Wednesday, 6 July 2011

Portillo, Elizabeth I, Scottish Independence & Catholicism

Come on laddie: paint your face!!!
I have never really liked Michael Portillo. Not because his father was a supporter of the anti-Catholic forces in Spain. Nor because he is a homosexual. Nor even because he flipped from being a "right-winger" to being a liberal (around the time he was forced out of the closet).

I believe he is the breed of politician who is always the "system's man." Not strictly a careerist, though he clearly wanted to be the Tory leader before being 'outed,' moreover he is well-connected amidst the politicos, bankers and media-luvvies.

It is that breed of people who will never rock the boat, will always come out on the side of the ruling class, whilst pushing from the inside for the very worst kind of laws viz morality, public decency, the family and so on.

They will never be openly hostile to the Catholic Church, but they will always say that Catholics should keep their opinions inside the Church. Like Alistair Campbell, the one-time (some might say all-time) porno-fiction writer, this breed of politico "don't do God."

The very idea of God is anathema to this breed. To them, religion should not encroach on politics (whilst their politics forever encroaches on our religion). They, like Nietzsche before them, believe that "God is dead" or at least is in His retirement home (reserved for visiting hours on Sundays) with the other 'deities of your choice' so we are free to pick n choose from Buddhism to witchcraft, Baptist to Islam.

The Catholic Faith is an anachronism to these breed, one of many beliefs to pick n choose as long as you keep it to yourself. They are free to ram their constructs and beliefs down our throats via the school system, the mass media and the political system, so that we believe in "Liberté, égalité, fraternité." 

Over the years, they have used this Masonic hydra to make the majority believe that contraception was acceptable, then that abortion on demand was acceptable, then that homosexuality was acceptable. Now they are all pushing for the acceptance of euthanasia.

Of course we will be told this will be "for love." Or "to stop suffering." The modern god "choice" won't be far behind. And so eventually, through BBC docudramas, through Eastenders plot-lines and via the Chinese water torture of political and media pressure, the majority will go with the flow. Oh they will lie, tweak, fabricate and concoct "surveys" and even use very sad individual examples (in that Roe Vs Wade style). But the end result will be euthanasia on demand. Mass murder.

They'll get us coming and going! Both ends of the hospital will be death mills; with one end seeing sad women pressurised into killing babies by uncaring boyfriends, husbands, married lovers etc., whilst the other end sees sad old people who think they are a "burden" signing their lives away whilst relatives rub their hands with glee and flick through holiday brochures and paperwork from car showrooms.

The only people with "yooman rights" will be hardened criminals. The rapists, paedophiles  -- all will have their rights enshrined; whilst the innocent unborn and the pressurised elderly will be killed by the thousands.

We can see it happening a mile off. Abortion was meant to be for a small number of women. Their lives would be in danger. Two doctors would have to sign off the "procedure." All manner of checks and balances would be in place.

Now we have abortion on demand with abortion profiteers (sorry, 'providers') advertising their referral or confidential helpline services as if they do not have a vested interest (or profit motive) in promoting abortion as the pain-free option with no physical, mental or moral ramifications.

Do the people now pushing euthanasia not realise that the same thing will happen again? The Death Clinics will advertise "helplines" and suchlike, where they will present suicide as a "valid lifestyle choice" and those who bother to protest outside the clinics will see doddery old men and ladies taken in by relatives with pound-signs in their eyes.

So why pick on Michael Portillo?

Well he thinks that none of this is "extreme." He thinks we live in a wonderful land where everything that is liberal and free is accepted by the majority. I have no doubt his own twisted proclivities colour his judgement, as is the case with so many people embroiled in the political sphere.

The other evening he was involved in a discussion on the BBC's Newsnight about "Britishness" and "Englishness," which were being discussed in the shadow of the SNP's victory in Holyrood and the prospect of Scotland going independent.

