The UN has gone (again) all gender mad, by explaining to the English-speaking populations the error of our ways.
I suggest to all my reader to give their contribution to this worthy cause, and be mindful of the recommendations of the UN, with a slight twist:
- always use the gendered noun (e.g. “husband” instead of “spouse”)
- never add the other variation (e.g. “his” instead of the extremely dumb “his or her”)
- never apologise for doing it.
There is a logic in the English language. It has always been common (and in Italian, too!), to make a general plural with the masculine, not the dumb “his or her” or the even dumber “their”.
Example: “A citizen desiring to obtain a passport will be invited to complete an application form stating his name, date, and place of birth”. It’s easy, immediate, traditional, and correct.
It makes one laugh that all those “his, or her” of the Monthy Python clip have now become, besides the gender madness itself, common fare among people who should actually use their brains.
Don’t be (also in the quoted articles) like these people…
The organisation to which The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH) would like to entrust the “government of the world” is now proposing to reassess the value of human life based on strictly Nazi criteria. I am not surprised; nor, I think, is Francis himself.
The purely secular view of the world unavoidably leads to a Nazi mentality by which human life is subordinated to the usefulness it can give to the Great World Beehive. The life of the single individual will be weighted according to strict cost/benefits comparisons. If it is deemed that the available resources are better spent on younger worker bees, who can give a better utility to the Beehive per pound spent, then the worker bee will have to die for the good of the Great World Beehive.
We, born and bred in a still Christian environment, call this behaviour inhuman. But the Nazi nannies, to which Francis undoubtedly belong, never think in terms of Christianity, of even humanity. They think in terms of social grievances, and are completely focused on improving the Beehive. How many bees have to die in the process is not really relevant and can be dismissed as collateral damage. He who wants to build a new world cannot afford the luxury of counting the dead of the old one. He will simply crush everything and everyone that stays in his way. Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot all knew this. The UN does too. To disregard human life and let the weak die is in the logic of the Social Grievance Machine.
This obsession with the “improvement of social conditions” whilst not caring I do not say for the health of the souls, but for basic feelings of human decency, is a mark of the Nazi Nanny. Francis does not say so explicitly, but he is a Nazi Nanny through and through, as not only his obsession with social issues but also his demand for a world government led by the UN shows. The man has no Christianity in him. Christianity is a thin veil of trite slogans with which he tries to embellish his real agenda, Global Socialism. The Weltanschauung, the methods, and the rhetoric are the same of cruel atheist dictators the world over.
So, enjoy a rapid glimpse of what these people, if they were to run the planet, would do to you, and notice that they are doing all in their power to run your life already. Francis is their sponsor. And he the Pope.
St Michael the Archangel, please free us from this man.
The UN Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon meets Pope Francis and says how impressed he was from his desire to fight poverty, & Co.
It impresses me no one who meets Francis ever says he was impressed by the profound spirituality of an obvious man of God.
Pope Pius XII could have never been confused with the Secretary General of the UN.
If Francis and Ban-Ki Moon were to swap places, not many would notice any difference.
The National Catholic Register (not to be confused with the “Reporter”) has an article dealing with another of those UN thingies: the Vatican is under attack from them because discriminating against pervs is “torture”, and they are. or might be, therefore in violation of the UN treaties against torture.
You made your bed, now lie in it, one would say.
When a Catholic Theocracy is so shortsighted that it accepts to become part of UN agreements, bound to duties given to them by the UN, it deserves to be treated this way.
The Vatican, therefore, accepts to be put under official scrutiny by this bunch of bastards and perverts, and will present a report highlighting how they have “sought to comply” with the UN.
Because you see, it’s not only fags. The Church is culpable of “torture” everytime one of her one million religious and priests does something very wrong.
This century is, without any doubt, the most technologically advanced and the most astonishingly stupid we ever had.
We have a Pope and Church authorities to match.
It must be rather funny, these days, for the army of people with a very thin varnish of Catholicism – you know the type: the “I am a baptised Catholic, but my theology is so evidently superior” types – who have thought, as many of them must have thought, that it’s so simple really: you stop obsessing with the remnants of an ancient past and embrace modernity , and peace will be declared between the world and the Church. I am rather sure many of these people, tambourine priests among them, were wondering why it had not happened before, and we had to wait the year 2013 for a Pope who just “gets the people” and is “in tune” with the world.
Whilst I never underestimate human blindness or plain stupidity, I dare to hope in the months and years to come some people will open their eyes and recognise a simple truth of life: the Church and the world cannot be more reconciled than the devil and the holy water; not now, not ever.
The recent lecturing of the Vatican – which is, in fact, a lecturing of the Church and Her Truths – from the side of the United Demons is the clearest signal to day of this, again, inescapable fact of life. Appeasement has never worked, does not work, and will never work, because the Church Herself exists because of the fundamentally irreconcilable ways of the Church and of the World.
If the Church could make peace with the world, the Church would simply have no reason to exist, and an impressive demonstration of this is that when vast parts of the earthly Church try to at least get to a truce, or a ceasefire, with the world, the Church herself is gravely wounded and reduced to factual irrelevance in vast territories in the short time of one or two generations; with only the promise of Indefectibility saving her from the self-destruction to which this stupid attitude would otherwise condemn her in another two or three generations at most.
And so there we are: the church – I mean, the people who represent Her as an institution – tries to accommodate the world’s demands; but the world is insatiable, and will never stop posing new demands after the old ones have been appeased.
You “don’t judge” sodomites, and the world will demand that you recognise their inherent goodness; you “don’t obsess” about abortion, and the world will demand that you support it; you want to be “in tune” with the world, and the world will ask you to practice what you preach.
No black shoes, simple cars and other more or less subversive shows of “humbleness” will ever change anything on this, because in this matters the conflicts deals with the very essentials.
If Francis thought his lack of teeth – or worse – in matter of sexual perversion and abortion will persuade the world to leave him alone, now he will be forced to learn his lesson and understand that, much as the world may flatter him, it will require his tribute from him anyway; a tribute so high, in fact, that not even Francis will ever be able to pay it; this, even assuming he would want to, which I sincerely hope is not the case.
If, on the other hand, Francis has no illusion on the inevitability of conflicts, and merely hopes to increase his own popularity in the world as the man who “does what he can, though he can’t do more” (a strategy clearly followed by the German and Austrian clergy with their rebellious sheep), then his chances are vastly better, but I still think at some point the world will get tired with one sitting on the fence, and be him the Pope.
The Church is at war with the world. She must be, because this is why She exists. No Pope will ever be able to get rid of this war as easily as he can get rid of the Mozzetta. Therefore, the only way is the Christian way: to fight against the world frontally and without any desire for truce.
Our side will win in the end. Actually, it has won already. So go on and fight the good fight, good and less good men at the Vatican, instead of trying to appease an enemy that will never be satisfied.
In the hope this may give you some slight consolation – or at least a laugh; though the problem is very serious – in the midst of the antics of the Bishop of Rome, I thought it fitting to report about a layman styling himself as a priest, a Desmond Tutu, certainly known to those of you who appreciate comedy.
Said Mr Tutu participated to another of the many satanic ways in which the satanic UN waste our money: the opening of a “gay-right campaign” in Cape Town.
The man – if he is a real man; at this point it is legitimate to doubt – is on record with the following, utterly and entirely satanical, statement:
“I would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven. No, I would say sorry, I mean I would much rather go to the other place.”
It is difficult to explain to a Christian in a better way the mechanism through which people pave their way to hell.
This man ticks all the boxes: he is in open rebellion to the undisputed Christian tradition of 2,000 years, and his rebellion is so strong and so explicit that it leads Tutu to the extreme, and actually rather logical, consequence: to him, it is better to go to hell than to accept God's “homophobic” rules on sodomy.
Wannabe little god against One True God. Who is going to win?
Read the statement, if you will, again, and then again. The pride of it. The arrogance. The shamelessness. The blasphemy.
Lucifer couldn't have said it better, and Tutu has openly chosen to belong to him, in a very public way.
Many people seem to believe no one really desires hell, and those who end up there are actually “surprised” by an unexpected outcome. This is, clearly, not Mr. Tutu's case. Unless he repents – and he better do so publicly, methinks – it is extremely difficult to imagine how he can avoid that his will be done; unless, of course, God gave us His rule as a form of joke, or to allow us to change them according to the wishes of the UN, or of satanical individuals on an ego trip.
Now you might say: “but Mundabor! Who are you to judge?”.
I reply that I am certainly not condemning Tutu to any hell – though if it were for me to choose, of course I would. I would like a shot. – Here, though, it is very clear that -bar an always welcome repentance – Tutu has condemned himself to hell in the most obvious of ways. Not because I say so, but because God says so.
I know, I know.
The Bishop of Rome would tell Mr. Tutu: “but do good, we will meet there”.
I must say that if you ask me, the suspicion is more than legitimate that the two will, in fact, meet there.
Interesting exchange of ideas (better: clash of ideology) at a UN panel promoted by the Vatican, Malta and Honduras and called “Secure Human Development: Marriage, Family, Community.”
The US delegates, Msssssss Shestack-Phipps, is on record for saying as follows:
“How can you say that you value family, community, and marriage, but not bring into the picture that both men and women have a right to a healthy life, to be able to avoid unsafe abortion, and have access to the highest attainable standard of reproductive health, and to decide how many children they should have?”
The US representative is a clear example of liberal neo-nazism at work: “men and women” (oh, how inclusive this is) have a right to healthy life; this includes, according to Msssss Shestack-Phipps, the “right” to “avoid unsafe abortion”.
This is staggering. Abortion is seen as something natural and unavoidable (like the right to, say, “avoid unsafe water”) and, naturally, as a right to have it safe. How the health of a man can profit from an allegedly safe abortion is not clear to me, but I’m sure Mssssss Shestack-Phipps knows best.
Contrast this excellent example of Goebbelsian rhetoric with the intervention of the representative of the little island state of St. Lucia:
“How do we get our fertility rate to rise? We were told we needed to reduce our fertility rate –now we have an aging population.”
This must seem to come from another world to the liberal nazis a’ la Shestack-Phipps. This little developing nation wants to be helped to increase births! What?! But it can’t be, my dear lady! You Peoples of the ohhh so good, but ohhh so exploited
third world (substitute this with the politically correct expression of your choice) nations must be educated to the fact that you need an aging population. You are, simply, not Nazi enough!
Ah, how hard is the work of the liberal Msssssssses of the world……
And so there we are. Intelligent people understand that the brake to growth is not birth, but corruption, waste and war; they realise that a relentless contraception and abortion campaign has managed to reduce birth, whilst doing nothing to fight the real causes of poverty mentioned above; they clearly understand what seems to clearly escape thge champagne-intoxicated minds of our liberal nazis: that every human lives are not only human riches, but sources of opportunity and wealth in themselves; that countries where the right conditions are given grow at such a rate that they must import people, as for example the United States have done for a couple of centuries now.
Alas, such are the way of the liberal world. They are so blind to the real causes of poverty that they can’t see the elephant in the room; they are so impervious to common sense that they refuse to see that their flawed ideological approach is nothing more than just another stupid reflex of their feminist, anti-Christian ideology; they would rather have a country flooded with condoms than dedicate all their energies to free it from corruption.
Do you want proof? Read here from the same debate:
The documents that guide this year’s Commission on Population and Development admit that most nations have achieved low fertility, yet the UN continues to ask donor nations for more and more money for family planning services and for what the UN euphemistically calls commodities: condoms, pills, and injectibles that prevent pregnancy.
Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America, further underscored the incongruity. She has visited many medical clinics in Africa and the doctors there told her of medicine cabinets that are empty of essentials like penicillin but overflowing with condoms – so many that children have taken to blowing them up like balloons and playing with them as toys. “So much attention is given to family planning that it drains resources away from what the desperate needs are,” she explained.
Condoms in overflowing quantity, to the point of senseless waste of politically correct money, whilst the resources for medical necessities are not there.
Mssssssses of the world: wake up.