Fortsätt till huvudinnehåll

Popes eat babies

Papillon
One of the Papal Papillons
























Anti-Catholic articles have been coming out almost daily in the Guardian over the past couple of weeks. It is no longer news that the Nazi Pope, having personally and single-handedly invented Zyklon B in his school chemistry laboratory, tested it in sadistic experiments on the biology department's guinea pigs, and then perfected the final solution on his school friends' pets by exterminating them in his father's garden shed, nor that he is a notorious queer basher who will go to any lengths to cover-up paeodo-priests.

Iceberg of Evil
But queer-bashing and covering up is only the tip of the Iceberg of Evil that is the Vatican. The Inquisition is still going full-steam-ahead. Popes and the Roman Cardinals eat babies. It is one of the perks of the job. They are served on feast days and every day throughout Lent, when ordinary Catholics are expected to fast. Regarded as a great delicacy, they have to be under ten days old, when they are sweetest and juiciest. Roasted babies are prepared by the top Vatican chefs, who are sworn to secrecy not to divulge their special recipes handed down from the Middle Ages. Their creations are brought to the table on solid gold salvers. The reigning Pope gets to eat a whole baby every Friday (the bones and chewy bits are made into soup and what is left over after that is fed to the Papal pack of Papillons). At the same time the gullible faithful (what other kind are there?) are forced to make do with pea soup and dry bread as part of their Friday penance. It can only be a matter of time before this dark secret is revealed.

This also explains why the Catholic church is so against abortion. The Popes and Cardinals have to secure their supply of babies for their feasting.

WARNING: ironic

Kommentarer

Skicka en kommentar

Populära inlägg i den här bloggen

Importing people to sustain demand

I got involved in a discussion with a Youtuber called “Philosophy all along”. This was in connection with criticism of Trump’s policy of deporting illegal migrants, which he argued would be bad for the economy as it would reduce demand. This implies that there is a need to import people to sustain demand. There is no obvious reason why a population should not be able to consume everything that the same population produces. If it can not, then something else is going on. It is a basic principle that wages are the least that workers will accept to do a job. Wages are a share of the value added by workers through their wages. The remainder is distributed as economic rent, after government has taken its cut in taxes. Monopoly profit is a temporary surplus that after a delay gets absorbed into economic rent. Land values in Silicon Valley are an example of this; it's like a gold rush. The miners get little out of it. Rent and tax syphon purchasing power away from those who produce the g...
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer

The Zombie Train that refuses to die

The Guardian has published a couple more articles against HS2, one by specialist rail commentator Christian Wolmar, and another today by journalist Simon Jenkins. The main arguments in favour will doubtless be wheeled out by the commentators: the need for capacity and the disruption caused by upgrading existing routes. HST itself will severely disrupt services to Euston during the construction period. Capacity can be increased at a fraction of the cost by a variety of measures, provided that it is accepted that the additional traffic will run at existing speeds. It is not generally known that the Midland main line is, or was, four track all the way from London to Trent Junction, between Nottingham and Derby. This is because the additional tracks are separate, having been added for coal trains which trundled down to Brent sidings, on the edge of London, from a collection point at Toton in Nottinghamshire, where the Midland Railway build a huge marshalling yard. Beyond Derby, the main l...
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer

How much more will the British tolerate?

The British are phlegmatic, tolerant and slow to rouse. Thus there was no great reaction after the terrorist attack in July 2005. The murder of Lee Rigby created a sense of outrage, but nothing more, since it appeared to be an isolated incident. Two serious incidents within a fortnight are another matter. Since the first major terrorist incident in 2001, authority has tried to persuade the public that Islam is a religion of peace, that these were isolated events, or the actions of deranged "lone wolves", having nothing to do with Islam, or to reassure that the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack were infinitesimally small. These assurances are are beginning to wear thin. They no longer convince. If government does not act effectively, people will take the law into their own hands. What, however, would effective action look like? What sort of effective action would not amount to rough justice for a lot of innocent people? Given the difficulties of keeping large n...
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer