Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on July 07, 2020, 10:58:25 AM
-
A higher level of discourse than I expected.
Ps: Google search engine blocks the website address from search results, but you can go directly to it, like their 400,000+ members do.
I am starting to perceive white nationalism as a good and necessary thing, based on the arguments I am reading there.
-
Stormfront.org
-
(https://archive-media-0.nyafuu.org/bant/image/1523/28/1523286664381.jpg)
-
Looks like storefront.org has already been shut down. Nothing on storeback.org either.
:confused:
-
I've always appreciated their posts that give backgrounds and overviews of different dissident ideologies. They have some pretty smart folks over there.
-
I've found a lot of amazing information on that site, just never visit at work. There are guys on there who have been researching WWII, Fascism, Racial issues, Jєωs and other topics for decades, so there are a ton of really good resource threads on there. It's not a bunch of skinhead bike gang dudes like media would have you believe. Obviously there are some neo-pagans and Protestants, but I've seen a good number of traditionalists on there too.
-
I've found a lot of amazing information on that site, just never visit at work. There are guys on there who have been researching WWII, Fascism, Racial issues, Jєωs and other topics for decades, so there are a ton of really good resource threads on there. It's not a bunch of skinhead bike gang dudes like media would have you believe. Obviously there are some neo-pagans and Protestants, but I've seen a good number of traditionalists on there too.
Agreed. Surprisingly, but agreed. Going to the forum is quite a different experience than what the SPLC would lead you to expect!
-
White Nationalism was condemned by Pope Pius XI in 1938.
8. Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community - however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things - whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.
http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge.html (http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge.html)
Piss off.
-
Piss off.
You cannot be a white nationalist and a traditional Catholic at the same time. We have the word of Pope Pius XI. It is not me that you disagree with it is Pope Pius XI that you disagree with.
-
Pius XI’s condemnation only applies to those who “divinize” race (ie., Jєωιѕн Zionists and nαzι’s).
White nationalists do not divinize the Caucasian race, nor do they “elevate it above its standard value.”
Consequently, your garden variety white nationalism is not condemned by Pius XI.
-
White Nationalism was condemned by Pope Pius XI in 1938.
8. Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community - however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things - whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.
http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge.html (http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge.html)
The encyclical was written in German language:
12. Wer die Rasse, oder das Volk, oder den Staat, oder die Staatsform, die Träger der Staatsgewalt oder andere Grundwerte menschlicher Gemeinschaftsgestaltung – die innerhalb der irdischen Ordnung einen wesentlichen und ehrengebietenden Platz behaupten – aus dieser ihrer irdischen Wertskala herauslöst, sie zur höchsten Norm aller, auch der religiösen Werte macht und sie mit Götzenkult vergöttert, der verkehrt und fälscht die gottgeschaffene und gottbefohlene Ordnung der Dinge. Ein solcher ist weit von wahrem Gottesglauben und einer solchem Glauben entsprechenden Lebensauffassung entfernt.
vatican.va (http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/de/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge.html)
Pius XI doesn't say "however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things". He unequivocally states that race, people, state etc. do have an essential and honorable place within the earthly order.
-
You cannot be a white nationalist and a traditional Catholic at the same time. We have the word of Pope Pius XI. It is not me that you disagree with it is Pope Pius XI that you disagree with.
You're a rat-faced liar. The quotation from Pope Pius XII below clearly shows that nationalism "has the Church's approval," and you have already openly disagreed with Pope Pius XII on this forum, and accused him of promoting "sins against charity," you lying, crypto-kike hypocrite.
And note how he singles out "white nationalist" as incompatible with Catholicism, not any other kind of nationalist, and certainly not Zionists. I wonder why? Just a cohen-cidence, surely!
You're so inept at your shilling, Poochie, that you discredit and expose yourself at every turn. Why not just quit the forum and let someone more qualified have a shot at your position as resident Crypto-Jєω?
"The Church of Jesus Christ is the repository of His wisdom; she is certainly too wise to discourage or belittle those peculiarities and differences which mark out one nation from another. It is quite legitimate for nations to treat those differences as a sacred inheritance and guard them at all costs. The Church aims at unity, a unity determined and kept alive by that supernatural love which should be actuating everybody; she does not aim at a uniformity which would only be external in its effects and would cramp the natural tendencies of the nations concerned. Every nation has its own genius, its own qualities, springing from the hidden roots of its being. The wise development, the encouragement within limits, of that genius, those qualities, does no harm; and if a nation cares to take precautions, to lay down rules, for that end, it has the Church's approval."
- Pope Pius XII, Summi Pontificatus, 20 October 1939
-
Obviously there are some neo-pagans and Protestants, but I've seen a good number of traditionalists on there too.
The above is why I have advocated so strongly on this forum for a realistic take on race, consistent with that of Catholics everywhere before WW2 (i.e. our "racist" grandparents and great-grandparents) - the burgeoning "race realist" and nationalist movements must not fall into the hands of pagan reprobates like Varg Vikerness, who smear us directly (and, worse, Our Lord Himself, indirectly) with terms like "Christcuck" because pretty much the entire Conciliar Church - and even most Trads - have internalized the commands of our (((Enemies))) on the subject of race.
We have to take the lead here, lest we lose to heathenism the souls of the young sons and daughters of Christendom, who rightly feel betrayed by the traitors and brainwashed idiots in the Church who have sold their spiritual and national patrimonies to the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan for a mess of pottage. We need to show them that no one is as "redpilled on the JQ" as the Catholic Church, and that the Church, which built the scattered pagan tribes of Europe into the Nations of Christendom, has ever been the bulwark and guarantor of the Nations' right to existence and the enemy of godless (((Internationalism, Multiculturalism and Globalism))) which, as Pope Pius XII said (to Poche's dismay), "aims at a uniformity" that is "only... external in its effects and would cramp the natural tendencies of the nations concerned."
These young "white nationalists" should be the prime target of Trad proselytism. A renewed and reawakened Christendom is what our (((Enemy))) - and their shills, like Poochie - fear most.
-
The above is why I have advocated so strongly on this forum for a realistic take on race, consistent with that of Catholics everywhere before WW2 (i.e. our "racist" grandparents and great-grandparents) - the burgeoning "race realist" and nationalist movements must not fall into the hands of pagan reprobates like Varg Vikerness, who smear us directly (and, worse, Our Lord Himself, indirectly) with terms like "Christcuck" because pretty much the entire Conciliar Church - and even most Trads - have internalized the commands of our (((Enemies))) on the subject of race.
We have to take the lead here, lest we lose to heathenism the souls of the young sons and daughters of Christendom, who rightly feel betrayed by the traitors and brainwashed idiots in the Church who have sold their spiritual and national patrimonies to the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan for a mess of pottage. We need to show them that no one is as "redpilled on the JQ" as the Catholic Church, and that the Church, which built the scattered pagan tribes of Europe into the Nations of Christendom, has ever been the bulwark and guarantor of the Nations' right to existence and the enemy of godless (((Internationalism, Multiculturalism and Globalism))) which, as Pope Pius XII said (to Poche's dismay), "aims at a uniformity" that is "only... external in its effects and would cramp the natural tendencies of the nations concerned."
These young "white nationalists" should be the prime target of Trad proselytism. A renewed and reawakened Christendom is what our (((Enemy))) - and their shills, like Poochie - fear most.
The more that happens in this country, especially in the past month, the more I am convinced that you have a point.
-
You're a rat-faced liar. The quotation from Pope Pius XII below clearly shows that nationalism "has the Church's approval," and you have already openly disagreed with Pope Pius XII on this forum, and accused him of promoting "sins against charity," you lying, crypto-kike hypocrite.
And note how he singles out "white nationalist" as incompatible with Catholicism, not any other kind of nationalist, and certainly not Zionists. I wonder why? Just a cohen-cidence, surely!
You're so inept at your shilling, Poochie, that you discredit and expose yourself at every turn. Why not just quit the forum and let someone more qualified have a shot at your position as resident Crypto-Jєω?
"The Church of Jesus Christ is the repository of His wisdom; she is certainly too wise to discourage or belittle those peculiarities and differences which mark out one nation from another. It is quite legitimate for nations to treat those differences as a sacred inheritance and guard them at all costs. The Church aims at unity, a unity determined and kept alive by that supernatural love which should be actuating everybody; she does not aim at a uniformity which would only be external in its effects and would cramp the natural tendencies of the nations concerned. Every nation has its own genius, its own qualities, springing from the hidden roots of its being. The wise development, the encouragement within limits, of that genius, those qualities, does no harm; and if a nation cares to take precautions, to lay down rules, for that end, it has the Church's approval."
- Pope Pius XII, Summi Pontificatus, 20 October 1939
You are mistaken. In most of the occupied nations of the Third Reich, it was forbidden for a publication to accept nαzι propaganda and call itself Catholic. That was the cause for Titus Brandsma's arrest and also Father Kolbe.
You cannot be a white nationalist and be a Catholic at the same time you can be one or you can be the other but the two are incompatible. Pope Pius XI clearly said so.
-
You cannot be a white nationalist and be a Catholic at the same time you can be one or you can be the other but the two are incompatible. Pope Pius XI clearly said so.
Pius XI clearly said that race, people, state etc. do have an essential and honorable place within the earthly order.
We won't need German, anti-Jєωιѕн, anti-Polish, and anti-French nationalists in heaven, but here on earth they do have an essential and honorable place. That's what Pius XI unequivocally said!
