WEAPONS OF LOVE, DILDOS OF HYPOCRISY

by Peter Anderson

Pope Dildo the First has spoken! It's Easter time so the world's billion or so Catholics expect the floppy-eared Argentinian prelate to chirp up with something around this time. But this year, with his traditional Easter message delivered at a mass in Rome's St. Peter's Square, he has outdone himself.

With Easter so close to the latest terrorist atrocity in a Catholic country, he inevitably had something to say about how to defeat the evils of terrorism. But be sure, not a single anti-terrrorism expert anywhere in the world was taking notes.

So, did he advise a refreshing "Big Picture" solution like a new crusade that would level Mecca with the sand and solve the problem once and for all? No, of course not.

Did he more cautiously recommend humanely reducing the number of Muslims in Christian countries by shutting off immigration, deporting radicals, outlawing polygamy, reducing welfare support to the dysgenic breeding of this hostile underclass, and financing repatriation to Muslim countries? No, also of course not.

Instead he told us it's naughty to kill people but that hating people who kill people is also naughty.

This is like the addled drivel you could expect from a 3-year-old child with mental problems. After centuries of paying tithes, Western man has a right to feel just a little cheated.

The centrepoint of his address was his advice to us to use "the weapons of love" (yes, literally a synonym of dildo!) to combat violence.

"With the weapons of love, God has defeated selfishness and death," he told the packed square, where security forces, fully armed to the teeth with the "weapons of hate" (actual guns), kept a vigilant watch.

What exactly are these "weapons of love" that have such miraculous power? No doubt they involve washing the feet of every unkempt interloper who shows up in a Camp of the Saints style from the Third World. Yes, let's wash the feet of our new ISIS overlords as they cheerfully saw off our heads!

Contrary to the impression I may have given above, I am not keen to attack Christianity, as, fortunately or unfortunately, it is very much part of the West and our civilization, but if anyone ever wanted a stick to beat Christianity with, this vile pontiff is certainly obliging.

As they are usually burnt-out old pedophiles by the time they rise to the highest office in Christendom, the greatest sin that any Pope is capable of is simple historical hypocrisy arising out of their own blindness. This usually takes the form, as with the present dildo-in-chief, that the Catholic Church rose to its preeminent position merely by humbly following the path of peace, washing feet and kissing toes along the way (sounds more like Ted Cruz's Presidential campaign).

If the Church had been morally consistent with its up-front message, it would still be operating out of a basement bedroom in the cheaper part of Bethlehem, if it existed at all.

Alex Charles in his article "Mohammed, Islamic  History, and the Bloody Future of the West" makes the point that Islam used a dual approach to achieve its dominance, alternating taqiyyah with jihad – passive aggression with overt aggression.

Charlemagne orders the destruction of the
sacred statue of the Saxon god Krodo.

The history of the Church often shows a similar pattern. When they were small and weak in the early part of their growth, Christians too practiced a form of taqiyyah, until their numbers were big enough to turn into violent, rampaging mobs. As for the spread of Christianity yes, sometimes this was achieved by peaceful means – usually a clever saint with a few magic tricks up his sleeve – but most of the growth of the Church happened in the shadow of violence or through its direct application, as in the case of the "conversion" of the Saxons and the Baltic tribes and the reconquest of  Spain.

Without Cortes and Pizarro, would the Aztecs and Incas have seen the "error of their (pagan) ways"? Of course not. Would the Orthodox faith have spread to the Pacific without Ivan the Terrible's conquest of Kazan and the thrusts of the Cossacks along the riverways of Siberia?

Then there are the defensive battles. How would Christianity have fared against the countless attacks of the non-Christians Muslims with mere "weapons of love" and offers of free soapy foot massages? We all know the answer to that.

In order to avoid such crass hypocrisy, any man who becomes Pope should at least know the history of the organization he is head of, and, while we can't seriously expect him to give up on the message that it's nice to be nice, he should at least acknowledge that love and peace don't always work, and that when they don't, violence and even hatred have their place in the natural God-given order of things. They have certainly played their part in the growth and survival of the Catholic Church, and a refusal to recognize this holy aspect of reality is not only hypocrisy but suicide.

Become a Patron!