Blog Archives

“Cuties” And The Problem With The Left


The total scandal and perv fest that is Cuties keeps making waves.

**Obviously**, I have not watched that rubbish. Not even a pic. Not even a short video segment. Apart from being a sane person, it is enough for me that Tim Poole stated days ago that he has banned from his Twitter feed everyone who (and be it to criticise the movie) has put pictures and fragments of the movie in it, so sickening it was.

Tim Poole is a (moderate) leftist (but with some sense left, so he will vote for Trump), not a Southern Baptist Preacher who thinks that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon. This is serious.

Let me explain the absurdity of Netflix’ position.

Firstly, you don’t make a movie, or a documentary, about taboo arguments. “Taboo” means, literally, “you don’t talk about it”. This stuff can get in the news because some leftist millionaire or filmmaker gets arrested, and sadly the modern world does not respect taboos as the old one did, forcing me to write a blog post about this sickening stuff. Still, it is obvious that if there is a taboo issue, you don’t make “movies” or “documentaries” about it. How many documentaries about incest have you seen?

Secondly, the claim of those criminal perverts that the movie is “conservative” is dumber than Joe Biden on a very, very bad day. It is not conservative to sexualise children. It is not conservative to put pedo stuff on the TV screen. These people are sick, and they make me sick. 

Thirdly, the mixture of perverted attitude and marketing ploy (remember: perverts want to normalise perversion, starting from the so-called “gays”) is such a transparent lie. Who would make a documentary claiming to criticise incest and put incest scenes on it? Who would make a documentary claiming to address the “problem of bestiality” and put.. that stuff in it? Only a pervert would, that’s who.     

After these very obvious, preliminary consideration, I draw as conclusion that is, in my eyes, just as obvious. Netflix has been infiltrated by perverts, whose game is to normalise perversion under the guise of being “critical” about it. This needs to be addressed and I am not talking of educators, I am talking of prosecutors. I hope that prosecutors with a stronger stomach than me look very attentively at this stuff and think very carefully whether they should not arrest and prosecute all the people who have been instrumental in this. Again, I have not seen that rubbish, so it is difficult for me to form an exact judgment as to whether the behaviour is outright criminal. But I think the professionals of the sector certainly should.

More in general, it is very easy to note this: perverted “lifestyles” are, one and all, totally antithetical to Christianity and to the White Western Civilisation in general. Therefore, perverts are naturally anti-Christian and leftists. It is no coincidence that, of the women who originally founded BLM, three out of three are Marxists, and two out of three are Lesbians. It is not difficult to imagine that, among the activist and agitators in BLM and Antifa, the percentage of such people is high.

Do you remember the first person killed in Kenosha, a chap called Rosenbaum, the bald one with the bad temper? Look him up.

I’d love to know how many in the upper echelons of Netflix are, in fact, homos. I’d love to know about the director, screenplay writers, and other “creative” people within this disgraceful enterprise. I think we might discover interesting stuff.

Remember: not every homo is a paedophile, but almost all paedophiles are homos.





There Is No Need For Dangerous Faggots: On Milo Yiannopoulos And The Liberace-Style Of Making Politics.



The very recent news of Milo Yiannopoulos’ “resignation” from Breitbart allows me to share with you a couple of reflections of – as is typical in Yiannopoulos himself – very politically incorrect nature.

I visit Breitbart every day, and in the last week or two I was peeved not a little at seeing those very disgusting pictures of Yiannopoulos on the site almost every day. My impression of the man was that, whilst he said a lot of things that were sensible and reasonable, he had a very basic, very fundamental flaw: like in most homos, his perversion was clearly his dominant character trait, the “feature” that defined who he is. Nor have I ever believed his repeated protestations of being a, so to speak, involuntary fag who would very much like to be straight, as everyone who really thought that way would avoid dressing and behaving like a flaming queen immediately afterwards. For this reason I have often read what the man wrote, but I could never stomach any video of his, nor have I ever given him any meaningful space on this blog. Basically, the man was like a well of fresh water in order to reach which you have to drill through thick strata of excrement. Thanks but no thanks, Mr Liberace. There will be other wells. 

The specifics of Yiannopoulos – momentary, I think – fall are also less transparent that many would want you to believe. It is true that the man has not – literally – advocated sex with pre-pubescent boys. However, I think this is fairly irrelevant from our perspective. Like most homos, the man has clearly no problem with sex with very young boys, and be they grown up physically. The “growing process” crap with which homos tend to snare confused boys of questionable virility is obviously present in him, too and no, I don’t care a straw that he says he has been “abused”. Sodomy is always abuse. Homos tend to like very young, very thin boys. You wonder how deep behind the surface the paedo is lurking. 

Most telling to me, though, is that Breitbart decided to ditch Yiannopoulos, which I think indicates a high probability that they know more than we do and have decided that they are better off without him. Everyone who knows Breitbart a little realises that, if they had had confidence that Yannopoulos is sound – at least on pedophilia -, a) they would have started a crusade and extermination war against the liberals clamoring for his scalp and b) they would have relished the fight. They can be such pitbulls that they surprise even yours truly, which in my eyes makes their decision to “resign” Yiannopoulos the more telling. 

