Escaping the Liberal Mindset

I escaped from the liberal mindset, by the grace of God, at the age of about nineteen.  Since then, I have been verbally abused by liberals, with their faces contorted with unholy rage, on more occasions than I can count.  I have witnessed police having to hold back liberal mobs wanting to assault me or my colleagues on a dozen occasions.  I have had a bag of food thrown into my face on two occasions, and had my face spat in on one occasion.  I have been threatened with arrest for assault for merely lightly placing my hand on a near hysterical women’s forearm and gently assuring her that I was not her enemy - I merely disagreed with her.  I have had a bag of food thrown on the windscreen of my car.  I have had my bishop written to requesting that he forcefully silence me.  I receive more abusive emails than one can shake a stick at.  Mum and I have yet to complete an hour’s prayer vigil outside an abortuary without at least one complete stranger going out their way to abuse us.  Not once have I responded violently, not even verbally aggressively, to any of these outrages – indeed, I can honestly say that I have never experienced a temptation to do so.  Even when the middle aged liberal spat in my face, I merely smiled and responded, “That was a really first-rate argument sweetheart!” – I then said a Hail Mary privately for her sad liberal soul.

I’m afraid that I genuinely believe that the liberal mindset is a clear sign of mental, or perhaps more accurately spiritual, illness.  The liberal is a man who has enthroned his will where his intellect should be, consequently, when you challenge him you are not challenging his intellect but his will, and the will by definition is wilful.  Once you understand this, everything falls into place.  It explains why liberals as a class are so illiberal and so prone to anger and aggression.  It also explains their pathological hatred of science – unless of course they believe that it proves evolution to be true, and then they love it to bits, and will continue to do so even fifty years after it has been exposed as a scam.

A recent long email I received taking me to task for not supporting gay "marriage" is utterly typical of the genre.  A vast amount of wind and fury devoted to demonising the messenger, me, but no attempt to advance a single rational argument to explain the benefits to society that will accrue from institutionalising sodomy - an addiction to depravity that has unleashed the worst public health disaster since the Black Death, 30,000,000 dead so far and still counting.  Yet the same liberal mindset seeks to criminalise smokers at every opportunity on the premise that it is unhealthy!  Well, to be fair, no one, as far as I know, has every accused liberals of being consistent.

Very much a side issue, but interesting none the less: why, after a large “Right” wing demo in New York, can you eat your food of the pavement, while, after a similar size liberal demo, you need the 5th cavalry and an army of dumper trucks to clear up the mess?  I’m not sure what this tells us, but I’m certain it tells us something depressing about the liberal mindset.

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.

GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT

This article is shamelessly plagiarised from an article in the Remnant
 by one Father X.  I’ve abridged and adapted it for my blog readers.

“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” declared Obama, and thus placed himself squarely at the head of a liberal racist lynch mob.  I had always regarded this silver-tongued man from nowhere as unfit for high office, but I never expected to be proved right quite so spectacularly.

The Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland kept her subject busy painting all the white roses in her garden red because she had a pathological hatred of the colour white.  On the slightest or indeed no provocation, she would shout, “Off with his head!”  She believed in execution first - the trial could wait.  The Queen of Hearts would serve as a sort of poster girl for the masters of the universe who have run the secular asylum for the last two-hundred years.

Like the homicidal Freemasons and fellow travellers behind the destruction of Catholic order that was the French Revolution, whose cry too was, “Off with his head! - the trial can wait."  Jefferson, the arch-Mason, and one of the founding father of the USA, applauded this slaughter of the innocent because it was necessary to “water the tree of liberty.”  Nevertheless, like the rest of the leading Freemasons of his time, he never personally felt strongly enough about liberty to free his own slaves.  Today, the same masters of the universe are slaughtering unborn children on an industrial scale.  It appears that liberals abhor the holocaust because it was racist, i.e. discriminated against the Jews - the mass killing of the innocent part has never bothered them over much.

Trayvon Martin, the young black man to whom Obama was referring, was the juvenile tragically shot dead by George Zimmerman, a Hispanic neighbourhood watch volunteer.  Zimmerman’s area had recently suffered a wave of crime by hooded criminals, so Zimmerman was naturally concerned by the presence of the hooded Trayvon.  There appears to have been some sort of violent altercation between them and tragically Trayvon was shot and fatally wounded.  This is all we know; repeat: this is all we know.  Whether it was an act of justifiable self-defence, a cowardly unnecessary killing by a frightened little man, or deliberate cold-blooded homicide, we will not know until there has been a fair trial.

But the issue of guilt or innocence - or of trivia like a fair trial - do not concern left-wing racist lynch mobs.  So the media, including the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation, set about painting this as a white on black racially motivated hate crime, and once again laid bare the deep innate racism of the men who run the secular asylum.

