Deference? Sorry, Not Any More!

A man, the firstborn son in a large Italian-American family, was -- as firstborn sons often are -- expected to “go far” in life.  He was intelligent and handsome, and had an engaging charisma about him.  After finishing a stint in the Navy, he got a job as a salesman; and it was quickly apparent that he was a “natural” at this.  He quickly became the top salesman where he worked.  Eventually, he met a girl, got married, and started a family.  While he was in the Navy, however, he took up gambling.  This habit continued after he got out, and later developed into a really serious problem.  Eventually, he became a full-blown compulsive gambler, and lost his job.  His wife, who gave him chance after chance to reform, finally – after seeing him gamble away their house (and even steal from his kids’ piggy banks to support his habit) – left him, taking their two kids with her.

Now all the while this was going on, the man’s family made one excuse after another as to why his chronic gambling “wasn’t his fault.” And, because he himself was such a charismatic “sales jock," he “sold” his family on that notion too.  Time after time, his father (or, in some cases, an uncle) would pay his gambling debts and “bail him out” – hoping against hope that he would reform.  Of course, he never did.  Bailing him out only fed his habit (like trying to put out a fire with gasoline).  Being a real “charmer,” he “re-married” several times, swindling each and every subsequent wife out of her life savings.  But to this day, some family members still regard him as “faultless.”  In fact, some even blame his first wife – saying that “things would’ve got better” if she hadn’t “abandoned” him.  Some feel sorry for him.  And, yes, some even think of him as “the victim.”  But in no case, do they condemn him.

Well, it’s kind of the same way at SGG.  There we have Dannie, the charismatic master flimflammer, exploiting and victimizing people at will (and draining their pockets for whatever pet reason strikes his fancy) – yet his culties defend him to the hilt.  Not only do they rigorously endorse him, but they vehemently condemn anyone who dares say otherwise -- especially those who expose the truth about him.  They regard them as vindictive “witch hunters” who “have an axe to grind”; and they refuse to believe the mountain of factual evidence against him.  They either refuse to believe it, or they find some way to “explain it away.”  No matter what he does, their Dannie can do no wrong. 

We at Lay Pulpit (and even more so at Pistrina Liturgica) are especially cited for being “disrespectful of the clergy” for what we say about Dannie and Tony.  Since they are “men of the cloth,” we are supposed to show them “deference.” – but do they (and their supporters) show others the same?*  Showing Dannie and Tony deference, of course, presupposes that they are good, decent men who have some degree of legitimacy that entitles them to that deference – either because they are legitimate, or they are presumed to be until proven otherwise. 

And the plain truth is that, in the beginning, they were presumed to be legitimate. They were given the benefit of the doubt, and shown that deference – plenty of it.  But they showed themselves NOT to be good men; and when they chose to abuse their privilege – to wantonly and habitually victimize people, and then to disdainfully and arrogantly disregard those victims and their plight (and the hard evidence of their mistreatment) -- they forfeited all right to any such “deference.”  Therefore, we ask, why go through the utter pretense of continuing to show these worms any deference?  What they now merit is total censure.

Strictly speaking, NONE of the sede “bishops” warrants any “deference.”  Since appointments to the bishopric must come from the Holy See (i.e., be authorized by the institutional Church), none of the traditional bishops are licit (and -- many might argue -- are invalid).  However, we here will not “play theologian” and rule on any of that, nor are we saying that a sede bishop warrants no respect at all.  (Our position is that good men, whatever their “credentials,” warrant respect – and bad men don’t.)  But we can say this: as sedes, they haven’t any of the jurisdictional authority that goes along with the office of bishop.  So, for a dirt-bag like Dannie to have his Gerties kiss his ring and accord him all the other “deference” due a bishop is unwarranted (not to mention, pretentious) – but, oh, how Dannie just relishes playing the part!!

It is ironic that Dannie, who has no pastoral jurisdiction or authority whatsoever, can pretend that he does -- and can play at it with such relish – squeezing out every bit of ersatz homage that he can from his SGG vassals.  Actually, just for what they said about Schiavo, Dannie and Tony -- even considered as simple priests -- are entitled to no deference whatsoever.  Add to that the rest of their “track record,” and these bagworms deserve nothing but utter CONTEMPT.  These two renegades, who operate totally un-policed and answerable to no one -- and doing whatever they damn well please -- expect their underlings to accept their rubbish “because they’re priests.”  Sorry -- not any more.

Besides, the “nice approach” has already been tried on these bagworms far too many times before – and it hasn’t worked.  Invariably, when people have asked them to explain a wrong position that they have taken (especially on Schiavo), they have condescendingly told them to “shut up and obey,” and have scolded them for “questioning their authority.”  And when confronted with all the hard evidence against them, they have simply clammed up and ignored it -- hoping that it won’t become “public” – or, they have denied it – hoping that their parishioners accept their “explanation.”  Or, they simply use the “stonewall” approach and shout down their opposition, telling them to “shut up and believe” because “they are priests” -- and, therefore, are not to be questioned.  So, again we ask, why show these worms continued “deference”?

Actually, for those who know the truth about Dannie and Tony, but who remain acquiescently “deferential,” their silence is sinful – sometimes mortally sinful -- because it only reinforces the cult-masters' behavior.  “Accommodating” them won’t stop them.  And it certainly won’t reform them, but will only ensure that they’ll do more of the same.  Dannie’s and Tony’s apologists would do well to remember this.  And when they actively defend these maggots, they not only give them unwarranted “legitimacy” and credibility, but they make themselves collaborators in the cult-masters’ mischief.

It is interesting to note, too, that when these people attack our blogs for what we say about Dannie and Tony, they never attack the main arguments.  Instead, they invariably pick on some “tangent” point, and/or they accuse us of “name-calling.”  They, of course, also engage in name-calling.  But there’s one big difference: we can back up what we say with FACTS.  They can’t.  All they have going for them is groundless denial.  And the reason that we can back up what we say is that, invariably, our proof comes from Dannie’s and Tony’s own lips: the cult-masters condemn themselves with their own words.  So, again, these people who try to defend them by “blowing smoke” are just making both themselves and the cult-masters look even worse. 

We’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again: self-righteous, defiant denials and deaf ears are not “morally acceptable alternatives” for the truth.  Those who strenuously defend the cult-masters cannot use any of those as a “justification shield.”  They have an obligation to seek out the truth – and then use it.  If they do not, they are just as guilty as the cult-masters.  The sad reality, though, is that many of them willfully do NOT seek it out, because they’re afraid of what they’ll find – and then they’d have to give up their “show.”  Whatever their reasons – willful ignorance, close-minded intransigence, acquiescence, or “inertia” (not making the effort to seek out the truth) – none of these, again, are “morally acceptable alternatives.”

These people must stop pretending, and come to the cold realization that Dannie and Tony are illegitimate scum, as the evidence clearly shows.  If they think they can prove otherwise, we eagerly invite them to try.  But we know that they won’t -- and can’t -- because they know that we have the truth on our side.  Defending these maggots as “legitimate” will always be a failed effort, just as bailing out that gambler (in our earlier example) was a failed effort: it only ensures that one’s self-destructive behavior continues. 

Again, no one is going to reform Dannie and Tony.  And the truth about them is out there – a mountain of it -- and it’s getting harder and harder to ignore.  So, it’s time for the dirt-bag duo’s supporters to STOP ignoring it, to start facing reality, and then to TOTALLY REJECT Dannie and Tony and their cult catholicism.**   By supporting these losers, they are hitching themselves to falling stars.  For their own good, they’d better abandon that course and embrace the truth, before they become losers too.

___________________________

* For both Dannie and Tony and their apologists, the “Alter Christus” argument (that they invoke to exempt them from any criticism) seems to apply only to them, and to no one else.  Both the cult-masters and their culties disparage “Bergy” (Francis I) and other novus ordo clerics, and anyone perceived as “playing ball’ with them (such as the SSPX), and that is okay.  In fact, they even disparage traditional clergy as well -- the late Abbot Leonard Giardina, for one (click here for more on that).  Anyone considered an adversary of the cult-masters is “fair game” for being attacked – just one more example of the “double  standard” mentality that reigns supreme at SGG.

Another thing on which Dannie and Tony’s supporters attack us is that we only go after the SGG/Brooksville bunch, and no one else.  Well, the answer to that is that these are the only ones with whom we have first-hand knowledge.  Anything that we know about others is “second hand”; and, therefore, it would not be fair for us to comment on them.  Besides, if we did, we’d probably be criticized for “picking on everybody.”

That is not to say that we haven’t received detailed information on other parts of traddieland that are rotten, but we just don’t have the time to devote to them.  Perhaps one day we can; but for now, chronicling the misdeeds of the SGG/Brooksville bunch is a full-time job in itself.  (Perhaps someone in one of those other locations could start their own blog, because -- to repeat -- “our plate is full” for now.)

** No, the spelling of “catholicism” with a lower-case “C” is not a mistake or “typo.”  It was done deliberately, for cult catholicism is not Catholicism at all, but a grotesque caricature of it.  So, why give the cult-masters legitimacy by capitalizing that word when it applies to them?

At SGG, EVERYTHING Is About “The Show”

Dannie Dolan’s Bishop’s Corner for the first Sunday of Advent (Nov. 29, 2015) had his usual admonishment about keeping Advent as a time for preparation, not partying.  After the Thanksgiving holiday, Dannie stated, “our feasting should end for a bit, not continue unabated with Christmas parties and celebrations during Advent.”  He then exhorted his Gerties “to be quiet and prayerful and offer some penance in preparation for Our Lord’s birth,” adding, “You will never appreciate the feast if you do not know the fast.”  Well, it turns out that Dannie apparently “didn’t know the fast” this past Lent when his feasting didn't "end for a bit" -- when he was pigging out on “copious quantities of meat” down Mexico way. 

It almost makes one laugh when hearing Dannie’s words about avoiding “parties and celebrations” and doing “penance in preparation for Our Lord’s birth,” when one remembers how Dannie spent his “Lent” in Mexico.  Dannie, who are you trying to kid?  What kind of “preparation” did you do then for our Lord’s crucifixion?  Oh, but pardon us!  We forgot: this is SGG, the land of the famous double standard, where the cult-masters make (and routinely break) their own rules, but which the Gerties must unquestionably obey – and where the latter are expected to pay for Dannie’s and Tony’s trips, toys, and “high heating bills” (yet get no help in paying their own).

For many Gerties, Dannie’s words ought to be getting pretty tiresome and be “wearing pretty thin” by now.  Are they, perhaps, finally starting to wonder if -- just as his pontifical Masses et al are “all for show” -- so too are his words?  Well, they should wonder no more, for it turns out that at SGG, just about everything is “all about the show” – even its “school.”  A recent Pistrina article, for instance, confirmed a report that the school’s girl students are required to sing in SGG’s choir – and that they spend about 25% of every school-day in choir practice.  That, coupled with the fact that the choir is compelled to sing High Masses every day (and to sing even for funeral Masses) eats up even more of their precious school-day time.  (And in a school with woefully low academic standards to begin with, this is doubly disturbing.)

But Dannie needs his choir to make SGG “look good” for both his home audience and his “cyber” audience.  If one ever “clicks” on SGG’s web page, he’ll invariably find a group picture of the school kids, looking all “spit and polish” and downright cherubic; and the picture is usually about something that the kids “volunteered” to do.  Dannie is always waxing poetic on how they happily and willingly donate their time.  But in reality – as many former students (and their parents) can attest -- it’s invariably obligatory.  It’s part of their job.  It’s part of “the show.”  And if they don’t do it, they’ll probably get “disciplined,” perhaps even more severely than that boy who was beaten with a wooden paddle for missing his homework.  In reality, there is no such thing as “gladly and willingly” at SGG.

So, these kids are just part of the SGG “display window” – part of its “promotional scheme” – to make Dannie and Tony look good.  And it’s not just in church that they’re having them sing.  Apparently, they’re also being requisitioned to sing for oldsters in nursing homes.  As Dannie boasted in his ’Corner, “I am especially grateful this year that our children can grow up with a love for music, choral and instrumental, and that they share this precious treasure with the old and infirm they visit.”  Now this would be very edifying, if these kids were truly volunteering.  But our guess is that, as it’s always been in the past, they’re required to do this – as part of “the show” – that they were conscripted to do this. 

Now it may be that – volunteer or not – the kids themselves are doing this for edifying reasons.  But one cannot say the same for Dannie. We cannot see him doing anything “altruistically.”  His reasons are invariably mercenary.  And, after all, one must remember that it is “ill will Dannie” who has vilified so many over the years – and who referred to watching porn and animal torture videos on the school computer as “boys will be boys.”  (We must ask you, Dannie: are the principal’s boys taking that computer into any of those nursing homes for “performances”?)  So, again, given Dannie’s (and Tony’s) mercenary proclivities (not to mention, the rest of their “track record”), we strongly suspect that those nursing home sing-a-thons are not so much a matter of good will, but of good box-office.* 

And, of course, Dannie and Tony get all the credit for it – at the expense of those kids who have been “volunteered.”  And what do the kids get?  Well, for one, they get a crappy education, for they must donate a major portion of their school day performing in SGG’s Vaudeville act – and this in a school that is already sub-standrad to begin with.  And for this, the parents are supposed to be “grateful” that their kids are getting a “Catholic” education.  But what they’re actually getting is a raw deal: a caricature of Catholicism, coupled with sub-standard academics.

Today’s Gerties must surely be tired of getting that “raw deal.”  We’re sure, too, that they’re getting tired of being exploited, and of getting nothing in return for donating all their time, money, and effort – except perhaps more exploitation (and more “guilt-tripping” from Dannie for not coming to his “show” often enough).  Many have already come to recognize Dannie’s “show” as the costume clown act that it is (and the school as the academic cesspool that it is); and they’re getting tired of “throwing good money after bad.”  We’re sure, too, that they’re getting tired of showing these sleaze-bags “deference,” and of the latter taking advantage of that deference – of “playing their ‘Alter Christus’ card” – to squeeze them for everything they can get, while demanding unquestioning obedience from them.

The problem is, Dannie and Tony are not about to “change their stripes.”  They’ve demonstrated that far too many times.  So, the thing for SGG’s parishioners to do – that is, for those who have the good sense to recognize what’s going on -- is to give these bagworms the boot (as must those parishioners at any other cult centers who find themselves being similarly exploited).  In today’s world, trying to live a good, decent Catholic life is difficult enough, without having to put up with exploitive counterfeit clergy.  Today’s parents have a right to expect real Catholicism, and a decent education for their kids -- not some cosmetic caricature of Catholicism, and a school that is only fit for turning out professional glee-club performers.  It’s time to dispense with these imposters and their double-standard, “do as I say, not as I do” chicanery.  It’s time to tell them to take their “show” somewhere else.

___________________________

* “Box office,” for those readers (from non-English speaking countries) who might not be familiar with the term, refers to that little booth in front of a movie theatre where tickets (to the movie) are sold.  When the movie “does well,” i.e., when many tickets are sold, the movie is said to be “doing well at the box-office.”   Similarly, if someone puts on a performance for “box office” reasons, he is doing it not so much “out of the goodness of his heart,” but for far less “altruistic” motives -- that is, for self-promotional and/or “revenue” reasons.

There Are None So Blind…

Perhaps the most famous passage in the New Testament -- aside from the account of our Lord’s passion and death -- is St. Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians (thirteenth chapter).  It begins with these words:

If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.  And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

So then, if I do all sorts of wondrous things, but have not charity, it makes me nothing.  Now if that is the case, what if I do all sorts of not-so-wondrous things and have not charity?  What does that make me then?  Well, let’s re-write that epistle again – but, this time, in that light -- and then ask ourselves that same question again.  Here goes:

If I speak with histrionic affectation, and stage elaborate pontifical Masses, processions, and other ecclesiastical extravaganzas ad nauseam, and if my Masses have polyphonic music, accompanied by a new (unneeded) nine zillion watt über-organ (sometimes with violin and trumpet fanfare), and if my church decorations win the Nobel Pomposity Prize® for ostentation, but I deny the sacraments to someone for attending an "una cum" Mass, what does that make me?

And if I stage a “triple-play” funeral (Three Masses celebrated simultaneously) for the novus ordo spouse of a rich parishioner (and major benefactor), but deny the same to someone in similar circumstances, but who is NOT so well-to-do, what does that make me?

If I wax poetic about protecting our innocent children on Guardian Angel Sunday, but have a child beaten with a wooden paddle for missing his homework, yet dismiss the school principal’s sons’ watching of porn as “boys will be boys,” what does that make me?

If I exhort my parishioners, “Thou shalt not steal,” and then dispossess them (by selling their church out from under them, and confiscating not only the proceeds from that sale, but their $123,664 building fund as well), what does that make me?

If I preach about modesty, and lay down strict rules about dress codes, and ban body piercings, but say nothing when one of my school principal’s sons impregnates a fellow student, what does that make me?

If I go on “apostolates” to Europe (and to Argentina and the Baja to pig out on copious quantities of meat during Lent), but ask my parishioners to fast and abstain while they’re paying for my high heating bills,” what does that make me?

If I preach against “moral relativism,” but condone the starving and dehydrating to death of Terri Schiavo, what does that make me?

If I urge my parishioners to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” but clandestinely call a church in Lawrence, Massachusetts and then try to discredit the credentials of one of their ordination candidates, what does that make me?

And if I rail against calumny, but write an article about a deceased abbot (who, being deceased, can offer no rebuttal), and accuse him of being deceitful and mercenary, what does that make me?

Starting to get the picture here?  As to “What does that make me,” it certainly makes me something much worse than “sounding brass” or a “tinkling cymbal”!  Does it make me a hypocrite?  A traitor?  A liar?  A thief?  A scoundrel?  A moral leper?  A scurrilous, unprincipled roundworm?  How about “all of the above”?  Actually (as you might have guessed), “what that makes me” is an SGG cult-master.  And, of course, this updated “epistle” could actually go on and on.  So, we ask: with a track record like that, why do Dannie and Tony have any followers at all -- who not only follow them, but defend them as well?  Why is that so?

Why?  The reasons are the usual ones we've mentioned before: people have a natural sort of “inertia” – especially when it comes too religion – and especially when someone “puts on a good show” for them.  And when blended with cult-like manipulation and control, that makes for a potent (and lethal) combination.  Dannie and Tony have been able to do just that: to take advantage of traddies’ over-blown sense of “respect for the cloth” (and their “shut up and obey” mentality) to manipulate and intimidate them into doing whatever they decree – even to the point where they perjure themselves for them.*  

And even those who “know better” will usually give them the benefit of the doubt, and “tolerate” them – at least to the point of staying with them.  They would rather put up with an unsavory situation than pull up stakes.  Many at SGG are fully aware of what Cekada said about Schiavo (and that he was totally wrong), and many are also aware of the brutality and immorality of what went on at SGG’s school; but they stay for the “peripherals”: the pontifical Masses, the processions, and all the rest of the tinsel.  And they keep “hoping against hope” that things will somehow “get better.”  They think in terms of their time there as being “an investment,” and they don’t want to “start all over again.”

But what they fail to understand is that they’re “hoping against hope” when there is no hope – and that their “investment” amounts to throwing good money after bad.  Many of them, too, say to themselves, “Well, the next time they do something like that, we’re leaving.”  But the problem with “the next time” is that it’s like “tomorrow” – it never comes.  The “next time” is NOW.  In fact, it was YESTERDAY.  Dannie and Tony have demonstrated, time after time, that they’re not going to change – at least, not for the better.  How many “next times” must people endure before they open their eyes and see it?

They need to come to the hard realization that the SGG cult-masters are frauds – and that their righteous talk and sanctimony will never pass for righteousness and sanctity.  Dannie and Tony are the epitome of the Pharisee that Christ condemned so many times in His parables.  People must learn to stop listening to what the cult-masters say, but instead watch what they do.  This is a hard lesson, but a necessary one, that they must learn – for their own good.

___________________________

* After a recent Pistrina article reported that Dannie dishonestly told everyone that he has a “privileged altar” at SGG, one of his culties sent an e-mail message to Pistrina, vehemently denying that he made such a claim.  In fact, she (the correspondent) irately fumed, “Before God I swear it.”  Well, in a subsequent article, Pistrina provided PROOF (from Dannie’s own words) that he claimed as such.  Thus, the woman actually perjured herself for Dannie. 

Now some might protest that she wasn’t aware of Dannie’s claim (and then say that it wasn't “perjury” as such).  But if that’s the case, then she was guilty of calling God down as witness on something that she didn’t know for sure – and that too is a false claim under oath, i.e., she lied – and that’s still perjury.  So, she sinned mortally for her Dannie.  But that’s what people will do when they’re properly brainwashed (and gullible): they’ll LIE for Dannie – even under oath. 

Needless to say, Pistrina never heard from this woman again – but that’s “par for the course”: worms, once they’ve been exposed as liars, just crawl back on their hole and hide, never to be seen or heard from again.

Paris: a Wake-up Call?

Editor’s Note:  This article is a “special edition” of Lay Pulpit.  Ordinarily, we would not be publishing until next week; but in light of the recent terrorist events in Paris, we thought it timely to say something – and to repeat, at least in part, a message that we’ve said before.  Our “regular” readers will notice that much of this article is excerpted from a previous article (the repeated part is shown in green print).  But, in light of what happened in Paris, that same message needs to be repeated again – especially for any new readers.  Because of that, this article is rather long.  For that, we beg the reader’s indulgence; but we think it essential that it all be said.

It has been a little over a week since the horrific attack in Paris by “Moslem extremists.”  No doubt it has been “condemned” not only by secular leaders and Christian leaders around the world, but also by “moderate Islam” as well.  To this we must say “HORSE DUNG.”  There is NO SUCH THING as “moderate Islam.”  Islam, in and of itself, is RADICAL.  It is a “religion” of HATE, and its goal is the forcible and VIOLENT overthrow of Christianity.  Period.  There are those – including most who condemned these “extremists” -- who will say that these ISIS operatives (or whoever they are) are a “small minority,” and that most Moslems do not support them.  Again, “HORSE DUNG.”  Yes, they may be a small numerical minority, but they seem to have the support – tacit or otherwise – of the majority of their Moslem brethren.  Surely, in a world with literally billions of Moslems, some can use their influence to curb these extremists, but they won’t – and haven’t.  And, in a world of billions of Moslems, why is it Christian Europe’s “responsibility” to take in those Syrian “refugees”?  Why not their Moslem brethren?

Islam not radical?  Islam not a religion of hate?  Islam a religion of peace?  The Koran itself says otherwise, as the following sampling of its “suras” (chapters) will attest:

