. It is a matter of common sense and of elementary dignity. If they avoid taking stance on controversial issues, they will soon be forgotten.