Author Topic: SSPXS PINK BRANDING (Read 14840 times)

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #90 on:** May 22, 2014, 08:39:33 AM »

"A feminist is someone who loathes being a woman and dislikes the chief feminine characteristics." (Hammond quoting GK Chesterton on p. 49).

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #91 on:** May 22, 2014, 08:42:38 AM »

"Before long, designers were showing slacks on the runways. Then came designer jeans...This symbol of the feminist movement was clearly something different from what women of refinement had always worn." (p. 49).

Note: It is therefore condemned by the quote of St. Thomas previously cited.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #92 on:** May 22, 2014, 08:45:59 AM »

"Advertising agencies quickly prepared marketing research to find out the reaction of men to a woman wearing pants. Do you know what they found? Using newly developed technology, they tracked the path that a man's eyes take when looking at a woman in pants. They found that when a man looked at a woman in pants from the back, he looked directly at her bottom. When he looked at a woman wearing pants from the front, advertisers found that his eyes dropped directly to a woman's most private and intimate area. Not her face! Not her chest!" (p. 49)

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #93 on:** May 22, 2014, 08:49:45 AM »

"In order to destroy Catholicism, it is necessary to commence by suppressing woman...but since we cannot suppress woman, let us corrupt her..." (Letter between two leading Freemasons; cited by Hammond on p. 53)

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #94 on:** May 22, 2014, 08:58:25 AM »

"Every woman I know acknowledges that when she's wearing a dress, she moves and acts differently from when she is wearing pants." (p. 67)

Note: Corroborates Cardinal Siri's 1960 condemnation of pants-wearing women.

soulguard · « **Reply #95 on:** May 22, 2014, 10:26:29 AM »

Righteous indignation spam :whistleblower:

shin · « **Reply #96 on:** May 22, 2014, 10:42:19 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

"Every woman I know acknowledges that when she's wearing a dress, she moves and acts differently from when she is wearing pants." (p. 67)

Note: Corroborates Cardinal Siri's 1960 condemnation of pants-wearing women.

All very true. Pants simply make women masculine. They're another part of the destruction of the natural way of life of men and women.

It's no coincidence that feminism and pants have spread everywhere at the same time. The source of one is the other.

untitled · « **Reply #97 on:** May 22, 2014, 04:59:34 PM »

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

stgobnait · « **Reply #98 on:** May 22, 2014, 05:24:05 PM »

someone's reading cathinfo....
and we will be reading st john bosco.... :detective:

Centroamerica · « **Reply #99 on:** May 22, 2014, 05:32:28 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: untitled
From the website presumably designed for an SSPX school in the US, have a look at this picture taken of the bottom of the main page: is that a lady in pink jeans? Or is it an efeminate-looking man (with rings and bracelets - and pink jeans!)..?

http://school.usa.prod.eu.fsspx.net/en

http://www.therecusant.com/apps/blog/

Either way, it is a problem:

If it is a lady, why is she wearing jeans?

If it is a man, why is he effeminately dressed?

My guess is that the design is the brainchild of the branding company, which being pagan/non-trad, would not be aware that they had made a major blunder in posting that picture.

I would bet that the matter is coming to the attention of the District about now, and will be corrected.

Good speculation.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #100 on:** May 22, 2014, 05:33:33 PM »

Quote from: stgobnait

someone's reading cathinfo....
and we will be reading st john bosco.... :detective:

Perhaps, but as Ladislaus pointed out way back on p.2 of this thread, it was a stock photo placed there by the web design company while the site is under construction.

The sspx had nothing to do with it, and removed it as soon as it was brought to their attention.

subpallaeMariae · « **Reply #101 on:** May 22, 2014, 05:37:50 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

This was clearly developed from a website template that hasn't been completely scrubbed yet.

If you look at the bottom of the page near the photo cited by the OP, you'll even see the phrase "lorem ipsum" ... that's pseudo Latin that has become customary to use as filler text in website templates.

Let's not go nuts here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorem_ipsum

I wish the same latitude would have been afforded to the priests who "slipped" and spoke of Vatican II errors or SSPX errors and were hastily called and warned or expelled. Funny how forgiving we sheeple need to be over stock pictures that run contrary to everything we have known, as Traditional Catholics, but priests and the faithful can be abused for upholding the principles that have always been part of the fight against Modernism.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #102 on:** May 22, 2014, 05:43:31 PM »

Quote from: subpallaeMariae

Quote from: Ladislaus
This was clearly developed from a website template that hasn't been completely scrubbed yet.

If you look at the bottom of the page near the photo cited by the OP, you'll even see the phrase "lorem ipsum" ... that's pseudo Latin that has become customary to use as filler text in website templates.

Let's not go nuts here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorem_ipsum

I wish the same latitude would have been afforded to the priests who "slipped" and spoke of Vatican II errors or SSPX errors and were hastily called and warned or expelled. Funny how forgiving we sheeple need to be over stock pictures that run contrary to everything we have known, as Traditional Catholics, but priests and the faithful can be abused for upholding the principles that have always been part of the fight against Modernism.

The one has nothing to do with the other.

untitled · « **Reply #103 on:** May 22, 2014, 05:46:12 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: stgobnait
someone's reading cathinfo....
and we will be reading st john bosco.... :detective:

Perhaps, but as Ladislaus pointed out way back on p.2 of this thread, it was a stock photo placed there by the web design company while the site is under construction.

The sspx had nothing to do with it, and removed it as soon as it was brought to their attention.

Nothing to do with it?

The article is from May 17: http://www.therecusant.com/apps/blog/show/42271619-branding-cont-d-

The photo has been there 5 days at least. Exists the sin of omission, the failure to do something one can and ought to do...

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #104 on:** May 22, 2014, 05:50:05 PM »

Quote from: untitled

Quote from: SeanJohnson
Quote from: stgobnait
someone's reading cathinfo....
and we will be reading st john bosco.... :detective:

Perhaps, but as Ladislaus pointed out way back on p.2 of this thread, it was a stock photo placed there by the web design company while the site is under construction.

The sspx had nothing to do with it, and removed it as soon as it was brought to their attention.

Nothing to do with it?

The article is from May 17: http://www.therecusant.com/apps/blog/show/42271619-branding-cont-d-

The photo has been there 5 days at least. Exists the sin of omission, the failure to do something one can and ought to do...

It is gone.