Mr. Portillo painted a bizarre picture of English/British history, wherein Britishness was essentially an all-embracing liberalness that avoids extremes. This was, for him, rooted in Elizabeth I's stance against Catholics and Protestants, choosing instead the "centre ground."

Excuse me? Methinks Mr. Portillo needs a history lesson. Bloody Bess was a tyrant. She murdered many  Catholics in the most gruesome manner. This is an ample example of the re-writing of history in which Mary I is painted as "Bloody Mary" for killing circa 500 Protestants in the legal manner of the day, whereas the Protestants: Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Elizabeth I killed many, many times more - in the multiple of thousands. Men, women and children often killed in reprisal attacks for mass movements in defence of Catholicism such as the Pilgtrimage of Grace and the Northern Rising.

You see what Portillo and his ilk do not tell you is that England was a thoroughly Catholic country. The Protestants were small in number, but agitated to control the State. And so Elizabeth, who swore an Oath to be a Catholic queen, turned against her people. She put a rift between England and Europe for centuries. She put the country at risk from Spanish/Imperial armies. And she ruined the beliefs of the whole country, forcing people to go underground to celebrate Mass as their parents and grandparents had done, openly.

Splitting the country between the "pro-Catholic" and "pro-Protestant" factions in turn led to the disastrous Civil War, with the forces of Cromwell all but raping Ireland. Cromwell the mad Protestant who banned Christmas is, of course, a darling of the politicos because he was an extreme anti-Catholic nutter. Despite banning parliament and replacing a King with himself as Lord Protector, he remains the darling of "democrats."

It had (and has!) nothing to do with democracy. If a popular vote was taken the population of England would have remained Catholic through all the turmoil. The people loved their Church, and their devotions.

What Portillo and his ilk believe Britishness to be (and here I concur) is a worship of the State and the State's religion (Anglican hotch-potch at first, and now "tolerance" of goodness knows what).

The SNP spokesman on the programme did interject in Portillo's ramblings of Britain being against "Catholic extremism" at one stage by stating that the British Union was a construct to keep the State Protestant and for the benefit of the Hanoverians.

Of course to Portillo regicide and overthrowing the lawful King to replace him with a Dutch or German puppet is a great example of Britishness and not "extreme" in any way! Just as it is not extreme to have an Anglican Queen sign off laws that go against her Oath of Office to uphold the law of the land and the Bible, in particular laws which legalised homosexuality, abortion and which will legalise euthanasia.

Britishness and Anglicanism are State worship. That is why the head of the Anglican church is the queen (also head of the Protestant, Presbytarian Church of Scotland), and so Britishness has always been about being anti-Papist; as such one could argue that Britain was the first Masonic State (whose regicide led the way for the French revolutionaries).

Certainly John Dee, the man who is said to be the founding  father of the British Empire and Elizabeth I's right-hand man was a known occultist. Then we have Cromwell the murderer who was the nuttiest Brit to rule the country. Then there is William of Orange (the "King Billy" so beloved of Protestants), a usurper who sold England to unending debt by establishing the Bank of England.

Portillo thinks all of this and more proves that Britain is all about tolerance and fairness. Tell that to the Irish circa 1845. Tell that to the Scottish circa 1746. Tell that to the Welsh children banned from speaking their mother-tongue. Tell that to the Boers who were put in the first ever concentration camps. Tell that to the English forced from the land and into slums.

Britain is a construct designed to promote worship of the state and money (coming together in the Empire), which is why the City of London has been the centre of finance for many centuries. Anglicanism is state worship with a healthy dose of anti-Catholicism at its head. They have bent over backwards (Houses of Orange, Hanover and Saxe-Coburg/Gotha - aka Windsor) to stop Catholic rule, hence we still have anti-Catholic legislation on the statute books.

I know it's hard - and many Catholics have fought and died under the Union Jack, not least in my own family - but I believe Scottish independence will be a good thing, because it will make us all re-evaluate patriotism, who rules us, and the means of ruling us.