One major network went so far as to edit the taped recording of the conversation between Zimmerman and the “999” operator, in order to beef up the evidence.  At one point the operator asked Zimmerman what colour the victim was.  Zimmerman replied, “Black.”  The network edited out the question so as to make it appear that Zimmerman volunteered this information unprompted, and thus strengthened their white-racist-killing-of-a-black-boy  slant on the story.  The same racist media has also again and again printed pictures of Trayvon at aged thirteen, rather than use more recent photos of him as a stocky seventeen-year old.

The third lie was to portray George Zimmerman as a white man.  In fact he looks Hispanic but is in reality mixed race.  So, desperate not to spoil their white-racist-kills-little-black-boy story, the media invented a new racial group; white-Hispanic.  When was the last time you heard the secular Left refer to Obama as a white-Black?

This racist lynch mob was led by all the usual suspects in the media in general and, in the UK, the BBC in particular.  Al Sharpton, a man who has made a comfortable living out of playing the race card, led the pack.  Jesse Jackson the self-appointed spokesman for the whole of Black America was hot on his heels.  They spearheaded a liberal lynch mob that is always ready to play the race card when the victim is black, but equally desperate not to play it when the victim is white.

Of special note was film director Spike Lee, a man who supposedly abhors violence, who irresponsibly - and hypocritically - tweeted Zimmerman’s address and thereby put Zimmerman’s life in danger.  Except he didn’t, because he got the address wrong and in so doing put an entirely innocent family in danger!   The Black Panthers put out a million dollar bounty, dead or alive, on George Zimmerman head.  This in any genuinely civilised country would have brought the full force of the law down on their heads, but in the liberals’ racist asylum it didn’t even raise audible criticism from the law enforcement agencies.

Contrast the frenzy of the left-wing racist lynch mob over the Trayvon killing with the virtual media blackout aground another young black man of about the same age, one Tyrone.  Tyrone is accused of breaking into the home of an elderly white couple, married sixty-five years.  The wife was eighty-five and nearly blind.  She was raped and then beaten to death by the burglar.  Her husband, a ninety-two year old World War II veteran, was shot in the face, then beaten and left for dead.

Presumably, this unspeakable crime doesn’t really qualify as a crime as far as the masters of the secular asylum are concerned because the victims were white and therefore of no service to their race-baiting agenda.  Racial unrest rooted in white against black crimes - real or fabricated - is what excites liberals.  It does not matter that black on black and black on white crimes exceed the number of white on black crimes many times over.  There is a parallel here with the Left’s homophile agenda.  A few years ago Mr Gay UK killed, dismembered and cooked a homosexual “friend” on his cooker.  Unless you were in the habit of regularly reading page 28 of the Bradford Gazette from top to bottom you could be excused for having missed that story completely.

If Zimmerman after a fair trail is found guilty of a cold-blooded racist killing, and Tyrone is also found guilty, I’d be happy to pay my own fair back from China to throw the switch on the electric chair for both of them.  But until proven guilty by a fair trail I'll suspend judgement.  But for the secular liberal race mob, it doesn’t matter a fig what actually happened between Zimmerman and Martin; guilt has been decided, the trial can wait - off with his head!

Oh, and by the way Mr Obama, that elderly white couple raped, beaten, shot and left for dead, would look just like my old mum and dad.

PÈLERINAGE DE PENTECÔTE - de Notre Dame de Paris à Notre Dame de Chartres

By Graham Moorhouse

“AIMER, C’EST TOUT DONNER” – St Therese

Not everyone is aware that there are not one but two traditional pilgrimages taking place at Pentecost in France, the other one organised by the SSPX.  This year the SSPX pilgrimage followed the footsteps of St. Joan of Arc from Chartres to Orleans, with Bishop Bernard Fellay leading the way.  Between the two over 20,000 traditionalists march.  Few traditionalists have any stomach for the legalistic nitpicking of neo-Catholics vis-à-vis the SSPX, and each year the lay leaders of the two pilgrimages - brothers in the old Faith - meet at the halfway point and raise a glass to the Catholic cause they both serve.  This year, an even stronger awareness that Tradition is rising and Traditionalists are uniting permeated our weekend.  We must all renew our prayer that next year we shall march as one: one massive column of 20,000 or 25,000 Catholics marching shoulder-to-shoulder for Tradition, the Mass and the Family.

The restoration of tradition scored another first this year: the celebration of the Traditional Mass in Notre-Dame de Paris in the very heart of France’s capital.  The Cardinal-Archbishop of Paris not only granted permission for the celebration of the ancient Roman Rite at Notre-Dame but also sent his auxiliary, Bishop Jean-Yves André Michel Nahmias, to preside, preach and offer the papal blessing to the pilgrims.  Another first, as far as I’m aware, was a chapter from Iraq.

One short phrase has always summed up the spirit of Chartres for me:  “Aimer, c’est tout donner” (To love is to give all).  In that one short sentence of St Teresa one finds the God who chose to endure unimaginable suffering for his creatures, St Thomas Moor cheerfully mounting the scaffold to die for truth, the Carmelites going to the guillotine to end the Terror, St Kolbe volunteering to be starved to death by Nazi New Age Pagans for love of a family he had never even met, the young priest embracing celibacy for love of God and souls, the Catholic mother exhausted in the care of a large family and the Crusader laying down his life for the faith, his homeland and his comrades in arms.  What separates the gold standard of genuine Catholic love from the world’s love is one word, “sacrifice”; and not just any sacrifice, total sacrifice.

The world, and that sadly these days includes worldly clerics, neither understands that sort of love, nor desires it.  Pop singers may warble on endlessly about love, condom manufacturers abuse the word and worldlings prostitute it for their own self-serving ends, but what they mean is a sentiment, a feeling, even mere lust.  The world always wants to see the price tag and does not want any commitment which does not come with a get-out-of-jail-free card … preferably several.  That is why the world wants divorce, contraception, abortion, government approved sodomy, pre-nuptial contracts, living wills and euthanasia.  Even its children are no longer entitled to unconditional love, for unless they pass some pre-birth fitness test, they will be killed by abortion rather than offered unconditionally love.

The Catholic gold standard is not a feeling but a conscious, courageous, even audacious, act of a generous will that accepts no going back and no limits on the sacrifice necessary.  For such a love death is sweeter, far sweeter, than betrayal.

It is the young people at Chartres who time and again leave the deepest and most lasting impression upon one.  Eighty percent of the pilgrims are between the ages of fifteen and twenty five and one will seldom witnessed such manifest faith and devotion.  These young traditionalists fill one with hope and joy for the Church of tomorrow.  On the Sunday night, after benediction, thousands of them take part in an all night vigil before the Blessed Sacrament.  These youngsters had walked twenty six miles that day and have a further fourteen miles to complete the following day before reaching Chartres.  Pure grace alone can explain the existence of these young people, for certainly nothing in contemporary culture nor the emasculated post-Conciliar Church can explain their existence.

The memories of Mass in a forest - the cathedral of the trees as the late, great Michael Davies described it - always stay with me, and stretching away as far as one could see young people kneeling on the hard ground silently waiting for a priest to bring Our Lord to them - and with what manifest and profound reverence was the Lord of Time received … and not one “special Eucharistic minister” in sight.!

The two youngest British pilgrims, Cameron Clegg, my grandson, and Dominic Di Falco walked practically the whole seventy miles! - an amazing achievement for a nine and ten year old; clearly tomorrow’s solders of Christ in the making.  Even when I wanted, and planned, to drop out, I couldn’t because Cameron insisted on keeping going!  Cameron never fails to entertain me: a priest had just given a pep-talk on the value of confession.  Cameron dropped back and enquired, “Do you thing I should go to confession Grandad?  I only went a couple of days ago.”  “Well, have you committed any sins?” I enquired.  “Well,” he ventured, “I did tell someone what merde meant.”

The next time a bishop or priest tells you that we have a vocation crisis, just smile benignly and pass on.  We marched with hundreds of young priests, seminarians, tonsured monks, young nuns and brothers, clearly all deliriously happy and head over heels in love with the Church.  As old orders lose their way and implode, new vibrant orders are springing up to accommodate vocations.  To be surrounded for three days by Catholics who genuinely and joyously embraced the old faith is pure joy.  Given such ardent love of Our Lord in the Eucharist, such filial and tender devotion to the Mother of God, such real loyalty to the Holy Father and fidelity to the Mass of our forefathers, saints and martyrs, God is raising up sons of Abraham from the very stones!

The seemingly worldwide rising of young Catholics in support of the pro-life movement and the right to life has caught the pro-choice (so-called) movement off balance. Having been force-fed Plan Parenthood's abortion propaganda all their lives, teenagers are the last people they expected to be leading the prolife crusade against the culture of death and its lethal termination of pregnancy programs.

And Catholics in England now-a-bed 

 Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not there, 

 And hold their valour cheap whiles any speaks 

 That knelt with us in London’s Bedford Square. 

With apologies to the Bard.  

Young Catholics, and some not so young, praying the rosary outside a London abortuary

If I took my grandchildren to see Cinderella and found that the producer had written the ugly sisters out of the pantomime, I would be saddened, and, feeling cheated, would probably ask for my money back. The grotesque outfits, veniality and banal banter of the ugly sisters are the indispensable foil to the beauty, fortitude and kindness portrayed by the character of Cinderella. 

Similarly, when I take part in a pro-life prayer vigil, I would feel cheated if the pro-aborts failed to show up. One needs their ugliness, utter absurdities and in your face aggression to fully appreciate the dignity, integrity and gentle charity of a crowd of traditional Catholics on their knees quietly praying. 

 At the pro-life prayer vigil outside the abortuary in Bedford Square on Friday night (30th March) the pro-aborts did not disappoint; a friend remarked that just watching their antics was worth the entrance fee. The presence of Bishop Alan Hopes leading four or five hundred Catholics in prayer gave the occasion enormous added import and contributed to what was a deeply moving occasion. Bishop Hope is one of two genuinely Catholic bishops we have in England, the other being Mark Davis. They are currently forced to swim in a toxic episcopal sea of post-Conciliar Modernists, which can hardly be pleasant - they both need our support and most certainly deserve our prayers. 

 Four to five hundred mostly young Catholics endured the taunting and rage of two hundred pro-aborts. It was highly significant that traditional young Catholics who probably represent less than one percent of the population, with a little social networking, were able to put four to five hundred pairs of knees on the pavement outside the abortuary. Yet the Guardian, with the remaining ninety-nine percent of the population to draw upon, and with the backing of the Brussel’s Broadcasting Corporation, could only manage a couple of hundred, tops. 

 Having been involved in the pro-Life movement for forty-five years, twenty-five of those as chairman of the North-West Kent Life group, I was struck by just how little the pro-aborts have changed over the period. Indeed, it looked as if they had rummaged in the cupboard under the stairs and found some placards that their grannies had made and dusted them off. These placards made absolutely no sense forty years ago, and made no more sense today. 

A pro-abort delivering one of
their finely crafted arguments

The only change I did notice was that forty years ago when I was organising public meetings, most of the pro-aborts had a young man in tow. These were a recognisable sub-species: they invariably appeared anorexic, pasty, utterly humourless, chain-smoked home-made cigarettes and suffered from rather serious acne. One of the young ladies who regularly shared the platform with me in those days would unkindly whisper, “I think the opposition have turned up Graham. I can see a lot of pineapple faces at the back.” That particular male genre seems to have completely disappeared from pro-abort ranks; a great pity - their presence would have evoked a very pleasant stroll down memory lane. 

 Pro-abort posters fall into three broad categories: the doggerel, the incomprehensible and those that even the pro-aborts wouldn’t want you to take too seriously. If you can think of a word that is quintessentially Catholic that rhymes (sort-off) with something connected with female genitalia, this is considered a killer argument among pro-aborts: consequently, signs such as “KEEP YOUR ROSARIES OFF MY OVARIES,” and “KEEP YOUR EUCHARIST OUT OFF MY UTERUS,” abounded. One of my grandchildren brought home a similar slightly irreverent rhyme that he had learned in the playground, and chanting it ad-nausea for about a fortnight - however, he did have the excuse of being eight at the time. There’s probably a cottage industry waiting for some Catholic designing such posters for pro-aborts: the best I could come up with is, “Keep your holy water off my daughter,” but that is clearly not sufficiently indelicate for pro-abort taste, so, it’s back to the drawing board I’m afraid. One of the incidental high-lights of the demo was watching a smart middle-aged gentleman dutifully chanting “Keep your rosaries off my ovaries,” - the mind boggles... 

After the doggerel come what one can only call the “search me” placards. These are the ones that when a colleague says to you, “What on earth’s that all about?” you reply, “Search me.” One placard definitely in this category read, “IF YOU ARE SO PRO-LIFE, WHY DON’T YOU PUT GUARDS ON CEMETERIES?” The last man to post a guard on a cemetery as far as I recall was Pontius Pilate at the behest of the Jewish leadership; Pilate was hardly pro-life and what it has to do with the current price of fish, I have no idea. Another poster in this genre read, “STOP THE CUTS”! Whether the man holding it aloft was from rent-a-mob and had joined the wrong demo or merely picked up the wrong placard we sadly may never know. 

Among the placards that “even the pro-aborts wouldn’t want you to take too seriously” was, “IF YOU CAN’T TRUST ME WITH A CHOICE, WHY DO YOU TRUST ME WITH A CHILD?” Imagine turning up at the nursery to collect your toddler and the nursery manager nonchalantly telling you that she had killed little Johnnie. Then, in response to your explosion of outrage and grief, coolly responding, “If you can’t trust me with a choice, why did you trust me with your child.” The same “argument” would clearly legitimise the killing of five-year old, and indeed seventeen-year olds for that matter. Although, seventeen-year olds may fight back, and I suspect that abortionists prefer their victims not to do that - leastways not successfully. 

The other sign falling into this category is the old chestnut from the sixties, “EVERY CHILD A WANTED CHILD”. The corrupt police and private security forces in Brazil who have been cleaning up the streets of Rio de Janeiro by killing street children (in 1994, 1221 street children were shot dead - 344 under the age of 11) ought to wear that slogan on their cap badges. All these slogans of course basically say the same thing, “DON’T MESS WITH MY RIGHT TO HAVE SEX WITH MEN I DISLIKE SO MUCH THAT THERE IS NO WAY I’D WANT TO BEAR THEIR CHILDREN.” 

What passes for a killer argument
in the secular asylum

At one point several young ladies with big drums turned up and tried to drown out our prayers. There was also a particularly interesting character: an elderly woman dressed in the severe drab manner of those who have self-certified themselves intellectuals, a poor man’s Beatrice Webb with “Guardian Reader” stamped through her like a stick of Brighten rock. She came complete with the statutory bike, no doubt her single-handed contribution to stopping global warming dead in its tracks. She obviously considered herself an elite member of the SAS of the pro-abort forces, for she studiously eschewed standing with her co-religionists, choosing instead to work alone behind enemy lines. To this end she had wired up a couple a claxons on her handlebars and, positioning herself close to our left flank, sounded them incessantly. 

While one can obviously pray quietly, and indeed silently, pro-abort protests rely heavily on making noise, and lots of it, these ploys therefore appeared to be a classic case of shooting yourself in the foot: it couldn’t stop us praying, but it very effectively rendered their own chanting inaudible.

One of the slogans they shouted incessantly, rather like a Buddhist trying to work himself into a coma, was, “Stop harassing women.” Evidently, several score pro-aborts, their faces contorted with rage, repeatedly screaming this slogan into the face of a kneeling teenage girl quietly praying her Rosary doesn’t constitute harassment; obviously being a fully-paid-up card-carrying member of the secular asylum results in a certain blindness - leastways, as far as being able to spot irony is concerned. 

One highlight of the evening occurred when a Guardian-type reporter put her mike in the face of a young Catholic and said something to the effect, “Do you not believe that woman have a right to choose?” He responded along the lines, “Choosing to kill someone is a pretty radical choice.” “We don’t believe that it is a human being,” responded the reporter. “What species do you believe it to be then?” politely enquired the young man. At which point the reporter remembered she had another urgent commitment and vanished in the proverbial puff of blue smoke. 

Pro-aborts coalesce round their narrow concept of “freedom”, but evidently lack the mental subtlety to understand that “freedom” is a multi-faceted word. As Fr Frank Pavone has pointed out, the “freedom” to own a Porsche is a different sort of freedom to the freedom of an animal caught in a trap to escape by gnawing its leg off. The freedom of a young woman to kill her own child because she feels trapped by an unwanted pregnancy is obviously closer to the latter sort of freedom than the former. The pro-abort mind is so darkened by their hellish creed that they are genuinely unable to understand that offering to remove the “trap from her leg”, enhances her freedom, not diminish it. 

Whereas the pro-aborts have fossilised somewhere in the sixties, the pro-life movement has changed radically. In the early days we studiously avoided such issues as artificial contraception, chastity and religion. Our logic was that we wanted to create a broad front. People of all faiths and none could unite behind the moral principle that no one had the right to deliberately take the life of an innocent human being. We concentrated on nailing pro-abort propaganda lies, especially those intended to dehumanise the unborn child. In this we were broadly successful; referring to the unborn child as “foetal jelly” or the “products of conception”, once the norm in pro-abort propaganda, are now rarely heard. These lies have been effectively buried by ultrasound scanning, a medical breakthrough pioneered by the late Dr Ian Donaldson, himself a staunch pro-lifer. Films like the Silent Scream, shot by an ex-abortionist, that showed an unborn child desperately trying to avoid the abortionist’s probe, put the final nail into the coffin of these lies. 

In the last decade the pro-life movement has been taken over by a new generation of radical traditional young Catholics; when one of your supporters turns up on skateboards, rather than with the aid of a walking stick, you know that something of a tectonic shift has taken place. Where these militant young Catholics are coming from is a complete mystery, for nothing in contemporary culture, or in the emasculated post-Conciliar Church, or the current corrupt Catholic school system can explain their sudden explosion upon the scene. However, many, maybe even the majority, appear to have been tempered in the crucible of the Old Mass, the rite of our forefathers, saints and martyrs, recently released from forty years of illegal incarceration on the orders of the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, now gloriously reigning. 

What these young people have instinctively realised with the simple, even simplistic, vision of youth, is that the modern slaughter of the innocent on an industrial scale is quite literally Satanic, and therefore what we are facing is a profoundly spiritual evil. They further realised that the only way to fight a spiritual evil was with spiritual weapons. Unilaterally, and seemingly overnight, they decided to go nuclear, and left the old guard running to keep up with them. The close links between artificial contraception and abortion was no longer swept under the carpet, chastity was now openly promoted and henceforth their religion would be in the open, in your face even, and prayer and the rosary were to be their heavy artillery. Very soon they were on their knees outside abortion clinics all over the world; and not just for an hour or two, they kept up their prayer vigils for forty days non-stop! 

