Ah, yes, the funny farm

Mortal Sin and the Christian Life
Understanding mortal sin can make the difference between life and death.
This is a critical topic to understand!
This article will tell you what mortal sin is. But this topic is so important, first we’d better look at why you should care deeply about it…
“How important is this?”
Mortal sin makes it impossible to follow Christ.
The very first step in the life of faith is to hear God’s call and answer with the response of faith. This is your response of initial conversion.
The second step is to become free of mortal sin.
Why?
Because mortal sin is a refusal of God’s offer of live and love. It’s that simple. No matter how much you want to love God, no matter how strong you feel your budding faith life is…
… a single act of mortal sin is a bold declaration that you do not accept God’s love.
Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him…. Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. (Catechism, 1855 & 1861)
That’s why it’s called mortal sin — mortal means “death.”
He who does not love abides in death.
(1 John 3:14)
The topic of mortal sin helps us understand something that isn’t widely believed these days: the connection between our faith and our acts.
We prove our faith by our acts
There’s a very dangerous idea floating around: the idea that our faith is somehow separate from our actions.
Some people seem to think that they’re good Christians even though they’re deliberately committing acts that are seriously, objectively wrong. They still believe that their faith life is alive and growing.
That is a false belief!
Pope John Paul II wrote that “The Apostles decisively rejected any separation between the commitment of the heart and the actions which express or prove it….” (Veritatis Splendor, 26)
In fact, it is specifically by walking the path of a moral life that we accept the free gift of salvation and everlasting life. “Coming to see in the faith their new dignity, Christians are called to lead henceforth a life ‘worthy of the gospel of Christ.’” (Catechism, 1692)
Since ancient times, the Catholic Church has taught about “the two ways”:
The way of Christ “leads to life”; a contrary way “leads to destruction.” The Gospel parable of the two ways remains ever present in the catechesis of the Church; it shows the importance of moral decisions for our salvation: “There are two ways, the one of life, the other of death; but between the two, there is a great difference.” (Catechism, 1696)
What this means is that your actions matter!
Greatly.
The doctrine of mortal sin teaches us how to recognize those actions that absolutely destroy the life of faith itself.
So now let’s take a closer look…
“So, just what is mortal sin?”
Mortal sin is death to the soul.
“Sin” is a thought or action that is, at root, an offense against God. It’s a violation of the great commandment to love God above all else, and to love your neighbor as yourself. (See the main overview of Catholic morality for the big picture.)
 
Filthy, filthy nonsense.  So making love to your boyfriend makes it impossible to love your neighbour as yourself and to love God above all else. 
Sdually diseased reppulsivbe scunt face fulth
What Jesus said@: go thou and sin no more
What Jesus did not say:
According to the Catholic Church, no person can receive the Eucharist when in a state of mortal sin:
1457 Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession.[18]
Some mortal sins cause automatic excommunication by the very deed itself, for example renunciation of faith and religion, known as apostasy,[19] desecration of the Eucharistic species,[20] and "a completed abortion".[21] Those mortal sins are so serious that the Church through law has made them crimes. The Church forbids the excommunicated from receiving any sacrament (not just the Eucharist) and also severely restricts the person's participation in other Church liturgical acts and offices. A repentant excommunicated person may talk to a priest, usually in a confessional, about their excommunication to arrange for the remission. Remission cannot be denied to someone who has truly repented their actions and has also made suitable reparation for damages and scandal or at least has seriously promised to do so.[22][23] However, even if excommunicated, a Catholic who has not been juridically absolved is still, due to the irrevocable nature of baptism, a member of the Catholic Church, albeit their communion with the Christ and the Church is gravely impaired. "Perpetual penalties cannot be imposed or declared by decree."[24] However, "the following are expiatory penalties which can affect an offender either perpetually...."[25]
Since the mid-twentieth century, some theologians have taught that a person who lives by a constant attitude of charity is unlikely to fall in and out of God's graces without being profoundly aware of the change. The term "fundamental option" arose and is used in a variety of senses.[26][27]
Pope John Paul II reaffirmed traditional teaching going back to the Council of Trent in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor, as does the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states: "The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, 'eternal fire'." The Catechism then adds: "The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs."[28] However, the Catechism does not by name say a specific person is in Hell, but it does say that "...our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back."[29] Most significantly, the Catechism also proclaims that "There are no limits to the mercy of God..."[30] and that "although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offence, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God."[29] We cannot see into their mind to know if it was deliberate or committed in full knowledge. Also, like the father in the Parable of the Prodigal Son, God forgives those who repent sincerely. Vatican II, in its Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, reflects the traditional teaching of the Church on punishment, and on merit or reward for good deeds.[31]
Mortal Sin is ordinarily remitted by the priestly absolution in the Sacrament of Penance. However, the effectiveness of the absolution is depedent of the acts of the penitent starting with sorrow for sin or contrition. Perfect contrition (or imperfect contrition, also called attrition, in the Sacrament of Penance), coupled with the firm resolution to sin no more and to make recourse to the sacrament of Penance as soon as possible, can restore a person's relationship with God, as well as God's saving grace, that is, sanctifying grace. This teaching on perfect contrition is a reminder that God's mercy and forgiveness is available outside the Sacrament of Penance, yet, also indicates that Catholics who know about Christ's institution of the sacrament of Penance must intend to use it. Any human act that arises from a person's love of God, is inspired by God's prevenient action and is directed to doing as God requires.[32] When perfect contrition is the means by which one seeks to restore one's relationship with God, there must also be a resolution to confess all mortal sins (that have not been confessed and absolved previously) in the Sacrament of Penance.[33]

What Jesus did not say: a load of voodoo savage gobbledy gook and be brutalized by sick twisted women for the rest of your life.

And Adam and Eve walked in the cool of the garden and decided they were grown-ups and could decide for themselves.  Ye, the first disobedience of a religion of freaks.

It’s actually really interesting.  Perhaps there was some subconscious recollection of oestrus.  Could it have happened overnight?  I don’t think evolutionary changes do that, so whwa ton earth was the intermittent stage.  Think I read it happened when we went into the water, so it wasn’t immediately noticeable.  Oestrus in the pet sabre-tooth but blood, he knew about blood, blood never meant anything good.  It meant you were injured.  Was she hurt?  She didn’t seem hurt.  Assuming period cramps are a modern affliction due to lousy posture, for instance, but delfinitely a bit that needs to be sent back to the Design Unit for revamping. 
 
