Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: InfiniteFaith on February 26, 2013, 02:19:41 PM
-
So I was thinking about how to prevent this crisis that we are having in our country today. Here is my solution...
1) Move to an area with minimal minorities. This of course would lessen the chances of your children race mixing.
2) Don't allow your children to date (have girlfriends/boyfriends) until 16 or 18 years old. The goal here is not to stop them from dating. They will have their little girlfriends and boyfriends secretly no matter what. But the goal is to make it exciting for them. Yes, exciting. Kids frequently do things behind their parents' back because of the thrill. So if your kids get a kick out of simply just dating then you have pretty much eliminated the thrill of interracial dating. Your kids get that same thrill from dating period. A lot of times people interracially date because of the thrill they get out of it. They were raised in a way that did not allow them to interracially date, and they did anyways because of the thrill of getting away with it. So basically what we are doing here is we are replacing the thrill of interracial dating by creating another thrill...which is dating in general. That way, your kids get the same thrill out of dating someone of their own kind as they would from interracial dating.
3) Try to find ways to discourage interracial dating with your kids. Maybe by using positive and negative reinforcement. Also, keeping them away from certain media. And explaining to them why it is important for them to find someone of the same belief system. You might even throw in how important it is to preserve our culture and way of life. You can raise them to be proud of being white. You don't have to teach them to hate other races or anything.
Any other suggestions?
-
My uncle is Russian Orthodox. He always told my cousin during her childhood that she must marry another Russian Orthodox or he would disown her. She ended up marrying another Russian Orthodox. Maybe if you really want your children to avoid interracial marriages you could do the same and tell your children that if they married outside of their race you would disown them.
-
My uncle is Russian Orthodox. He always told my cousin during her childhood that she must marry another Russian Orthodox or he would disown her. She ended up marrying another Russian Orthodox. Maybe if you really want your children to avoid interracial marriages you could do the same and tell your children that if they married outside of their race you would disown them.
Yes I see what you are saying. That might be a bit too harsh. If my daughter wanted to date outside of her race then I would let her know I don't like it. I'm not sure if I would go as far as saying I would disown her though.
-
My uncle is Russian Orthodox. He always told my cousin during her childhood that she must marry another Russian Orthodox or he would disown her. She ended up marrying another Russian Orthodox. Maybe if you really want your children to avoid interracial marriages you could do the same and tell your children that if they married outside of their race you would disown them.
Plus, handling it this way may actually cause your child to want to interracial date that much more. People want what they can't have. So by telling them they can't date interracially, it is going to cause them to want to.
By handling it my way, you are taking measures to prevent your child from interracially dating without them even knowing it. You are molding them in a way that does not leave them curious for something different by telling them they can't have it. You are molding them in a way that still captivates the thrill of dating yet at the same time it would be with someone of the same race.
-
The best thing to do is to educate one's children about genetics and about racial characteristics.
Do that and they will likely prefer their own race, at least if they're white.
The last thing to do is to overdo it. Best thing to do is to live where minorities are not numerous.
There's not much hope for a compulsive negrophile.
Perhaps on rare occasions God gives a good black man a good white wife.
In such a case they will do their own will, and it is not a problem to accept the results.
I'm convinced such cases are probably rare.
-
Maybe one should instead focus more on instilling and solidifying the True Traditional Catholic Faith to one 's children and making sure each of them marries a fellow Traditionalist Catholic and raises a Holy Family following the example of Saints Mary and Joseph. It is already vastly difficult to maintain the purity of Faith in this decadent and sinful world, even more so while focusing on miscegenation, which really does not advance one's prayer or spiritual life at all. Race of course is trivial to Faith, and this is especially demonstrated by the holy Catholic Spanish conquistadors, who spread the Holy Faith around the world even though they practiced miscegenation.
-
So I was thinking about how to prevent this crisis that we are having in our country today. Here is my solution...
1) Move to an area with minimal minorities. This of course would lessen the chances of your children race mixing.
2) Don't allow your children to date (have girlfriends/boyfriends) until 16 or 18 years old. The goal here is not to stop them from dating. They will have their little girlfriends and boyfriends secretly no matter what. But the goal is to make it exciting for them. Yes, exciting. Kids frequently do things behind their parents' back because of the thrill. So if your kids get a kick out of simply just dating then you have pretty much eliminated the thrill of interracial dating. Your kids get that same thrill from dating period. A lot of times people interracially date because of the thrill they get out of it. They were raised in a way that did not allow them to interracially date, and they did anyways because of the thrill of getting away with it. So basically what we are doing here is we are replacing the thrill of interracial dating by creating another thrill...which is dating in general. That way, your kids get the same thrill out of dating someone of their own kind as they would from interracial dating.
3) Try to find ways to discourage interracial dating with your kids. Maybe by using positive and negative reinforcement. Also, keeping them away from certain media. And explaining to them why it is important for them to find someone of the same belief system. You might even throw in how important it is to preserve our culture and way of life. You can raise them to be proud of being white. You don't have to teach them to hate other races or anything.
Any other suggestions?
I can't believe I'm reading this garbage on a Catholic website. :facepalm:
-
Race of course is trivial to Faith
Which is why God Himself ordained that He be born in the flesh of a particular race with a specific bloodline...
If race is so trivial, why not just be born of a Babylonian?
He was born of a specific bloodline because of the promise to Abraham.
There was plenty "mixing" along the way. The genealogies make note of all the gentiles in the bloodline.
This "race" is defined by particular men, Abraham (Isaac and Jacob) and David. And it is central to a promise and many prophecies. You, in making that argument, might want to point out Adam and Eve, the first humans, who are the parents of all humans.
Unless you are thinking people here are somehow part of Messianic prophecy, that comparison does not make sense, and in fact, defends "mixing".
Races are accidents. They are just something which arises out of geographical boundaries and get reinforced over time.
There is nothing particular about them.
While we have fixed notions on common "races", it is a convention based on perception.
There are stable and old populations in Africa of "black" people who have straight hair, and even one which has blond hair. Some have epicanthic folds ("Chinese eyes"). All sorts of heights are reached. This is just in Africa, in African populations without "mixing" in recent times. There is no "black race". There are "black" people in southern India who are as distinct from black Africans as white Norwegians, despite having a similar skin colour.
And what about people who are already "mixed"? Who should they marry? Other "mixed" people?
A big danger to those living the Faith is becoming enamored by the things which happen to be around oneself, rather than seeing what matters. What a small mind opens its eyes, looks around, and thinks it beholds eternity.
-
So I was thinking about how to prevent this crisis that we are having in our country today. Here is my solution...
1) Move to an area with minimal minorities. This of course would lessen the chances of your children race mixing.
2) Don't allow your children to date (have girlfriends/boyfriends) until 16 or 18 years old. The goal here is not to stop them from dating. They will have their little girlfriends and boyfriends secretly no matter what. But the goal is to make it exciting for them. Yes, exciting. Kids frequently do things behind their parents' back because of the thrill. So if your kids get a kick out of simply just dating then you have pretty much eliminated the thrill of interracial dating. Your kids get that same thrill from dating period. A lot of times people interracially date because of the thrill they get out of it. They were raised in a way that did not allow them to interracially date, and they did anyways because of the thrill of getting away with it. So basically what we are doing here is we are replacing the thrill of interracial dating by creating another thrill...which is dating in general. That way, your kids get the same thrill out of dating someone of their own kind as they would from interracial dating.
3) Try to find ways to discourage interracial dating with your kids. Maybe by using positive and negative reinforcement. Also, keeping them away from certain media. And explaining to them why it is important for them to find someone of the same belief system. You might even throw in how important it is to preserve our culture and way of life. You can raise them to be proud of being white. You don't have to teach them to hate other races or anything.
Any other suggestions?
Or you could be a Catholic and stop espousing racist, heretical nonsense. Just a thought.
-
Those same Spanish conquistadors also established a racial caste (casta) system in South America where only pure Spaniards could rule and maintain their status at the top of the socio-economic structure. Mestizos (half breeds), pure natives, and negros were considered inferior, and in the caste system were regarded as second, third, and fourth class citizens and did not have the same rights and privileges.
Yes, and those same conquistadors also are not ruling this land, the "half breeds" are the dominant population, and it was Juan Diego, a native convert, who was honoured by the Blessed Virgin Mary.
The temporal racism/values of the Spanish political system is not what we care about it. We care about the eternal truth the good Spaniards spread.
This again dispels the value of preventing race "mixing" and shows such a goal as being shortsighted and not a morally guided principle, although, in the case of political systems, it may make sense considering that the rulers were trying to overcome pagan tendencies and having people who were "new" to the Faith and ruling system would not make sense, this system did not last.
-
Or you could be a Catholic and stop espousing racist, heretical nonsense. Just a thought.
Racism is not heretical, unless you think that people of other races don't have souls or that they cannot please God. I think that some forms of racism might be sinful, but not heretical.
