Just the sort of man Catholic parents would want invited to address their children ... not

During the reign of Pope Benedict XVI, Fr Timothy Radcliffe was barred from speaking at the General Assembly of the Catholic development agencies, yet this notorious dissenter, has bizarrely been chosen to be one of the keynote speakers at, of all things, a Catholic Youth event  to take place on the 7th March.

Fr Radcliffe publicly dissents from the Church’s teaching on homosexuality and Holy Communion for the divorced and re-married, and frequently celebrated the Masses organised by the Soho Masses Pastoral Council for the "Catholic" wing of the militant homofascist collective.  Fr Radcliffe is well known for his rebel positions on morality; writing about homosexuality, he opined:

"We cannot begin with the question of whether it [he must presumably be referring to sodomy here!] is permitted or forbidden!  We must ask what it means, and how far it is Eucharistic [i.e. how far can sodomy be considered Eucharistic!].  Certainly it can be generous, vulnerable, tender, mutual and non-violent.  So in many ways, I would think that it can be expressive of Christ’s self-gift."

This statement is typical of the sort of low-ball dissenters bowl in the hope that it will slip under your bat.  All arguments have a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion.  If either premise is factually wrong then clearly the conclusion falls.  The major premise here is "We cannot begin with the question of whether it [sodomy] is permitted or forbidden!"  The obvious response, which Radcliffe hopes you are not bright enough to spot, is "Why on earth not?  If someone is indulging in an unnatural, unhealthy act, that over ninety percent of the world's population regards as depraved, of course we can begin with the question of whether it is right or wrong!"  Indeed, it should be blindingly obvious to anyone with more than one brain cell that this is precisely the first question that we should be asking.  It is interesting to note that pedophiles use exactly the same argument to promote their personal preferred deviancy as Radcliffe uses above for homosexuality.

I have recently been reliably informed that the man responsible for inviting this awful priest to talk to our young people is Fr Dominic Howarth.  Fr Howarth can be contacted on 0126-828-1732 or emailed at  frdominic@dioceseofbrentwood.org.  Contact him and ask him politely what his motive is for inviting such a notorious dissenter to address Catholic youth.

Radcliffe spoke at a conference in Dublin in 2014.  Some young Catholics voiced their objection to his presence by reciting the Rosary and were unceremoniously ejected from the hall.  There is, however, some good news: this conference is an annual event, but in 2014 the attendance was down about 50% from the norm - it appears that young Catholics are growing weary of this tedious claptrap from these elderly dissenters.

There is also evidence of growing resistance from Catholic youth groups in the UK to this invitation, but there is no doubt that men like Fr Howarth and the rest of the bishops' Modernism enforcement czars will be using their usual strong-arm tactics on the leaders of these groups in an attempt to intimidate them into turning up.  One can only pray that some of them at least will have the integrity and courage to resist. 

I have no doubt that when challenged, Fr Howarth, like the rest of his ilk, will resort to insults: such as denouncing anyone who challenges him as right-wing (whatever that means) or suggest that you are suffering from a fictional illness, homophobia; a word invented by Fascists and used by cowards to intimidate morons - and which is as silly as calling someone who opposes the promotion of bestiality a pet-phobic.

Timothy Radcliffe

Dominic Howarth

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.

"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.

The whole gay agenda is based on nothing more substantial than a nice story

The whole gay agenda is based on nothing more substantial than a nice story

The whole gay agenda is built on a nice story that goes something like this:  we are all born different, the majority, for example, are born right-handed, but a minority are born left-handed.  Similarly a majority are born heterosexual, but a minority are born homosexual; and just as we would not think of discriminating against someone born left-handed, so we should not think of discriminating against someone born homosexual.

It’s a lovely story.  It gets you right in the middle of your chest, it appeals to our sense of fair play. There is just one small snag: it is a load of cods-wallop that has been completely disproved by science.  I am aware that liberal hate science, but the rest of us are rather partial to having our theories supported by facts.

This anti-scientific story has been fabricated, promoted and maintained for one purpose, to justify a particular course of action.  As such it does not differ in principle to the lie that Jew are an inferior race, an unscientific lie similarly fabricated, promoted and maintained by the Nazis for one purpose, to justify a particular course of action.

The alternative story (the one supported by science)

All men are born heterosexual, just as are all insects, birds, fish and animals, and indeed most vegetation; a fact that can be easily confirmed by a cursory study of genitalia, which are clearly designed by nature to be complimentary.