And what is the moral of the story? It is that you can never trust a homosexual, particularly one that has “outed” himself and thinks he is Liberace. The very fact that he is homosexual tells you that something is very wrong with him; and as a Catholic you know full well that when Satan has already made such inroads into a man’s conscience, chances are he will do further damage. Thinking that a homo will be a perfectly decent man besides the “detail” of his homosexuality is – particularly in the presence of openly effeminate behaviour and associated circus antics – as naive as to think that a fox can gain her way in the hen house and be happy with one victim or two. The high rate of suicides and psychosomatic diseases, and the high percentage of pedophiles who are homosexual, make it clear enough. Unfortunately, this is not the kind of matter-of-fact, sensible information you will ever read from the Buggers Broadcasting Communism. 

Conservatives have tried to make excuses for him, because they liked what he had to say. “He uses his homosexuality as a weapon against the attacks of the liberals”, some said, or “this is only a vehicle used to spread the message among the young”. 

Rubbish. No decent person can condone indecency in the name of turning an indecent generation away from it. Yiannopoulos’ antics could have never been justifiable, much less “good”, in the name of a higher good. You see how these people often end up anyway, because their own deep seated disorder is a constant menace to themselves.

Breitbart does not need Yiannopoulos, and Yiannopoulos needs to put his life where his mouth is and convert to decency, living the morality he preaches.  

It always peeves me when libtard scalp hunters can claim a victory. But this wasn’t a very difficult target.  

There is no need for dangerous faggots. There is, in fact, no need for faggots of any sort. 




Say Hello To “Paedophobia”

Ah, the brave new world of liberal thinking: completely God-free, and with as much Satan as you can eat.

Read here about a new “sexual orientation”: the “minor-attracted”.

Makes sense, doesn't it?

If sodomy is only a matter of orientation, one does not see why this “orientation” should be condemned when it is directed towards children, dogs, or one's own relatives. Either a society decides that certain grave sins are forbidden for the simple reason that they go against natural law and God's precepts, or hell is the limit.

Yet, some people – many people, in fact – are now so ignorant and stupid that they espouse the mantra of “if there is no violence, people should be free to do what they want”.

Say hello to a world where homosexuals – and some heterosexual, presumably – have sex with their own adopted children, obviously within the framework of “love” the liberal society knows so well. As for the case of euthanasia, and so slimy itself, the work of “persuasion” of these monsters will at some point make abomination seem normal, and there will be no lack of subtle and less subtle ways to pervert little innocents. One can hope the phenomenon will – horrible as it is – be at least limited to the sons of the liberals themselves, but I fear much for the orphans. And then of course the perverts will try to pervert your children already at school. Isn't this exactly what they are trying to do with sodomy already?

This stupid society does not understand that one cannot be satanic by half. If one is ok with sodomy, it will only be a matter of time until he – or his children, or grandchildren at the latest – are fine with every other sort of abomination under the sun. Then the sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the children, as it is supposed to be.

Naturally, give it a couple of decades and every expression of opinion against such abominations will be accused of being intolerant, bigoted, hypocritical, & Co. “Phaedophobe!”, will the same people yell at you who now call you “homophobe”, among the applause of liberal journalists and self-appointed “intellectuals”.

As we have just seen, it works.



Three Cheers For Cardinal Bagnasco


Apparently, an authentically charitable Cardinal: Angelo Bagnasco.


I hope that my regular readers approve my stance, but there is no doubting in the general corruption of everything Catholic these days the comparison – often read on these columns; very rarely elsewhere – of sodomy with abominations like zoophilia, incest and pedophilia tends to “offend” the more sensitive natures; either because they are poorly instructed and polluted by the politically correct climate of our time, or because they simply want to feel “good” and “sensitive”, which has in itself become the new religion of the shallow and the outright stupid.

It might, therefore, be of some use in your discussions with friends, relatives and perhaps even colleagues of yours – as long as this does not imperil your job, of course, which I would not find very prudent – to know about this nice statement:

“Why say ‘no’ to forms of legally recognised co-habitation which create alternatives to the family? Why say ‘no’ to incest? Why say ‘no’ to the paedophile party in Holland?”

Please read it again and notice the – if I may be so bold – Mundaborian brutality of such an utterance. This must be some SSPX religious like Bishop Williamson, surely?

Well, erm, not quite. This most orthodox Catholic reflection – and most charitable one – comes from none else than the Number one of the Italian bishop, the present head of the Italian Bishops’ Conference, Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco.

I do not know the details of Bagnasco’s Vatican activity, and do not know what sins of neo-modernism and V II-ism he is answerable for.  But I would say there is some reason to hope they will not be many, and not so terribly grave.

Be it as it may, as an Italian living in Albion I cannot avoid noticing the difference with our coward in chief, Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols (no, no link: use the search function on the right hand column and you’ll find more than you wished for…).