-
My uncle is Russian Orthodox. He always told my cousin during her childhood that she must marry another Russian Orthodox or he would disown her. She ended up marrying another Russian Orthodox. Maybe if you really want your children to avoid interracial marriages you could do the same and tell your children that if they married outside of their race you would disown them.
Or you could be Catholic and stop espousing racist, heretical nonsense. Again, just a thought.
-
My uncle is Russian Orthodox. He always told my cousin during her childhood that she must marry another Russian Orthodox or he would disown her. She ended up marrying another Russian Orthodox. Maybe if you really want your children to avoid interracial marriages you could do the same and tell your children that if they married outside of their race you would disown them.
Yes I see what you are saying. That might be a bit too harsh. If my daughter wanted to date outside of her race then I would let her know I don't like it. I'm not sure if I would go as far as saying I would disown her though.
And I hope your daughter would let you know that she is a Catholic and does not espouse this racist, heretical nonsense.
-
Maybe one should instead focus more on instilling and solidifying the True Traditional Catholic Faith to one 's children and making sure each of them marries a fellow Traditionalist Catholic and raises a Holy Family following the example of Saints Mary and Joseph. It is already vastly difficult to maintain the purity of Faith in this decadent and sinful world, even more so while focusing on miscegenation, which really does not advance one's prayer or spiritual life at all. Race of course is trivial to Faith, and this is especially demonstrated by the holy Catholic Spanish conquistadors, who spread the Holy Faith around the world even though they practiced miscegenation.
Maybe one should.
-
Or you could be Catholic and stop espousing racist, heretical nonsense. Again, just a thought.
Please kind sir, tell me the heresies that I have spread. Heresy is a direct denial of a dogma. Tell me which dogmas have I denied so I can recant. Just a thought. I haven't even said anything racist.
-
Or you could be a Catholic and stop espousing racist, heretical nonsense. Just a thought.
Racism is not heretical, unless you think that people of other races don't have souls or that they cannot please God. I think that some forms of racism might be sinful, but not heretical.
It most certainly is heretical. We are all human. The Word became flesh. Not white flesh. It matters if your spouse is a Catholic and that you raise your children to be Catholics. It does not matter what color their skin is or where their ancestors were born.
-
So I was thinking about how to prevent this crisis that we are having in our country today. Here is my solution...
1) Move to an area with minimal minorities. This of course would lessen the chances of your children race mixing.
2) Don't allow your children to date (have girlfriends/boyfriends) until 16 or 18 years old. The goal here is not to stop them from dating. They will have their little girlfriends and boyfriends secretly no matter what. But the goal is to make it exciting for them. Yes, exciting. Kids frequently do things behind their parents' back because of the thrill. So if your kids get a kick out of simply just dating then you have pretty much eliminated the thrill of interracial dating. Your kids get that same thrill from dating period. A lot of times people interracially date because of the thrill they get out of it. They were raised in a way that did not allow them to interracially date, and they did anyways because of the thrill of getting away with it. So basically what we are doing here is we are replacing the thrill of interracial dating by creating another thrill...which is dating in general. That way, your kids get the same thrill out of dating someone of their own kind as they would from interracial dating.
3) Try to find ways to discourage interracial dating with your kids. Maybe by using positive and negative reinforcement. Also, keeping them away from certain media. And explaining to them why it is important for them to find someone of the same belief system. You might even throw in how important it is to preserve our culture and way of life. You can raise them to be proud of being white. You don't have to teach them to hate other races or anything.
Any other suggestions?
I can't believe I'm reading this garbage on a Catholic website. :facepalm:
Get used to it. It passes for orthodox Catholicism to many here.
-
It most certainly is heretical.
Name my heresy so I can recant. Explain what my heretical belief is so I can change it. I never even said I believe that interracial marriage was wrong; I just suggested a way to avoid it to someone who thinks it is wrong.
-
Or you could be Catholic and stop espousing racist, heretical nonsense. Again, just a thought.
Please kind sir, tell me the heresies that I have spread. Heresy is a direct denial of a dogma. Tell me which dogmas have I denied so I can recant. Just a thought. I haven't even said anything racist.
See my post immediately below this one.
-
Or you could be a Catholic and stop espousing racist, heretical nonsense. Just a thought.
Racism is not heretical, unless you think that people of other races don't have souls or that they cannot please God. I think that some forms of racism might be sinful, but not heretical.
It most certainly is heretical. We are all human. The Word became flesh. Not white flesh. It matters if your spouse is a Catholic and that you raise your children to be Catholics. It does not matter what color their skin is or where their ancestors were born.
Yes! Ethiopian eunuch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_eunuch)
-
It most certainly is heretical.
Name my heresy so I can recant. Explain what my heretical belief is so I can change it. I never even said I believe that interracial marriage was wrong; I just suggested a way to avoid it to someone who thinks it is wrong.
Okay. If I mistakenly ascribed the belief that interracial marriage is wrong to you, I am sorry, and I sincerely apologize. However, there is no Catholic reason to think that it is wrong, or to to suggest that it should be avoided as some sort of moral imperative. If you are only attracted to members of your own race, that is fine. Suggesting that it is wrong to feel otherwise is not a Catholic attitude. Again, it seems i wrongly assumed you thought this, so again I apologize.
-
Thank you for your apology. It is accepted.
-
Thank you.
-
Geez!! white race, black race, yellow race, colored race, mixed race or whatever race, Thank GOD HE made the blood that flows in our veins RED![/b] Unless someone has a different color? :facepalm:
Question? Before the JUST JUDGE, will Our Lord sees the soul as white, black, yellow, mixed, colored???
-
The best thing to do is to educate one's children about genetics and about racial characteristics.
Do that and they will likely prefer their own race, at least if they're white.
The last thing to do is to overdo it. Best thing to do is to live where minorities are not numerous.
There's not much hope for a compulsive negrophile.
Perhaps on rare occasions God gives a good black man a good white wife.
In such a case they will do their own will, and it is not a problem to accept the results.
I'm convinced such cases are probably rare.
I think most white women go black then white men don't want them anymore so they stay black.
This is the way it should be. Otherwise, there would be a case of jungle fever for a lot more white women, and us decent white men have to sleep with them after the fact. I'm sorry but I don't want that.
-
I think most white women go black then white men don't want them anymore so they stay black.
I don't doubt white men don't want them (if they know), but that they go back there is no doubt. I recall doing some election work with a negro waiter who said he would pick up women at the art museum. I doubt most of those women at the art museum take up with a negro as long term mate to show in public.
These people who send their girls to these cesspool universities with popular athletics programs and frat-houses are delusional or deranged.
-
So I was thinking about how to prevent this crisis that we are having in our country today. Here is my solution...
1) Move to an area with minimal minorities. This of course would lessen the chances of your children race mixing.
2) Don't allow your children to date (have girlfriends/boyfriends) until 16 or 18 years old. The goal here is not to stop them from dating. They will have their little girlfriends and boyfriends secretly no matter what. But the goal is to make it exciting for them. Yes, exciting. Kids frequently do things behind their parents' back because of the thrill. So if your kids get a kick out of simply just dating then you have pretty much eliminated the thrill of interracial dating. Your kids get that same thrill from dating period. A lot of times people interracially date because of the thrill they get out of it. They were raised in a way that did not allow them to interracially date, and they did anyways because of the thrill of getting away with it. So basically what we are doing here is we are replacing the thrill of interracial dating by creating another thrill...which is dating in general. That way, your kids get the same thrill out of dating someone of their own kind as they would from interracial dating.
3) Try to find ways to discourage interracial dating with your kids. Maybe by using positive and negative reinforcement. Also, keeping them away from certain media. And explaining to them why it is important for them to find someone of the same belief system. You might even throw in how important it is to preserve our culture and way of life. You can raise them to be proud of being white. You don't have to teach them to hate other races or anything.
Any other suggestions?
Or you could be a Catholic and stop espousing racist, heretical nonsense. Just a thought.
Before you start using the word racist against me please tell me how my statement was racist. I never once implied that my race is superior to other races. Just because I am against interracial dating does not mean that I think my race is superior. That might hold true for some people, but even the people that you might think are racist are really not. They just don't like it thats all.
-
I don't know if there is a basis for telegony or not.
It is now known that women receive cells from children, whether they are born or aborted, and that those cells can then enter into subsequent offspring.
There is probably more to heritability than what is believed by doctrinaire geneticists.
-
When I was younger I found older black men in the deep south often have very strong traditional masculine traits - strong work ethic, strong sense of right from wrong, decisive, a strong sense of protecting those around them, respectful of authority, willingness to endure a not so great job or two of them to provide without complaint, they seem to understand the realities of lives who had different experiences than their own unlike most of the white men who were my age.
It's terrible that "black men" are being spoken of in this way.
-
When I was younger I found older black men in the deep south often have very strong traditional masculine traits - strong work ethic, strong sense of right from wrong, decisive, a strong sense of protecting those around them, respectful of authority, willingness to endure a not so great job or two of them to provide without complaint, they seem to understand the realities of lives who had different experiences than their own unlike most of the white men who were my age.
It's terrible that "black men" are being spoken of in this way.
Tiffany, no one is saying there aren't good black men.
However, the idea that there aren't genetic differences to take into account is dead wrong.
A white man doesn't want to have a mulatto bastard for a grandchild. That is human nature, and there isn't anything wrong with it.
There's nothing wrong with being repelled by the thought of a white single mother who has a mulatto bastard as a child. That's human nature.
Political correctness isn't Catholic.
The pathology of the black community is spreading to the white - there are reasons why it took root among blacks first, and the reason is not racism, but the intrinsic characteristics of the race.
Any Catholic father who sends his daughter into an educational environment where profligate black males are treated as sports idols, are regarded as paragons of masculinity, and treated as belonging to a special protected class because of their race (and that translates into the argument that turning down their advances is "racism"), is a fool.
That's not to say an all-white coeducational school would be acceptable. I would hope that some sort of self-protection instinct would kick in when dealing with the blacks in the schools and their filthy culture. - as it does when one walks through their neighborhoods. Unfortunately, it appears political correctness is stronger. Truly a repulsive thing to behold.
-
I think most white women go black then white men don't want them anymore so they stay black.
I don't doubt white men don't want them (if they know), but that they go back there is no doubt. I recall doing some election work with a negro waiter who said he would pick up women at the art museum. I doubt most of those women at the art museum take up with a negro as long term mate to show in public.
These people who send their girls to these cesspool universities with popular athletics programs and frat-houses are delusional or deranged.
Men seriously does it matter what race your fiance or wife has fornicated or cheated with!
-
Men seriously does it matter what race your fiance or wife has fornicated or cheated with!
It matters regardless of race, but yes, the race does matter in the natural, visceral reaction it causes.
If a man is thinking of marrying a single mother, is he going to live-down marrying one with a black bastard?
There is a natural revulsion to such things.
Besides the revulsion, how is the father going to deal with the child identifying with its own race and rebelling against its "foster father."
-
Men seriously does it matter what race your fiance or wife has fornicated or cheated with!
It matters regardless of race, but yes, the race does matter in the natural, visceral reaction it causes.
If a man is thinking of marrying a single mother, is he going to live-down marrying one with a black bastard?
There is a natural revulsion to such things.
Besides the revulsion, how is the father going to deal with the child identifying with its own race and rebelling against its "foster father."
Honestly I would generally discourage a man from marrying a woman with a bastard child (that is not his) of any race.
Yes there are issues with "blended" families (I hate that term - sorry to use it) and there are many more that will crop up before the identity issue too.
-
Honestly I would generally discourage a man from marrying a woman with a bastard child (that is not his) of any race.
Okay, but if that's so, why should he marry any woman who is not a virgin?
It seems to me a woman who has to bear the stigma of an illegitimate birth is not worse than any other promiscuous woman who avoided that stigma.
The way trads react to this is really evidence, when push comes to shove, is that most no longer believe in adhering to the religion if gets in the way of feminist values. It makes one doubt that their opposition to abortion is really serious.
-
It makes one doubt that their opposition to abortion is really serious.
To clarify:
I suspect the seriousness of opposition to abortion generally tracks the seriousness of opposition to fornication.
Sure, most trads are "against fornication." Except in actual practice.
And while they rightly consider abortion an unspeakable crime, serious opposition to abortion requires serious opposition to fornication.
And I don't think you see serious opposition to fornication. What you typically see is young women with several "long term" boyfriends delaying marriage until they are past 25.
It seems very likely many of these young women are on contraception or God forbid, worse.
It is impossible for a community to accept feminist values and to remain Catholic.
-
Tiffany, no one is saying there aren't good black men.
However, the idea that there aren't genetic differences to take into account is dead wrong.
I've never heard of this before and will look into it later.
A white man doesn't want to have a mulatto bastard for a grandchild. That is human nature, and there isn't anything wrong with it.
I would think a white man would not want a bastard for a grandchild at all! In most cases it means his daughter as fornicated or cheated..
There's nothing wrong with being repelled by the thought of a white single mother who has a mulatto bastard as a child. That's human nature.
I don't understand why guarding a woman's chastity is not the issue. If she was not sleeping with men she was not married to, would be no bastard children.
Political correctness isn't Catholic.
I agree. Mixed race families are heavily promoted in public school literature. In a state of panic I ordered a virtual public school many years ago. Every example of a family was mixed race and every masculine job was a female like firefighter, police, things like that. (I couldn't stomach it never mind expose my kid to it, and quit before we started.)
The pathology of the black community is spreading to the white - there are reasons why it took root among blacks first, and the reason is not racism, but the intrinsic characteristics of the race.
I don't know about the "intrinsic characteristics" and taking root part. Unfortunately I do know the pathology and have been forced to work and live among it since I was 14. It's due 100% to a lack of morals. I'm not PC to blame it on anything else. Even as a teen it would infuriate me to hear the excuses that the bad behavior of others due to where they lived. We are back living among in now (except it NYC Puerto Rican not black) and I'm very frightened for my son being exposed to it.
Any Catholic father who sends his daughter into an educational environment where profligate black males are treated as sports idols, are regarded as paragons of masculinity, and treated as belonging to a special protected class because of their race (and that translates into the argument that turning down their advances is "racism"), is a fool.
I agree. The issue isn't because the young men are black but again a lack of morals. If there were morals they would not be allowed alone with each other at all never mind what goes on. I know of one co-ed college where the men and women have separate elevators in the administrative buildings. Another one has a "courting" dining area where couples can date. Women are not allowed off the property unless they are in a group of four.
I believe a woman should live in her father's home until she is married. When a community wants to see marriages they have social events with chaperons, other families over for dinner, and things like that. I don't think a man needs to "court" a balding father but the only way he should have access to a young woman is with her parents knowledge. And her parents want this if they wanted to see her married to a good man. She shouldn't be in an arranged marriage but she should be taught if he is respectful to give him a chance so to speak. No Cosmo mag type of values either. What I also see missing is moms and Aunts who try to make introductions with their daughter and the Aunt's best friend's nephew, things like that. Yes going off to a secular college and living there should be not be an option.
That's not to say an all-white coeducational school would be acceptable. I would hope that some sort of self-protection instinct would kick in when dealing with the blacks in the schools and their filthy culture. - as it does when one walks through their neighborhoods. Unfortunately, it appears political correctness is stronger. Truly a repulsive thing to behold.
I agree and you make the distinction that it's the culture.
-
So I was thinking about how to prevent this crisis that we are having in our country today. Here is my solution...
1) Move to an area with minimal minorities. This of course would lessen the chances of your children race mixing.
2) Don't allow your children to date (have girlfriends/boyfriends) until 16 or 18 years old. The goal here is not to stop them from dating. They will have their little girlfriends and boyfriends secretly no matter what. But the goal is to make it exciting for them. Yes, exciting. Kids frequently do things behind their parents' back because of the thrill. So if your kids get a kick out of simply just dating then you have pretty much eliminated the thrill of interracial dating. Your kids get that same thrill from dating period. A lot of times people interracially date because of the thrill they get out of it. They were raised in a way that did not allow them to interracially date, and they did anyways because of the thrill of getting away with it. So basically what we are doing here is we are replacing the thrill of interracial dating by creating another thrill...which is dating in general. That way, your kids get the same thrill out of dating someone of their own kind as they would from interracial dating.
3) Try to find ways to discourage interracial dating with your kids. Maybe by using positive and negative reinforcement. Also, keeping them away from certain media. And explaining to them why it is important for them to find someone of the same belief system. You might even throw in how important it is to preserve our culture and way of life. You can raise them to be proud of being white. You don't have to teach them to hate other races or anything.
Any other suggestions?
I can't believe I'm reading this garbage on a Catholic website. :facepalm:
You should visit more often. There's plenty more.
:popcorn:
-
Honestly I would generally discourage a man from marrying a woman with a bastard child (that is not his) of any race.
Okay, but if that's so, why should he marry any woman who is not a virgin?
It seems to me a woman who has to bear the stigma of an illegitimate birth is not worse than any other promiscuous woman who avoided that stigma.
The way trads react to this is really evidence, when push comes to shove, is that most no longer believe in adhering to the religion if gets in the way of feminist values. It makes one doubt that their opposition to abortion is really serious.
Tele I'm an old hen single mother and have been in religious circles for many years. I know all about the judgments, double standards, assumptions, and you can do nothing but nod and smile.
I think we should guard our teens chastity and encourage them to marry others who have been chaste to their state in life. I did not say not to marry a single mother instead marry the one who has fornicated for ten years I've posted before how horrified I am about the mothers getting their teen girls on the pill. I disagree with them letting them go out to unchaperoned activities.