2:191: And fight the infidels, wherever you find them; and expel them from the place they have turned you out from. 2:193: Fight them until idolatry comes to an end, and the law of Allah prevails.  4:24:  Also forbidden are married women, unless they are captives of war: such is the decree of Allah.  (What they’re talking about here is who a man can or cannot have sex with; so what they’re doing is ratifying the rape of women captured in a jihad.)  4:24: They give those of these women you have enjoyed the agreed dower.  It will not be faithful if you have agreed to something else by mutual consent, after having settled the dowry.  Allah is certainly all-knowing and all wise.  (What this verse is doing is ratifying prostitution; if a man pays a woman a “dower” or dowry, i.e., a certain quantity of money, he can have sex with her without obligation.) 4:34 (This is talking to a man, one of whose many wives will not have sex with him willingly):  As for women who you feel are averse, talk to them persuasively, then leave them alone in bed without molesting them, then beat them, then go to bed with them when they are willing.  (This ratifies beating your wife if she won’t have sex with you.)  5:33:  The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and his prophet [Mohammed] is to kill or crucify them, and have a hand on one side and a foot on the other cut off.  8:12:  And Allah said to the angel, ‘I am with you; go and strengthen the faithful.  I shall fill the hearts of the infidels with terror, so smite them on their necks and incapacitate them. (i.e., a  call to behead all infidels)  9:29: Fight those among the People of the Book [i.e., Christians] who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, nor forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth [i.e., Islam], until they pay the jizya [tribute] with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.  9:80:  Whether you plead forgiveness for them or not, Allah will not forgive them, even though you plead seventy times, for they disbelieve in Allah and his apostle; and Allah does not show transgressors the way. (A loving, forgiving God?)  13:42:  Sure those who have gone before them did deceive, but Allah is all deceiving, for he has knowledge of what each does. (This is calling God a deceiver and liar, which, of course, implies that Allah’s true identity is Satan.)  23:1:  The true believers will be successful who are humble in their service who shun all frivolities, who strive for betterment, who guard their sex except from their wives and their women slaves of old [This ratifies concubines].  52:24 (regarding man-boy sex):  And young boys, like pearls within their shells, will go around; and 56:17:  Boys of never-ending bloom [pubescence] will pass around them cups and decanters; and then 76:19:  And boys of everlasting youth will go about attending them.  Looking at them, you would think that they were pearls dispersed.   (This is an allusion to the Islamic sponsorship of pedophilia, and of looking on young boys as sex objects.  Most boys in Islamic cultures do not escape childhood without being anally and orally raped, according to speaker.)  55:4: As for your women who have lost hope of menstruation and in case you have doubts, the prescribed period of waiting for them is three months, as also for those who are not menstruating yet. (What this is doing is ratifying the violation of pre-pubescent girls, i.e., pre-puberty girls.)

Allah, then, as is evident from those excerpts (which are just a sampling), is a vengeful, deceiving “God” who justifies (and indeed prescribes) the rape and beating of women, sex with minors, prostitution, wanton slaughter (usually by beheading) of “infidels” (including women and children), and even pedophilia.  Is this the kind of God that IS God?  NO.  The speaker in the video contends that “Allah” is actually Satan; and she is probably right -- for NO God would condone such things and still BE God. 

Islam, both in word and in practice, is EVIL.  The modern, media-orchestrated notion of Islam as “tolerant” is a total MYTH.  Islam never was tolerant – and never will be.  The irony of it all is that these media that portray the Moslems as “tolerant” are, by and large, Zionist controlled – and the Zionists and Moslem Arabs are portrayed as archenemies.  But the truth is, this is only cosmetic: they’re both “on the same team.”  They’re both belligerently vindictive; they’re both not about forgiveness, but about “eye-for-an-eye” retaliation, retribution -- about vengeance; and they’re both out to destroy Christianity, except that the Moslems do it with “swords” (and very clumsily) -- while the Zionists do it with “cash registers” and “Hollywood”  (but much more subtly).

The notion of Moslem “benevolence” is quickly dispelled when sees what they really practice: women are genitally mutilated with the express purpose of maximizing the man’s sexual pleasure -- and the woman’s pain and suffering.  A man can be unfaithful, can fornicate at will, can have limitless “wives,” and can divorce a woman on any pretext – with total impunity.  Yet when a woman does the same, she is beheaded or stoned to death.  A man can wear as much (or as little) as he wants; but a woman, to be a “true” Moslem, must be covered from head to toe -- with a mask over her face.  Young, pre-puberty Moslem girls are routinely “sold” to seedy, middle-aged men as “wives” (that is, to be sex slaves for middle-aged pedophilic perverts).  Indeed, the selling of young girls as sex slaves is big business throughout the Islamic world – an embarrassing, damning reality.

Our media have routinely claimed that in the past, the Moslems came as benevolent, tolerant conquerors, and that Christian conquerors were, in contrast, butchers -- when in fact the opposite was true.  When Moslems conquered Christian lands, they wantonly butchered the “infidels” (as the Koran and “Allah” commanded); and the women were wantonly raped and/or sold as slaves into harems – practices that routinely go on to this day: just recently, reports of whole villages – including women and children -- being slaughtered by Islamic militants (usually by beheading) have been confirmed by independent sources.  And the selling of young girls as sex slaves has already been noted -- a widely recognized (and accepted) practice in Moslem countries throughout the world. 

It is interesting to note, too, what the Islamic notion of Heaven is: in the Koran’s own words, it is a “garden of earthly delights” – a sensual Valhalla where each man is attended to (and sexually satisfied) by “a hundred virgins.”  “Heaven,” then, is little more than an eternal sex orgy, where men are in a never-ending state of hormonal ecstasy – while women are servile non-entities, whose only function there is to provide that ecstasy. Wow!  Any woman who subscribes to that sort of nonsense must be either an IDIOT or (literally) a damned fool  -- and so must any man: to believe that something as accidental as one’s gender rewards the one with eternal bliss while condemning the other to nameless, mindless servitude), is a  notion that is utterly absurd to any rational being.

It is also interesting to note that in the aforementioned YouTube video about Islam, the speaker was a woman – and probably not Catholic at that.  (Actually, she appeared in two videos: the first video dealt with her reply to comments made by U.S. Senator Lindsay Graham (R, South Carolina) on a nationally televised show (Face the Nation), where he proposed restricting Americans from burning the Koran (but said nothing, of course, about Moslems burning our flag and our Bible).  Both videos are excellent, and the woman is very articulate – and brave.  To the tinhorn potentates of Traddieland (such as Daniel Dolan and Anthony Cekada), she probably comes across as a “whining woman” – probably with a “feminist agenda.”  And, being the puritanical prudes that they (and their cultlings) are, they probably “ding” her as well for her “language” (she calls Allah a “sonofabitch” several times during the video, and she uses some “anatomical” metaphors).

As we stated in the original article from which the foregoing was taken (the portion in green print), good men (i.e., priests) must take the lead in effecting the final triumph of Christianity.  But we also noted that, although Islam is evil, there are many Moslems who are good, decent people who abhor what happened in Paris.  However, that’s not enough.  In the end, they must REJECT Islam in toto because, as the Koran’s own words proclaim, it prescribes things that are openly immoral and evil.  It is a FALSE creed.  The Moslems who lead “good, decent lives” are doing so because they are practicing what Christianity teaches, not what Islam teaches.  They are, in practice, leading Christian lives – so why not then take the next logical step, and become Christian?

Peace in this world will not come about by us getting rid of “bad” Moslems, and finding accommodation with “good” Moslems – because Islam itself is EVIL.  How can a “religion” whose Koran says what it does be anything but that?  Moslems must become Christian.  But so must “Christian Europe.”  Europe, unfortunately, is only nominally Christian, but not Christian in fact.  It was sadly ironic, after the Paris attacks, how everyone was “showing their support for France”: the Brits even sang the Marseillaise  (France’s national anthem) – a Godless song that celebrated a Godless, anti-Christian revolution.

Appealing to “national pride,” or showing “international solidarity” isn’t going to stop any evil, nor is crushing “extremist Islam” by military force going to do it.  That will only “treat the symptom,” and temporarily subdue a seething resentment that will surely surface again (just as World War I’s Versailles Treaty subdued a resentment, only to see it come back again – with terrible results). Permanent peace will only happen when the “cause” – not the symptom -- is treated, i.e., when Europe wakes up and realizes that getting back to their Christian roots – not “solidarity” -- is what really counts.

The present course that Europe is on is SUICIDE: letting in millions of Moslem “refugees,” when they KNOW that many of them will inevitably be terrorists – that this is a Trojan Horse that could DESTROY Western Christian civilization.  It is an INSANE policy that the vast majority of Europe’s people reject but their governments approve.  There have been many reports – especially on “social media” – of what the so-called “refugees” are really about (see attached video); but the mainstream media are strangely SILENT.  Why?  Because, again, they are Zionist controlled.  The Zionists do not WANT peace in the Middle East.  (They have demonstrated that time and again: every time there has been an Israeli-Arab "peace initiative," it has been the Israelis who have "torpedoed" it.)*

Moslems need to understand this.  They need to realize that we, like they, are just pawns in the Zionist chess game – and that both they and we are losers in that game.**  But what they must also realize, in the end, is that their “religion” – Islam – is evil.  They need to ask themselves this: How can a creed that calls itself “benevolent” and “peaceful” not only condone but prescribe -- right there in writing in its “holy book” -– the killing of its enemies, and the raping of their women?  How can a deceitful and vengeful God be a good God?    How can a creed that warrants prostitution and pedophilia be the “true” religion? The answer, of course, is that it cannot.  Only Christianity preaches a message of charity and forgiveness – of “doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  And only Catholic Christianity gets that message right.***  Again, today’s Moslems must come to embrace the Christian principles that many of them are now practicing.  Ultimately, they must reject Islam.

But given the present “climate” – the Godless, amoral hedonism of the West, and the blind fanaticism of the ISIS terrorists -- that’s not likely to happen any time soon (nor is it realistic to expect that “moderate” Moslems will just “fold up their tent” and become Christian overnight).****  And it will, we fear, take something much more cataclysmic than the “Paris attacks” to effect that kind of change.  The good news is that it will happen, because Our Lord promised us that He will be with us “all days, even unto the consummation of the world” and that He will “put enmities between thee [Satan] and the woman [Mary], and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.” 