Never love for love is death, the death of the ego of the great big male monkey beating its chest which thinks it orders the world and we’ve all got to be what it says we are.  Thus the repulsive hive mind.  Love and mind trouble the diseased inadequates.  They suggest other people might matter, are not merely pawns on the chess-board to be filled with Troof.  They indicate senile perverted psychopaths are talking complete drivel for which there is not one shred of evidence. 

Just keep spawning the chimpo-whores to insist that it’s criminal evil to to mock, condemn, criticiae aoe-drool for which there is not one shred of evidence.  Just get enough monkeys howling down intellect, reason, love.

Shall we just have all this again? 
CHAPTER THREE
MAN'S RESPONSE TO GOD
142 By his Revelation, "the invisible God, from the fullness of his love, addresses men as his friends, and moves among them, in order to invite and receive them into his own company."1 The adequate response to this invitation is faith.
143 By faith, man completely submits his intellect and his will to God.2 With his whole being man gives his assent to God the revealer. Sacred Scripture calls this human response to God, the author of revelation, "the obedience of faith".3
I. The Obedience of Faith
144 To obey (from the Latin ob-audire, to "hear or listen to") in faith is to submit freely to the word that has been heard, because its truth is guaranteed by God, who is Truth itself. Abraham is the model of such obedience offered us by Sacred Scripture. the Virgin Mary is its most perfect embodiment.
Catechism
 
"The Magisterium of the Church
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48
87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me",49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.
100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him
Catechism of the Catholic Church

Wounds to unity
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

What is it, Blair?  Come on, what is it?  Rees-Mogg, Duncan Smith, Fitzalan-Howard, come on, come on, what is it?  It’s a blueprint for fascism.  It is everything at which the free world howled in outrage when represented by Hitler, Stalin, the cadres of North Korea.  Where the fuck do you dirty apes think the Nazis got it from?  This is an insolently fascist, insolently sexist, insolently homophobic institution which is raving mad because it believes it has Truth.  It has no place whatever in modern England. 

Fascism, insolent evident fascism right down to the hive mind called The Good. If you are a secular fascist, you are a pariah.  If you are a religious fascist, it is offence to offend you and an offence to discriminate against you.  Is there any politician so completely stupid that he or she does not think people have noticed that, that there is one law for the ‘devout’ and one for the rest of us, that we’re all supposed to be outraged not at fascism, not at evil, but at the fascist and evil being offended.
 
‘It has been revealed to us.’  What do these fucked-up baboons think we all are, do they really believe we’re all going to submit to the ravings of peasants and savages.
 
Specifically the teachings on human relations of these senile and perverted men are derived from a nasty little fairy-story in which a woman brought evil into man’s pure asexual relationship with God, love and sex evil distractions therefrom.
 
We are once again to be governed by and obedient to psychiatric cases, violent animals convinced they got Troof, cos they got this book, see, and this book’s Troof.  This book and their insane exrapolations.  Here’s some more of the Troof they got.  They’re simply savages. 
 
The sick-boys rampant:

Pope John Paul II: Contraception is so profoundly unlawful as never to be, for any reason, justified...
“The encyclical of Pope Paul VI on birth control is true and must be followed by mankind. There shall be no rationalization of sin.” - Our Lady of the Roses, October 2, 1976
 On July 18, 1984, Pope John Paul II stated that Humanae Vitae binds all persons, including non-Catholics:
“the norm of the encyclical [Humanae Vitae] concerns all men, insofar as it is a norm of the natural law and is based on conformity with human reason.” (St. Peter's, July 18, 1984; see L'Osservatore Romano, July 23, 1984)
On September 17, 1983, Pope John Paul II gave these powerful words affirming the Church's constant teaching prohibiting contraception:
“When ... through contraception married couples remove from the exercise of their conjugal sexuality its potential procreative capacity, they claim a power which belongs solely to God; the power to decide in a final analysis the coming into existence of a human person. They assume the qualification not of being cooperators in God's creative power, but the ultimate depositories of the source of human life. In this perspective, contraception is to be judged objectively so profoundly unlawful as never to be, for any reason, justified. To think or to say the contrary is equal to maintaining that, in human life, situations may arise in which it is lawful not to recognize God as God.”
 
******
 
“We warned you over and over again, through years of visitations upon earth--My Mother going to and fro to warn you, that those who have given themselves over to debasement, by the practice of homosexuality, birth control, abortion and all other aberrations that bring sorrow to My Mother's heart--this must be stopped now. There shall be no excuse accepted in Heaven by the saints, nor by My Mother and I, or the Eternal Father and the Holy Ghost, for what you are doing upon earth now.” - Jesus, June 6, 1987 
“Permissiveness shall not be accepted by your God. Sin is sin; there is no compromise for sin. Mortal sin is a grievous offense to the Eternal Father. The Commandments shall be followed without permissiveness.” – Jesus, November 21, 1977
 
Vatican: “The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception”

"The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable."
- "Vademecum for Confessors: Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life," #4, Vatican Pontifical Council for the Family, March 1, 1997. 
"From the ethical standpoint the same absolute unlawfulness of abortifacient procedures also applies to distributing, prescribing and taking the morning-after pill. All who, whether sharing the intention or not, directly co-operate with this procedure, are also morally responsible for it."
- “Statement on the So-Called Morning After Pill,” Vatican Pontifical Council for Life, October 31, 2000. 
 