I can also scarcely imagine this Cardinal abandoning himself to senseless modernist blabber about Mary Ever-Virgin, or about the new mantra of Archbishop Mueller, Extra Ecclesiam Omnia Salus.

I wanted to mention this episode to you, as our natural – and right – focus on what is wrong with today’s Church should not let us forget that here and there there are still people able to – more or less occasionally; some of them regularly, like Cardinal Burke – upheld Catholic values even ehn – and particularly when – unpopular, rather than prostituting Catholic doctrine to the need for popularity and Kirchensteuer  revenue like this tool here.

As they say in Italy, even in a lake of mud* you can find the occasional water-lily. Cardinal Burke and, hopefully, Cardinal Bagnasco are two of them.

Let us not be too despondent, or pessimistic about the future.

Dio vede e provvede.


* “mud” is the word I chose with regard to the sensitive among you. You generally hear a different one….

Larry Brinkin, S.F. Sodomite “Icon”, Jailed For Child Pornography (Achtung! Really Disgusting Material!)

So-called “gay” so-called “icon” in trouble: Larry Brinkin.


My dear readers,

sensible people like you most certainly know when one allows the Devil to enter in the living room, the latter will make himself comfortable and occupy the entire place. You also know homosexuality and pedophilia (two of the most atrocious perversions, unspeakable taboos, considered very much akin during 2000 years of Christianity, before it became fashionable to say “gay”) are very closely linked together.

You know the explosion of homosexuality among priests in the wake of V II was what mainly fuelled the explosion of paedophile scandals in the decades following Vatican II. You also know “notable” faggot activists like Peter Tatchell have in the past become vocal for the reduction of the age at which they can have safe (in the sense of: legal) sex with very young boys.

If you are, my dear reader, the slender type, you will also know that you will attract the attention of the fags, as the latter are – as seen by the countless examples of perverts you see on London streets – rather attracted by the slender or, better still, ephebic type.

You know all this, my dear readers; but many people out there, living in a boundless ocean of ignorance – and tepid complicity – concerning perversion, tend not to know.

Well, I hope this will open their eyes. 

It turns out the main Fag Icon in San Francisco, a Mister (?) Larry Brinkin, has been arrested under the accuse of possessing child pornography. We are not talking here of perverts amusing themselves with films of barely illegal other faggots, but rather (and I warn you, this is strong tobacco; something I did not even imagine, let alone know, could exist)

 images of children as young as perhaps a year old being sodomized by and performing oral sex on adult men

As you can read in the linked article, these images were sent by email, through an account allegedly paid for with Mr Brinkin’s card, and the police thinks the email address used by the culprit is directly linked to him.

Talking of perverts, Mr Brinkin is allegedly “married” to, cela va sans dire, his “significant pervert”,  but I do not know whether this other chap-ess is also in trouble…

Be it as it may, it appears at least some faggots (I say this in general, as Mr Brinkin himself could still be found innocent of the accusation of possessing child pornography; though certainly not of grievous mortal sin) cannot even leave racism aside when abandoning themselves to their own satanic (read the above again, and tell me…)  perversions. It appears the person operating the email account used for the transmission of the diabolic material is on record with the following:

“I loved especially the nigger 2 year old getting nailed. Hope you’ll continue so I can see what the little blond bitch is going to get. White Power! White Supremacy! White Dick Rules!”

So, yours truly had to reach and pass the half century of existence before knowing such things actually exist. Mind, I don’t feel stupid for that; merely normal. What astonishes me, is that the unspeakable cesspool of sodomy is still considered, by most contemporary “urban” people,  something fit for a conversation at a cocktail party, perhaps mixed with good-sounding words like “human rights” and “bullying”.

Perverts, that’s what they are. No, really, disgusting perverts. And whilst the person who acknowledges his perversion and sets up to fight against it – in my eyes, basically starting a path of spiritual growth; then where spirituality goes in from the door perversion must get out of the window, in the same way as water can’t co-exist with fire – is worthy of our prayers, the faggot engaged in undermining basic Christianity and perverting souls must be  flattened under a steamroller of contempt and ridicule. And please, let us stop with the usual obsession with niceness. Great Christians of the past were not afraid at all of not being “nice” and, methinks, they were the truly charitable ones. 

So there you are: it is not only that some fags are paedophiles, in the same way as, undoubtedly, some heterosexual people are perverts in other ways. The fact is that homosexuality and pedophilia are intimately linked, as the shocking recent experience of the Church Herself abundantly shows.  Mr (or “Mrs”; or “Pervert Partner No.1”, or “No.2”; ah, how complicated it has all become…) Brinkin is merely the last example of a diffused side-effect of homosexual perversion too conveniently ignored by the media, because to touch the subject means to slaughter the holy cow of so-called “gay culture”.

Scratch the fag, and you might discover below the skin lies a paedophile. It does not have to be so, of course. Still, the link is too strong to be denied.

Don’t believe me? Ask the Vatican…


%d bloggers like this: