Monday, 21 April 2014

Crowd Pleasing

The Church in the UK was growing exponentially from the end of the war until 1965, measured by all indicators of Catholic health: baptisms were up year on year; Mass attendance, conversions, vocations and Catholic marriages likewise. This steady advance came to a grinding halt in 1965; a broad plateau then lasted until 1969, from whence it went into free fall, and this is where we have been ever since. When I became a Catholic sixty years ago there were three million people at Mass every Sunday in England and Wales, today there is around 600,000, of which a third are immigrants and two thirds of the remainder are heretics who could best be described as Roman Protestants.

Coincidentally, Vatican II closed it doors in 1965 and the Novus Ordo was imposed on the Church in 1969. Within a mere seven years of the latter novelty nearly half the priests in the world had resigned their ministry and three quarters of the laity had abandoned going to Mass. But all this is of course mere coincidence, it must be mere coincidence because neo-Catholics keep telling us it is so.

The tragedy is that the Church in this country did not whither on the vine, it was deliberately killed off by the corrupt modernist bureaucracy that has replaced our once great Catholic hierarchy. And with a man on the see of Peter who is clearly more interested in crowd pleasing than preaching the Catholic faith, our fortunes are unlikely to change any time soon. Among numerous mob-pleasing statements made by Pope Who-am- I-to-judge Francis, one of the most bizarre in my estimation was, "I believe in God, not in a Catholic God. There is no Catholic God...." Oh, really!

The Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Christ when He walked the earth 2000 years ago. It is called "Catholic" - meaning for all men and for all time - to distinguish it from the innumerable sects founded by men, that have none of the sacerdotal powers of Christ's Church, that have proliferated, especially over the last five hundred years. Christ was God, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, and His Church, i.e. the Catholic Church, is, so the Scriptures teaches, His body. Does God then have a Catholic body and a non-Catholic head? The Scriptures also teaches us that Christ is wedded to His Church, He is the bridegroom and she is His bride. Is it now an article of faith that this is a mixed marriage?

Sunday, 13 April 2014

"Only four percent of those who attend ‘Catholic’ Primary and Secondary schools in the UK remain in the Church in adulthood"

Editor's Note: the Catholic Certificate in Religious Studies (CCRS) is managed and awarded by the Board of Religious Studies on behalf of the Bishops' Conference. It has been skilfully designed by the anti-Catholics who have usurped most English sees to ensure that Catholic schools do not pass on the Catholic faith. In this objective it has been extraordinary successful, with no more than 4% of the children passing through Catholic schools continuing to practise the faith into adulthood.

Imagine if a Jewish rabbi was to have accidentally stumbled into the gay bar in Munich where many of the earliest meetings of the Nazi Party took place. Conjure in your mind's eye how the atmosphere would have immediately turned icy and palpably changed to one of aggression, intimidation and hostility. Then ask yourself why the atmosphere at a CCRS meeting, an official organ of the Catholic bishops conference, turns immediately sour and unwelcoming when an orthodox Catholic is discovered in their midst? Are we not witnessing here something literally diabolical? Then further ask yourself: why your bishop is routinely appointing such hard-line anti-Catholics to key diocesan posts? This has been going on now for some fifty years in most of our dioceses, so wake up and smell the coffee, and for God sake stop kidding yourself that this is an accident. The very least you should be doing is refusing to fund these Catholic hating bishops, and removing your children, if you value their faith, from their deeply corrupt schools - GEM 

By: Patrick Lawler

“But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:06

Welcome to yet another of the “Tales of CCRS”. One of the teaching days on the Westminster CCRS course I attended was specifically for teachers in ‘Catholic’ (you’ll see why I place it in parentheses as we go along) diocesan schools, mostly primary schools as it turned out, but with a few from secondary. The theme of the day was “What makes a successful Catholic School?”

One of the first things I noticed was that, in line with the feminisation of education in general and the primary sector in particular, all the teachers were women. That would be the same these days anywhere in the country at a gathering of primary teachers.

The day was led by a logic, reason and historical knowledge challenged Deputy Head (soon to become a Headmistress, Lord help us!). However, I want to focus on the other course participants and the jaw-dropping ignorance of the Faith, promotion of heresy, error and apostasy and the self-serving cowardice they collectively displayed.

Let’s get a few things straight first of all:

You do not have to be a Catholic to teach in a ‘Catholic’ school.

If you are a Catholic, you do not have to uphold the Faith, live the Faith or have even a modicum of knowledge and understanding of the Faith.

Families do not have to be Catholic to send their children to ‘Catholic’ schools.

In many, especially, but not only, inner city ‘Catholic’ schools, children from Catholic families are in a minority; non-Catholic and especially Muslim pupils make up the majority in an ever increasing number of them.

Many of the 'Catholic families’ that send their children to ‘Catholic’ schools do not attend Mass and indeed have no faith life whatsoever. Many are single-parents, unmarried or divorced and "remarried". Most are using contraception and are pro-aborts.

Are you depressed yet? Well, hold on, it gets much worse! While there are so many things I could say about the teachers I met that day, it is important to bear in mind that they are an absolutely representative sample of the people running our diocesan schools and the three most basic and crucial things I can point out that should utterly convince you to Home School at all costs are:

These people have no commitment to the Faith, nor indeed knowledge or understanding of it. Put simply, they are unbelievers.

They are, quite literally, incapable of grasping objective truth and, in fact, reject it out of hand.

As if 1 and 2 above were not bad enough, they are actively and hysterically aggressive, antagonistic and insulting to anyone who points out the truths of the Faith and their logical ramifications.

I will not give chapter and verse of the many exchanges I had throughout the day, it would be tiresome and long-winded in the extreme. The notable thing was that, as soon as it became clear by my comments and suggestions that I am an orthodox, traditional Catholic, it was obvious I made most (if not all) of the other course participants and the course leader uncomfortable and many of them made their dislike of me and my Catholic attitudes clear.

The state of ‘Catholic’ schools (Primary and Secondary) can be illustrated by the following points, all of which are real responses, views and official policies I read and heard on the day - I am not making any of this up:

It may not be said or taught at any time and in any context that the Roman Catholic Church is the One True Faith.

All religions and faiths are equally valid and worthy of respect.

Sodomite ‘marriage’ is to be celebrated and approved of.

Children are “sexual beings” from an early age and sexual experimentation and questioning are to be encouraged and accepted.

There is no such thing as “normal” in terms of sexuality, marriage or family structure; these things are fluid, changeable and not subject to any fixed morality.

There is no such thing as absolute Truth; truth is relative.

There is no such thing as objective morality; morals are relative.

One’s own conscience is the ultimate guide, not a fixed system of rules “imposed upon us by a patriarchal Church”.

As long as one has love and good intention, one need not attend Mass.

The Eucharist is symbolic.

The Koran is a holy book.

Islam is a religion of peace.

Hell does not exist.

Satan does not exist.

All people are saved.

There is no such thing as sin (apart from being “judgemental”, of course!).

The Labour Party is the champion of the “Poor and Oppressed”.

The European Union is an unalloyed good.

The United Nations is an even bigger unalloyed good.

Abortion is a woman’s choice; no patriarchal “Church run by celibate old men” can have anything of value to say on the matter.

Contraception is a really, really good thing (no patriarchal “Church run by celibate old men” has anything of value to say on the matter).
I will mention just one specific interaction I had with two of the course participants, because it goes to the very root of the rot and corruption we see in ‘Catholic’ schools; the inability or refusal to grasp the meaning of objective truth.  I was in a discussion with two of the Primary school teachers and I was trying to explain to them that their just expressed belief that “There is no such thing as absolute truth, truth is relative” was:

Inherently self-contradictory and nonsensical because the statement, “There is no such thing as Absolute Truth…” purports to be an absolute truth statement.

Inherently pointless and self-defeating because, even if one ignores the above, and accepts the statement at face-value, the statement has no meaning or purchase on reality because, by the statement’s own terms, it has no right to be accepted as truth.

By definition, an abandonment of morality, an open door to every vice and perversion fallen human nature can conjure and an acceptance of “Might makes Right”.

A denial of God; since God is the Absolute Truth and all Truth descends from him.

I spent a significant amount of time clearly and logically expressing these points and giving examples and similes to illustrate them beyond any ambiguity. It was perfectly plain that neither of them had any counter to any of the points I made (because they are logically and irrefutably true) so the way they chose to end the interaction was to say (in their best talking-to-child-with-learning-difficulties-voice), “Well, that’s your opinion" ... I was, quite literally, speechless.

While I strongly urge as many people as can to home school, I do realise that it’s just not possible for everyone. The next best thing is to find a secular, non-Catholic school, and take care of your children’s faith formation yourself (it is your responsibility anyway). Your children will have a much better chance of learning and loving the Faith that way and staying faithful into adulthood, whereas, if they go to ‘Catholic’ Primary and Secondary schools, they will have their faith destroyed by the faithless, stupid, ignorant and cowardly teachers therein.

Only four percent of those who attend ‘Catholic’ Primary and Secondary schools in the UK remain in the Church into adulthood, a 96% failure rate. Perhaps you will now have a better understanding of why that is so

Tuesday, 8 April 2014

THE MEME

A meme is defined as a cultural assumption that is transmitted by repetition and that replicates in a manner analogous to the biological transmission of genes - or perhaps a better analogy would be that it replicates like a virus. The meme to be successful must sink into the sub-conscious of a people, and this is mainly achieved by aggressive repetition. The poet John Oxenham wrote, "The high soul climbs the high way, the low soul groups the low, and in between on the misty flats the rest drift to and fro." The thought processes of the masses groping about on the misty flats today are almost entirely governed by memes.

An example of one very enduring meme is that Christ and His apostles were poor. Where did that meme come from? - out of the left of course. Christ and His step father were skilled tradesman, why would they be poor? As for the Apostles, St Peter had his own family fishing business that was so successful it could afford hired labour - so why do we assume he was poor? As for St Joseph, do we really believe that God would choose a man to take care of the Christ Child and His Holy Mother who was incompetent at doing so? Money is the receipt that society gives to its members for contributing, if the Holy Family were poor it is because they were not contributing - is it possible for a Catholic to really believe that? When Mary Magdalene poured expensive oil over Christ, Judas protested and suggested that it ought to have been sold and the money given to the poor. Christ responded, "You have the poor among you always, so you can do good to them when you will; I am not always among you." Would that response have made sense if Christ perceived Himself as poor? At His Crucifixion the Roman Soldiery considered His cloak to be of such good quality that it would be a crime to damage it, so they cast lots for it - would that make sense if Christ was wearing the rags of the poor?

Some memes are mercifully short lived or geographically restricted. The meme that Jews were some sort of inferior race that was a threat to civilisation was a meme very successfully propagated by the German Nazis, but it mercifully ran out of most of its steam with the military defeat of its propagators.

The meme that the French Revolution was the result of a brave and noble peasantry rising up against a cruel aristocracy has been far more enduring. The truth, as opposed to the meme, is that the French Revolution was the process by which those who enjoyed economic power extended their grip on political power, and the poor were the biggest losers. A similar meme that is still with us is the one that tells us that General Franco was some sort of evil right-wing dictator. The truth is that General Franco was only persuaded to draw his sword reluctantly in defence of the innocent after the Spanish Communists (financed and radicalised by Moscow) had slaughtered over nine thousand innocent unarmed priests (plus bishops, nuns, laymen and even junior seminarians) and burned innumerable Catholic institutions to the ground. Had it not been the hard left that Franco defeated, he would have been universally regarded as a hero of the common man. He also had the misfortune of opposing Moscow (and defeating its machinations vis-a-vis Spain) at a time when Stalin and Churchill were allies.

There are a couple of enduring memes around the American slave trade. One meme heavily implicates the Catholic kings and queens of Europe, especially the Spanish and Portuguese thrones in the slave trade, completely ignoring the historical fact that most of the movers and shakers in the new world slave trade were Masons, the arch-enemies of Catholicism, and for that matter the arch-enemies of monarchy - they cut off the head of the French King remember. Another meme around the same issue is that this was one of the worst examples of slavery in the history of the human race, blithely ignoring the facts that the Arabs of North Africa have practised slavery on a vast scale for over fourteen centuries, and still practice it to this day.

Another enduring meme is the one that tells us that the Northern Ireland troubles are the result of Catholic and Protestants hating one another. Ignoring completely the fact that the dispute has little or nothing to do with religion and that one of the early leaders of the IRA was a Protestant and the current leaders are Communists. As I say, because the meme resides in the subconscious, facts have little power to weaken or dent it; the meme moves, exists and has its being in some spire outside and beyond the real world.

A more recent meme is the one that tells us that unborn children are, well, not unborn children. That is one meme that is showing signs of beginning to run out of steam, but it still has legs and unfortunately some considerable way to go.

Another recent meme that has been surprisingly successful is the global warming meme, which has more recently morphed into the climate change meme. Memes just like viruses will sometimes mutate to protect themselves. Because the meme largely exists in the subconscious, those infected often reveal the meme by self-contradiction, which can be amusing for those not infected by it. Recently for example ITV wheeled out their science correspondent to inform us that there was a consensus in the scientific community that the recent flooding in the West Country and elsewhere was caused by global warming. They then switched to their field correspondent wading down a flooded river, who one can only assume had not read the script, because he eagerly pointed out a marker on the river bank that was at least two meters above the level of the current swollen river, and informed us that this was where the river came to in the 1960 floods. If this was not funny enough, he then pointed out a further marker a couple of meters higher even than the first one, and informed us that this was where the river rose to in the 1929 floods. Most viewers would I suspect not have noticed how hilarious all this was, because, as I say, a successful meme resides in the subconscious and is therefore safely beyond the reach of rational thought. Readers should note that when the media say things like this is the worst flood since 1960, they are actually saying this flood is not as bad as the 1960 flood. We have since learned that some of the experts behind this meme had a few weeks earlier sent a memo to local authorities in the area warning them to prepare for an exceptionally dry winter! Note: the dates given above are arbitrary - I don't remember the exact dates referred to.

The most recent meme successfully propagated by the left, and most memes come out of the left, is the one that homosexuality is innate, like being left handed or blue eyed. This meme is now firmly lodged in the sub-conscious of possibly a majority of the folk that make up the North Atlantic civilisations, notwithstanding the fact that there is not a single shred of scientific evidence to support it, indeed the promoters of this meme don't even pretend to advance scientific arguments (unless you believe asserting that it is genetic without advancing a scrap of evidence to back your assertion, qualifies as science). This is one meme has been implanted solely by aggressive repetition.

A better and more accurate analogy for homosexuality would almost certainly be smoking. I hasten to add that I am not suggesting that sodomy and smoking are morally equivalent, merely that the two addictions are strikingly similar in their origins and progress. Smoking could be described as a disgusting unhealthy addiction usually acquired in one's early teens, which like all addictions is extremely difficult to break. Some, like the members of ASH and the sodomite collective, militantly embrace their addictions, and champion it as some sort of noble right. Others seek to break their addiction; some of whom will succeed but many sadly will fail. And many of those who do succeed, unhappily, subsequently relapse. Another fact that fits the smoking analogy perfectly is that one is usually first introduced to it by an older boy.

As I say, most memes exist within the secular asylum and come out of the left. The Church before Vatican ll was a meme free zone. Since Vatican ll and its rapprochement with the world, the meme has sadly seeped into the Catholic blood stream. For example, the notion that a large body of Catholics, the SSPX, who embrace every last iota of the Catholic faith without mental quibble, who acknowledge the Pope as head of the Church and pray for him daily, and whose bishops are not excommunicated now (if they ever were) are nevertheless, on the basis of legal quibbles, outside the Church. Whereas those innumerable modernist bishops and clerics who ignore Rome, Catholic tradition and the dogmas of the faith (and their contracepting flocks) are nevertheless, by some bizarre double standard, in full communion - in full communion with what precisely one might reasonably ask.

Another meme is the notion that the Novus Ordo, a post-Conciliar rite of Mass fabricated by a committee under the direction of a Freemason, with input from six heresiarchs, is "ordinary", whereas a rite of Mass that has been celebrated in its essentials for 2000 years, indeed in many features even extending back into the Jewish church, and which has been celebrated by all our saints and martyrs, is "extraordinary". Those well-meaning traditionalists who repeat these silly labels are actually helping reinforce the meme and giving it substance.

How do we tell a meme from a fact? Well one clue is that the meme is usually maintained by intolerance, aggression and anger. If one is promoting truth, anger has no place or indeed reason to exist. A simple illustration: if I'm teaching a child that two plus two equals four, I might take four oranges and separate them into two sets of two, put them together again and invite the child to count them. However, if I want to teach the child that two plus two equals five there is no way I can calmly demonstrate it; I am forced to resort to aggressive repetition. And if the child resists my attempt at brain washing, I will naturally very quickly become frustrated and angry.

If you want to see a meme in action, join a prayer vigil outside an abortion clinic; you will be very lucky to get through an hour without witnessing at least one instance of irrational, and seemingly bizarre, anger feeding of a meme. Those seething with meme inspired rage will make completely irrational statements: in 2013 for example, while quietly praying my Rosary outside an abortion facility with my wife, I was accused of single handily blocking a five meter wide pavement, asked whether I was aware that there was a war in Syria and accused of being a f*****g bigot for embracing a weeping young woman - in addition, a significant number of completely incoherent comments were shouted in my general direction. Another clue that you are dealing with someone infected by a meme is that those infected seldom hang around. Their normal modus operandi is to shout some irrelevant comment in your direction and then immediate step on the gas to put distance between themselves and you. It is as if they are terrified that you may actually be inconsiderate enough to seek to engage them in rational debate.

Sunday, 30 March 2014

The Crusades (Islam – Religion of Peace?)


Those who prefer to cling to their secular prejudices should click away now.
Anti-Catholic bigots both without and within the Church would have us believe that the Crusades were an example of the wickedness of the medieval Church.  And they get away with their black propaganda because of the abysmal historical ignorance of almost everybody educated in the last fifty years.
A good friend recently attended a CCRS course. CCRS stands for Counterfeit Catholicism for the Ridiculously Simple-minded – I jest – it actually stands for Catholic Certificate in Religious Studies. It is a course designed by the Modernism Enforcement Tsars who have been appointed for the express purpose of destroying Catholic Education by the Modernists who have high jacked most English Catholic sees. The people behind this course belong with those priests (mostly predatory sodomites) who sexually abuse minors, because both are equally comfortable prostituting their clerical office to advance their personal agenda.
The Jesuit Priest in charge for one particular study day, described the Crusades as, “Western colonialism” and lamented the “racism and religious bigotry” behind them, and caused by them. He stated that the Crusades are “a stain on Christianity and the West in general,” for which we should never tire of apologising. My friend, who is a professional history teacher, suggested that he could not be serious about what he had just said about the Crusades and asked where he had picked up such historically inaccurate views, as not a word of what he had said had any basis in historical fact. The Jesuit fell back on the standard first line of defence of a liberal caught telling fibs, “That’s a matter of opinion, isn’t it?”
“No, it isn’t.” countered my friend, “It’s a matter of historical fact; the First Crusade was only called after some 450 years of unprovoked and unremitting Muslim aggression against Christendom.”  The Jesuit asked him to explain what he meant.  “Well, for instance,” patiently explained my friend “Mohammed died in 632 AD; exactly 100 years later, in 732 AD, Muslim invading armies reached Tours in the northern half of France. That’s a hell of a long way from Mecca!  Plus, in the ninth century Rome was besieged and sacked by another Muslim army and the tombs of both Saints Peter and St Paul were desecrated, and the Pope was forced to pay vast sums of protection money”
“Well, I think there is a great deal of debate to be had on the subject” muttered our befuddled Jesuit, now on the defensive, and I don’t really know a great deal about that. (Emphasis added). But I think, in general, the Crusades were a bad thing.”  There you have it, modern academia summed up, “I don’t really know a great deal about that.”  Yet his self-confessed ignorance didn’t stop him propagating his anti-Catholic prejudices, and pontificating immune to any correction from actual historical facts.  This is a classic example of the fake and manipulative narrative (contra-education) that has been propagated by modern academia, apologists for Islam and the western left for decades.
We should all know it of by heart by now: “The peace loving, advanced multicultural Muslim civilisation was minding its own business (planting gardens, inventing modern medicine, reading Plato, holding interfaith dialogues with Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, etc,. when along lurched the thuggish, illiterate, racist European Christian murderers; driven by religious bigotry and greed who launched a totally unprovoked religious war. They slaughtered hundreds of thousands (some say millions), forcibly converted more and set up western imperialist colonial enclaves where the indigenous Muslim peoples of the region were treated appallingly.  After two centuries of oppression a noble leader, Saladin, arose, united the oppressed ["oppressed" - such a lovely emotive liberal buzz word, isn't it?] peoples and cast out the brutish European Christian primitives, all the while displaying a nobility, intelligence and cultural sensitivity that throws into stark relief the barbaric, mass-murdering cultural, religious and economic imperialism of his enemies.  This monstrous attack on an entire culture and civilization, naturally, traumatised the Muslim world for a millennium and began the deep and totally understandable fear and mistrust of Christendom felt by the Muslim East to this day.  It was a chapter in history so heinous, that the West should constantly feel guilt and grovel and ask for forgiveness.”
There is just one small flaw in this narrative, not a word of it is true.  If you are honestly interested in history, as opposed to ideological dogma, you might want to acquaint yourself with a few relevant facts omitted from this story.  So, in order to do my bit for genuine education, here is a handy cut-out-and-keep little primer to help you next time you encounter another historically illiterate, logic-and-reason-disabled, contra-educated, two-a-penny, left-wing Jesuit.
We all know the modern day Muslim world, well, guess what? It used to be the Christian World.  According to the Ahadith of Bukhari (regarded by Muslim religious authorities as the most authoritative compiler of Islamic traditions), towards the end of his life: “the Prophet of Allah wrote to Chosroes (King of Persia), Caesar (Emperor of Rome) [actually Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium], Negus (King of Abyssinia) and every (other) despot, inviting them to Allah, the Exalted” to “embrace Islam and you will be safe”. None of them did, and none of them were safe.  The following is for those who would like to know what actually happened.
635 A.D.Three years after Mohammed’s death, Muslim forces captured Damascus (where St. Paul was heading when he had his dramatic conversion).
636 A.D..A year later Muslim forces take al-Basra, southern Iraq
637 A.D.A year later Muslim forces take Antioch ( near the modern city of Antakya, Turkey) where the disciples of Jesus were first called, “Christians”
638 A.D.A year later Muslim forces take Jerusalem, the Holy City of both Christianity and Judaism.
639 A.D.Muslim forces invade Egypt, at he time a largely Christian country.
642 A.D.Muslim forces take Alexandria, the second largest city in Egypt, destroying its famous Great Library in the process.
650 A.D.Muslim forces take Cappadocia (in modern day Turkey).
652 A.D.Muslim forces launch attacks against Sicily, they eventually conquer it in 827 A.D.
668 A.D.Muslim forces launch the first siege of Constantinople (Byzantium), many more were to follow.
711 A.D.Muslim forces begin the invasion of the Iberian Peninsula (modern day Spain).
715 A.D.Spain completely conquered by Muslim forces (an occupation that would last for more than 700 years), they begin to press on into France.
732 A.D.Muslim forces finally stopped at Tours, Northern France, by Charles Martel, the Frankish statesman and military leader.
792 A.D.Muslim forces launch a jihad (called by Hisham, Muslim ruler of Spain) against France, but are turned back after sacking several cities, killing many and enslaving even more.
838-972 A.D.Muslim forces take Frejus, near Cannes and use it as a base to raid France and Northern Italy.  Christian pilgrims to Rome are frequently robbed, murdered and kidnapped by Muslim slave traders operating in the Alps.
846 A.D.After nearly two centuries of increasing raids on southern Italy, Muslim forces sack Rome, desecrating the tombs of St. Peter and St. Paul, destroying many churches and carrying off hundreds of slaves.
848 A.D.A third Muslim army crosses the Pyrenees and invades France, once again destroying towns and cities, killing and enslaving before being driven back.
870 A.D.Muslim forces capture the island of Malta.
873 A.D.Muslim forces launch massive slave raids in Calabria, Northern Italy, leaving the province devastated and depopulated.
878 A.D.Muslim forces destroy the city of Syracuse,  a historic city in Sicily, killing all most all of its inhabitants and enslaving the survivors.
935 A.D.Muslim forces capture the city of Genoa, Northern Italy.
976 A.D.The Fatimid Caliph of Egypt sends repeated military expeditions to Southern Italy for slaves and booty.

Anyone notice something of a pattern emerging here?  I mean, we’d hate to be thought of as islamophobic, but doesn’t it seem as if the Muslims sort of……well……kind of………just attacked, conquered and subjugated everyone?  I mean, not just their neighbours – Tours is after all a hell of a long way from Mecca.

And we haven’t even touched on the invasion, slaughter and subjugation of the Hindus, Buddhists and Animists of what is now Afghanistan, Pakistan and India.  Let’s fast forward (I’m missing out quite a lot of slaughter, enslaving, conquest and subjugation at this point).

1004-14 A.D.The sixth Fatimid Caliph, Abu Ali al-Mansur al-Hakim, destroys thirty thousand Christian churches, seizing their lands and possessions.
1003-1009 A.D.Muslim raiders increase attacks on the Italian West coast, including Pisa and Rome, from their base on Sardinia.
1009 A.D.Hakim destroys the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (in Jerusalem), he orders Christians to wear heavy wooden crosses and Jews to wear heavy wooden calves around their necks.
1010 A.D.Hakim orders Christians and Jews to accept Islam (convert) or leave his dominions.
1010 A.D.Muslim forces capture the city of Cosenza, in Southern Italy.
1056 A.D.Three hundred Christians are expelled from Jerusalem and European Christian pilgrims are denied access to the (rebuilt) Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
1071 A.D.Muslim forces crush the Byzantines at the battle of Manzikert, taking the Byzantine Emperor, Romanus IV Diogenes, prisoner.
1076 A.D.Muslim forces (Seljuk Turks) conquer Syria, a Christian country at that time.
1077 A.D.The Seljuks take Jerusalem, slaughtering over three thousand Christians and Jews.
1077 A.D.Onwards, the Seljuks attack Christian pilgrims, killing and enslaving thousands and denying access to the Holy Land to European Christians.
1095 A.D.The Byzantine Emperor, Alexius I Comnenus, sends a letter to Pope Urban II, asking for help.
1095 A.D.The First Crusade: at the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II calls for European Christians to defend Constantinople and reopen access to the Holy land, especially Jerusalem.
So, let’s recap shall we? After 450 years of unremitting Muslim aggression on Christian countries; invasion and occupation of large areas of Europe; centuries of pillage, rape and kidnapping and slave-trading; after 450 years of totally unprovoked religious warfare; when Christian pilgrims were denied access to the Holy Land and to Jerusalem (the centre of their faith), Christians finally fought back. Memorise or print the above and you too can enjoy yourself causing hyperventilation and accusations of racism and Islamophobia at liberal gatherings everywhere!
After several similar encounter with the Modernists and heretics who runs these CCRS courses, my friend was asked to leave – the very last thing they want on these courses is someone who actually knows their subject; this makes it difficult to get away with their anti-Catholic propaganda.

Monday, 24 March 2014

The next time you recite your Rosary, reflect that five Christians, mostly Catholics, will have died for their faith whilst you were tolling your beads

July 2012, Muslim villagers in Dahshour, Egypt, began burning Christians out of their homes because a Christian laundry operator accidentally burned a Muslim customer's shirt!

The next time you recite your Rosary, reflect that five Christians, mostly Catholics, will have died for the faith while you were tolling your beads. One Christian dies every five minutes for bearing witness to Christ. According to the club for rich atheists called the EU, approximately 105,000 a year; but given the EU would rather legislate to promote sexual pathology than Christianity, it should not surprise us if we were to find that this figure is a gross underestimate. The vast majority will have lost their lives at the hands of Muslim thugs and fanatics; a time bomb now also quietly ticking away in the UK.

Death of course is but the tip of the iceberg. Hundreds of thousands of Christians suffer intimidation on a daily basis: fear, discrimination, unemployment, homelessness, bestial assaults, crippling injuries and psychological trauma, all for the love of Allah. Children, especial young girls, are at special risk of abduction, rape, forced conversion, forced marriage and sexual slavery. All par to the course for the followers of a religion founded by a man who, when he was over fifty, bedded one of his twenty plus “wives” when she was a mere nine years old, yet who had no scruples about having women flogged and stoned for adultery!

