Marcelino
Reputation: 355
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 1,415
|
| Marcelino said: | Nationalism isn't anti-catholic. Pride in one's race isn't anti-catholic. Kicking the jews out of your country isn't anti-catholic. Rejecting "cultural degeneracy" (i.e. weimar germany) isn't anti-catholic.
If the west was involved in a civil war, between the right and the left, then nazi germany was on the right and the right got smashed, by the left, coming out of the east and the west.
In the spanish civil war of the 1930s, between the left and the right, what side did traditional minded catholics take to fight and die for? What side did cultural degenerates take? Was Franco catholic? |
I don't have them off the top of my head, but there's a quote from a famous liberal who says something like, the battle for the west is being fought in the spanish civil war, between the right and the left. So, people like pablo piccasso went off to support the left in that war and what you would call traditional catholics sided with the right. Among that right wing coalition were fascists. In spain it was called the falange or phalange, something like that. But you also had the royalists and the military (franco) and the traditional values catholics (it was spain after all and not new england, ha ha ha).
But, the size of government is not a traditional values issue. Traditional values issues are all about "rank." So, they're opposed to things like: women's lib (men's rank), foreign immigration (the rank of blood), gay rights (moral rank), anti-papism (rank of pope, priests, apostolic succession), abortion (rank of personhood), etc. But they don't really have an opinion about size of government, unless they're told things like "socialism is godless" and then they're against it, because they support God's rank, but not because they have any ideas about economics 
I think their ideas about economics would be things like: men should work and women shouldn't, women should get married and have lots of babies, men should look out for each other, so they can all support a family. I don't think they're so concerned about how wealth is distributed, as they are that men can support their families. That's their measure of wether an economy is just or not. If the typical working man can support a wife and kids or not.
|
.........................
It is easier to stir up vice, than virtue.
I like to say acts of contrition for people, when i think they need them and might not be saying them for themselves :-)
|
| Posted May 28, 2012, 6:29 am |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
Traditional Guy 20
Reputation: 998
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 1,953
|
| brainglitch said: |
St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that war is God's punishment for sin. So does every other traditional theologian.
Our Lady of Fatima said that if Russia was not consecrated, the direct result would be another war, worse than the first world war.
If you resent that, take it up with them.
|
You seem to support the Trotskyite morality of waging war, not the Christian way. The Christian way would prohibit war directly upon civilians and the Allies and Churchill were directly responsible for the West reverting towards barbarism through war terror through Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Dresden, the French maquis, Italian Partisans, and Churchill's orders to "set Europe ablaze" which meant the bombing of German buildings and assasination of German pilots.
| Quote: |
Have you ever read Mein Kampf? Or anything else Hitler wrote for that matter?
Hitler speaks very clearly about forcing the inferior Slavic races to work for the superior German overlords, displacing them and replacing them with Germans, etc. it is all laid out very clearly.
Why do you insist on defending Hitler? I honestly see no reason why anyone could or should.
Why is everything a binary decision with you? Just because I am against Hitler does not mean that I support Communism. I think that the US should have done what Harry Truman said, before he became Vice-President; let the two monsters slay each other.
As for your idiotic assertions that Hitler didn't want to attack Russia, he did. He simply knew that in 1939 the German war machine did not have enough resources to attack Russia; in addition, attacking Russia would leave him exposed to attack by Britain and France. He had to knock France out of the war first, and neutralize Britain, before turning on Russia.
Why is it, also, that you assume I have never read any history, only "propaganda". I have read a number of the "revisionist" historians. Some of their claims I found convincing, others not so much. This idea that Hitler was some sort of "anti-Communist crusader" is one of the least convincing ones.
Far more convincing is the evidence that the whole point of World War II was to bring about the "New World order".....by allowing Hitler to take power in Germany, by fostering Soviet Communism, by weakening France before the war, the Freemasons and their allies such as the Council on Foreign Relations set the table for their complete dominance over world affairs, once the last remnants of Christian were either smashed or neutralized.....
Would you agree with hitler when he said the following:
"“The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.”"
“The heaviest blow which ever struck humanity was Christianity; Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew.”
"That this is possible may not be denied in a world where hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people voluntarily submit to celibacy, obligated and bound by nothing except the injunction of the Church. Should the same renunciation not be possible if this injunction is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created?"
"It would be more in keeping with the intention of the noblest man in this world if our two Christian churches, instead of annoying Negroes with missions which they neither desire nor understand, would kindly, but in all seriousness, teach our European humanity that where parents are not healthy it is a deed pleasing to God to take pity on a poor little healthy orphan child and give him father and mother, than themselves to give birth to a sick child who will only bring unhappiness and suffering on himself and the rest of the world."
"It doesn't dawn on this depraved bourgeois world that this is positively a sin against all reason; that it is criminal lunacy to keep on drilling a born half-ape until people think they have made a lawyer out of him, while millions of members of the highest culture- race must remain in entirely unworthy positions; that it is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator if His most gifted beings by the hundreds and hundreds of thousands are allowed to degenerate in the present proletarian morass, while Hottentots and Zulu Kaffirs are trained for intellectual professions."
"It will be the task of the People's State to make the race the centre of the life of the community. It must make sure that the purity of the racial strain will be preserved. It must proclaim the truth that the child is the most valuable possession a people can have. It must see to it that only those who are healthy shall beget children; that there is only one infamy, namely, for parents that are ill or show hereditary defects to bring children into the world and that in such cases it is a high honour to refrain from doing so."
Very Catholic indeed....
Or with the Hitler Youth when they sang:
"We are the joyous Hitler youth,
We do not need any Christian virtue
Our leader is our savior
The Pope and Rabbi shall be gone
We want to be pagans once again.”"
Sounds like something you would hear Catholic children singing, no? |
I have the Manheim translation of Mein Kampf right in front of me you moron (since you wish to be combative I shall be that way as well). You are correct that Hitler was prepared to turn the Slavs into serfs, however that does not negate the point that Hitler was trying to negotiate with every Slav country so that he could cross their frontiers towards Russia. And your idiotic point of Hitler not attacking Russia, because of France and Britain attacking him if he did, does not negate the point that by 1939 Hitler was surrounded by Allied, friendly, or neutral nations save France, and Hitler wrote off Alsace, since he knew war with France meant war with Great Britain, whose empire he admired and who he always sought as an ally. My point still stands, if Hitler did not have a border with Russia as of 1939 and he knew any confrontation with Russia, would, as you say, leave the West to attack him. In fact Hitler was so terrified of first the Austrian Nazis leading him into a confrontation with Mussolini over an assasination of Dolfuss, him ordering three lightly armed battalians into the Rhineland to pull out if they met French resistance, British and French, and Polish rearnament after he tore up Munich, and his invasion of Poalnd that it shows he never wanted war with the West. Oh and I see you yourself have pro-French sympathies by saying that "freemasons" (yeah...  ) let Hitler rise to ruin France. France ruined themselves by their fanatical German hatred. So come back to me after reading this and don't give me some elementary and childish response of "Hitler's evil! Hitler's a madman!"
(By the way I laugh at your assertion that somehow caring about race makes someone an anti-Catholic. It is shown that Blacks and Hispanics have lower intelligence and that Hitler later mentions in that same passage about "Christian churches annoying Negroes" that, "It is obvious that the Mohammedan faith will spread more quickly in Africa," something which interestingly became true. But hey keep using those liberal lines that race doesn't matter. 
|
|
| Posted May 28, 2012, 10:52 am |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