These indeed are consoling words, but just what exactly do they mean?  How will they “play out”?  What we think (and hope) that they mean is that Islam, as well as all other false creeds, will ultimately fall; and Christ’s Church will triumph.  As things stand now, this is a hard scene to envisage.  Will it come by degrees, or will it take a cataclysmic event to put things to right?  There are many speculations and predictions on what will happen, and when.  But whichever way it happens, all pretty much agree that it is not likely to happen painlessly.

___________________________

* Of course, "Israel" came into being back in 1948 by dispossessing the Palestinians of their own land, and by doing so with our "blessing" -- and help.  So, it's no wonder why they hate us -- but that's a subject for a whole other article.

** One thing for sure: we’ll never get the “straight scoop” from the mainstream media -- just as we never got it from them about all the chaos the “refugees” are creating (again, see video) – for reasons already noted.  It is entirely possible, for instance, that these “ISIS” people are funded (and orchestrated) by Zionist agents.  That might sound absurd; but remember, they control the mainstream media -- and where is all our news coverage of the recent events in Paris coming from?

Alternately, ISIS might be funded by wealthy Moslems.  The problem is, we just don’t know, because what we “hear,” again, goes through the mainstream media “filter.” We don’t have a crystal ball, so we can only speculate.  But one thing we can ask ourselves is this: who would benefit from us and the Moslems going head-to-head in combat?  (Hint: it won’t be either of us.)  So, if the rest of the Moslem world is tacitly supporting ISIS, they would do well to reconsider: such a policy is not in their best interest – short-term or long-term.

*** Protestantism, for a multitude of reasons, doesn’t “get it right.”  For one thing, it preaches “fides sola”: that faith alone is all that is required for salvation – that, regardless of one’s deeds (or misdeeds), he is “saved” as long as he “accepts Christ.”  It’s kind of odd, isn’t it: Islam prescribes that one must rape, pillage, steal, lie, and murder in order to be “saved,” while the Protestantism preaches that it isn’t necessary to do anything at all to be saved – except to “accept Jesus.”  So, in the one case, one is saved, so to speak, by “overdoing it,” and in the other by “under-doing it.”  It is only Catholicism that strikes the right balance: that we must be responsible for our actions (and that those actions must be just and charitable), and that it takes both faith and good works to gain salvation.  Catholicism offers the only rational alternative for salvation.  The other two, Protestantism and Islam, will -- if “put under a microscope” -- be found to be philosophically, logically, and morally absurd.

**** We wonder, too, just how “moderate” the “moderate Moslems” really are.  As we stated in this article’s opening remarks, there seems to be a general apathy on their part, when they see all this terrorist activity going on, to do much about it.  While they publicly deplore it, are they secretly applauding or encouraging it?  One thing for sure: the rest of the Moslem world (the Saudis, for instance) doesn’t seem to be going out of its way to stop this terrorism (nor, as we also noted before, are they volunteering to take in any of their Moslem brethren as “refugees”).  Do they not have any influence where any of this is concerned?  What are their real intentions? Again, we just don’t know.  

Another thing: “moderate” Moslems say that these terrorists “don’t represent Islam.”  They say that it a “peace-loving religion.”  That isn’t quite true: in many Moslem countries, non-Moslems are persecuted, and, in many cases, not allowed to practice their religion at all –  in Saudi Arabia, for example.  Non-Moslem worship is forbidden there; and one cannot wear (or even bring in) a religious object to that country -- yet they demand “freedom of worship” when they enter Western countries.  (Ironically, under Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Christians were entirely free to worship, as they are under Assad in Syria.  Kind of makes one wonder why we toppled the one, and are trying to do the same to the other, doesn’t it?)

Another thing: it is not only ISIS or Al Qaida who are troublemakers.  In many countries where Moslems are in a pluralistic society, they engage in terrorist activity – in several African countries and in the Philippines, for instance.  In some cases, they even cause problems for other countries (the Pakistani terrorist activity in India, for instance).  It is never a case of Christians causing trouble in Moslem countries; it’s always the other way around. Wherever Islam is, it is usually intolerant and belligerent.  They want “peaceful coexistence” and “tolerance” from others; but in many “moderate” Moslem countries, they don’t reciprocate.

Lastly, we must note that, in the main, Moslems aren’t even tolerant within their own circle.  Theirs is a double standard world, where men can do anything they want: fornicate, be unfaithful to their wives, even rape and murder -- with complete impunity -- while women get stoned to death for doing the same.  In the Koran’s own written word, Islam is not moderate at all; and theologically and morally, its words just don’t “add up.”  Granted, there are many Moslems who do not condone (or practice) such “double-standard” precepts.  Many of them lead decent, perhaps even exemplary, lives; but they are doing so because they are practicing what Christianity – not Islam – teaches.