My Rose above all roses, by Darrell Wright [*POEM*]

‘Madonna of the Magnificat’, Botticelli, 1482 (detail)

There is no rose without a piercing thorn,
And shadow closely cleaves to radiant light;
And though for life and love we have been born,
Our life’s a struggle, love our painful plight.

But you are light alone and my life’s breath,
And for you daily my love tender grows;
A thousand thorns I’ll challenge unto death
For you who’ve pierced my heart, my heavenly Rose.

Like this? Share it now.
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on RedditShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someonePrint this page

45 thoughts on “My Rose above all roses, by Darrell Wright [*POEM*]

  1. This poem should make it clear to everyone that Lucius Knightsword, author of the controversial poem Lines to a Decadent Shrew, is not a woman hater. If anything, he idealizes women. He wants all women to be what women ought to be…and as women would be in an ideal world.

    What the divine Beatrice was to Dante, what the lovely Laura was to Petrarch, that is what Lucius wants all women to be. He is therefore, root and branch, against the “slut culture” — the culture of decadence that has within recent years reduced young women to a truly contemptible role as exemplified by the radical feminist. He looks round at these young women, as I do, drunken and lecherous and leering, with their skirts up to their asses and their tits bobbing round lke cows’ udders, and all he sees is a bunch of whores.

    Here, my friends, is one of these radical feminists. Her name is Annie Sprinkle. She is not only a radical feminist, she is a self-confessed whore. The picture and its caption come from a Lasha Darkmoon article that is well worth reading.

    This is the type of woman, radical feminist and representative of the Slut Culture, that Lucius Knightsword is dead against — as indeed we all are if we have any sense.

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2009/11/spitting-mad-jews-and-angry-artists-part-2/

  2. gr8 poem…but hell, i could never be like that madonna. she’s unreal. who r u calling a slut, montecristo? not me, i hope. i wear short skirts and low cut dresses, but hey, that’s the fashion. i aint no slut! no way. i only sleep with men i like and who respect me. make love not war, that’s what i say.

    1. Dr. Sardonicus,

      A comment like that is truly ugly, and totally unnecessary. It underscores the sickness that infects your beliefs.

      If you have a problem with Brenda, or if you are concerned about her views, you can address those matters without sounding like a Talmud-loving Rabbi, nor a misanthropic Priest.

      1. Brenda,

        Please, do not embrace degrading labels, like “slut,” in response to the repulsive views and statements of dogmatic and unpleasant people, like Dr. Sardonicus. Furthermore, please, do not embrace a self-destructive lifestyle to spite them. All of that would just legitimize their irrationality, and their contempt for being human.

        This is not written in the spirit of condescension, and I apologize if it seems that way.

        I hope you are doing alright, and I wish you the best.

  3. Here’s pic of Anni Sprinkle I just found on the Darkmoon article mentioned above. Just take a look at her, Brenda. Is this the kind of woman you take as a role model, with people peering up her c**t?

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/SprinkleCervixExam.jpg

    This is what the caption says:

    Annie Sprinkle (Ellen Steinberg), whose show was funded by the National Endowment for the Arts, masturbated on stage with sex toys, inserted a speculum into her vagina and called up audience members to examine her cervix with a flashlight. Please note: all this depravity is indirectly funded by the American taxpayer without that taxpayer’s knowledge or consent.

    I guess that says it all. People just aren’t aware these vile things are going on and are financed by the Jews. Kudos to Darkmoon for drawing our attention to these matters.

    1. Dr. Sardonicus,

      Use your brain. Just because a person rejects one extreme, it does not follow that they embrace another.

      If one sees that the sexual dogmas promoted by the good ol’ Catholic Church are irrational, ugly and, in many ways, destructive and cruel, that person can still see that what is promoted by the likes of Al Goldstein and Larry Flynnt is destructive, degrading and desensitizing trash.

  4. @ Mark Hess

    Why are you arguing with me? What am I saying that is so unreasonable? Wasn’t it Jewish pornographer Al Goldstein who said, “CHRIST SUCKS”. You agree with that? Yes or no?

    Wasn’t it Jewish feminist pornographer Annie Sprinkle who opened her legs and let people peer up her vagina with torchlight and speculum? You agree with that? Yes or no?

    By the way, is “Hess” a Jewish name?

    I notice you post on the Occidental Observer quite a lot. I’m just wondering if you’re one of the Zionist trolls running rampant on that site. Do you belong to the same gang as “Jason Speaks” and “Someday”… and all the other trolls there?