To learn more, get hold of a January 2013 copy of Christian Order (Tel 44(0)20-8144-1154 or email: enquiries@christianorder.com). Bishop McMahon, described Christina Order as "scurrilous and very damaging to the Church" - when one of our post-Conciliar grinning Modernists insults you, you know you must be doing something right.

Friday, 21 March 2014

Hail to the “Messiah”!

The ecstasy and salivating adulation of the deeply anti-Catholic secular left (plus a handful of post-Conciliar modernist prelates) at the election of Barrack Obama should compel all Catholics to pause for reflection.

A white man who voted for McCain for no better reason than that he was white would be denounced (and quite rightly so) as a racist bigot. Why then is a Black man who voted for Obama, as ninety-nine percent of African Americans appear to have done, for no better reason seemingly than that he is Black (or perceive to be so) doing something noble? The liberal proclivity for placing their emotions where their intellect should be frequently results in double standards that are nothing if not absorbing. Deciphering such conundrums is all part of the fun of life in the secular asylum.

Barrack Obama is fanatically committed to abortionism and the culture of death and he is therefore by definition deeply anti-Catholic. Even if he makes good on his promise to bring home American troops, the number of Americans, and others, unjustly killed on his watch is set to multiply many times over.

I recently wrote that we are in a spiritual battle and the next decade or so is shaping up to be from the Devil’s prospective one of the most decisive battles of history. As mere mortals our noses are far too close to the canvas to see or understand the cosmic picture. Nevertheless, I have a distinct feeling that another piece of the jigsaw has just clicked into place.

Not so long ago a child survived abortion in the State of Illinois. The surgeon placed the child in a bucket and left it in the closet to die. A nurse, who became aware of what had happened, recovered the child, wrapped him in a towel and nursed him on her lap until he died. The press carried the story and this resulted in the Illinois Senate passing a Bill to ban the killing of a child born alive as the result of a failed abortion attempt.

Obama was the only Senators to vote against this bill … on several occasions. The following are some of the reasons Obama gave for his opposition: “a ban to stop aborted babies from being shelved to die would be burdensome to mothers”; “aborting babies alive and letting them die is a doctor’s prerogative”; “aborting babies alive and letting them die is a religious issue”; “aborting babies alive and letting them die violates no universal principle”; “introducing legislation to stop live aborted babies from being shelved to die was a political maneuver.”

Obama is a man who is so keen on abortionism that he will support infanticide to protect it! The free world is now led by a man whose moral compass appears to be about as well developed as some of the leaders of the Third Reich, whose regime’s rise to power was also incidentally via the ballot box. Tremble dear readers and pray without ceasing.

A friend once amusingly remarked that the reason that Catholics are blamed for all the horrors of history is that we are the only one’s still around to take the blame. There is more truth in this witty aside than one may first envisage. The reason that the world hates us with such a white hot intensity is that deep in their subconscious they know that when their tacky Godless civilization has passed into the dustbin of history, as all other civilizations have before them, we shall still be here. The worldlings know it and the fury drives them insane. Catholics to vanquish have merely to survive, and all we have to do to survive is do what our forefathers have always done: keep the Faith.

In the meantime, President Obama will do well to remember, that the beast that hailed the Messiah on Palm Sunday was the same mindless beast screaming “crucify him” on Good Friday.

Wednesday, 27 March 2013

"The Devil was always a liar" - We did take the Champs Elysees! But we did so peacefully!


On Sunday the 24 March 2013, what was possibly the largest demonstration in French history took over the centre of Paris to protest against gay "marriage" and adoption. The secularists responded by ordering a news blackout and sending their police to tear-gas women and children and the elderly. The German Nazi Party was also conceived in the bowels of militant sodomites, and famously used similar methods to deal with peaceful opposition. The pictures show your typical enemies of the state after having been tear-gassed  An English friend who lives in France, filed the following report:



Thanks for the regular news bulletins from the UK. I've not heard how it went in Trafalgar Square, but I can tell you the "disinformation machine" in France has been working overtime again.

As in January, there were well over 1 million people on the streets of Paris yesterday. If you know the place, imagine the stretch of wide avenue leading off from the Arc de Triomphe (avenue de la Grande Armée), reaching the very large Porte Maillot (location of the Palais des Congrès and the landmark hotel tower la Concorde), continuing over the Périphérique into Neuilly-sur-Seine all the way along to La Défense (the towering business quarter on the west of Paris). Protesters were also stretched along the "Esplanade de la Défense" towards the "Grande Arche de la Défense". So, look it up on a map, picture it if you've ever been there, and then look at the official figures given by the Interior Ministry of 300.000 people (less than the figure they gave in Jan of 340.000 !!!). You can laugh or cry.

Then, pause. Because that was not the full size of it. Because of the numbers, the protesters also filled the several "back-up" avenues including avenue Foch which leads on to the place de l'Etoile (arc de Triomphe). This avenue was also absolutely packed. People were arriving from all sides.