We can't ignore the issues with "blending" families, especially in this day and age of joint custody, the expansion of state enforced child support, and two different sets of authority for the children. From a practical point (not a moral one) they need to be taken into consideration.
-
The way trads react to this is really evidence, when push comes to shove, is that most no longer believe in adhering to the religion if gets in the way of feminist values. It makes one doubt that their opposition to abortion is really serious.
What about aborting "mulatto bastards"?
The way some trads react to the possibility of illegitimate, mixed-race grandchildren, makes one doubt that their opposition to abortion is really serious...
If God were to bless you with a mulatto bastard grandchild, thank Him! It is an opportunity for those who are viscerally opposed to the idea to practise virtue.
Children are always blessings.
-
There is a natural revulsion to such things.
Besides the revulsion, how is the father going to deal with the child identifying with its own race and rebelling against its "foster father."
Yes, there is, however, is it Natural or "natural"? Many effects of the Fall are "natural".
There is also a natural prejudice against ugly people, a strong and universally observable tendency to attribute malice and stupidity to them, whereas we would give good looking people a break and attribute it to innocent mistakes or the circuмstances.
Is this judgement of people who do not meet our biological urges to procreate/categorize each other "natural" and is it a good thing?
Race is an accidental selection and reinforcement of genetic characteristics. There are tendencies to certain ways of acting as these characteristics are more distinct from others, but all these races are from a single couple, and then again from a small family.
One must be careful in finding significance in natural "revulsion" as they tend to go against morality and lend themselves to the sin of respect of persons (http://blog.nonpeccabis.com/2012/12/respect-of-persons-is-sin-matter-of.html).
It would be a shame to find a particular socio-economic situation in a given area, or a biological result of the Fall, used for any moral guidance.
-
What about aborting "mulatto bastards"?
Seems like society has laws that say that's up to the mother, the same mother who was knocked up by a black. Obviously Catholics don't believe that. But Catholics don't believe in political correctness. And they don't believe in letting their daughters be exposed to evil environments. Especially to expose them to the company of a bunch of disgusting wannabe pimps.
The way some trads react to the possibility of illegitimate, mixed-race grandchildren,
So in Clare's filthy liberal mind Catholic parents are supposed to be happy with a situation like that?
makes one doubt that their opposition to abortion is really serious..
Only a mentally deficient woman such as yourself would come to such a conclusion.
If God were to bless you with a mulatto bastard grandchild, thank Him! It is an opportunity for those who are viscerally opposed to the idea to practise virtue.
Every bad event is such an opportunity. Apparently, you wish such events on other people. As do spiteful, disgusting PC liberals.
Children are always blessings.
You liberal cow, they are blessings, that doesn't mean any Catholic supports illegitimacy.
-
The way some of you talk it's as though you expect Catholic men to line up to marry women with black bastards.
There seems to be the same animating spirit, a malevolent spirit, among neotrads.
It's that they wish the worst for Catholics, particularly for Catholic men.
-
If a Catholic man's wife gave birth to a child of another race that couldn't possbily be his, going by Clare's logic, because "children are a blessing" - he shouldn't feel revulsion at the situation.
These feminist sophists who think they're Catholic are insufferable.
-
If a Catholic man's wife gave birth to a child of another race that couldn't possbily be his, going by Clare's logic, because "children are a blessing" - he shouldn't feel revulsion at the situation.
These feminist sophists who think they're Catholic are insufferable.
Exactly...these feminine sophists are so steeped in liberalism that they can't help saying things such as this.
I am so sick to death of liberal feminist ideas....why not try to stop a wrong before it is started? But no, we have to hear from bleeding heart liberal feminists that committing an error and going against what is right we must then thank God for the results....in the mean time, this gives a green light to anyone contemplating a mixed marriage. Never mind practicing good sense and self discipline...rather, why not thank God for differentiating the races, giving us the beauty of different cultures? It should be understood in any good Catholic family, that a mixed marriage is not acceptable.
-
If a Catholic man's wife gave birth to a child of another race that couldn't possbily be his, going by Clare's logic, because "children are a blessing" - he shouldn't feel revulsion at the situation.
These feminist sophists who think they're Catholic are insufferable.
Exactly...these feminine sophists are so steeped in liberalism that they can't help saying things such as this.
