Wednesday, 23 January 2019

Main Stream Media and the Covington Catholic students

  • As we at CUT have always said the Main Stream Media will lie about Pro-Life people trying to make us out to be what we are not, racist thugs and woman haters. 
  • The incident at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington USA is a case in point, when peacefully waiting for their bus after the March for Life, boys form a Catholic school were confronted and insulted by anti-life protesters who moved into the peaceful group of school children who did nothing in return.
  • A young student Nick Sandmann from Covington Catholic High School had a drum beaten just inches from his face yet did nothing in return - this non action by the pro-life boy sent the MSM ballistic, just because he had a faint embarrassed smile some of the time on his face.
  • But perhaps the saddest thing is that his own bishop, Roger Foys of Covington, Kentucky also took his lead from the MSM and condemned the students, ever quick to condemn faithful Catholics the bishops have let themselves down again. There is a life site petition asking the bishop and the MSM to apologize, to sign click here.
  • Or contact the bishop directly:
Bishop Roger Joseph Foy
Diocese of Covington 
1125 Madison Avenue
Covington, Kentucky 41011

(859) 392-1500 


What actually happened - a drum beat in the face of a student 

  • The statement by the student in question

Statement of Nick Sandmann, Covington Catholic High School Junior, Regarding Incident at the Lincoln Memorial
I am providing this factual account of what happened on Friday afternoon at the Lincoln Memorial to correct misinformation and outright lies being spread about my family and me.
I am the student in the video who was confronted by the Native American protestor. I arrived at the Lincoln Memorial at 4:30 p.m. I was told to be there by 5:30 p.m., when our busses were due to leave Washington for the trip back to Kentucky. We had been attending the March for Life rally, and then had split up into small groups to do sightseeing.
When we arrived, we noticed four African American protestors who were also on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. I am not sure what they were protesting, and I did not interact with them. I did hear them direct derogatory insults at our school group.
The protestors said hateful things. They called us “racists,” “bigots,” “white crackers,” “faggots,” and “incest kids.” They also taunted an African American student from my school by telling him that we would “harvest his organs.” I have no idea what that insult means, but it was startling to hear.
Because we were being loudly attacked and taunted in public, a student in our group asked one of our teacher chaperones for permission to begin our school spirit chants to counter the hateful things that were being shouted at our group. The chants are commonly used at sporting events.
They are all positive in nature and sound like what you would hear at any high school. Our chaperone gave us permission to use our school chants. We would not have done that without obtaining permission from the adults in charge of our group.
At no time did I hear any student chant anything other than the school spirit chants. I did not witness or hear any students chant “build that wall” or anything hateful or racist at any time. Assertions to the contrary are simply false. Our chants were loud because we wanted to drown out the hateful comments that were being shouted at us by the protestors.
After a few minutes of chanting, the Native American protestors, who I hadn’t previously noticed, approached our group. The Native American protestors had drums and were accompanied by at least one person with a camera.
The protestor everyone has seen in the video began playing his drum as he waded into the crowd, which parted for him. I did not see anyone try to block his path. He locked eyes with me and approached me, coming within inches of my face. He played his drum the entire time he was in my face.
I never interacted with this protestor. I did not speak to him. I did not make any hand gestures or other aggressive moves. To be honest, I was startled and confused as to why he had approached me. We had already been yelled at by another group of protestors, and when the second group approached I was worried that a situation was getting out of control where adults were attempting to provoke teenagers.
I believed that by remaining motionless and calm, I was helping to diffuse [sic] the situation. I realized everyone had cameras and that perhaps a group of adults was trying to provoke a group of teenagers into a larger conflict. I said a silent prayer that the situation would not get out of hand.
During the period of the drumming, a member of the protestor’s entourage began yelling at a fellow student that we “stole our land” and that we should “go back to Europe.” I heard one of my fellow students begin to respond. I motioned to my classmate and tried to get him to stop engaging with the protestor, as I was still in the mindset that we needed to calm down tensions.
I never felt like I was blocking the Native American protestor. He did not make any attempt to go around me. It was clear to me that he had singled me out for a confrontation, although I am not sure why.
The engagement ended when one of our teachers told me the busses had arrived and it was time to go. I obeyed my teacher and simply walked to the busses. At that moment, I thought I had diffused [sic] the situation by remaining calm, and I was thankful nothing physical had occurred.
I never understood why either of the two groups of protestors were engaging with us, or exactly what they were protesting at the Lincoln Memorial. We were simply there to meet a bus, not become central players in a media spectacle. This is the first time in my life I’ve ever encountered any sort of public protest, let alone this kind of confrontation or demonstration.
I was not intentionally making faces at the protestor. I did smile at one point because I wanted him to know that I was not going to become angry, intimidated or be provoked into a larger confrontation. I am a faithful Christian and practicing Catholic, and I always try to live up to the ideals my faith teaches me – to remain respectful of others, and to take no action that would lead to conflict or violence.
I harbor no ill will for this person. I respect this person’s right to protest and engage in free speech activities, and I support his chanting on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial any day of the week. I believe he should re-think his tactics of invading the personal space of others, but that is his choice to make.
I am being called every name in the book, including a racist, and I will not stand for this mob-like character assassination of my family’s name. My parents were not on the trip, and I strive to represent my family in a respectful way in all public settings.
I have received physical and death threats via social media, as well as hateful insults. One person threatened to harm me at school, and one person claims to live in my neighborhood. My parents are receiving death and professional threats because of the social media mob that has formed over this issue.
I love my school, my teachers and my classmates. I work hard to achieve good grades and to participate in several extracurricular activities. I am mortified that so many people have come to believe something that did not happen – that students from my school were chanting or acting in a racist fashion toward African Americans or Native Americans. I did not do that, do not have hateful feelings in my heart, and did not witness any of my classmates doing that.
I cannot speak for everyone, only for myself. But I can tell you my experience with Covington Catholic is that students are respectful of all races and cultures. We also support everyone’s right to free speech.
I am not going to comment on the words or account of Mr. Phillips, as I don’t know him and would not presume to know what is in his heart or mind. Nor am I going to comment further on the other protestors, as I don’t know their hearts or minds, either. I have read that Mr. Phillips is a veteran of the United States Marines. I thank him for his service and am grateful to anyone who puts on the uniform to defend our nation. If anyone has earned the right to speak freely, it is a U.S. Marine veteran.
I can only speak for myself and what I observed and felt at the time. But I would caution everyone passing judgement based on a few seconds of video to watch the longer video clips that are on the internet, as they show a much different story than is being portrayed by people with agendas.
I provided this account of events to the Diocese of Covington so they may know exactly what happened, and I stand ready and willing to cooperate with any investigation they are conducting.
This is the only statement that has been made by the Sandmann family. Any comments attributed to any member of the family that is not contained in this document are fabricated. The family will not be answering individual media inquiries.

Wednesday, 16 January 2019

Vegano's letter to McCarrick

  • Below is Archbishop ViganĂ²’s open letter to Theodore McCarrick
  • Its being ignored by the main stream media, so we will publish here

Letter to McCarrick

Dear Archbishop McCarrick,
As has been reported as a news by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the accusations against you for crimes against minors and abuses against seminarians are going to be examined and judged very soon with an administrative procedure. 
No matter what decision the supreme authority of the Church takes in your case, what really matters and what has saddened those who love you and pray for you is the fact that throughout these months you haven’t given any sign of repentance. I am among those who are praying for your conversion, that you may repent and ask pardon of your victims and the Church.
Time is running out, but you can confess and repent of your sins, crimes and sacrileges, and do so publicly, since they have themselves become public. Your eternal salvation is at stake.
But something else of great importance is also at stake. You, paradoxically, have at your disposal an immense offer of great hope for you from the Lord Jesus; you are in a position to do great good for the Church. In fact, you are now in a position to do something that has become more important for the Church than all of the good things you did for her throughout your entire life. A public repentance on your part would bring a significant measure of healing to a gravely wounded and suffering Church. Are you willing to offer her that gift? Christ died for us all when we were still sinners (Rom. 5: 8). He only asks that we respond by repenting and doing the good that we are given to do. The good that you are in a position to do now is to offer the Church your sincere and public repentance.  Will you give the Church that gift?
I implore you, repent publicly of your sins, so as to make the Church rejoice and present yourself before the tribunal of Our Lord cleansed by His blood. Please, do not make His sacrifice on the cross void for you. Christ, Our Good Lord, continues to love you. Put your entire trust in His Sacred Heart. And pray to Mary, as I and many others are doing, asking her to intercede for the salvation of your soul.
“Maria Mater Gratiae, Mater Misericordiae, Tu nos ab hoste protege et mortis hora suscipe”. Mary Mother of the Grace, Mother of Mercy, protect us from the enemy and welcome us in the hour of death.
Your brother in Christ,
+ Carlo Maria ViganĂ²
Sunday, January 13, 2019
The Baptism of the Lord
Saint Hilary of Poitiers

Saturday, 12 January 2019

The brainwashed and the ignorant

Children of the Revolution

The brainwashing of children 

            I am afraid this will be a somewhat indelicate post as it has to deal very largely with matters indecent; it is, unfortunately, impossible to comment on the media for very long without treating of such things.

            Readers will have been aware of the mass murder event in Toronto earlier in the 2018 in which a young Canadian citizen of Armenian extraction killed ten people and injured sixteen after leaving a Facebook message in praise of a Eurasian-American killer who took six lives and injured fourteen people last year.  The mainstream media reported both killing sprees at great length and in detail with all the coverage focusing on the killers' extensive use of social media platforms catering for so-called 'incels' – the sexually unsuccessful in a world where success is defined by promiscuous quantity rather than faithful marital quality.  The regular media – TV and radio broadcasters and ordinary newspapers – have referred to the incels as a subculture with its own habits, practices and slang, indicating that they wanted them to be regarded as something far out of the ordinary.  The truth, however, is that, while the incels' slang is indeed limited to small numbers using a very small number of websites, their values and beliefs are precisely those of the brainwashed majority.  They think nothing about body image, the objectification of the body beautiful, effective white supremacy in terms of physical perfection, relations between the sexes, or the supreme value of an active sex life that is not broadcast on television and radio and published in newspapers and magazines every single day.  They are not a minority, they are the natural (or, rather, unnatural) product of our media culture, the children of the sexual revolution; for the established media to depict them as weirdos driven crazy by the internet is nothing more than a straightforward attempt to shuffle off responsibility whilst taking a cheapshot at the new media.

            Of course it takes a strange mind to turn into a spree killer, and computer games do centre on mass murder themes, so new media are not innocent, and the television will not breed hordes of bloodthirsty youths.  Only just look at what it has bred.  If these were the only two mass-murderers driven to it by media-fuelled sexual frustration, they were far from being the only incel criminals.  British schools see 65,000 sexual assaults by pupils every single year, and our universities – and those of every developed country with a modern media culture – are faced with an epidemic of campus rape and sexual assaults; almost all of this is caused by sexualised mass media leading young men and boys to believe they should have plentiful and promiscuous sex and have a right to have it whether by force, fraud or flattery, and young women and girls to believe they ought to be gratifying their own and others' sexual 'needs' on a regular basis.  The mainstream media are keen to blame on-line pornography, but the taste for 'hardcore' or extreme internet porn is piqued by a daily diet of 'soft' porn on television, in magazines and in newspapers, much of which consists of a pornification of the ostensibly non-pornographic e.g. soap operas, who-dunnits and the presentation of news stories.  The objectification and sexualisation of the female form on every possible occasion is the result of a deep seated culture partially revealed by the #MeToo and #Time'sUp campaigns.  Political correctness demands equality, so that is balanced not by removing the questionable images of women, but by objectification of the muscular male form.  This satisfies the morally bankrupt equalities lobby who merely call for a similar number of male, female, black and white bodies on show.  When they are reminded, they will add in calls for the disabled, transgendered or less common racial minorities, or demand that viewers see as much gay sex as straight.  A Guardian columnist called some time ago for male genitalia to be seen on screen in casual rather than explicitly sexual contexts.