"It is not possible to anesthetize the conscience, for example, when it comes to molecules whose aim is to stop an embryo implanting or to cut short someone's life... I invite your federation [of pharmacists] to consider conscientious objection which is a right that must be recognized for your profession so you can avoid collaborating, directly or indirectly, in the supply of products which have clearly immoral aims, for example abortion or euthanasia..."
- Pope Benedict XVI, address to Catholic Pharmacists, October 29, 2007
 
On June 5, 1987, Pope John Paul II warned clergy and theologians of their grave obligation to faithfully transmit the Church’s teaching on contraception:  “A grave responsibility derives from this: those who place themselves in open conflict with the law of God, authentically taught by the Church, guide spouses along a false path. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not belong to the category of matter open to free discussion among theologians. Teaching the contrary amounts to leading the moral consciences of spouses into error.”
- "The Church's teaching on contraception is not a matter for free discussion among theologians," L'Osservatore Romano, July 6, 1987, p. 12.
On September 17, 1983, Pope John Paul II told priests in Rome that “contraception is to be judged objectively so profoundly unlawful as never to be, for any reason, justified. To think or to say the contrary is equal to maintaining that, in human life, situations may arise in which it is lawful not to recognize God as God.”
- quotation from “The Papal Talk of 17 Sept.,” The [Hartford] Catholic Transcript, David Q. Liptak, January 20, 1984.
"In fact, just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, with particular reason, he has no such dominion over his generative faculties as such, because of their intrinsic ordination towards raising up life, of which God is the principle. 'Human life is sacred,' Pope John XXIII recalled; 'from its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God.'
     "In conformity with these landmarks in the human and Christian vision of marriage, we must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth.
     "Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible."
- Pope Paul VI, encyclical Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968 (#13-14).
Pope John Paul II: Contraception is so profoundly unlawful as never to be, for any reason, justified (tldm.org)
Y
es, o pervert freak who belongs in Broadmoor, I have indeed been on the Pill.  You pathetic loony.  But of course the problem is disgusting apes like Blair take you seriously.  Planning to criminalize artificial contraception are you, monkey?  After all it offends a genuine and sincere belief.

Just keep these fucking nutjobs away from England, just fucking keep them away.  Not a chance.  That absolute obscenity you call the Pope, the writhing bag of evil who falsifies history, who desecrates even Jesus in his lust for power.  But then desecrate Jesus is pretty much what the Vatican has always done.  Thus something called Protestant.  Thus:

…it’s because of thinking that Sweden, Denmark, the whole of your island, half of Germany groan under the terrible misery of no longer being subjects of the pope.
[…….c’est pour avoir pensé, que la Suède, le Danemark, toute votre île, la moitié de l’Allemagne, gémissent dans le malheur épouvantable de n’être plus sujets du pape]
LIBERTÉ DE PENSER
 
Intelligence brought them down, reason brought them down, thought brought them down.  This must not be allowed to happen again. 
 
None of them will shut up until all criticism and derision of their mad monkey-puke is forbidden and we’re all crawling to their ravings.  What, even the indefensible bits? 
 
Especially the indefensible bits.  Look what happened to Johnson after his ‘shocking’ comments about the burqua.  What is shocking is that anyone should think a fellow human being be forced into such a garment.
 
Mustn’t draw Mohammed.  Muslims forbid it.  Mustn’t mock the burqua.  Muslims forbid it. 
So fucking what?
 
Must be sensitive.  Must be really sensitive about the genuine and sincere beliefs of the sexually diseased.
 
Could we be being insensitive to women forced into the bloody thing and otherwise physically constrained in what the rest of regard as their normal lawful movement, any chance of exit clearly closed?  What does that matter? 
 
Do the dirty evil deformed old apes understand we don’t want to know about their shit?  Of course they do.  They’re creatures who belong in zoos who think that doesn’t matter.  They know best.  They know what’s for our own good and being left free is clearly bad for us.  They got Troof. 
 
People do not give a fuck, apart from the bits they find actively repulsive and evil, about which most certainly we are to be silenced. 
 
Of course what people think does not matter.  All the chimpo-whores in politics see to that.
 
And of course the garbage know what’s best for me.  Best for me to be crippled.  Best for me to be ignored.  What do the kinky-boy freaks and their kinky-bitch women whine, I have to learn to do what I’m told.  I must learn obedience.  And you can stuff it all up your smelly arses.
 
The simplest facts of history dismissed out of hand by  mental defectives and the evil who manipulate them telling them lies are truth and truth is lies.
 
England ruled by sick old monkeys who’ve never met a normal woman, insolent fanatic nutjob sick old monkeys thrown out of England in 1688 but they got Troof and it doesn’t matter, any more than it does to the vermin traitor slaves in politics, what England thinks, what England wants.  The monkey savages got Troof.  They know best.  They know what is good for us.  The voices in their throbbing nutjob heads tell them. 
So we all know what these foul, disgusting brutes at UCH are, they’re mediaeval witch burners, their sweaty faces shining in the light from the flames of the fire, they’re stoners of adulteresses, and of course they’re the vicious obscenities of ‘holy Sisters’ who ran the laundries – and to continue that parallel the carrion regard the nurse filth as nearly as holy, angels. 

THE ENFORCERS
 
            The pig snuffles and is short of breath, more than a few paces of propelling its rolls of lard forward a torment.  Clearly it is not a well pig.  Its hair is patchy and where hair is missing are suppurating boils. Its little trotters are painted a refained pink.  This scarcely shows against the mottled bone but then the mottled bone scarcely shows beneath the wobbling mounds of diseased flesh.  It is unconcerned lest pay-shunts be perturbed by its appearance for its business is not with the care of the sick but with the terrorizing of the well, and indeed making them less well, should they fail to be terrorized. Most of its head is empty, but somewhere under the frontal bone just behind the nose lurks a brain the size of a pea. This rattles around in the skull cavity, sometimes  blocking the nose, hence the snuffles.
            The fixers profess to be impressed by Nurse's searing intellect.  Clearly nothing can be done unless Nurse's fine mind acknowledges the rationale for doing them..
            Nurse's fine mind fails utterly to grasp that public sector managers are free neither to cripple staff who distress their masters nor to abolish democracy as an inconvenience to those masters.  Rules must be obeyed.  Which rules would those be, Nurse, the ones made by traitors for slaves?
            In our new heavenly hierarchy directly below the Apostles are of course the Saints.  That which does not occur to Nurse does not exist.  After all Nurse is one of the leading intellects of the country.  Nurse has a degree.  Indeed people do find Nurse's mind quite terrifying. 
            Women do as they're told or get beaten.  Nurse is very good at beating women.  From time to time of course Nurse makes the headlines, whether in NHS scandals or in older ones as survivors of homes for fallen women finally dare speak out, or laundry women, of course.  Here on the Kilburn border, there are no prizes for guessing Nurse's  background.  Like Doctor, she is wholly devoid of any scrap of intellectual or moral education: the most elementary facts of English history are unknown to her.  How can any of it matter?  If you do not like what someone says, you hit her.    Like Doctor, she believes the mores of the hole in the ground out of which she crawled are those of the wider world.
            One of the many things that does not occur to Nurse is that the public regarded nurses as angels for doing a job few are prepared to do, for endless patience and tenderness shown to the  demented, the soiled, the frightened, the dying.  Nurse too is no longer prepared to do that job, but thinks, so far as she can be said to think at all, that 'angels' is a statement of her innate value.  Nurse, as she slowly drags the bloat of her self-importance as well as the more obvious bloat from one desk to another, one meeting to another, finds it inconceivable the public would not think her holy. 
            A fake professional class of the intellectually and morally derelict and mentally defective has been created and that's just the doctors, equally understanding of the virtue of obedience and the errors of liberalism, modernism and feminism.  Nursing is so suitable for a woman, don't you think, possibly medicine if the girl is bright (at least by the standards of medicine and nursing), but really for a woman to claim to have an intellect, to think she can pit that intellect against medicine, against His Eminence himself, that is absurd.

Need to clean up the scansion:
I am the very model of a medical practitioner
I read  the monthly bulletins from the Health Commissioner
I labour with the greatest care not to offend the Madam President
And daily send her emails saying at her feet I'm resident
I prove my academic cred by writing abstracts by the score
I once had one accepted! I deny that most are pretty poor
It's really very critical there's some research on my CV
It never once occurs to me I'm guilty of illiteracy
And after ten to fifteen years, when finally I've my MD
Then I'll do lots of private work, make myself a heap of money.
Mix in the best circles and twitter influentially
(That's twitter not Twitter - think of confidentiality)
I never cause upset and frown upon all argument
God told me categorically that doctors are all heaven-sent
I know He's looking after me and He tells me everything
That's why my mind is sealed tight-shut and I never learn anything
Philosophy has passed me by, and books in general I suspect.
On no account should anyone suggest that I have intellect
Thinking is a dangerous act, which could cause unhealthy dissent
I think it could make you blind; ideas are not relevant
It's so much more productive to masturbate the President
I fool so many people into thinking I'm omniscient
That when I sniff dismissively at what I do not comprehend
The idiots are awestruck and assume my patience at an end!
When people dare to put to me that nurses do not have degrees
I purse my lips and roll my eyes, frown really quite appallingly
It' never once has crossed my mind, not ever once occurred to me
Intellect and reason are required to gain a real degree.
It’s not like that in Medicine, I assure you categorically.
That nurses all are saints is basic science learned as a student
For more than once it was plain that crossing Sister was imprudent
Some say it's actually something the nurses put in our tea
An excellent decision, wider access to the formulary.

I really cannot understand why people do not love me more
I heal the sick, I raise the dead, sort of Jesus in miniature
And if I care nothing for truth, lie to advance professionally
Use knowledge to cause injury to those who put their trust in me
Care not a jot for anything called medical morality,
(Sounds some arty-farty nonsense, something like philosophy)
And if the very raison d'etre of the University
Demands the rule of reason then it's it that has to change not me
I am the agent of God's Will to whom all must at once defer
I am the very model of a medical practitioner.

Thus also: Of Kirit it may be said/He read a book.  It hurt his head/Wishing to avoid such pain/He never read a book again.

Of course they’re all a fucking joke.  Not a fucking joke the whole of government allied with them

Thus we all know it has been decided to ditch democracy, ditch freedom, ditch rationality, ditch the rule of law, that there are no depths to which the vermin who rule the corridors of power will not sink to establish total intellectual and moral corruption , the rule of psychopaths and freaks and perverts, the obscene vomit that the rabid ravings of the religious sickos trump all fact, reason and morality, We know because they have demonstrated it over my broken body, unswerving, unyielding, no question of a misunderstanding to be corrected, the freaks from minorities are to take over.  The Enlightenment is to be overthrown.  The Sexual Revolution is to be overthrown.  Foul mong pervert women are to be in charge of women to whip us if we disobey.  Stinking diseased filth like Boden.

The number of things that could be down to a foul obscene brute like that range from the foul obscene horrific and evil to the rational and civilized: you could plunge a knife into its stomach and rip out its guts or you could take the creature quietly aside and explain to it that it has no rights over others and must limit itself to those who share its vile views; if it insists on forcing its filthy animal self on others, then it will have to be contained and those nice young men in their clean white coats will take it away to the funny farm where life is beautiful all day long.

THE WITHDRAWAL OF LOVE AND FORCING ONESELF ON OTHERS

The free world is the consequence of the teachings of Jesus: liberty is a function of love; control is a function of self-will. The level on which it all fits together is not only accessible to atheists, but acceptable to atheists; God is not a necessary precursor. Then again, if we want to keep it simple, religion is two things, from one of which follows liberty and from the other fascism.

You are not self-forgetting by definition if you are forcing others to obey you. Grace is paramountly not forcing oneself on others other than to restrain them from forcing themselves on others. To love one's neighbour as oneself is not to inflict beliefs he or she finds questionable on him or her. People are and have to be free to go wherever they might be going. Society's business is limited to demanding they behave tolerably to each other and ensuring they are free to travel. We do not know.

Let us assume Jesus existed. It is questioned, but let us assume there was a man with a life and an agenda. It is frankly evident from the story of that foreshortened life that neither cowardice nor the withdrawal of love, the forcing of his will on others, was part of that agenda.  I have mused upon how Jesus would have been expected to behave before Pilate under the current dispensation. What he did not do was begin to babble, retract, recant, plead, beg for mercy. Doubtless he would also have kept his marf shut if he knew what was good for 'im. The notion that he may not propagate his views lest he upset Authority is markedly absent from his ministry. I mean, you just don't do that, tell them they're whited sepulchres and that, you just don't do it. Nor of course do you lose your temper and start throwing tables around. No-o-o, I don't think he was the Son of God, just refreshingly normal.

Love and how far if at all it may be withdrawn is at the heart of all freedom, all women's and gay rights, despite the sleaze and corruption of priests that these represent modern corruptions - only, darlings because you are desperately sick - all human rights, and perhaps particularly prisoners' rights, which is among many other things why the devout Catholic Frank Pakenham,7th Earl of Longford, who undoubtedly could have had an extremely pleasant life far distant from society's rejects, was a founding member of New Bridge, an organization dedicated to keeping prisoners in touch with the outside world and integrating them back into it. This was in 1956, some ten years before the Moors murders, some 20 years before he became embroiled in the issue of the repentance or otherwise of Hindley.

We do not need lectures on the good religious people do. We need frank acknowledgement of the evil they do.

The withdrawal of love consists in - look it up - those of us who can still read are able to read Fowler - how far one may treat another as if he or she were one's property, an object with neither will nor thoughts nor feelings of his - or of course her - own, no personality, no individuality, no being of his - or of course her - own, no regard for another as distinct, separate, equal, different, but only as an extension of oneself, at one's disposal for the fulfilment of one's desires, no matter how depraved those desires be, the sorry perverted justification being that since one has asserted independence of being, one is evil and thus anything may be done to one.

Such withdrawal extends centrally to the treatment of prisoners and torture and degradation thereof. One may not either crudely physically torture or attempt humiliation for instance by ordering another to walk around fully dressed from the waist up but naked from the waist down.

One may only regard another as a creature of one's own will to the extent of forcing one's will on him or her if he or she has first forced his or her will on another. Thus underpinned is the principle of initiation of force, wherein force may only be used against those who have initiated it, amazingly enough. Thus someone may only be deprived of his or her liberty if he or she is proven beyond reasonable doubt of an offence against the will and integrity of another, whether by criminal assault or by depriving of goods.

Thus the refusal to withdraw love meant there could be no burnings at the stake, no Spanish Inquisition.

To deny a women any role for which she holds the appropriate qualifications and the desire to fulfil, whether lorry-driver, stockbroker or priest, is to force one's self on her, to overcome and negate her individuality, to make the claim that you know what she is and of what she is capable because she has breasts and a vagina, to mentally rape her, rape her soul

It is, I trust, unthinkable that any Anglican would insist that John Sentamu and Michael Nazir-Ali are unfitted to be bishops of the Church of England by virtue of their race, let alone try to split the Church of England over it. It is, I trust, unthinkable that the sensibilities of some Nazi freak be pandered to in this respect. There is that which is non-negotiable. Women most evidently still do not fit in this category in some religious circles.

The superficial and rather pathetic justification for this is presumably that there is Scriptural authority for the nature of women and gays, as of course there is Scriptural authority for banning prawn cocktail as an abomination and eliminating ferrets,  but not similar authority for racism. That has not been the view of supposedly Christian racists. The geocentric, androcentric view that the nature of the cosmos or as they would have it the creation is defined by the male human ape-descendants on the third planet from the sun is merely silly.

One is not loving, self-forgetting if one is forcing one's miserable self on another, demanding he or she obey one. One is an ego-maniac, one's sole concern the yammerings of one's self.

The corrupt self-appointed voices of God, in the case of Christianity of course in direct opposition to that God, have claimed and continue to claim that whatever withdrawal of love they choose to inflict is unchallengeable because it is God's Will. They may parrot about choice but within their disturbed minds the mere belief one may choose defines one as evil. Thus a vocabulary was developed of words of power to terrorize the faithful, 'heretic', 'blasphemer', 'apostate', meaning one insists one is a person in one's own right.

The excrement that whatever the twisted self-will of a clerical person desires is necessarily sanctioned by God was of course overturned by the Enlightenment, neither love nor reason having moved the priesthood to treat others as individuals and equals.

In place of we know that, it is evident that, came you know nothing of the kind and it is a piece of twisted untenable nonsense for which you have no evidence that.

Most notably in the case of women's university education, nor were the learned gentlemen prepared to obtain any evidence. One would have thought that those so confident of the innate intellectual inferiority of the female of the species would have admitted us to the universities as an experiment, in the confident expectation we should fail.

Thus it took the Enlightenment and secularism to overthrow the arbitrary and unchallengeable power of the mentally sick,for whom 'sin' lay in having a personality of one's own, a being of one's own, individuality, a will of one's own, I have noted elsewhere the perversion that self-will lies not in forcing one's will on another but in having a will of one's own and forcing it on no-one.

The horror the Enlightenment evokes in the fascist religious is not its disbelief, but its threat to power. In place of their power called the Will of God, by definition unaccountable and indeed silent, came the will of men who could be questioned, dismissed from office.

Instead of the governed being accountable to the imaginary master in the sky it was the governing who became accountable. Small wonder they hate and were loathe to surrender.

Thus when we talk of a secular society we are talking not of values, not of the abolition of the transcendent, but of the transfer of power, of power over fallible men and women being in the hands of equally fallible men and women who may be questioned, repudiated, dislodged, who have their power given to them by those they govern and who may equally have that power removed. When we talk of removing religion from society we are not, if we have any sense at least (both sides fudge this] talking of silencing religious individuals, but of the demand power be answerable and that those who possess it may be mistaken, stupid or criminal. No-one has power over another because he or she says he does or says his or her god says he or she does.

This they wish to overthrow and so conspire so to do with the disgraceful drool they spout.

Thus Murphy O'Connor with his perversion that it is faith that takes us beyond our limited selves, when evidently faith does nothing of the kind. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, described a lack of faith as “the greatest of evils” and blamed atheism for war and destruction, implying that it was a greater evil even than sin itself.

This of course directly contradicts 1 Corinthians 13:
1Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.  2And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

 3And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

 4Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

 5Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

 6Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

 7Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

 8Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

 9For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

 10But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

 11When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

 12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

 13And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

It is love that takes us beyond our limited selves.

However, if we attempt to explore how this faith takes us beyond our limited selves, we might consider he who is carefully incarcerating the still living but shortly to be less so body of a terrified woman in what is to be her open grave. He has no doubt concerning the right of his purpose. He is the tool of God's will! God requires him, The Great Almighty Alpha Baboon in the Sky, Yahweh-Allah-Jehovah, has a use for him. Not of course that he actually becomes God but it's like being transcended, he the least of Allah's slaves has a chance to serve his master. He has no, he can have no sense of responsibility for his actions, he is transcended, God is all.

No great intelligence is required to work out that what allows such evils in Muslim nations is that no-one kicks the shit out of their ethos, but that of course in no way deters the Blairs, the Warsis, the Blunketts, the Williamses, the Murphy O'Connors from condemning and attempting to turn the full majesty of the law upon those of us who kick the shit out of that ethos here.

If we look further at what this faith is it is often as not a pretence at self-surrender, a pretence at putting one's trust, one's life in the hands of God, while the little monkey brain continues to yammer and manipulate reality, trusting God that whatever one has told oneself God wants shall come to pass or more innocently that Gran won't die. There is faith that God exists, faith that God cares, and faith that God cares particularly about me because I'm a good Christian/Jew/Muslim/Whatever. This last was a particularly sour note in the Midnight Mass broadcast last Christmas Eve; the music was good, pity about the words.

And of course there is that cornerstone of observance, seedy sycophantic litanies about how squalid we are and how great is God. That most of us are a bit squalid, some of us are definitely squalid and some of us are very squalid was not a condition rectified in the vast proportion of human history when power was in the hands of the religious authorities, particularly if one were poor and/or female. This is no way detracts from the efforts of individual religious people who worked to make lives that bit better. I do but invoke reality. To listen to them one could quite believe and perhaps if one is sufficiently ill-educated one does believe that the first 1700 years of Christian history represented paradise lost.

It could, I suppose, be argued that Murphy O'Connor's speech on that occasion was merely representative of a binge of self-congratulation amongst those who Believe. It could be argued to stretch a point that the Church is unwilling to say anything other than 'We love faith' lest harm come from it to Catholics in Muslim nations, all that frightful secularism, you understand, which means that pervs are not free to injure either Muslims in Christian countries or Christians in Muslim ones. What it looked like was a grotesquely ludicrous attack on Richard Dawkins and the rest of the 33% of the nation who count ourselves atheist. We are evil, you understand. Atheists are evil. Faith is wonderful (unless you happen to be being stoned to death at the time) and atheists are evil. Yes, of course there are evil atheists. The difference is we acknowledge it. The 'four-legs-good, two-legs bad' level of mentation hardly becomes faith and reason hand in hand.

But given that His Eminence is content to hurl around the e-word, the religious can scarcely object when a neat drop-shot bats it back to their side of the net. It doesn't work like that? But how funny.

If we consider the great minds of the past, anyone from Plato to Ibn Arabi to Lao-Tze to Caesar, we shall not instantly think that the heights of human intelligence have increased dramatically in the last 150 years but rather that only when rational people had shaken free of religious authorities was medicine able to develop; there would not seem to be an intrinsic reason why modern medicine could not have developed many hundreds of years earlier. Ancient Greek and Classical Arab alike were profoundly interested in medicine. Thus at the door of theocracy, dogma and superstition may be laid centuries of avoidable death and suffering.

A cruel and unusual punishment for those who insist that all truth is contained in their pet book, to which all other books, all other versions of the world, are subordinate would be to deprive them of the major fruits of liberty, these being science, medicine and the freedom to practise their beastly little creed, for assuredly without freedom of thought and speech there is no right to be anything other than an Anglican, not a Marxist, not a Muslim, not a Seventh-Day Adventist, not a Christian Scientist, not a Taoist, not a pagan, not a Catholic, not anything.

As further evidence of the corruption of religious authorities, they routinely abuse as bigoted, uninformed, prejudiced, those who point these things out, Warsi being but the latest in a long line, those who will not tolerate their perversion of fact, those who will not in turn be perverted.

Thus one of the primary arguments against faith is the degradation of the believer such that he or she, however pleasant or even virtuous he or she may be in other circumstances demands the curtailment of the liberty of those who have not initiated force or indeed deprived others of anything other than the illusion that the world revolves around them, theirs are the only voices that may be heard, and everyone thinks them admirable.

Decay does not cease to stink because the name of God is attached to it.

Liberty forces acceptance of the reality, separateness, individuality and equality of others on the self-willed, as it enables everyone to determine what is reality. By definition, therefore, it is in opposition to those who claim that reality is what they teach it is.

Meanwhile, the so-called Left teaches that self is all that the divorce from both reality and reason be complete, some of the more disgraceful manifestations are conveying to schoolchildren that if they think they are brilliant and gifted they actually are brilliant and gifted, assuring criminals who happen to be non-white that if they think the delineation and condemnation of their crimes is racism being both devoid of conscience and divorced from reality, then it is racism, and teaching us all that if religious maniacs think their beliefs are truth then we must treat them with the seriousness we give to that which is demonstrable.

Clearly all of them are in it, demanding the suppression of reason, the denial of love, the suppression of fact, one of the chief facts they conspire to overthrow being the fact of history that there would be no freedom, no democracy had they retained power, that the assaults of the Enlightenment and Marxism on the power of the intellectually perverted, sexually diseased and psychotic indeed existed.

If we return to Warsi, we may note also the prime difference between the Protestant and Catholic traditions is that the Catholic Church decides what people are to believe. It doesn't work very well in free countries but that is because the countries are free, not because of the Magisterium.

Protestants believe that through Christ they have been given direct access to God, just like a priest; thus the doctrine is called the priesthood of all believers. God is equally accessible to all the faithful, and every Christian has equal potential to minister for God. This doctrine stands in opposition to the concept of a spiritual aristocracy or hierarchy within Christianity. Priesthood of all believers

"The Magisterium of the Church

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48

87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me",49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

It is difficult to discern if Warsi is fool or villain or, yet more sinisterly, totally brain-washed, incapable of having a negative opinion of any item Islamic. While the quotations from the Old Testament were jolly, it would have added substance to her work had she included similar quotations from the Koran.

It is not difficult to discern that is her view that no-one else should have a negative opinion of any item Islamic, either, that faith is supreme, that hostility to faith is groundless bigotry, that only a tiny number of Muslims are terrorists, that there is nothing else to criticize, loathe or fear in islam and that consequently any hostility towards any Islam or any Muslims is an irrational unfounded unreasonable, bigoted and to stamped out; all Muslims must be regarded as holding identical beliefs, opinion of Muslims must be withheld.

Should I ever get any political power, it will amuse me to set up a spoof All-Party Committee on Marxophobia, which is of course rife, I tell you, completely rife.  It has of course the same root as Islamophobia - the evident intellectual and moral corruption of those societies which call themselves Marxist.  As fervently as any liberal Muslim, I say: that is not what my family tradition has to be.
 
 Don't suppose they like this much, either
 
THE NEW MARXISM
The State is not abolished. It withers away.
1. It cannot wither anywhere unless and until a majority of citizens are self-determining adults not dependent children
2. It is frightfully unnecessary and unkind to massacre tens of millions of people in order to fail to bring about the withered State and infinitely more constructive to start from a non-statist perspective.

While undoubtedly sundry of its adherents treat Marxism as a religion - undoubtedly there are as many flat-earth Marxists as there are flat-earth Muslims, those to whom the Book has been given unto the world, and deviation from its teachings heresy - it is not a religion but a humanist, rationalist view of the world, or in other words Marx, Lenin and Engels could on occasion have been talking out of their rears.

As with any world-view, Marxist-Leninism is rooted in its time and place and it is as ridiculous to claim that every proposition arising from consideration of Europe in 1840 is true for all time as it is to claim that every proposition arising from consideration of Arabia in 600 is true for all time.

Essential to Marxism is the development of consciousness.  As Marx said, the proletariat needs its courage, its self-confidence, its pride and its sense of independence even more than its bread.  The average Marxist knows diddly-squat about consciousness. This is the chief reason attempts to bring about the revolution have ended in tears. It is not possible to have a new way of doing things when people have the mind-set of the old one - which of course pseudo-Marxists enthusiastically cultivate with their statism. It is a logical impossibility that the State shrink while people are taught to regard it as mother, father, sister, brother, the source of all sustenance, the tit to hang from. This is not a new way of doing things but simply the substitution of the State for God the divine multi-vitamin in the sky, the external source of one's being and doing.

One of the few areas in which the Left is wholly unblemished is the fight against slavery, against trafficking in human beings. One of life’s little ironies, possibly an internal contradiction indeed, is its contempt for personal ownership, for the sovereignty of the individual over himself or herself. Who owns me if I do not own myself? The State, religious nutters…The Left is second to none in upholdng the right to exercise the rights of property over other human beings. Ah, I see: slavery is fine so long as no-one is making a profit.

Somewhat evidently, individual sovereignty is at root incompatible with the orthodox Marxist vision which consists in (oh, go and look it up in Fowler, I being one of the 10 people in the country who still enjoy Fowler) people doing and being what they are told to do and be. People are free and one of the things they are free to do is make money. Capital is a form of power. The purpose of democracy is to contain power. It must therefore contain the power of capital.

The notion it is given people are in some sense property, tools of a greater purpose, whether God’s will or the demand of the State (in both cases of course what equally fallible fellow-humans have decided is God's will or the demand of the State) is the gospel of something like 95% of the current 'Left'. Soviet Marxism took this lock, stock and barrel from the more disgusting kind of religious baboon. To insist on being oneself not a creature of the will of others is evil/insanity. The ape has a stock vocabulary - wilful, insolent, impudent, all terms which simply mean resistant to a wilful, insolent, impudent animal attempting to impose its will not only on other people but on reality itself, to shape the mental world of all who surround it, to create a false reality and call it Troof.

Once people are designated a purpose if they fail to be fit-for-use they are expendable. Thus the Gulag Archipelago. Are you noting this loud and clear, comrades? To be all one can be is to exercise one’s heart and mind to their fullest. If you don’t want to do that, fine. Just keep your bloody hands off others. In both cases, the religious loon and the orthodox Marxist, they of course assume rather it is their purpose in life to force people to be other than they are and impose their delusional realities.
 
The leaft touching of another's perfon wilfully, or in anger, is a battery ; for the law cannot draw the line between different degrees of violence, and therefore totally prohibits the firft and loweft ftage of it : every man's perfon being facred, and no other having a right to meddle with it, in any the flighteft manner. And therefore upon a fimilar principle the Cornelian law de injuriis prohibited pulfation as well as verberation ; diftinguifhing verberation, which was accompanied with pain, from pulfation which was attended with none
 
II. WE are next to confider the violation of the right of perfonal liberty. This is effected by the injury of falfe imprifonment, for which the law has not only decreed a punifhment, as a heinous public crime, but has alfo given a private reparation to the party ; as well by removing the actual confinement for the prefent, as, after it is over, by fubjecting the wrongdoer to a civil action, on account of the damage fuftained by the lofs of time and liberty.

TO conftitute the injury of falfe imprifonment there are two points requifite : 1. The detention of the perfon ; and, 2. The unlawfulnefs of fuch detention. Every confinement of the perfon is an imprifonment, whether it be in a common prifon, or in a private houfe, or in the ftocks, or even by forcibly detaining one in the public ftreets
 
BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES PRIVATE WRONGS. BOOK III.
CHAPTER THE EIGHTH. OF WRONGS, AND THEIR REMEDIES, RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS.
 
There are lacunae in the Law syllabus of the University of Oxford?

You keep your filthy hands off other people unless they hit you first.  Is some part of that fucking unclear?  Yes, despite the evil old ape you call de Holy Farter saying it's OK to hit someone.

Ritawa had a moment to himself once more. 
     I have, he typed, played over certain scenarios suggested to me.  I think the best one was where Sarat walked away, bo-o-ring, leave you to Maya.  One day, some time way in the future, I might ask him or at least someone why he didn’t.  Or is that being unfair to myself?  He not she designated himself leader of the pack, he not she is recognized as CinC.  Enough of empty speculation! What you do around this joint (Spetzi choked softly as she read: vocabulary, darling, quite so) if you do not know something is ask.  I therefore cornered a cat, with due everyone is busy, hardly time for lengthy, is it at all possible to tell me briefly what is the party?  I do hope you have your smelling salts to hand.
The party is an elevated plane of consciousness.  Nor is this all.  It is a place where nothing matters and everything matters.  The usual lucidity and directness of speech that attends our new continuum appeared markedly absent.   I must have looked pitifully woebegone for my puss relented.  We agreed to meet later. 
 