    Let me know where you stand, Mr Hess. Are you by any chance a Jew? You certainly never lose an opportunity to say bad things about Jesus Christ!

    I take that as a sure sign of a Talmudic Jew.

  5. Dr. Sardonicus,

    Are you delusional? I detest Al Goldstein. I have never said hateful things about Jesus, and I would react very strongly if anyone did so.

    A Zionist troll? Is “Hess” a Jewish name? Anyone who has read what I have posted, and who does not suffer from a severe neurological problem, would understand that those suggestions are ludicrous.

    I will not be responding to anymore of your dishonest and, frankly, idiotic comments.

  6. @ Mark Hess

    If I have misrepresented your position, my sincere apologies. It’s just that I have based my negative assessment of you — and the possibility that you could be a Zionist troll — on comments you yourself made on the Occidental Observer.

    I remember distinctly that you said nice things about Jesus but, at the same time, vilified the New Testament and made out that it was a repository of evil ideas. I didn’t much care for this. Nor would Lasha Darkmoon, nor her sister Lucy, nor the editor of this site John Scott Montecristo. All these indviduals, like myself, not only venerate Jesus but we venerate the New Testament also.

    To love Jesus and simultaneously hate the New Testament, as you appeared to do on the Occidental Observer, seemed to me not only bizarre but sinister in the extreme.

    Why did you knock the New Testament, pray tell?

    I noticed you had nice things to say about the Sermon on the Mount and the bits where Jesus puts in an appearance. The general impression you gave, however, was that the New Testament was a stagnant and putrid pond with only pockets of purity here and there. Who are you to decide which sections of the New Testament are pure and which sections are impure? You did not, I noticed, actually specify WHICH parts of the New Testament you found abhorrent. So tell me, sir: which parts of the New Testament meet with the Hessian disdain ? The bits in which St Paul says homosexality is wrong? Didn’t you badmouth St Paul in one of your posts by referring to him contemptuously as St “Saul”? (Or words to that effect)

    Let me tell you this: the New Testament contains the very essence and goodness of Christianity. It is as inseparable from Christianity as the Bhagavad-Gita is from Hinduism or as the Quran from Islam. No one except a scoundrel can possibly claim to venerate Jesus and at the same speak evil about the New Testament. Especially a person who, like YOU, disses the New Testament without having the courage to state exactly WHY this rare and precious document should incur your displeasure.

    So I challenge you, Mr Hess, to answer this one question: what is it about the New Testament that you hate so much? Be specific. Name a few things.

  7. @ Mark Hess

    ….the sexual dogmas promoted by the good ol’ Catholic Church are irrational, ugly and, in many ways, destructive and cruel….

    First of all, there are no Catholic “sexual dogmas”. There are Catholic moral teachings or doctrines, some of which relate to sex. And these these teachings, which come from the natural moral law inscribed in the heart of man, and are reinforced in Old Testament teaching and developed further in the New Testament, are not only the recipe and foundation of personal emotional and psychological health, and of marital, domestic, and social health and stability, they are above all the way of salvation, of attaining the endless beatitude of heaven. We reject them to our own self-destruction, both in this life and in the next. It is precisely because we have to such a great extent rebelled against God’s law in the area of sexual morality that our lives, families, and society as a whole are in shambles – including the little mentioned but serious moral evils (“mortal sins”) of contraception, pornography consumption, and masturbation. We lose our freedom when we become slaves to our sexual passions. What many people call “sexual freedom” is actually sexual slavery. As E Michael Jones memorably put it,

    If a horse gallops off toward a cliff with a man on his back, it is only in some analogous sense of the word to say that the man is riding the horse.

    Many people want sexual liberation, but they don’t want the destructive consequences. But as Jones rightly says,

    The ineluctable consequence of sexual liberation is someone getting hurt….The reason should be obvious by now….Once the moral law disappeared there was no guide to conduct, and once there is no guide to conduct, people start getting hurt.

    And the Catholic Church is the ONLY defender of the moral law in its entirety. By defending the entire moral law, the Church defends what is authentically human also. Again from Jones (whose writings should be more widely known): Rejecting the Church has led to a rejection of what is human as well. When artists listened to the Church we got art like Raphael and Fra Angelico and Botticcelli. Once art got defined as an activity ipso facto in rebellion against what the Church had to say, we got pictures of a guy with a bullwhip up his ass.