            There is a way back from this, and that is to recognise that going backwards is the only way forwards.  We need to stand against the revolution and reject pornography, promiscuity and perversion in favour of decency, virtue and truth.  Rather than objectifying anybody, all people should be recognised as individuals, ends in themselves, each created after the image of God and endowed with an individual dignity reflecting that. There might well be, as some suggest, such a thing as 'feminist pornography', but there is no such thing as a pornography that respects the humanity of those involved; all porn is, by definition, the reduction of the individual to an image in two physical dimensions and only one narrative theme overt or implicit. All such dehumanisation encourages the viewer, listener or reader to view others as things to be manipulated at will. That provides a rationale for everyday acts of violence, such as those committed by these 'incel' killers and by school shooters legitimise themselves in the minds of their perpetrators by the spectacles they create – they are staged to be seen, to create images like those seen on screen.  The killers direct the action, they produce the drama in which they themselves star as the manipulation of reality that they have come to regard as normal due to their use of mass media porn takes a megalomaniacal turn and the ability to make the decision between life and death becomes for them a right to make that decision.  For the media user, only he or she is real, everything else is merely image or entertainment, just something to play with and quite meaningless.  There is a spectrum running from groping and mugging people to mass shooting, driving into crowds and acts of terrorism, but all these actions, these sins, stem from an objectification of others that the mass media have encouraged and brought by degrees to depths of depravity unseen before the dawn of the televisual age. That is why CUT says Unplug your Televisions; the licence fee fuels not only the sexual assault crisis, but the wider culture of violence in which we all live. Put pressure on the media to come round to the Counter-Revolution, and boycott all media outlets that do not.

By Prayer Crusader St Philip Howard.

Sunday, 6 January 2019

The future of British Broadcasting summary

·         As requested here is a summary of last year's study and proposal from CUT on the future of British Broadcasting. By Prayer Crusader St Philip Howard

A Clear Vision for the future of British Broadcasting

In the course of the discussions leading up to the issue of the current BBC Charter the former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said “Nobody's talking about dismantling the BBC”; and he was right, nobody was, but they should have been. The current Charter was the result of a failure to examine the instability of the BBC model of public sector broadcasting, and to look for a sustainable alternative. It, therefore, left the BBC conducting business as usual with little by way of change beyond having a new regulatory regime to bring it into line with other broadcasters. In our new report CUT calls for radical reform to introduce the change we need. .

The BBC achieved incorporation by making essentially fraudulent claims and has retained its status by deceit, scaremongering and self-serving propaganda campaigns. It has fought to retain its own privileges and to destroy any competition whenever it has had an opportunity, making it a barrier to development down the decades. Abolition might seem unthinkable, but the alternative – in this, the age of the internet – is chaotic collapse.

We propose:
·         That the current Charter term is used to prepare for a swift but smooth transition
·         An arts and commerce based World Service administered by the British Council
·         Measures to encourage new entrants into broadcasting for radio
·         Devolution where possible of authority for indigenous minority language broadcasting leading to increased provision and international services
·         Transfer of all BBC property to a new agency
·         Privatisation of BBC News
·         Dissolution of the drama, light entertainment and factual programming sections
·         A new public sector broadcasting service letting people see and hear just where their taxes are spent with extensive coverage of the Arts Council subsidised arts
·         Transfer of support for popular musical genres to a new section of the Arts Council

·         If this option is not taken at this stage, we propose licence fee reform:
·         Redefinition as a fee for BBC services to decriminalise non-payment
·         Relate the fee to the amount of TV content viewed via television sets and phase it out when 80% is viewed via internet-enabled devices
·         Let the BBC charge pro rata or offer variable packages for TV via the internet.

This study and proposal was sterilised by CUT in our blog in January to February 2018 however the proposals are still current and relevant to this day.

Part 1


Part 6