Three men in Paris attack man and begin to try to eat him alive. They bite chunks off of his ear and his lips and eat his flesh

Clichy-sous-Bois is a troubled neighborhood and home to some of Paris’ most notorious banlieues. With high unemployment and a large immigrant population that has a sometimes-fraught relationship with the police, it was the location where the 2005 riots first erupted, which led to a state of emergency being declared in France.

In 2001 a German named Armin Miewes put a request on the internet for a “a boy, if I can real kill him and butchering him. I am a cannibal, a real cannibal.” Somebody actually responded to this request and expressed his desire to be killed and eaten. His name was Bernd Brandes. He arrived to Armin’s home, where he was killed and eaten.

Here is the point that needs to be made from this story: Armin was not charged with cannibalism. He was given a sentence of 8 1/2 years for manslaughter. But in 2006 he was given a life-sentence, not for cannibalism, but for murder. This case would open up a pandora’s box to arguments in favor for consensual cannibalism, and would serve as a gateway to a litany of justifications for this evil. Professor Arthur Kreuzer of the Institute of Criminology at Glessen University said:

This will make legal history…. The killer sought out his victim and the victim sought out his killer.

The man wanted to die and be eaten, and Armin simply was fulfilling his wishes. Nobody was forced to be cannibalized, and both parities satisfied their wishes. And so, to the modern reprobates, no wrong was done because nobody was “hurt.” Again, this warped viewpoint goes back to the destructive idea of enlightenment thinking: As long as someone is not being hurt or forced, and the desires of all parties are being satisfied with “freedom,” then what is it our business to stop them?

It is with this logic that the promoters of deviancy, and the slaves of the devil, are stealthily trying to introduce cannibalism. It is truly horrifying to read the callous writings of modern intellects who promote cannibalism; they speak of human beings, not as sacred, but as sacks of meat, a means to a selfish and cruel end. The stealth nature of this movement is being helped by media because no mainstream news outlets are reporting on it.

While the press loves to expose people who fight homosexuality, they are not exposing the people who are promoting cannibalism. The leftists, while occupying themselves attacking Christian patriots, never said a word, not even a letter, against Richard Dawkins (a professor at Oxford) and Peter Singer (professor at Princeton University), when they discussed why they support cannibalism.

Without any expressions of guilt, the two devils coldly talk about permitting and legalizing consensual cannibalism, and the production of human flesh to distribute for consumption. Dawkins also believes that people killed by cars on the road, should be taken and their corpses used for food.

The two of them also say, with pompous and calm voice, that cannibalism is more moral than eating animals, because at least the human has a choice if he wants to be eaten or not. Here is the footage of both of these devils saying these evils:

The media never reported on a recent essay that was written by professor J. Jeremy Wisnewski, of Harwick College, in which he defended consensual cannibalism.

This deviant writer said that the case of Armin eating another man “should not be seen as morally problematic. I will defend this view by arguing that 1) the so-called ‘victim’ of this cannibalization is not in fact a victim of murder, and that 2) there is nothing wrong with cannibalism.”

The reprobate, later in his piece of trash of an essay that deserves to be burnt, says that if someone demands that they be eaten after they die, or if they do not care if they are cannibalized, then there is nothing morally wrong with allowing these people to be consumed:

If I have as an end to be consumed by someone who wants to consume me (as Brandes did), it might well be a sign of respect for my agency to carry out this action. Obviously, our ends are checked and limited by the ends of others: we are not required to do whatever the deceased want. But in cases where the deceased do not care if they are cannibalized (I do not care), or when the deceased actually want to be cannibalized, cannibalism does not violate our obligations to the dead. In carrying out their ends, we do not treat them merely as means.

In the end of the article, he says that “Armin Meiwes’s cannibalization of Brandes cannot be shown to be morally reprehensible.” This article is only 21 pages long. In only 21 pages, this devil tries to spearhead all of what Christianity established, all of the beauties of the Faith, and all of the immaculate virtues that the Church has taught for the holiness of the human body, and humanity itself. In only 21 pages, he tries to pull down civilization itself.

In his 2004 essay, Wisnewski affirms that cannibalism is only wrong if the eaten is murdered for the purpose of his flesh being consumed:

In considering the morality of cannibalism, it is assumed that the acts of cannibalism in question occur after the cannibalized has died, and further, that the cannibalized has not been murdered. What, then, is wrong with cannibalism?

His article concludes “that the moral prohibition against cannibalism is not rationally justified, even if there are other (sentimental) grounds for refraining from eating human flesh.” In other words, the entire basis for rejecting cannibalism is merely “sentimental,” or entirely based on emotions. Never mind what God thinks, what matters to this deviant is if whether or not someone is “hurt.”

The same devil of a professor says that if someone kills somebody and eats them, then the only crime he has committed is murder, not cannibalism:

It is obvious that murdering someone for the sole purpose of ingesting the flesh of that person is morally reprehensible. This does not show that cannibalism is wrong, it merely re-affirms that murdering is.