Kilana siy tan.  There is no harm to the ego, the self, because it is illusory.  It does not get antsy, threatened, because it isn’t there, or if there is not dominant, does not automatically, as one does, assume itself of greater importance.  Thus ‘you cannot talk to me like that because I am the emperor’ has no place in the construct; nor of course does ‘you cannot talk to me like that because I am an officer’.  I have received a certain amount of straight talking from what used to be called the other ranks though equally many have understood what I was trying to do; I think Challin possibly had a discreet hand in that. In any case the general consensus is that I bit off a great deal more than I could chew and got delicately, courteously, possibly the biggest bollocking it has ever been my misfortune to receive, an outcome with which they are of course content.   No harm done….No, I am not digressing!   Sure, you can talk to me like that, because I am a human being.  As such, however,  I am not required to like what you say.  I think I noticed.      The physical body, however, is very much there.  Harm lies in physical injury, physical duress, because any such damage, any physical constraint upon volition is not illusory.  I did just wonder when he mentioned PANTHER dragging me to my feet.  Never in a million years.  I should have to have become violent first.  That is the principle of the initiation of force.  Everything’s cool, so long as both parties are free to walk away. I’m not sure it’s quite that simple, but it seems a more than adequate base.  The everything that matters therefore included me.  This guy is upset.  That matters. What is he upset about?  However, also, I am adult and fully in possession of my faculties.  I can be expected to communicate in an adult fashion and I can expect to be told how moronic I am, whether I have an ego or not! Also a lot of other things are mattering too so do not waste my time, puh-lease!  I have learned another one for the dictionary: ‘my stuff’.  But Ritawa, this is all your stuff, man, nothing to do with us.  True-untrue? Certainly nothing prompted by the immediate situation, as for instance a remark about AMI with which I took issue. 
Everything not tainted by harm has a gurgle of laughter in it.  I just think about that.  I saw it.  I think that must be serious harm.  Obviously they don’t find the Cult funny but I don’t think it would much have spoiled the party if I had made to hit him or something grotesque like that. I think I may be flushing even as I write this but I think overall they would have found that – not unfunny.  I took a deep breath and asked: had I made to hit her?  Should I not instantly have been clapped in irons!  Er, no.  My lady Maya is Hadin-Wadud.  I should probably have found myself on the floor with my arms twisted behind my back.  Let me say that increases the number of counts on which I am remarkably glad I did nothing so vile!  
All of it, all of them, the Anile throne, Alzani-Meta, PANTHER, VILE, the Hadin-Wadud, are the outward and exoteric aspects of the party, its interface with the normal world. You simply do not push other people around, smear your self over them and they are not to be terrorized into submission because they have redress.  Of course today in the south they equally have redress through the courts, but that essentially is ‘Narulis’ gig’, always has been, so far as possible, and I trust always will be: if you have certain kinds of problem, you find a cat. Or of course the emperor’s stewards. Thus under imperial law anyone at all had right of access to the emperor (or presumably empress) and it was a crime to impede that access.  ‘From no man may the right of speech be withheld.’  I think some of the chaps think we must be running under Fidubi law, or possibly international statute, the Treaty of Sal-venon.  We’re not!  Or more exactly – some of it didn’t entirely mesh with the modern world, I am given to understand,  extraordinarily minimal property qualifications.  You had to be of fixed abode and have three head of sheep, whatever that is! They are?  Presumably if you had neither you homed in on the nearest cat and asked why am I homeless!  Imperial law tweaked to accord with international law where it gave people fewer rights.  International law completely ignored if it give fewer rights.  I think the precise term for this may be Sarat’s Law! 
What happened to the empire  - the First Empire, we must now say – was purely a question of metaphysics.  I do not recall having read that in any history book.  Contempt for human rights justified at the metaphysical level.  Because the pain, anger, confusion experienced by someone who has been hard done by, or feels he or she has been, is illusory, it was felt not to matter. That in tandem with what was described to me as ‘perverted esotericism’: nothing of this world matters, therefore you watch a man starve to death. The third letters walked in, walked all over the Anile Court. Clearly if there is another world it left it open to them to designate that other world as that of Death the Great Master, though initially of course that was not at all what was meant.  What was?  What was?!??!  I think another layer of reality to this world, where things look different. Obviously as previously indicated in letters of steel it may be rubbish but it has to be heard in order to decide whether it is rubbish or not.
The other matter may be several lessons down the road, I think.  It does not for the moment matter.  I wanted to know what is now governing Kadun.  Now I know.  I am, I suppose, fairly stunned.  Yes, I want to know more. 
Oh, and you were essentially right, I think.  Sarat is ‘an essentially outer and exoteric kind of guy’.  Maya is ‘frantically eso(teric)’.  Shall I say there are no fucks where Maya is? Surely lese-majeste! Certainly no dumbfucks.  He relates to people at the level of the normal world.  She, I think, is a more complex affair, not that I should describe Sarat as simple.
What do you think?
 
I think I think what we have already thought, that we have been utterly confused by language.  They put this in the language of modern human rights – how else could they put it when empire was soiled, defiled, when the very idea may yet cause war with Ciletij. That is not a complaint.  I don’t think you can stand live on camera today and babble about metaphysics, even if it is all that actually matters!  I believe we might have dimly grasped they are Narulis’ and Zani’s heirs and all that that implies concerning the Cult.  We did not properly put the two together.  I think a lot of other things too.  I need to think about what I’m thinking!  Write more later.
 
Just something to add to your thunks.  An awful lot of that, now I come to think about it, economics, social conditions, was actually Mitch.
 
Some part of that unclear, is it, o contemptible trash?

Maya said: “Someone tells us we’re out of it, nuts, we can’t possibly take Azt.  No, we’re not going to explain how we can, we don’t know whom the person might sing to.  But we need to know that people are worried and need some reassurance and we need to hear why.  They might know something we don’t.”
            “There is nobody,” said Sarat, “who can’t be wrong, misinformed, flawed in his or her reasoning.”
            “And obedience is the opposite of that?”
            “Deference is the opposite of that.”

How about some part of that, garbage-monkeys?  Take you obscene psychopathic filth that you got Troof so you can't be wrong, cos I mean, it's not just you talking, it's God, right, and God can't be wrong, leave out the bit about this freak psychopath 'God' who doesn't actually know anything about the world it's supposed to have created, doesn't actually exist, is a figment of your festering sick monkey brains, just take your shit and stuff it up your filthy arses.