It is a very imperfect world and sadly not everyone develops into maturity along healthy lines.  Further, it is of the nature of youth to experiment; this can be entirely proper but nevertheless carries with it very real dangers.

Some young people experiment with and abuse alcohol and a minority of these finish up alcoholics.  Some young people will experiment with and abuse substances; a minority will finish up drug addicts.  Some young people will experiment with sexual perversions such as same-sex anal-copulating (those who have experienced the adolescent neurosis of same-sex attraction are especially at risk here); a minority will become addicted to this depravity, and finish up describing themselves as gay or homosexual.

Most people who identify themselves as gay do not seek marriage (not even the pseudo-marriages of the church of secular liberalism).  Whereas approximate 40% of the UK population are married, yet only about one in fifty gays have entered into civil unions.  Most gays, it has been scientifically demonstrated, are astonishingly promiscuous, averaging in excess of 500 sexual partners in a lifetime.

  

Nevertheless, some gays do pair off, just as do some alcoholics and some drug abusers.  When they pair off, it should come as no surprise that they select partners who share their addiction to perversion.

I have a clear example of this pattern of behaviour within my own circle of acquaintances   Susan (not her real name) is an alcoholic.  Her relationship with Derek (not his real name) was dependant on his addiction to glue-sniffing.  Their mutual substance abuse condoned one another’s substance abuse.  Likewise, her current relationship with Martin (not his real name) is dependent on his drug abuse for similar reasons.  One cannot from this jump to the conclusion that the relationship is worthless or evil, but it is sensible nevertheless to face the reality of the situation.

This story has one massive advantage over the liberals' story: it is backed by science.  Academic researchers have found scores of cases of identical twins where one twin is straight and the other gay.  Identical twins have identical DNA, thus homosexuality cannot be hard-wired - period.  And as one researcher pointed out, they would have only needed to find one case to completely disprove the theory.

What is not hard-wired has to be learned.  The word “learned” here is used in a scientific sense and does not necessary imply culpability.  One’s mother tongue is learned but one would hardly accuse someone of being guilty of having learned their mother tongue.  Nevertheless, if conduct is not hard-wired, than it must be learnt, apart from divine infusion, there is no third way.

The second fact is that there are thousands of ex-gays in the world, just as there are thousands of ex-alcoholics and ex-drug addicts.  These ex-gays are hated by the militant sodomite collective and their liberal allies alike, and knowledge of their existence is suppressed by the media because it does not support their latest liberal dogma, and liberal dogma trumps science every time. 

The following web site should open your eyes to the underlying causes of this disorder: http://www.peoplecanchange.com/stories/index.php   Many of the stories leave one with a huge lump in one’s throat.  The site is especially valuable because everything is written by ex-gays.

Michael Portillo dabbled with homosexuality in his university days.  He has however been happily married for decades.  I have an acquaintance that was once gay who has been happily married for twenty years; he now has two teenage children.  He is also responsible for one of the best one-liners I've heard on the subject, “I just woke up one morning and realised it was possible to be good mates with a guy and keep my clothes on.”  Another of his memorable comments was, “The first time I felt attracted to a woman, I was walking on air – it was like, ‘welcome to the human race’”  I suppose if I was a liberal bigot, I should have responded, “Oh f**k off, and get back to buggery.  What’s wrong with buggery anyway?”

Militant gays and their allies make a big issue of the fact that some, possibly many, ex-gays relapse.  I personally would be very astonished if they didn't; so do many ex-alcoholics and ex-drug addicts.  There is a sense in which it is true that once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic.  Yet no one seeks to argue from this that it is impossible to beat these destructive patterns of behaviour.  I imagine that the same is true for someone who has been deeply immersed in the sodomite life-style for a number of their most formative years.  All that this proves is that once you have succumbed to an addiction, there is always a real danger that you will relapse at a later date.  But that surely doesn't mean that we have to give up hope on ourselves and others merely to sustain some cruel liberal agenda.  On the contrary, we should take hope from those who have managed to break these destructive addictions, and if and when some do relapse, show them compassion and help them pick themselves up yet again.  Liberals, never ones for consistency, applaud therapy for paedophiles yet denigrate therapy for homosexuals.

Of course, if someone does not want to break out of these destructive patterns of behaviour, they cannot be helped; the desire for health must first come from within.  Someone who is committed to this addiction should be treated with kindness and respect, just as one would treat an alcoholic, but that is hardly a good reason to institutionalise their degeneracy!  I believe real love demands that I strive to raise my brother up, not confirm him in his depravity.