    The Catholic Church, despite all the wrinkles in her members, has always been and will always be the oracle of moral and religious truth in a world of conflicting opinions. As the great Hilaire Belloc wrote:

    . . . For what is the Catholic Church? It is that which replies, coordinates, establishes. It is that within which is right order; outside the puerilities and the despairs. It is the possession of perspective in the survey of the world…. Here alone is promise, and here alone is foundation. Those of us who boast so stable an endowment make no claim thereby to personal peace; we are not saved thereby alone…. But we are of so glorious a company that we receive support, and have communion. The Mother of God is also our own. Our dead are with us. Even in these our earthly miseries we always hear the distant something of an eternal music, and smell a native air….One thing in this world is different from all others. It has a personality and a force. It is recognized and (when recognized) most violently hated or loved. It is the Catholic Church. Within that household the human spirit has roof and hearth. Outside it is the night.

    1. A man once shared with me what it was like to grow up in a believing Catholic household, in a Catholic part of a small city in America. His family did not consist of reactionaries or radicals. It was very main line.

      What he, a normal heterosexual boy, went through when he hit puberty could justifiably be described as torture. Whenever he would allow himself to masturbate, he would be overwhelmed with guilt and fear. Not only was he terribly afraid of going to Hell; he feared that if something bad happened to a family member, a friend or someone in his neighborhood, it would be his fault because he touched himself. I have no doubt that experiencing this kind of shame and this inflated and irrational sense of responsibility led to him abusing alcohol and other drugs before he reached eighteen. Thankfully, he got through this, kicked the self-destructive habits, became a successful businessman, and got married.

      When I think of what he went through, as well as countless other things, I have a very hard time finding patience for those who romanticize The Catholic Church (or any other powerful Christian church, for that matter), nor for those who fondly remember “the good old days” when even healthy married couples were legally barred from enjoying “unnatural acts,” and from reproducing responsibly. And what a lot of proud Christians seem to forget is that this unreason and inhumanity is distinctly Judaic.

      1. @ john sumner

        Tut,tut! I’m not sure if your motive for writing the above extraordinary post is your wish to say bad things about the Catholic Church or to put in a good word for self-abuse. Which is it? Please clarify.

        Being pro-matturbation nowadays would of course make you politically correct and endear you to the lecherous Jews who dominate the $20 billion a year porn industry.

        I know of no religion that actually encourages and promotes masturbation. The Catholic Church is to be commended for stating categorically that masturbation is a sin.

      2. Both.

        And to suggest that criticizing views on human sexuality that are so obviously irrational, unhealthy, cruel and destructive has anything to do with political correctness and endearing oneself to lecherous Jews with their disgusting porn industry is rather ridiculous.

        You are stuck in Judaic thought.

      3. John,

        Anger is not a substitute for logic. You make your position quite clear, however. This helps me to understand exactly what your hangups and predilections are. You appear to believe that masturbation is a wholesome activity and that no blame whatesoever ought to be attached to it. And you hate the Catholic Church because, among things, it disapproves of masturbation.

        You rage at being called “politically correct”, and yet your attititude to masturbation is nothing if not politically correct. It is the attitude inculcated by every liberal, leftwing mainstream media outlet. In fact, your pro-masturbation stance is precisely the type of attitude that pornographers such as Hugh Hefner (Playboy Magazine) and Larry Flynt (Hustler Magazine) would approve of heartily.

        “You are stuck in Judaic thought”, you state fatuously. Is it not YOU, dear John, who are stuck in “Judaic thought” — if one defines Judaic as Jewish?

        Surely you realize that your laissez-faire attitude to wanking would win you applause from Jewish pornographers such as ‘Girls Gone Wild’ tycoon Joe Francis?

        You certainly are a brainwashed specimen of organized Jewry, dear sir. Politically correct to a fault. All your sexual attitudes are indistinguishable from those of the Playboy Philosophy.

        Indeed, if you have any original views on sexuality that Playboy Magazine does NOT espouse, please let us know what they are.

        Take care, dear John — and don’t strain your right hand too much, will you? 🙂

  8. @ Lucius

    This is brilliant. Why don’t you write an article for this site on the subject of sexual liberation? Or a review of Jones’ Libido Dominandi. Or perhaps an autobiographical account of daily life in a modern monastery? You have obviously given much thought to these matters and I’m sure your insights would be hugely appreciated by the general public.

    There is a new editorial policy, by the way, which I think you would prefer to the old one. The new policy is this:

    (1) When you submit an article to this site, it is read by three editors, two of whom must approve of it. (I am not myself one of these editors).

    (2) The article is then carefully edited — sometimes by me, especially if it’s a poem — the primary object being to cut it down to its essentials, with all the dull, tedious, boring and repititious bits left out. Facts are valued. Opinions, unsupported by facts and quotations, are not. Michael Jones is a good model. He is full of interesting facts and quotations and well-reasoned arguments. Above all, unlike some over-erudite and academic writers, Jones is never boring. This is the ultimate criterion: one must capture the reader’s interest and infect him or her with one’s own passionate sincerity. The four qualities inseparable from good prose are clarity, conciseness, simplicity, and vividness of language. To these we could add a fifth quality: sensitivity to the sound of words and the rhythm of sentences. The one book that exhibits all these qualities to the highest degree is the St James version of the Bible. This is English prose at its finest.

    (3) The edited article is then returned to the author for approval, his objections and suggestions for further improvement being taken into account before a second version is produced that is again sent to him for his final approval. Everything is done to accommodate the writer and make him happy with the final version.

    All best wishes, Lucius. Take care.

    LD

  9. Apropos of nothing, I wish to say this: man is an irrational animal. Even the wisest philosophers are driven by the forces of unreason and are incapable of ordering their lives rationally. Man is like a malfunctioning machine that works efficiently only in sporadic outbursts.

    Paradoxically, if a man were truly wise, he would shoot himself.

    God, the Supreme Mathematician and Musician, would seem to contain in Himself the germ of Reason. But who knows? The truth, I suspect, is that God is beyond reason. If man is unreasonable, God is reasonless.

    Maybe reason exists only as a mythical quality, like the unicorn’s horn.

  10. LD and Lucius,

    In your opinion, what would be some of the kindest, most reasonable, effective and humane ways that the more fortunate, advanced and prosperous nations could take to help the countless masses of poor, starving and tortured people in places such as Somalia, Haiti, Rio de Janeiro and Calcutta?

    1. Mark,

      As you have obviously given much thought to this question in framing it, I think you are now under obligation to provide us with the first answer! I invite you to do so and look forward to your response. This could form the basis for a short article entitled, “How we can help Third World Countries.”

      I naturally look forward to Lucius’s thoughts on this fascinating subject.

      A person whose input I would particularly value, if she has the time, is Wyandotte.

      1. I think the first question we need to ask ourselves is whether the richer countries of the world possess the necessary altruism to wish the aid the poorer countries of the world.

        The relationship of the richer countries to the poorer ones has hitherto always been one of colonialist exploitation.

        In the guise of converting the heathen to Christianity and bringing civilization to India and China, the British Empire simply plundered and looted those countries. They dumped their cotton exports on the Indians and turned millions in China into opium addicts.

        So much for British altruism!

        As for Africa today, it is now being systematically looted by America, Europe, and, yes, by Israel above all.

        Never forget the old Latin tag: Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes. — I fear the Greeks even when they bring gifts.

        When America decides to “aid” another country, it’s time for that country to write its own epitaph. It reminds one of the wolf in the fable offering to help the sheep.

        This is not really an answer to your question, Mark. Just a few preliminary thoughts. I was merely questioning your naive assumption that the wolf is an altruistic beast whose object in life is to make the sheep happy.

        You will notice that America makes no attempt to aid the Eskimos or the tribes of the Sahara desert. Why? Because all the Eskimos have is snow and all the tribes of the Sahara have is sand.

      2. I am under no obligation to provide an answer to the very question I asked you and Lucius. If you wish to avoid responding to it seriously, just say so. That’s fine.

        Secondly, it is not me who has made any kind of naive assumption. I have no illusions about ‘the wolf,’ just as I have no illusions about saving dogs who are infected with rabies.

      3. I regard your reply to LD as needlessly rude and humorless. She merely asked you politely to comment first. What’s wrong with that?

        In addition, she had every intention of offering us her viewpoint after she had given your question some serious thought.

        You write disrespectfully, “If you wish to avoid answering seriously, just say so. That’s fine.” Only an imbecile would contend that the long and considered comment Lasha supplied on the colonialist oppressors of the past was a non-serious or trivial comment. It was a very serious comment.

        You certainly seemed to assume that the First World countries like America were altruistic at heart, only too anxious to create heaven on earth for the poor and oppressed people of the world. Lasha was right to question your assumption. Even if she called your assumption “naive”, she was doing so in a polite and respectful way. Unlike you, Mr Hess, whose tone is anything but polite.

        You are not only an unmannerly boor, sir, you are also a fool.

      4. Albany,

        I would not describe the response as polite. Also, having written several comments here and knowing that Ms. Darkmoon has read them,
        I think it is safe to assume that she knows that my views of colonial powers, especially of American power, are highly critical.

        So, I do not really understand what is going on here. And the name-calling is a bit rich, thank you very much.

  11. I believe that China, also, is doing some bigtime looting of Africa. We did it; now it’s the others’ turn.

    Mark, there aren’t any “fortunate, advanced and prosperous nations” – in any meaningful sense of those words – left. Our “prosperity” is a false and empty one. This is the reality of a global economy.

    Mother Theresa didn’t try to “cure”, or take to the hospital for treatment, the parasite-infested wretches her workers found lying in the gutters. She just made them comfortable till they died even though her organization apparently had millions of $$$ (extorted from 3rd world dictators, yet). Do we have a responsibility to make everyone comfortable? I say no. Mother Teresa was a special case; she had a calling. If you have a calling, then go over to the hellholes and spend your last bit of money and energy doing one-on-one work, understanding that you are not doing any fundamental cures. You’ll have no criticism from me, I don’t argue with those who have a mission. One exception: forget about Haiti. Nothing can be done on any level.

    I know a woman whose daughter parked her 3 children with her husband (these people are evangelical Christians of German descent); and with her own resources went to Africa (she might still be there!) to feed, clothe and care for a bunch of black children. I saw photos. Typically, she was grinning for ear to ear, surrounded by these quite cute black Africans.

    Ask yourself, when contemplating the outwardly starving masses “over there”: if your and their situations were reversed, would they (being nonwhite) help miserable white people? Have Oprah, rap stars and black Hollywood millionaires ever given 10 cents to causes that benefit us? Some dark baseball star, Barry Bonds, said he wouldn’t give autographs “for white people” (his words).

    Back in 1933, a few million of my (Slavic) people were starved deliberately. Not only did the prosperous nations of USA & Canada not “do” anything, the intelligentsia here deliberately lied about what was going on in the USSR.

    I used to cry for those starving and otherwise suffering badly Maybe some things are just God’s will and we don’t have what it takes to even make a dent. More important, God is not impressed with those who think they can take his place. We have to know our limits.

    Thanks for asking my opinion, L.

    1. With respect, you are making several assumptions about the question I asked, as well. Furthermore, your statement about how there are no longer any
      “fortunate, advanced and prosperous” nations is disingenuous, to put it mildy.

      I very much appreciate your mentioning of what was done to your own people by the same force that would soon become America’s most important ally. Such information should be shoved in the face of every American whose heart swells at the thought of Saving Private Ryan.

    2. @ Wyandotte

      You speak the wise words. I like, I learn much from you. Merci, madame, je vous adore! One day you send poem please…

  12. @Wyandotte

    When you say that “Mother Theresa just made [the parasite-infested wretches] comfortable till they died even though her organization apparently had millions of $$$ (extorted from 3rd world dictators, yet)”, what do you mean to say? That Mother Teresa extorted money from 3rd world dictators, and then culpably refused to use it to help save lives? From what rabid anti-Catholic source did you get this? The woman was a saint and a great shining light in a dark world. Anyone who would slander her good name might also be expected to say that Christ was an evil man whose teachings are the source of much violence done to innocent Jews, as the Talmud teaches, just as it teaches that Christ is the bastard son of a Roman soldier and a Jewish prostitute and is now immersed in boiling excrement in hell (Kallah 51A; Sanhedrin 106A; Gittin 57A).

    1. Er…I have no strong opinions or feelings either way about Mother Teresa. I was simply reporting on how some people try to handle wretchedness in her fellow human. As to her sources of funding, I too was merely reporting on what I’d heard. I admire the Mother’s humility but then she has her detractors, too, as we all know. None of this bothers me, either way. She had a mission from God, she is a special case, and that’s the end of it from my point of view. Not like the (mostly) disturbed comfy N. Americans who put the welfare of strangers above that of their own immediate families!

  13. @ Lucius

    I like Wyandotte and value her input immensely, or I wouldn’t have asked her opinion on this fascinating question. I agree with almost everything she has to say on most matters, but I have to confess I was a bit saddened at her failure to appreciate Mother Teresa as much as you and I do! 🙂

    Wyandotte goes right to the heart of the matter in sharply distinguishing between the bogus altruism of the exploitative, colonialist countries and the genuine altruism of individual human beings like the German American woman she mentions who abandoned her husband and children to work for the welfare of poor children in Africa.

    Unfortunately, Wyandotte does not appear to believe that the saintly Mother Teresa falls into this category of genuine altruists. She questions her motives and expresses some doubts about Mother Teresa’s saintliness.

    Is Wyandotte being particularly horrible in saying — in the mildest and most inoffensive language — that she doesn’t think much of Mother Teresa? I don’t think so, Lucius. Wyandotte honestly believes what she has heard and read about Mother Teresa, and I can assure you that Mother Teresa has her critics — not all that is said about her is complimentary!

    Mother Teresa’s most vocal critic has been the famous atheist Christopher Hitchens, a loyal lackey of organized Jewry and a fanatical believer in abortion. How can you expect a man like this to love a Catholic saint who objects to the killing of the unborn child? Hitchens and his crew of naysayers, many of them Jewish and burning with an atavistic hatred for Christianity, have done all they can to demonize Mother Teresa.

    They have managed to do this exceptionally well. After all, the mass media is in their hands.

    In my next post I will copy and paste for you all the negative comments about Mother Teresa that the Jewish encyclopaedia known as Wikipedia has managed to collect and present to the public.

    I learned the other day that Wikipedia depends on unpaid voluntary submissions and that most of the people writing for it are young men in their twenties, almost all of them Jewish. Many of them are still at college and are engaged in writing their doctoral theses.

    Here is what Wikipedia Judaica says about Mother Teresa… see next post.

    1. I don’t hate Mother Teresa at all. I simply don’t worship her. That she accepted money from “bad men” doesn’t bother me and is hardly my business. That she chose to alleviate individual suffering as opposed to building shiny, high-tech hospitals is 100% okay with me. She never told Hitchens how he should spend HIS money, did she? He is a vicious POS. I am so distressed that anyone here thinks I am critical of Mother Teresa and her charitable works, or that I would take the side of the creep Hitchens. Ugh. When I first read his criticism of Mother Teresa years ago I was in shock at his ugliness.

      1. satan rules, dear wyandotte. or tries to. prince of darkness. don’t let it distress you. grit your teeth and bear it like i do. lasha

  14. MOTHER TERESA: TEN CRITICISMS FROM WIKIPEDIA

    1. “Mother Teresa has not been without her critics, including prominent atheist Christopher Hitchens who believes her reputation is misguided and due to people failing to examine what she actually did.

    They accuse her of proselytizing, failing to provide accounts which Hitchins could have audited and which would have allowed donors to investigate how their money was used, allowing her hospice to be primitive and run down despite obtaining vast sums of donated money which could be used to build, for example a new teaching hospital in Calcutta.

    Mother Teresa is further accused of strongly opposing contraception and abortion…”
    [Note. Obviously this is Mother Teresa’s unspeakable crime. LD]

    2. “Mother Teresa’s philosophy and implementation have faced some criticism. Catholic newspaper editor David Scott wrote that Mother Teresa limited herself to keeping people alive rather than tackling poverty itself.”

    3. “She has also been criticized for her view on suffering. She felt that suffering would bring people closer to Jesus.”
    [Note. Therefore she thought suffering was good per se, which is obviously a politically incorrect belief — because you could then say the Holocaust was “good” since it made the Jews suffer and bring them closer to God in the process. LD]

    4. “Sanal Edamaruku, President of Rationalist International, criticised the failure to give pain killers, writing that in her Homes for the Dying, one could “hear the screams of people having maggots tweezered from their open wounds without pain relief. On principle, strong painkillers are even in hard cases not given. According to Mother Teresa’s bizarre philosophy, it is ‘the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ’.”

    5. The quality of care offered to terminally ill patients in the Homes for the Dying has been criticised in the medical press. The Lancet and the British Medical Journal reported the reuse of hypodermic needles, poor living conditions, including the use of cold baths for all patients.” [Note. In a hot climate like India’s many people actually prefer cold showers to hot ones! LD]

    6. “The spending of the charity money received has been criticized by some. Christopher Hitchens and the German magazine Stern have said Mother Teresa did not focus donated money on alleviating poverty or improving the conditions of her hospices, but on opening new convents and increasing missionary work.”

    7. “Additionally, the sources of some donations accepted have been criticized. Mother Teresa accepted donations from the autocratic and corrupt Duvalier family in Haiti and openly praised them.”

    8. “Towards the end of her life, Mother Teresa attracted some negative attention in the Western media. The journalist Christopher Hitchens has been one of her most active critics. He was commissioned to co-write and narrate the documentary Hell’s Angel about her.”

