Dear friends of the style of the Court, Agostino Nobile wanted to share with us an interesting reflection on the use of language, and how it is used, in its "modern" forms with an anti-Christian function. Happy reading.
Neologisms kill Christianity
Treccani, notoriously unshakable secularist, defines the expression politically correct as "a calque from the Anglo-American phrase politically correct, which originally referred to the American political movement that called for the recognition of ethnic minorities, gender etc. and greater social justice, also through a more respectful use of language.”
It sounds convincing. Actually, with the results we have before our eyes it is clear that political correctness is destabilizing anthropological and social balances.
Hannah Arendt, witness to the atrocities of the last century, identifies in a few words the main characteristic of ideologies: «The ideal subject of the totalitarian regime is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced communist, but the individual for whom the distinction between reality and fiction, between true and false no longer exists."
Political correctness was coined, like the neologisms termination of pregnancy, sweet death, homophobia and Islamophobia, to get around reality and common sense. Anti-Christian phrases are poisoned fruits created by ideologists to feed them to their opponents so that they can use them as mantras that give an aspect of novelty/up-to-dateness to the most putrid inhumanism. A bit like the Jacobins of the French Revolution who with the motto Liberté, Equality, Fraternity, in a country of 27 millions of inhabitants as France was then, they exterminated over two million and fifty thousand Frenchmen. Not to mention the deaths caused by the two socialist ideologies of the 20th century, daughters of thought and blood of the Revolution: Socialism and Social-Nationalism.
With political correctness you can't say black, ma di colore, at most black and black, as if the human being were a dress or a car. As we know, in English-speaking countries the definition nigger, nigger, has become a denigrating and sanctionable term. In English the word nigger originates in the 18th century as an adaptation of the Spanish negro, which derives from the Latin adjective niger, what does it mean, precisely black. They have gone around the centuries to blame a meaning that has the same origin. We can bet that, if the adjective to define skin color had been black, the ideologists would have demanded the definition nigger. They are not clueless, they know well that, come descrive la Harendt, ideologies must make use of fictions to achieve their goal. Absolving the adjective black and blaming black serves to create confusion and, in maniera sottile o meno, persecution.
Even names considered offensive for homosexuals risk legal and media guillotines. Si può dire e si autodefiniscono gay, che in inglese significa allegro, jovial, felice, bright, in a good mood, joyful, exuberant, animated, lively. But really we must believe that all homosexuals possess this phenomenal array of characteristics? Even more so from the documents released by well-known psychologists and psychiatrists, Turns out homos aren't happier than straights, neither before nor today that the laws protect them as if they were an endangered race. Le lobbies omosessualiste si sono ben guardate nel dire chiaro e tondo che il loro programma è l’omosessualizzazione dei bambini a partire dagli asili. First they invented the poisonous word homophobia to shut the mouth of common sense, Then, step by step, they began to subtly implement their plans. Complacent magistrates and politicians, linked to ideology, they became their watchdogs. A few dozen homosexualists, organized, financed by strong powers and protected by law, they are changing a country of over 50 million people like Italy. Same thing in the rest of the West.
Added to the poisonous neologisms is a purely political aspect that is equally misleading. When politicians want to impose an unpopular law, they almost always refer to extranational entities. How many times have we heard or read: Brussels asks us, the UN said, the WHO, ecc. These organizations, run by individuals who receive staggering salaries, they are the spokesmen of those who decide what is good and evil, the just and the unjust, promuovendo e imponendo l’aborto e l’eutanasia.
They poked their noses into our private lives, in our food, in sexuality and in the drugs we have to take. Even knowing people like the Rockefellers, Soros, Melinda e Bill Gates, few know the names and surnames of their snack companions, Westerners, Muslims and Japanese. But we know for sure that the so-called strong powers, allies with the Freemasons and international organizations, they have a common denominator: wipe Christianity off the face of the earth.
Why Christianity and not Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism? None of these religions are bearers of those values ​​expressed in the gospels. Christianity respects human beings from conception to natural death; indicates the track that preserves dignity and morality that avoids dangerous derailments for man for himself and for society; abolishes slavery and promotes universal brotherhood (not the one established on nothing in Abu Dhabi). Regarding the document on human brotherhood signed by Bergoglio and the great imam of Al-Azhar: in the Vatican they ignore the ideology of the third millennium or are an active part of it?
Agostino Nobile
source – http://www.marcotosatti.com/2019/03/05/nobile-il-politically-correct-contro-la-realta-e-il-cristianesimo/