One is reminded of the Spanish Conquistadors who, on discovering that the Aztecs were slaughtering babies on an industrial scale, threatened all out war, a war that was only averted by the appearance of Our Blessed Lady at Guadalupe. That the diagnosis of the evil of these traditional young Catholics, and their chosen remedy, were absolutely spot-on is underscored by the fury of hell that it has unleashed. The effect on the pro-aborts was like throwing holy water over a man possessed, a veritable explosion of demonic and irrational rage erupted, all underscored of course by fear - and my goodness, how the godless fear the power of prayer, especially the Rosary! 

The success of these militant young Catholics has been nothing short of phenomenal. The lives of thousands of babies world wide have been saved, thousands of woman have been rescued from grave sin and a life of regret, even some of the staff of the abortuaries have repented their role in the barbarism and courageously crossed the road to join the young people on their knees, and a significant number of abortuaries have closed their doors permanently. 

The most moving moment of the evening for me came after the official prayer vigil was over, the young people, seemingly spontaneously, as if the Spirit had breathed upon them, started to sing the Áve María, grátia pléna … They sung it sweetly, gentle and in perfect harmony. The pro-aborts responded with a hellish fury; a cacophony of yelling, drum banging, whistles and clarion soundings filled the air. Several pro-aborts had to be forcefully restrained by the police from crossing the barriers separating them from the young people. The young Catholics appeared not even to notice the existence of the pro-aborts, they continued to sing sweetly, gently and in perfect harmony - it was as if they had moved onto some higher plain of being. I have the distinct impression that these young Catholics are just getting started; and I confidently predict, “You ain’t seen nothing yet.”

Modernity is the progeny of Freemasonry: the zeitgeist, with its false notions of liberty, was conceived in Masonic lodges and is doomed to create yet another secular asylum.

One of my family has sadly fallen head over heals in love with the zeitgeist, so much so that he will now own any opinion that does not come with a BBC imprimatur - nor reject any that does.  He recently showed his frustration with my repeated references to the “secular asylum” by sarcastically remarking, “I almost wonder whether your word processor has an app to throw it randomly, at least once a paragraph?”  I thought that was rather a splendid idea, and wondered if anyone knew where I could find such a thing.

In the late sixties, the seventies and eighties I was pro-actively involved in the pro-life movement; I built the largest local pro-life group in the UK and chaired it for twenty-five years.  In the course of that work, I regularly organised, and chaired, public meetings.  It was my practice when doing so to send invites to the local pro-abort organisations, who would obligingly turn up and heckle from the back of the hall.  I would respond by addressing their leaders directly from the platform and inviting them to join me on the platform and use the microphone to make their case.  Rather than lose face, they would usually take up the offer.  When they had finished, I would ask the audience to put questions to them.  Five minutes or so later, I, taking pity on their obvious discomfort, would reclaim the microphone.  Then, as they descended from the platform, I would invite the audience to give them a round of applause for their courage.

Fast forward and compare that civilised and courteous exchange with today: just watch your average Question Time to understand what I mean.  For example, could one imagine in one’s wildest dreams, Shami Chakrabarti, the current director of Liberty, a hard-Left pressure group that hides behind the façade of human rights (and hopes that we have forgotten that it once campaigned for legalised incest), treating her opponents with the sort of liberality I have just described?   I have no particular axe to grind with Ms Chakrabarti, I’m sure this young lady, who unfortunately suffers from the disability of invariable looking as if she has cod-liver oil swilling round her back teeth, is a pleasant enough soul; I merely cite her as a sort of poster girl for the phenomena that I am describing.  Just watch her leading a snarling pack of secular liberals that is set upon anyone who dares to question their latest dogma.  Anyone brave enough to query, in the mildest possible terms, secular myths like global warming, or question, again in the mildest possible terms, whether two men addicted to using one another’s bottoms as masturbatory aids can in reality claim to be married, will be lucky to escape alive.  There will be no attempt on the part of the secularists to argue their case rationally; the person daring to question their latest dogmas will simply be subjected to mob intimidation, and soon after will disappear from public view with a liberal fatwa on their heads.  So the question is: why is the secular liberal seemingly compelled to be so manifestly illiberal.  The answer is, somewhat like an onion, multi-layered.

A good priest explain it thus: a Catholic ought in theory to be intolerant because he is the custodian of revealed truth and consequently error is, or should be, deeply repugnant to him.  He is tolerant in practice because he loves.  The secularist should be tolerant in theory because he denies the possibility of absolute truth.  He is intolerant in practice because he does not love.