    9. “The German magazine Stern published a critical article on the first anniversary of Mother Teresa’s death. This concerned allegations regarding financial matters and the spending of donations.”
    [Note. Stern Magazine is under Jewish control; it therefore has every reason to demonize Mother Teresa. LD]

    10. “Christopher Hitchens was the only witness called by the Vatican to give evidence against Mother Teresa’s beatification and canonization process. Hitchens argued that “her intention was not to help people,” and he alleged that she lied to donors about the use of their contributions. “It was by talking to her that I discovered that she wasn’t working to alleviate poverty,” says Hitchens. “She was working to expand the number of Catholics.”

    [Note. Hitchens is famous not only for his chronic alcoholism, but also for his mendacity. He was one of the main cheerleaders of those pathological liars George Bush and Tony Blair, helping them to promote their illegal war in Iraq on a false prospectus of non-existent WMDs. LD]

  15. Mark Hess says,
    August 28, 2011 at 12:50 am

    “I am under no obligation to provide an answer to the very question I asked you and Lucius. If you wish to avoid responding to it seriously, just say so. That’s fine….I have no illusions about saving dogs who are infected with rabies.”

    mark,

    great post. i like your attitude man. rude and agressive. give it to the darkmoon bitch! are u jewish by any chance?

    your sugesstion that this vile anti-semitic lesbian loonie is suffering from rabies is spot on!

    keep up the good work for zion.

    luv, jessel

    1. I am tempted to delete your comment but this would go against our policy of allowing posters to say what they wish. This is a free speech zone.

      However, I wish to point out something to you: as far as I know, Lasha is not a lesbian. She does, however, have a soft spot for lesbians if they happen to be nice human beings. She gets on with them.

      Lasha remembers Christ’s comment to the rabble who wanted to stone the woman accused of adultery: “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone.” She also likes to quote that other line from the Sermon on the Mount: “Judge not, that ye be not judged.”

    2. @ jessel meyer

      You are a most unpleasant woman. I don’t think Mark Hess would approve of anything you say. He is a well-informed and exceptionally intelligent man who posts on the Occidental Observer (and elsewhere) and I can assure you he is not engaged in doing any “good work for Zion.” He is a very vocal critic of Israel and the Jews.

      My advice to you, Jessel, is to get a life. And if you can’t get a life, get a boyfriend. Preferably one with a nice bullwhip and big boots to grind your bones with! 🙂

    3. I am at a total loss.

      I was not trying to be rude and aggressive. I do not appreciate people who are. However, I don’t much enjoy being condescended to, being told that I am naive, and having it implied that I am asserting things that I am not.

      Lastly, I was not suggesting that Lasha Darkmoon should be compared to a rabid dog. How could you possibly think that? Anyone who has read what I have written here would know that that is absolutely ridiculous, as well as the question of being Jewish.

  16. @ Mark Hess

    I’m sorry, but your tone was exceptionally rude. If you haven’t got the self-analysis to admit that, there’s not much hope for you. You write:

    “I am at a total loss. I was not trying to be rude and aggressive. I do not appreciate people who are. However, I don’t much enjoy being condescended to, being told that I am naive, and having it implied that I am asserting things that I am not.”

    My God, you certainly are hypersensitive! How could you possibly assert that Lasha was being “condescending”? Her tone, unlike yours, could not have been more polite! She writes:

    “Mark, As you have obviously given much thought to this question in framing it, I think you are now under obligation to provide us with the first answer! I invite you to do so and look forward to your response.”

    You took offense to that? You get pissed off when someone politely invites you to give your opinion? Didn’t you notice her exclamation mark (!) which shows she had a smile in her voice? You must be utterly humorless to respond as you did in this arrogant way:

    “I am under no obligation to provide an answer to the question I asked you and Lucius. If you wish to avoid responding to it seriously, just say so. That’s fine.”

    Lasha later goes on to say politely and respectfully:

    “This is not really an answer to your question, Mark. Just a few preliminary thoughts. I was merely questioning your naive assumption that the wolf is an altruistic beast whose object in life is to make the sheep happy.”

    Your response to this perfectly polite and valid observation?

    “I don’t much enjoy being condescended to, being told that I am naive, and having it implied that I am asserting things that I am not.”

    Yes, it is clear what you are, Mr Hess: a humorless boor who thinks you can come onto this site and take out your resentment and ill feeling on Lasha Darkmoon while meanwhile groveling on the Occidental Observer to the likes of Kevin MacDonald.

    If you had spoken to Kevin MacDonald as you spoke to Lasha, your comment would have been deleted instantly as arrogant and disrespectful.