This reprobate devil deals with certain arguments against cannibalism, one of which is that cannibalism would bring distress to the relatives of the deceased. He then goes on to say that if the consumption of someone’s body causes no sadness to his relatives, or if he has no relatives, then there is nothing wrong with cannibalizing him:

Let us grant that it is wrong to cause undue distress [to the relatives]. Insofar as cannibalism causes undue distress, cannibalism is wrong. This, of course, only demonstrates that cannibalism is wrong because of consequences it has. If the negative consequences are removed, there is no longer an objection to ingesting human flesh.

Psychiatrist Theodore Darlymple argued a case for cannibalism in his 2004 article, A Case for Cannibalism, affirming that Armin and the other demon possessed deviant he ate were “consenting adults”:

According to the evidence, Meiwes and Brandes were consenting adults: by what right, therefore, has the state interfered in their slightly odd relationship?”

Israeli philosopher, Sam Vaknin, has written a subtle defense of consensual cannibalism. He says in one place: “it is impossible to rigorously derive a prohibition to eat human flesh from any known moral system” and then concludes:

that we find cannibalism nauseating is probably the outcome of upbringing and conditioning rather than anything innate.

In another place he says that consensual cannibalism:

resembles suicide. The cannibal is merely the instrument of voluntary self-destruction. Why would we treat it different to the way we treat any other form of suicide pact? Consensual cannibalism is not the equivalent of drug abuse because it has no social costs. Unlike junkies, the cannibal and his meal are unlikely to harm others. What gives society the right to intervene, therefore? If we own our bodies and, thus, have the right to smoke, drink, have an abortion, commit suicide, and will our organs to science after we die – why don’t we possess the inalienable right to will our delectable tissues to a discerning cannibal post-mortem (or to victims of famine in Africa)?

This wicked and demonic son of the devil then goes on to write that the argument that “Cannibalism is barbaric” is “shaky”, saying:

Cannibalism is barbaric. Cannibals are, therefore, barbarians. Progress entails the abolition of this practice. The premises – both explicit and implicit – are axiomatic and, therefore, shaky

This same reprobate writer, quite disturbingly, refers to any disgust of cannibalism as “unnatural”, since, as he says, animals commit cannibalism, and we are — according to Darwinism, animals, then not being cannibalistic goes against nature. Here is his full quote:

Most species – including our closest relatives, the chimpanzees – do cannibalize. Cannibalism in nature is widespread and serves diverse purposes such as population control (chickens, salamanders, toads), food and protein security in conditions of scarcity (hippopotamuses, scorpions, certain types of dinosaurs), threat avoidance (rabbits, mice, rats, and hamsters), and the propagation of genetic material through exclusive mating (Red-back spider and many mantids).

Moreover, humans are a part of nature. Our deeds and misdeeds are natural by definition. Seeking to tame nature is a natural act. Seeking to establish hierarchies and subdue or relinquish our enemies are natural propensities. By avoiding cannibalism we seek to transcend nature. Refraining from cannibalism is the unnatural act.

Tauriq Moosa, another one of these so-called intellectuals (who are truly diabolical), wrote a defense of cannibalism.

In an article written in 2010, he stated that there is nothing ethically wrong with cannibalism as long as its consensual, and also because it is “natural” since cannibalism exists amongst animals. This view goes along the same logic I warned about at the beginning of this article: as long as it doesn’t harm anyone, its okay. It also is the same type of argumentation homosexuals use: animals do it too, so it must be natural. Moosa writes:

Our main question should be: Who is harmed? (Similarly, I also don’t understand the outrage over necrophilia. I will save that for another essay, but for now, the arguments work for both cannibalism and necrophilia.)

Who is harmed by Meiwes eating the corpse of Brandes? After all, we eat corpses all the time – equally cooked and prepared. Cannibalism occurs in the awkwardly-named “animal kingdom”, so it is not something unheard of or particularly unique to humans. In Brandes, it is simply meat that was willingly given, unlike the meat most of us eat which is ripped out of the body of nonhuman animals. In this case, the meat just happened to be human meat. What is problematic with the situation at hand?

Well, I’ve seen the usual “It hurts my god’s feelings” reply – which is not a moral argument, as opposed to ignorance dressed up as moral argument; and of course the equally terrible statement: “It’s just wrong.” No. It’s not “just wrong” – there is always a reason something is wrong and we assess these arguments.

When addressing the idea of bringing God into this controversy over cannibalism, Moosa, expectingly, rejects God and wants to completely keep Him out of the argument:

Well, I’ve seen the usual “It hurts my god’s feelings” reply – which is not a moral argument, as opposed to ignorance dressed up as moral argument

This statement truly reveals the solution to all of these justifications of cannibalism: God. God is the solution. Once remove God, and cannibalism makes sense. Once God is put into the equation, all arguments in favor for cannibalism are condemned and thrown out as evil.

With atheism, evil does not exist. Whether or not something is acceptable is not determined by Christianity or God, but by its practicality; this is the secular mindset, and the source of all modern evils. Nothing is ever done for a moral reason, but whether or not it has a materialistic benefit. So then, if cannibalism can be beneficial and doesn’t hurt anyone, then its permissible to the secular devils.

If you think that this ideology of cannibalism is not a threat, think again. The cult of cannibalism is already seeping into western societies, by making them callous to this evil. Look at all of the films that have glorified and sophisticated cannibalism (the Hannibal films are the best example of this); they make cannibalism intriguing, even poetic. They desensitize the society, conditioning it for when the actual act of cannibalism actually happens.

Take one of the latest incidences of cannibalism for example. A Japanese man named Issei Sagawa murdered and cannibalized a young girl in France.

He shot her with a rifle, sodomized her corpse, and then ate parts of her body as part of a pagan ritual to absorb her “energy.”

The French government should have been completely horrified by this, and disturbed to the point that they should have executed him. But, the French really weren’t. The French, with their pompous rejection of Christianity and boastful secular “enlightenment,” let him go.

French judge Jean-Louis Bruguière declared him unfit for trial and had him admitted into a mental hospital.

He soon was free to return to Japan. When the Japanese government requested from the French the evidence for his crimes, the French refused to give them the documents. For this, he was released, and now he is embraced by the Japanese as a celebrity. He is invited to speaking engagements, does interviews for major media outlets, and makes a living as an artist, painting deviant art that demonically mocks Jesus Christ.

In France, a girl is murdered and cannibalized as part of a pagan ritual, and her murderer is let go, and there is no outrage, either by the people or the government. But when Muslims killed 10 deviants who hated God, a million French people took to the streets with the stupid slogan of “I am Charlie Hebdo”, holding up pens like a bunch of sycophantic idiots.

The world truly is becoming desensitized to cannibalism. This is all part of a diabolical scheme to bring us back into ancient paganism. If you look at all of the evil empires Christianity has defeated, they all consisted of the same evils: homosexuality, cannibalism and human sacrifice. When Moses defeated the Egyptian kingdom, what evils were amongst the pagans of Egypt? Homosexuality, human sacrifice and cannibalism. Most do not know, and it is very little talked about, that the pagan Egyptians practiced cannibalism.

On the temple of Edifu, all lands foreign to Egypt are pictured as being under the feet of the pharaoh, as four men, their arms bounded, are about to be ritually sacrificed. As the sacrificial victims are awaiting their deaths, a person hovers over them, reciting the “Book of the Subduing of the Nobility”.

This ritual was a part of an annual fertility ritual, the depictions of which have netted birds, fish, and mortals, as representing the enemies of the pharaoh–Asiatics, Beduins, Nubians, and others–which were to be eaten for “breakfast, lunch, and supper.” By consuming the flesh of their enemies, the Egyptians believed that they would absorb their desired qualities. (See Alberto R.W. Green, The Role of Human Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East, ch. viii, p. 138.)

The Scripture says that the Egyptians oppressed the Hebrews. I believe that this torment of the Hebrews went beyond whips and making bricks: its quite possible that the Egyptians were cannibalizing the Hebrews.

Lets take another example of another empire Christianity destroyed: the pagans of Mexico. Bernal Diaz Del Castillo, the 16th century adventurer and conquistador, wrote in his book, The Truthful History of the Conquest of New Spain, about how he witnessed the eating of “human meat, just like we take cows from the butcher’s shops, and they have in all towns thick wooden jail-houses, like cages, and in them they put many Indian men, women and boys to fatten, and being fattened they sacrificed and ate them.”

Yet, in both the Egyptian and the native Mexican kingdoms there was a lot of homosexuality, alongside human sacrifice and cannibalism. The Spanish explorer Núñez Cabeza de Vaca described the Indians as having

diabolical practices […] a man married to another man, amarionados or effeminate, impotent men that dressed like women and performed women’s duties, nevertheless, they fired the bow and the arrow and could carry heavy loads on their persons. We saw many amarionados, although taller and sturdier than the other men. Many of these men practiced the sin against nature.

The pagan Indians had homosexual warriors, and today the sodomites promote this ideal of the homosexual soldier. The Egyptian pagans also had this ideal. We learn from the Egyptologist E.A. Wallis Budge that the Egyptian soldiers would sodomize their enemies after defeating them in battle.

What is quite revealing in this entire study is the fact that all of the people today who promote cannibalism are the same people who promote homosexuality. This further proves that there is certainly a connection between homosexuality and cannibalism.

Ultimately what this all shows is that without God we get tyranny. Take away the Ten Commandments and we end up with ten thousand commandments, ten thousand moral arguments for the most obviously evil things, ten thousand deceptions and ten thousands confusions. And all of this leads to an endless pit into the underworld.

All of the beauties of Christianity are under attack. What was condemned as evil and worthy of death under the simple and beautiful virtues of Christendom, is now considered worthy of toleration today. All of these writers who promote cannibalism should be arrested and executed as dangers to the society, all of their writings should be burnt, and their names and identities utterly destroyed from the memory of mankind.

Destroy these wicked people, before they destroy us.