This insight, whilst true, only takes us so far.  Modern political life was conceived in the wombs of Masonic lodges and brought to birth in the French and American revolutions.  The dogma at the core of that political reality is that Christ has no place in the public forum.  But if Christ has no place in the public forum, Christ be not God.  But Christ is God.  Therefore the whole edifice that we call modernity is built upon a colossal lie.  And a place where people live by colossal lies is by definition an asylum - and this particular asylum is quintessentially secular.  Hence my repeated references to life in the secular asylum are dead accurate.

And the inmates of an asylum are inherently intolerant.  In an asylum, if a man comes up to you and asserts that he is a horse or Napoleon Bonaparte or that he as just returned from Mars, the last thing you do is respond, “Oh no you’re not.”   The reason you do not reply by asserting the truth is because doing so may very well spark a violent reaction.  Scruples dictate that you should not confirm the delusion, so you move into small talk; the weather is usually a safe option.

Similarly, in today’s secular asylum, a man can invite me to meet his wife and then wheel out some hairy fellow.  Again, I cannot say, “No that’s not your wife, that’s very obviously a bloke.”  The reason is the same as in the asylum: I fear the violence that the truth may provoke.  Yet again some fellow can have himself castrated and pumped full of artificial hormones to make his breast grow and insist that we call him Susan.  Once more, one dare not point out, what is no more than the bleeding obvious, that he is actually a block who has been surgically and chemically mutilated, and that he is no more a woman than he is a horse, because to do so may provoke violence - so we discuss the weather.

There is yet another issue at work, to recognise a lie, you must first believe in truth.  But there’s the rub, for those in charge of the secular asylum no longer believe that there is such a thing as objective truth - except paradoxically they do believe that “there is no such thing as an objective truth” is an objective truth!  Yet, if there is no such thing as objective truth, then the belief “that there is no such thing as an objective truth” is merely a dogma of their new secular religion, an article accepted on blind faith; and, like all dogmas, because it cannot be dispassionately argued, it must be imposed by intimidation and force.

If you are among the few who have managed to remain sane in the secular asylum, you see examples daily of this relativizing of truth all around you, indeed, there are so many that it is difficult to know where to start.  The advance of an irrational intolerance in the secular asylum is now such that we have reached a tipping point from which it is difficult to see us turning back.  I’ll give just a handful of up to date examples.

Example 1: recently the actress, Cynthia Nixon, was quoted as saying that for her being gay was a conscious choice.  Nixon is “engaged” to a woman with whom she has been in a relationship for eight years.  This remark, which she stood by when challenged, brought the gay rights movement and the secular liberal establishment down on her head like a ton of bricks.  Why?  Because it is not politically expedient for the secular liberal agenda for it to be “a choice”; note, whether it is true or not is no longer deemed relevant, truth is no longer even an issue.  It is whether it serves the agenda - or not - of those who run the secular asylum that is now the only issue.  Not one of the scores of talking heads who attacked Ms Nixon challenged the truth of her statement; they merely condemned her for letting the side down by telling the truth.  “It wasn’t helpful,” would sum up most of the comments.  Only in an asylum could truth be describes as “not helpful.”

Example 2: recently, somewhere in the north of England, three Moslem men were convicted of a hate crime and are currently looking at a prison sentence.  Their crime was to distribute leaflets that argued that sodomy should be a crime and the penalty for it should be death.  Now let me state up front that this is a view that I regard as quite definitely crackpot, but my sympathies are not the issue here.  What is an issue is that the entire case against these men was built on lies, and, for the few sane men left in the secular asylum, obvious lies.

First we were solemnly informed that the gay community felt intimidated by these leaflets.  No they didn’t!  There was not a single gay man in the UK who took them even a teensy-weensy bit seriously.  The only way one could be intimidated by them was if one believed that there was a possibility of the men persuading parliament to implement such a law, and no sane man believed that.

The second lie was told by the judge when he informed the accused that the law does not allow us to discriminate on ground of “sexual orientation”.  Again not true, the law does nothing to prevent us discriminating against paedophiles for example, which is obviously just as much a “sexual orientation” as is homosexuality.  Had these three men suggested that the penalty for convicted paedophiles should be a good flogging, their views, rightly I believe, would have been dismissed as idiotic, but there would have been no policeman fingering their collars.

Example 3: Pat Buchannan after ten years has been silenced as a political analyst at MSNBC because of a clamour from the left that to permit him continued access to the microphones would be dangerous and an outrage against public decency.  What this actually meant is that he wasn’t routinely parroting the dogmas of their new secular religion, so he had been condemned by the Sanhedrin for blasphemy.  The leaders of an organization that had self-certified itself as America’s leading voice for lesbians, bisexuals, gays and transgendered people rent their garments and squealed that Buchanan’s “extremist ideas are incredibly harmful to millions of LBGT people around the world.”  His extremist ideas? - he believed, along with the vast majority of the human race, that anal copulating was “unnatural and immoral.” 