    You need to mind your manners.

    1. Albany,

      This is getting absolutely ridiculous.

      Lasha Darkmoon knows that I respect and admire her greatly, as I have written about those sincere feelings unequivocally and repeatedly.

      I also respect Kevin MacDonald. However, I have never partaken in “groveling on the Occidental Observer to the likes of Kevin MacDonald.” On the contrary, I have been very critical of some of what he has written, as well as several of the things others who post and comment there have witten.

      So, I am moving well beyond the point of caring about what you have to say about anything. Plus, if I have indeed offended Lasha Darkmoon, she can bring it to my attention on her own.

  17. Lasha Darkmoon,

    I apologize if I have offended you. It certainly was not my intention to hurt your feelings, to disrespect you, nor to start unnecessary controversy. I am sorry.

    I was, indeed, confused and hurt by your response. This has less to do with my being hypersensitive (which I can sometimes be, admittedly), and more to do with my high regard for you and much your work.

    All the best.

    Sincerely,
    Mark Hess

    1. Relax, dear friend. There’s absolutely no need for you to apologize. I would rather be attacked by you than defended by the likes of Albany. Pay him no attention. He probably got out of the wrong side of his bed this morning! Another thing. I was not being “condescending” and I apologize if I gave that impression. The truth is — and few people except my closest friends are aware of this — I have a massive inferiority complex. This makes condescension impossible for me. As a relatively young woman lacking experience of worldly affairs, I am only too aware of my many limitations. Best wishes, Lasha

      1. Sorry, Mark. I got carried away. Like the lady says, maybe I got out of the wrong side of my bed this morning.

  18. Our Lady Queen of Peace, pray for us!

    Please excuse this time-out from World War III but I can’t help but think some words by Lasha above have been overlooked which deserve some response. I’m talking about her offhand comment (“Apropos of nothing”):

    …man is an irrational animal. Even the wisest philosophers are driven by the forces of unreason and are incapable of ordering their lives rationally. Man is like a malfunctioning machine that works efficiently only in sporadic outbursts.

    Paradoxically, if a man were truly wise, he would shoot himself.

    God, the Supreme Mathematician and Musician, would seem to contain in Himself the germ of Reason. But who knows? The truth, I suspect, is that God is beyond reason. If man is unreasonable, God is reasonless.

    Maybe reason exists only as a mythical quality, like the unicorn’s horn.

    Here is the way I would edit that, following the reasoning of great Catholic thinkers such as St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas:

    Man is by nature a rational animal, but on account of Original Sin and bad habits developed through repeated personal sin, he often has great difficulty thinking and behaving according to reason. Even the wisest philosophers, especially when unassisted by God’s revealed truth and divine grace, can be driven by the forces of unreason and find themselves incapable of ordering their lives rationally. Fallen Man is like a malfunctioning machine that works efficiently only in sporadic outbursts, and even then his efficiency is usually self-centered, rarely directed to the temporal common good and the good of his own immortal soul.

    Paradoxically, if a man were truly wise – and God did not exist – he would either shoot himself, or he would shoot his neighbor when he got in his way, depending on what atheistic philosophy he chose to embrace. (But if there is no God there really can’t be free will, so maybe we should modify that to whatever philosophy the forces of nature impel him to embrace.)

    God, the Supreme Mathematician and Musician, contains in Himself Reason to an infinite degree. God is infinitely beyond human categories, including reason. If man left to himself is unreasonable, God even in himself, even if he never created man, is infinite reason.

    In our present state, having fallen from God’s grace, Reason can appear to exists only as a mythical quality, like the unicorn’s horn. But as the great theologians such as Augustine and Aquinas teach us, man’s wounded human nature, including his darkened intellect, weakened will, and disordered concupiscible and irascible appetites, can be healed to the extent that reason is enlightened by faith, and will is strengthened by divine grace.

    1. Beautifully put. We look forward to an essay from your pen. Lasha wrote what she wrote without meaning to be controversial. She just jotted it down after her morning meditation…a sort of Pascalian pensée.

      Both Lasha and I know perfectly well what you are saying and do not disagree with you. You are saying, in essence, to quote something Lasha wrote to me in a letter last month:

      “Without grace, man is cut adrift on a sea of chaos. Even the wisest among us are helpless and incapable of rational behavior in such a state. Without grace, no free will. Without grace, man goes the same way as the demon-possessed Gadarene swine as they hurtle over the cliff top.”

Comments are closed.