These "white nationalist" Stormfront-folks are multiculturalists. None needs them, but mixed-race folks from melting-pot countries.
-
Previous post was mine.
-
You are mistaken. In most of the occupied nations of the Third Reich, it was forbidden for a publication to accept nαzι propaganda and call itself Catholic. That was the cause for Titus Brandsma's arrest and also Father Kolbe.
You cannot be a white nationalist and be a Catholic at the same time you can be one or you can be the other but the two are incompatible. Pope Pius XI clearly said so.
Can you be a Zionist and a Catholic?
Yes or no?
-
Pope St Pius X said no.
That was me
-
That was me
How about a French nationalist?
Can a Catholic also be a French nationalist?
-
How about a French nationalist?
Can a Catholic also be a French nationalist?
He bailed out without answering because he knows the answer to this question must be "yes," if one is the least bit familiar with St. Joan of Arc.
So then, if a Catholic can be a French nationalist (and, presumably, an Irish nationalist, Polish nationalist, Spanish nationalist, etc.), why can't white American (or Canadian, or Australian) Catholics, most of whom are of multiple European ethnic backgrounds, be pan-European (or, to use the inferior synonym, "White") nationalists? So far as I know, Catholics are under no obligation to accept the "magic dirt" theories of civic nationalism. So why can't European-American Catholics be European-American nationalists?
I challenge Poochie to answer that without resorting to Mit Brennender Sorge abuse, or Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacies.
-
Being a nationalist is not bad -- it doesn't mean that other races are inherently bad, or unworthy of the love of Our Lord, it just means that you want to see your race preserved when other people want to destroy it and bring people who don't belong.
At least a White neighborhood can go 3 days without killing someone.
-
You can be a patriotic American. However the Catholic Church as a rule has always disapproved of racial segregation.
That was me.
-
You can be a patriotic American. However the Catholic Church as a rule has always disapproved of racial segregation.
"The Church of Jesus Christ is the repository of His wisdom; she is certainly too wise to discourage or belittle those peculiarities and differences which mark out one nation from another. It is quite legitimate for nations to treat those differences as a sacred inheritance and guard them at all costs. The Church aims at unity, a unity determined and kept alive by that supernatural love which should be actuating everybody; she does not aim at a uniformity which would only be external in its effects and would cramp the natural tendencies of the nations concerned. Every nation has its own genius, its own qualities, springing from the hidden roots of its being. The wise development, the encouragement within limits, of that genius, those qualities, does no harm; and if a nation cares to take precautions, to lay down rules, for that end, it has the Church's approval."
- Pope Pius XII, Summi Pontificatus, 20 October 1939
-
the Catholic Church as a rule has always disapproved of racial segregation.
God Himself established racial segregation, you jackass. The very reason there are diverse races, is that God segregated them from one another, and adjusted their pigmentation, hair, physiognomy, physical build, and mentality to suit those segregated environments.
Or are you suggesting that the Church "as a rule" disapproves of God's having placed sub-Saharan Africans in Africa, and not in Europe or Asia?
-
From St Teresa of Avila in her commentary on the Pater Noster;
Do you not think, daughters, that this is a good Master, since He begins by granting us this great favour so as to make us love to learn what He teaches us? Do you think it would be right for us, while we are repeating this prayer with our lips, to stop trying to think of what we are saying, lest picturing such love should tear our hearts to pieces? No one who realized His greatness could possibly say it would be. What son is there in the world who would not try to learn who his father was if he had one as good, and of as great majesty and dominion, as ours? Were God not all this, it would not surprise me if we had no desire to be known as His children; for the world is such that, if the father is of lower rank than his son, the son feels no honour in recognizing him as his father. This does not apply here: God forbid that such a thing should ever happen in this house -- it would turn the place into hell. Let the sister who is of the highest birth speak of her father least; we must all be equals.
O College of Christ, in which the Lord was pleased that Saint Peter, who was a fisherman, should have more authority than Saint Bartholomew, who was the son of a king! His Majesty knew what a fuss would be made in the world about who was fashioned from the finer clay -- which is like discussing whether clay is better for bricks or for walls. Dear Lord, what a trouble we make about it! God deliver you, sisters, from such contentions, even if they be carried on only in jest; I hope that His Majesty will indeed deliver you. If anything like this should be going on among you, apply the remedy immediately, and let the sister concerned fear lest she be a Judas among the Apostles. Do what you can to get rid of such a bad companion. If you cannot, give her penances heavier than for anything else until she realizes that she has not deserved to be even the basest clay. You have a good Father, given you by the good Jesus: let no other father be known or referred to here. Strive, my daughters, to be such that you deserve to find comfort in Him and to throw yourselves into His arms. You know that, if you are good children, He will never send you away. And who would not do anything rather than lose such a Father?
http://catholicfirst.com/thefaith/catholicclassics/stteresa/way/wayofperfection06.html#CHAPTER%2027 (http://catholicfirst.com/thefaith/catholicclassics/stteresa/way/wayofperfection06.html#CHAPTER%2027)
That was me
-
That was me
Again, you should just quit the forum. Your refusal to debate honestly exposes you as a fraud. Let someone with more talent take your place here.
The quotation from Pope Pius XII directly gives approval to nationalism, and is directly pertinent to the discussion. Your quotation from St. Teresa has nothing to do with the subject at hand, and you use it to further your cover of false piety.
We see through you. A shill of higher caliber is called for now. You have to at least have a pretense of intellectual honesty. Non-sequitur quotations don't cut it.
-
You can be a patriotic American. However the Catholic Church as a rule has always disapproved of racial segregation.
By grudgingly admitting a Catholic can be "a patriotic American," Poochie gives his blessing to a "nationalism" that is limited to reciting the Pledge of Allegiance once in a while, and grilling pig's feet bathed in butter on the 4th of July.
If a Catholic can be a patriotic American now, presumably he could have also been one after the passage of the 1790 Immigration and Naturalization Act which limited citizenship to "free white persons," effectively making America a Pan-European ethnostate for almost a century. And since no Catholic authority condemned the American ethnostate, and since any rational adult can see what a society-destroying disaster it has been to chip away at the pan-European character and populace of America, turning us into a vast plantation of cultureless, deracinated, atomized, incohesive consumer units - a (((melting pot))) which is really a crucible, bubbling and boiling humanity into the drab, generic goy chattel our (((masters))) always wanted us to be - then it stands to reason that a Catholic can (I would say should) reject the idiotic notion that a piece of paper, or "magic dirt" can make men of different races into members of the same nation, and can advocate for men of his own nation - his blood, his kinsmen, his extended family.
Or does Poochie suggest I can waltz on down to the Reservation, set up camp, and expect to be accepted as a member of the Cherokee Nation, despite not having a drop of their blood in my veins?
-
Pius XI clearly said that race, people, state etc. do have an essential and honorable place within the earthly order.
We won't need German, anti-Jєωιѕн, anti-Polish, and anti-French nationalists in heaven, but here on earth they do have an essential and honorable place. That's what Pius XI unequivocally said!
These "white nationalist" Stormfront-folks are multiculturalists. None needs them, but mixed-race folks from melting-pot countries.
Thank you for explaining to Poche what his favorite passage from Mit Brennender Sorge actually says. He pins a good deal of his hopes for the success of his rhetoric on poor reading comprehension in other posters. That may work in a place like CAF, but it doesn't cut it around here. I hope he retires soon so that his position can be filled by a more competent shill.
As to your claim that "White Nationalism" is a form of multiculturalism, well, yes and no. It is true, as E Michael Jones is wont to frequently point out, that "White People" is a novel ethnic category, with none of the historical and traditional legitimacy of ethnic identities like French, German, Polish, Italian, etc. But, EMJ fails to take into account what you do in your last sentence: in "melting pot" (a phrase that comes from a Jєωιѕн play, by the way) countries, the particular national ethnic identity of one's ancestors fades with each passing generation. How many third generation Italian Americans or Polish Americans make every day, fluent use of their ancestral tongues? None that I've ever met - They're all English speaking Americans who have, at best, a passing familiarity with the language of the old country.
EMJ has repeatedly asserted that, after three generations in America (and presumably, places like Canada and Australia), the ethnic identity disappears completely and is replaced by the religious identity. This is a completely gratuitous assertion that I've never seen him give any reasonable explanation for. We're not Jєωs. We're Catholics. Our religious identity may be intimately tied into our ethnic identities (the more intimately tied they are, the better and healthier the nation), but they are still distinct categories. The ethnic identity does not just "disappear," nor does a different category step in to pick up the slack after three generations.
So where does that put European Americans? Many of us - probably most of us - are made up of two or more distinct ethnic stocks of European ancestry. My own children, for example, boast Irish, Maltese, Italian, Greek, English, Scottish, Welsh and French ancestry. How does one express that myriad background as an identity? At what point do they just become "Americans?" And what does it mean to be an American? Our Khazar overlords would have us believe that the magic dirt of America makes a Bangladeshi, a Korean, a Bantu, etc. members of the same "nation" as my children, despite common sense recoiling from such a ridiculous assertion.
(https://preview.redd.it/udjm4blzti121.png?auto=webp&s=6c30a6f5f09b936c76d0aff40dc11a753d5f7125)
I posit that, in limiting the granting of American citizenship to "white persons" in the 1790 Immigration and Naturalization Act, the Founding Fathers displayed a cognizance of the fundamental need to establish in the new country the Aristotelean brotherly love - philia - vital to its unity as a nation, and did so by restricting the pool for potential Americans to "white persons" - Europeans.
In my opinion, this was a very wise decision. The proof of that pudding is in the tasting. Sub-Saharan Africans have been in this country for four hundred years, yet are far less assimilated and integrated into the fabric of American society than European groups (Italians, let's say) who have been here only 1/4 of that time. Why? Again, it's common sense (which is now beaten out of us for being "racist" - but our grandparents understood it): Europeans - "white people" - look more or less alike, think more or less alike, have more or less compatible temperaments, and, being sons and daughters of Christendom, have the same overall cultural grounding and outlook. In establishing America as a Pan-European nation, the Founders cast the net as widely as possible to a group that allowed for as much diversity as possible while still having enough overall commonality to make a nation work.
But including starkly different groups - Africans, Asians, even "Native Americans" - does not work (the "Native" tribes certainly know this, thus why they retain their own national identities, distinct from the American one, despite being "Native" "Americans"). "White guilt" (a diabolical ape of Catholic guilt) has been a crippling, silencing albatross around our necks for too long. We will either unite as sons and daughters of Christendom (the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan's greatest fear), or else we will continue into the morass of deracination, atomization, and miscegenation until we are no more.
-
By grudgingly admitting a Catholic can be "a patriotic American," Poochie gives his blessing to a "nationalism" that is limited to reciting the Pledge of Allegiance once in a while, and grilling pig's feet bathed in butter on the 4th of July.
If a Catholic can be a patriotic American now, presumably he could have also been one after the passage of the 1790 Immigration and Naturalization Act which limited citizenship to "free white persons," effectively making America a Pan-European ethnostate for almost a century. And since no Catholic authority condemned the American ethnostate, and since any rational adult can see what a society-destroying disaster it has been to chip away at the pan-European character and populace of America, turning us into a vast plantation of cultureless, deracinated, atomized, incohesive consumer units - a (((melting pot))) which is really a crucible, bubbling and boiling humanity into the drab, generic goy chattel our (((masters))) always wanted us to be - then it stands to reason that a Catholic can (I would say should) reject the idiotic notion that a piece of paper, or "magic dirt" can make men of different races into members of the same nation, and can advocate for men of his own nation - his blood, his kinsmen, his extended family.
Or does Poochie suggest I can waltz on down to the Reservation, set up camp, and expect to be accepted as a member of the Cherokee Nation, despite not having a drop of their blood in my veins?
What you should do is accept the fact that the Cherokee people have more right to this land than you do.
-
Thank you for explaining to Poche what his favorite passage from Mit Brennender Sorge actually says. He pins a good deal of his hopes for the success of his rhetoric on poor reading comprehension in other posters. That may work in a place like CAF, but it doesn't cut it around here. I hope he retires soon so that his position can be filled by a more competent shill.
As to your claim that "White Nationalism" is a form of multiculturalism, well, yes and no. It is true, as E Michael Jones is wont to frequently point out, that "White People" is a novel ethnic category, with none of the historical and traditional legitimacy of ethnic identities like French, German, Polish, Italian, etc. But, EMJ fails to take into account what you do in your last sentence: in "melting pot" (a phrase that comes from a Jєωιѕн play, by the way) countries, the particular national ethnic identity of one's ancestors fades with each passing generation. How many third generation Italian Americans or Polish Americans make every day, fluent use of their ancestral tongues? None that I've ever met - They're all English speaking Americans who have, at best, a passing familiarity with the language of the old country.
EMJ has repeatedly asserted that, after three generations in America (and presumably, places like Canada and Australia), the ethnic identity disappears completely and is replaced by the religious identity. This is a completely gratuitous assertion that I've never seen him give any reasonable explanation for. We're not Jєωs. We're Catholics. Our religious identity may be intimately tied into our ethnic identities (the more intimately tied they are, the better and healthier the nation), but they are still distinct categories. The ethnic identity does not just "disappear," nor does a different category step in to pick up the slack after three generations.
So where does that put European Americans? Many of us - probably most of us - are made up of two or more distinct ethnic stocks of European ancestry. My own children, for example, boast Irish, Maltese, Italian, Greek, English, Scottish, Welsh and French ancestry. How does one express that myriad background as an identity? At what point do they just become "Americans?" And what does it mean to be an American? Our Khazar overlords would have us believe that the magic dirt of America makes a Bangladeshi, a Korean, a Bantu, etc. members of the same "nation" as my children, despite common sense recoiling from such a ridiculous assertion.
(https://preview.redd.it/udjm4blzti121.png?auto=webp&s=6c30a6f5f09b936c76d0aff40dc11a753d5f7125)
I posit that, in limiting the granting of American citizenship to "white persons" in the 1790 Immigration and Naturalization Act, the Founding Fathers displayed a cognizance of the fundamental need to establish in the new country the Aristotelean brotherly love - philia - vital to its unity as a nation, and did so by restricting the pool for potential Americans to "white persons" - Europeans.
In my opinion, this was a very wise decision. The proof of that pudding is in the tasting. Sub-Saharan Africans have been in this country for four hundred years, yet are far less assimilated and integrated into the fabric of American society than European groups (Italians, let's say) who have been here only 1/4 of that time. Why? Again, it's common sense (which is now beaten out of us for being "racist" - but our grandparents understood it): Europeans - "white people" - look more or less alike, think more or less alike, have more or less compatible temperaments, and, being sons and daughters of Christendom, have the same overall cultural grounding and outlook. In establishing America as a Pan-European nation, the Founders cast the net as widely as possible to a group that allowed for as much diversity as possible while still having enough overall commonality to make a nation work.
But including starkly different groups - Africans, Asians, even "Native Americans" - does not work (the "Native" tribes certainly know this, thus why they retain their own national identities, distinct from the American one, despite being "Native" "Americans"). "White guilt" (a diabolical ape of Catholic guilt) has been a crippling, silencing albatross around our necks for too long. We will either unite as sons and daughters of Christendom (the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan's greatest fear), or else we will continue into the morass of deracination, atomization, and miscegenation until we are no more.
What is un democratic is when one segment of the population is disrespected and left out.
-
What you should do is accept the fact that the Cherokee people have more right to this land than you do.
The same way whites have more right to live in Europe than Africans, Asians, and Middle Easterners do, right?
Right, Poche?
-
It is from Pope Pius XI. It is a clear condemnation of racial hegemony.
Racial hegemony like the red race having more right to American land than the white race, right?
Right, Poche?
-
What is un democratic is when one segment of the population is disrespected and left out.
Like whites being told they have less right to the land of their birth than people of another race, right?
Right, Poche?
-
What you should do is accept the fact that the Cherokee people have more right to this land than you do.
Ditto. BTW. So when are you packing your bags, asshole?
-
Racial hegemony like the red race having more right to American land than the white race, right?
Right, Poche?
This about the latest Supreme Court decision that ruled that half of Oklahoma is actually a reservation?
-
Thank you for explaining to Poche what his favorite passage from Mit Brennender Sorge actually says. He pins a good deal of his hopes for the success of his rhetoric on poor reading comprehension in other posters. That may work in a place like CAF, but it doesn't cut it around here. I hope he retires soon so that his position can be filled by a more competent shill.
As to your claim that "White Nationalism" is a form of multiculturalism, well, yes and no. It is true, as E Michael Jones is wont to frequently point out, that "White People" is a novel ethnic category, with none of the historical and traditional legitimacy of ethnic identities like French, German, Polish, Italian, etc. But, EMJ fails to take into account what you do in your last sentence: in "melting pot" (a phrase that comes from a Jєωιѕн play, by the way) countries, the particular national ethnic identity of one's ancestors fades with each passing generation. How many third generation Italian Americans or Polish Americans make every day, fluent use of their ancestral tongues? None that I've ever met - They're all English speaking Americans who have, at best, a passing familiarity with the language of the old country.
EMJ has repeatedly asserted that, after three generations in America (and presumably, places like Canada and Australia), the ethnic identity disappears completely and is replaced by the religious identity. This is a completely gratuitous assertion that I've never seen him give any reasonable explanation for. We're not Jєωs. We're Catholics. Our religious identity may be intimately tied into our ethnic identities (the more intimately tied they are, the better and healthier the nation), but they are still distinct categories. The ethnic identity does not just "disappear," nor does a different category step in to pick up the slack after three generations.
So where does that put European Americans? Many of us - probably most of us - are made up of two or more distinct ethnic stocks of European ancestry. My own children, for example, boast Irish, Maltese, Italian, Greek, English, Scottish, Welsh and French ancestry. How does one express that myriad background as an identity? At what point do they just become "Americans?" And what does it mean to be an American? Our Khazar overlords would have us believe that the magic dirt of America makes a Bangladeshi, a Korean, a Bantu, etc. members of the same "nation" as my children, despite common sense recoiling from such a ridiculous assertion.
(https://preview.redd.it/udjm4blzti121.png?auto=webp&s=6c30a6f5f09b936c76d0aff40dc11a753d5f7125)
I posit that, in limiting the granting of American citizenship to "white persons" in the 1790 Immigration and Naturalization Act, the Founding Fathers displayed a cognizance of the fundamental need to establish in the new country the Aristotelean brotherly love - philia - vital to its unity as a nation, and did so by restricting the pool for potential Americans to "white persons" - Europeans.
In my opinion, this was a very wise decision. The proof of that pudding is in the tasting. Sub-Saharan Africans have been in this country for four hundred years, yet are far less assimilated and integrated into the fabric of American society than European groups (Italians, let's say) who have been here only 1/4 of that time. Why? Again, it's common sense (which is now beaten out of us for being "racist" - but our grandparents understood it): Europeans - "white people" - look more or less alike, think more or less alike, have more or less compatible temperaments, and, being sons and daughters of Christendom, have the same overall cultural grounding and outlook. In establishing America as a Pan-European nation, the Founders cast the net as widely as possible to a group that allowed for as much diversity as possible while still having enough overall commonality to make a nation work.
But including starkly different groups - Africans, Asians, even "Native Americans" - does not work (the "Native" tribes certainly know this, thus why they retain their own national identities, distinct from the American one, despite being "Native" "Americans"). "White guilt" (a diabolical ape of Catholic guilt) has been a crippling, silencing albatross around our necks for too long. We will either unite as sons and daughters of Christendom (the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan's greatest fear), or else we will continue into the morass of deracination, atomization, and miscegenation until we are no more.
Given the Gaussian IQ-curves you recommended elsewhere, you should grant American citizenship based on IQ tests. But you yourself know that that would not resolve any problem. The problem of the U.S. and the western world is not the fault of low IQ whites or blacks or whatever colour. It is the fault of the Jєωιѕн-masonic class predominantly super-saharan.
-
Previous post was mine.
-
Racial hegemony like the red race having more right to American land than the white race, right?
Right, Poche?
If you say so.
-
This about the latest Supreme Court decision that ruled that half of Oklahoma is actually a reservation?
That would only be a portion of what was stolen from them.
-
That would only be a portion of what was stolen from them.
Did the Jєωs steal Palestine from the Palestinians?
-
Did the Jєωs steal Palestine from the Palestinians?
Most of it.
-
Given the Gaussian IQ-curves you recommended elsewhere, you should grant American citizenship based on IQ tests. But you yourself know that that would not resolve any problem. The problem of the U.S. and the western world is not the fault of low IQ whites or blacks or whatever colour. It is the fault of the Jєωιѕн-masonic class predominantly super-saharan.
You keep putting the cart before the horse, and here, you assume that I ought to as well.
Racial IQ data simply conforms to observable objective facts. Nobody needs to "base" anything on this data. The objective fact that sub-Saharan Africans have not peacefully, competently assimilated into the fabric of American society, despite having been here for four centuries (four times as long as European groups - i.e. Italians; Greeks; Poles - who have peacefully, competently assimilated into American society) is all the evidence anyone needs to see that our Immigration and Naturalization law of 1790 is infinitely more sound than those of 1868 and onward (especially that of 1965). The fact that Haiti - despite being an independent, self-governing nation for more than two centuries - has, since casting off her French masters, wavered between bare functionality and out-and-out savagery also renders the IQ data largely superfluous. The fact that Haiti is a Catholic nation is, in my opinion, the proverbial final nail in the coffin for the "b-but it's all about the culture!" arguments of colorblind Catholic racial egalitarians like you, who seem to think Grace transforms nature, rather than building on it.
President James Garfield did not need any IQ data on hand when he said that he had "a strong feeling of repugnance when I think of the negro being made our political equal and I would be glad if they could be colonized, sent to heaven, or got rid of in any decent way." He made that statement some 40 years before the advent of the first IQ test.
Finally, I might point out the silliness of your getting so bent out of shape over my posting of the IQ Bell Curve (and, my posting of it shows the main utility of the data - i.e. posting that chart pretty succinctly makes a point that might otherwise have to be made by enervatingly repeating the same historical observations and arguments that I've made ad nauseum in the past) - such that you emotionally suggest above that I "should grant American citizenship based on IQ tests." Why? The 1790 criteria was sufficient - "free white persons of good moral character." What an individual's particular intelligence is is irrelevant. We're talking big numbers here. Limit citizenship to Europeans - who are of comparable overall intelligence, look more or less alike, have more or less comparable temperaments, have a shared history and shared spiritual, philosophical, and spiritual grounding and outlook - and that provides sufficient overall homogeneity to make the foreseen pan-European American ethnostate work. The fact that internecine ethnic conflicts among European Americans (Italians vs. Irish; Poles vs. Germans, etc.) did not last more than a century, and is now a totally extinct phenomenon, bears this out. Best of all, if citizenship had been limited to the sons and daughters of Christendom, the ground for American conversion to the Catholic Faith would have been that much more fertile, as the Catholic population of the nation began to explode in the 20th Century, and mainline American Protestantism was on the wane. This outcome would have been all the more certain, had application of the "white" and "good moral character" standards of the 1790 law been sufficiently stringent to prevent Jєωs from gaining citizenship.
And, it is in the fact of the Jєωs being at fault for the current state of Western Civilization that, it seems, we both agree. However, your seeming indifference to - or naivety about - the reality of racial differences, and the utter unworkability of civic nationalism and racially diverse societies, leads me to conclude that you have a rather glaring blind spot in this very vitally important area of Jєωιѕн-Masonic subversion.
-
If you say so.
You said so, remember?
Red Indians have more right to American soil than Europeans do, right?
So white people have more right to European soil than the Africans and Asians and Arabs currently living there?
Yes or no?
-
You said so, remember?
Red Indians have more right to American soil than Europeans do, right?
So white people have more right to European soil than the Africans and Asians and Arabs currently living there?
Yes or no?
Not if the Africans or Asians or Arabs legitimately bought the land they are on.
-
Not if the Africans or Asians or Arabs legitimately bought the land they are on.
I don't even care that this answer is retarded; I'm going to keep pressing on:
Did the red Indians "legitimately buy" their land?
And what happened when white men bought their land from the Indians? Hint: It's where we get the expression "Indian giver."
-
Finally, I might point out the silliness of your getting so bent out of shape over my posting of the IQ Bell Curve... such that you emotionally suggest above that I "should grant American citizenship based on IQ tests." Why? The 1790 criteria was sufficient - "free white persons of good moral character." What an individual's particular intelligence is is irrelevant. We're talking big numbers here. Limit citizenship to Europeans - who are of comparable overall intelligence, look more or less alike, have more or less comparable temperaments, have a shared history and shared spiritual, philosophical, and spiritual grounding and outlook - and that provides sufficient overall homogeneity to make the foreseen pan-European American ethnostate work.
Building on the above point - and to allay any scruples about my "basing" anything on racial IQ data - I might point out that I defer to the 1790 criteria even when the racial IQ data might (were I to exaggerate its importance as the poster above seems to want me to) impel me otherwise. For, in the case of East Asians, who consistently score higher than whites in IQ tests (though not by the full standard deviation gulf that separates whites and blacks - something also in accord with observable objective facts), I would stand by the 1790 standards, and would not grant them citizenship. Despite their high average intelligence and competence, despite the fact that they are more closely related to Europeans than either are to Negroes, despite their very low rates of violent crime (lower than whites), and despite the fact that some - the Japanese, for example - come from very highly developed civilizations and cultures which I personally respect, they still do not belong in what is, essentially, a pan-European nation. They look starkly different from us, they have a very different overall temperament, and a very different spiritual, moral, and philosophical grounding and outlook.
Ditto for Poche's precious Red Indians, though he seems to be too stupid - or dishonest (this is Poche we're talking about, so take your pick) - to realize that, in arguing for the "right" of the Red Indians to American land, he is arguing for ethnic nationalism, and is recognizing the basic, common sense fact that the Indian Nations are distinct nations, apart from and outside of, the American (pan-European) nation. Everyone once understood this implicitly - the Indians no less than anyone else. No amount of living on the same magic American dirt made General Custer and Sitting Bull members of the same nation.
-
Not if the Africans or Asians or Arabs legitimately bought the land they are on.
But pocher.... Zionist illegitimately invaded Palestinian lands and murdered millions ?
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fimeu.org%2Fuploads%2Fimagefiles%2Farticle%2F_featured%2FChildrenKilled2000-2013.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
-
But pocher.... Zionists illegitimately stole Palestinian lands and murdered millions ?
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fimeu.org%2Fuploads%2Fimagefiles%2Farticle%2F_featured%2FChildrenKilled2000-2013.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
-
But pocher.... Zionist illegitimately invaded Palestinian lands and murdered millions ?
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fimeu.org%2Fuploads%2Fimagefiles%2Farticle%2F_featured%2FChildrenKilled2000-2013.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
No sympathy for IDF soldiers who are murdered by Palestinians. Zero. They're scuм. The US should be arming a Christian Palestinian army against the Israel Defense Forces.
-
The only state in which all the land was legitimately bought was Rhode Island.
That was me.
-
The only state in which all the land was legitimately bought was Rhode Island.
From whom did the Indians buy their land?
-
They were there first.
Spoken like a 4-year-old.
Who is "they?" The Indian tribes and nations were at perpetual war with one another, slaughtering and conquering each other. It wasn't the peaceful hippie commune you see in your mind's eye. Why is conquest only illegitimate when whites do it?
This cartoon illustrates my point:
(https://i.redd.it/fem4y8xcx6c31.jpg)
-
Spoken like a 4-year-old.
Who is "they?" The Indian tribes and nations were at perpetual war with one another, slaughtering and conquering each other. It wasn't the peaceful hippie commune you see in your mind's eye. Why is conquest only illegitimate when whites do it?
This cartoon illustrates my point:
(https://i.redd.it/fem4y8xcx6c31.jpg)
The law of God applies to everyone.