There is no hard and fast rule for Catholics, but when the law was recently changed to give the Welsh Assembly more law-making powers, the Catholic Bishops put out a statement broadly welcoming it, as the nearer to people power is held, the more accountable it is (very Chetsertonian of them).

I do not think "splitting up" (as the likes of Portillo so manically portray it) the UK will end the hegemony of Mammon, Freemasonry and other anti-Catholic forces, any more than it will change the day-to-day lives of all of us, whether we are Welsh, English, Scottish or Irish. There will be no barbed-wire borders. I do not even think the moral-framework of the laws (let along the Social Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ) will come into force.

But might the Scottish, Welsh and English nations look to their Catholic roots as well as their futures in all this political change?

I doubt it somehow, but the end of the British Union may yet give Catholics hope for the future and be part of God's plan. With the Euro stumbling and even America unable to "pay its bills" the era of small nations may take us back to a more Catholic way of doing things...


  1. You really do seem to have platefuls of chips on both shoulders.

  2. 1. They are Catholic chips (with fish of course). Sorry but when it comes to history and social/moral issues I am passionate.

    We lack passion in this day and age with all the talking heads using the "centre ground" as a mask for mass murder.

    2. Thanks Richard. Do you think it's right to promote the idea that the English were Catholic whereas the British never were? Just thinking aloud (as it were).

  3. The British..Celts who spoke Brythonic ie Welsh were very Catholic and not just within the borders of what is now Wales,( what is this blogg called???)
    I too am passionate about my history and I am sufficiently knowledgeable to understand what your post was describing while also fundamentally disagreeing with huge tranches of it.If this were a proper conversation I should be able to refute many of your suppositions and frankly one sided rantings.
    And Wallace did not paint himself blue, or shout Freedom while being disemboweled.
    And I am too tired to type all the corrections.
    Oh and is the picture at the top of your blogg St Nons chapel?

  4. This is an excellent post. Modern British identity is of course forged in war and empire, hence older people in Scotland and Wales tend to be more unionist. English national identity is much weaker than Scottish or Welsh identity, and they have a strong tendency to conflate their own identity with British identity, as exemplified in Portilla's assertion about Elizabeth I (who was never Queen of Scots!).

    And you're absolutely right about Britain being the first Masonic state. In many ways the French Revolution was nothing but an attempt to graft the British Constitution onto a French context. Voltaire and Montesquieu were ardent anglophiles who wrote books extolling England and her constitution (the Glorious Revolution and Magna Carta). Both also became freemasons in London.


  5. Diddley - You are missing the point. We are dealing here with the post-Reformation British State. The celts/Britons/Welsh (of whom William Wallace was one - Wallace means Welsh) were a thousand [1000] years before.

    My point is that BRITAIN, as a state, is only 300 years old and is built from day one as an anti-Catholic construct -- or at the very least with anti-Catholicism (a quasi-Freemasonry) in its bones.

    Why is Anglicanism so rife with masonry? And the Royal family?

    As for Braveheart -- that was meant to be tongue in cheek. You see - as well as being capable of "one-sided rantings" [I have heard idiots say the Catholic Church is "one sided" as if being pluralist and everything to everyone is wonderful] - i do have a sense of humour.

    Ixoa/Shane - thanks for your input. I couldn't have put it better. It seems so obvious to me (just look at the way the Houses of Orange and Hanover were imposed on us just to keep Catholicism out) I do wonder how people can disagree!

    But there you are - like the Church (was) I am probably all too lacking in being "inclusive."

    Mea Culpa.

  6. Gareth - a compliment for the English (swoon, faint)!

    I might add that I find Michael Portaloo highly objectionable (although his British Rail Journey programme was OK (ish).

  7. Oh Richard, you know I love the English - I even married one of them!

    As Max Boyce said "it is up to us to help these under-developed nations" ;-)

    I do fail Norman Tebbitt's cricket test - just because I find cricket so boring. We hot-blooded celts need the shock and awe of a rugby pitch.