On cue, Abe Foxman, the leader of the Anti-Defamation League, a publicly funded hard-Left gang of Jewish bully boys, who has sought to have Pat censored for twenty-two years, piled in.  Pat crime here was to have written that “America’s shrinking Jewish population is due to the collective decision of Jews themselves.”  What else explains the projected decline by 50 percent by 2050 of the Jewish population of America, if not the “collective decision of Jews themselves”?   But, I forgot, truth in the secular asylum is not the issue.  Silly me, I keep forgetting.

Example 4: A recent article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, argues that newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed when it is born.  The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.  Note: the values of a liberal society are presumed to include openness to publicly promoting murder, but we may not publicly suggest that anal copulating may be immoral - and my family member believes that we are not living in a secular asylum!

I am very reluctant to use the word “fascist” because it is one of those words so overused by the Left that it has been rendered meaningless, but I fail to see the big difference between the ideological Nazis who forces Jews to wear large yellow stars on their breast in public and the ideological secularists who closes down Catholic adoption agencies because we were not prepared to place vulnerable children with braces of sodomites.   Indeed, on further reflection, faced with an option between walking around with a large yellow star pinned on my breast and placing a vulnerable child for whom I was responsible with a brace of sodomites, I’ll take the star any day.

In Britain today a good married couple can be turned down for adoption because the man confessed to enjoying an annual cigar on his birthday, while the same man, had he confessed to regularly using his best mates bottom as a masturbation aid, would have had a statutory right to adopt!  Similarly, the same lunatics will deny a black child a home with a white couple on the grounds that the child may not cope well with this obvious incongruity in his life, yet will give the same child a hairy bloke for a “mum”, while assuring us that the child won’t notice the obvious incongruity.

The downsides of the belief that there is no such thing as objective truth, is all beliefs become mere dogmas.  And what cannot be supported by reason or evidence, by its very nature, must be imposed by force.  This is why both Communists and the Nazis were doomed inexorably to create Hells on earth; and our current secular masters of the universe are moving, indeed, are compelled to move, inexorably in the same direction.  The closing down of Catholic adoption agencies will prove but the first of many draconian measures yet to come.  Obama latest sally against Catholic institutions is but another stepping stone on the road to yet one more secular hell in a long line of secular hells.  The direction in which we are moving is now obvious, only the speed of travel remains in contention.

Is there then no hope?  Well, from the Catholic perspective there must always be hope.  Has not the Church watched a thousand such asylums come and go; and outlived every one of them?  The secularists are aware of this and that is why they fear and loath the Church.  The Freemasons and homicidal lunatics behind the French Revolution were buried by Napoleon within fifteen years; the Communists, who believed that they were the future of the world, are now merely a project for “O” levels students; in Spain 75 years ago an unholy alliance of liberals, socialist, communists and anarchists murdered in cold blood some 15,000 innocent Catholics, yet before the decade was out, the perpetrators of this gruesome slaughter were facing the firing squads of the triumphant Nationalist army; the German Nazis, who boasted that their empire would last a thousand years, managed to barely clock up ten; so why should we assume that our latest condom waiving, depravity pimping, global warming myth peddling, Christophobic masters of the universe are going to fare much better than the last lot - or the lot before them?  

It is obviously true that the emasculated post-Conciliar Church has been unable to put up the resistance that our forefathers in faith would have done, but even here things are stirring.  Recently, several thousand young traditional French Catholics brought a blasphemous play to a halt in Paris.  Where did these young people come from?  - nothing in contemporary culture or the enfeebled post-Conciliar Church can even begin to explain their existence.  In England, where Catholics have endured a forty year nightmare of dreary bog-standard post-Conciliar Modernists syndicating English sees, we now, against all the odds, have a genuine Catholic man on the see of Shrewsbury - and this just when many of us had given up hope of seeing such a marvel in our lifetime.  Bishop Mark Davis’s appointment could well mark the beginning of the end for the effete, stomach turning, bromidic Warlock x Hume bloodline - we can but pray and fast.  Whilst there no hard evidence that any of our English bishops are Masons, if something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, one can hardly be faulted for wondering …

Ultimately, our hope is not of this world: Our Blessed Lady, when she appeared at Fatima, warned us of the coming triumph of what we may now call the dictatorship of relativism - but she also promised us that her Immaculate Heart would ultimately triumph.  One would need to be a very foolish man indeed to distrust the word of the Queen of Heaven, for, although she is undoubtedly gentle and meek, she is also known to have some awesomely powerful friends.