So, the space officially allocated was too small, tensions rising, and the determination to be heard, growing. Added to this, the disdain with which the government has treated this debate since the start had brought many many people to boiling point. Although the main cordon of the demonstration was relatively calm with frequent messages from organisers to remain calm and peaceful, people had had enough. And for all those outside of the official zone, there was much frustration.

The Prefet de Police had refused the organisers' request to occupy the Champs Elysées. Manuel Valls, Interior Minister, had only days before the demonstration also retracted permission to occupy half of the Place de l'Etoile (arc de Triomphe roundabout from which the Champs Elysées depart) with a sniding remark that the organisers "...just go and demonstrate from Corbeil to Evry, you're not having the Etoile. I decide !" (Corbeil and Evry are insignifcant minor towns in the "banlieus" of Paris).

In the weeks and days leading up to the demonstration, the media had applied a blanket blackout. NOT ONE WORD on the upcoming momentous rally. Fortunately we now have the Internet. Since January, protesters have been posting photographs of banners stretching across motorway bridges ALL OVER the country, every trip by President Hollande and his ministers has been interrupted by hecklers. At a recent Book Fair, 2 protesters presented the President (divorced from Ségolène Royal with whom he has 4 children, and currently "living" with a companion with whom he is neither married nor even civilly-contracted but who lives the merry life on tax-payers money) with 2 books : "Marriage for Dummies" and "Demonstrations for Dummies".

Back to the day. The pressure was mounting (space too small, so many people, frustrations). The police at the Etoile were heavily outnumbered. The huge swathe of people was pushing and pushing amidst shouts of "We want the Champs Elysées". The police started to panic. Tear gas was fired into the crowd and against the first rows to push them back. And here it is important to counter the downright lies of the Interior Ministry who dared to say that extremists had been involved. The primary victims of the gas were parents and children, and the elderly. It was a diabolical reaction by the police authorities.

As it turned out the gas attack was probably the trigger for the subsequent events. News of the police actions reached the main cortège of demonstrators very quickly via mobile phone. I was myself with my family on the avenue of the Grande Armée, some 200 yards from the podium. I received the news from a friend who had been separated from his wife who had herself been victim of the gas. That was our cue. We made our way through the crowds and in fact it was relatively easy to travel around the Etoile in a large enough circle avoiding all the police barricades. At this point, there had a begun a steady but constant and very calm flow of demonstrators from all the overflows towards the Champs Elysées.

Now, whether the incomptent authorities had really believed their own jibes prior to the event when they said they were expecting only 100.000 people, or whether they were actually encouraging scuffles to take place is unknown. The father of a 14-year old who had to have artificial respiration administered for 1/2 an hour following the tear gas, spoke with a frank police officer. Here's what he said:

"We're not used to this kind of demonstration. When you park too many people in an inadequately-sized space, it's obvious that there will be overspill and scuffles. They'll say there's 10.000 of you but in truth there's more than a million people here. We know it, they know it. It's a damn shambles throughout the gendarmerie and the police ; we're managed by amateurs".

As the main show continued on one side of the Arc de Triomphe, steadily a flow of demonstrators was making it's way around the Etoile through the smaller axes, and towards the Champs Elysées. The Champs had been blocked at the Etoile by a barrage of HUNDREDS of police with their vehicles but it was remarkably easy to simply walk around and reach the famous Parisian avenue. The crowds on the Champs Elysées grew. And with every new wave of arrivals cheered on by those flag-wavers already there, more and more people filled it. By 5pm, the Champs Elysées was FULL on 2/3 of it's length with THOUSANDS of demonstrators. The police were at that point completely submerged and protesters even began a sit-in on the tarmac preventing some CRS (anti-riot police) minivans from departing the scene.

The crowds were jubilant and perfectly well-behaved. The chants here, were however more determined and political : "Hollande, démission". The Marseillaise was sung many times.
As word spread more and more people spilled onto the "plus belle avenue du monde". The media speak of 10s of people. Don't believe them. There are some AFP photos which prove that the Champs Elysées was swamped with people, no traffic passing, all the way from the Etoile, right down to the Franklin Roosevelt roundabout which leads off to the Elysée Palace.
Eventually, having occupied the terrain for over 2 hours, people started to gather at the lower end of the avenue chanting "Apéro chez François" (apéritif at François')!

People generally dispersed around 6:30pm but a few hundred stayed on. Some even set up their tents here, trying to start up a "French Spring" movement but it didn't last long before the CRS finally moved everyone on at 8:30pm.

The official organisers have "condemned" any scuffles that may have happened and the overflow into the Champs Elysées (despite this being practically blacked-out by the media).  It's sad to say, but the only way to grab the attention of the media and the government is when it "gets out of hand".

This will not be the last of it... If you want REAL information, visit www.lesalonbeige.blogs.com It's full of photos, videos and the TRUE story on lots of news items.