I am so sick to death of liberal feminist ideas....why not try to stop a wrong before it is started? But no, we have to hear from bleeding heart liberal feminists that committing an error and going against what is right we must then thank God for the results....in the mean time, this gives a green light to anyone contemplating a mixed marriage. Never mind practicing good sense and self discipline...rather, why not thank God for differentiating the races, giving us the beauty of different cultures? It should be understood in any good Catholic family, that a mixed marriage is not acceptable.
Marriage should not be lumped together with adultery.
-
The problem Tiffany is the logic of saying that because the children are not to blame but are a blessing, that somehow that means there can't be reason for revulsion at the consequences of unlawful or unwise unions. The racial dimension aggravates such situations considerably.
-
Well Clare, I can see a positive side to all of this.
The blacks, spics, mutalatos, coons, darkies, pickaninnies, kikes and even tomahonkeys can, in fact, rest easy the world over and not worry about these fringe people with their fringe ideas. And this is for why.
Racist views are so extreme that most of these types cannot hold down full time decent paying careers. While they sit in their mother's basements jobless and unmarried, the days, months and years tick by and the chances of them ever spawning these children they would, if they had them, encourage to marry within their race, or disown for marrying outside, become ever slimmer.
So they have already lost. Their racist ideas are so discredited and unpopular that they will never win at the ballot box. They cannot even keep unity in their own political parties, despite being single issue groups. Because they are full of flakes, projecting their anger and resentment at being failed human beings onto others.
In the world of high finance, or big corporations I have encountered little or no racism. Investment Banking on Wall Street is a melting pot, if ever I saw one. As is the IT industry. If you can write great software and help them make a return for the shareholders they don't care if you are fat, thin, green, yellow or blue.
These are the people with the money, power and influence to shape the media or politics, not the keyboard warriors on this Forum, nor those at Stormfront.
And, frankly, they are not even consistent. Had Tele been able to convince that Puerto Rican teenager to marry him, he would be having Amerindian/African/Anglo children with weird little moustaches around his feet right about now.
But he didn't manage it.
-
Well Clare, I can see a positive side to all of this.
The blacks, spics, mutalatos, coons, darkies, pickaninnies, kikes and even tomahonkeys can, in fact, rest easy the world over and not worry about these fringe people with their fringe ideas. And this is for why.
Racist views are so extreme that most of these types cannot hold down full time decent paying careers. While they sit in their mother's basements jobless and unmarried, the days, months and years tick by and the chances of them ever spawning these children they would, if they had them, encourage to marry within their race, or disown for marrying outside, become ever slimmer.
So they have already lost. Their racist ideas are so discredited and unpopular that they will never win at the ballot box. They cannot even keep unity in their own political parties, despite being single issue groups. Because they are full of flakes, projecting their anger and resentment at being failed human beings onto others.
In the world of high finance, or big corporations I have encountered little or no racism. Investment Banking on Wall Street is a melting pot, if ever I saw one. As is the IT industry. If you can write great software and help them make a return for the shareholders they don't care if you are fat, thin, green, yellow or blue.
These are the people with the money, power and influence to shape the media or politics, not the keyboard warriors on this Forum, nor those at Stormfront.
And, frankly, they are not even consistent. Had Tele been able to convince that Puerto Rican teenager to marry him, he would be having Amerindian/African/Anglo children with weird little moustaches around his feet right about now.
But he didn't manage it.
What predictable trash from the one note "trad" who never misses a shot at his erstwhile coreligionists.
Just remember that if any daughters are knocked up by blacks.
"It's a blessing"
-
So in Clare's filthy liberal mind Catholic parents are supposed to be happy with a situation like that?
....
Only a mentally deficient woman such as yourself would come to such a conclusion.
....
Every bad event is such an opportunity. Apparently, you wish such events on other people. As do spiteful, disgusting PC liberals.
....
You liberal cow....
Seriously? I can understand disagreeing with Clare-I certainly don't entirely agree with her. But this is completely uncalled-for. You should apologize.
-
Seriously? I can understand disagreeing with Clare-I certainly don't entirely agree with her. But this is completely uncalled-for. You should apologize.
No, her stupidity is breathtaking.
-
Well Clare, I can see a positive side to all of this.
The blacks, spics, mutalatos, coons, darkies, pickaninnies, kikes and even tomahonkeys can, in fact, rest easy the world over and not worry about these fringe people with their fringe ideas. And this is for why.
Racist views are so extreme that most of these types cannot hold down full time decent paying careers. While they sit in their mother's basements jobless and unmarried, the days, months and years tick by and the chances of them ever spawning these children they would, if they had them, encourage to marry within their race, or disown for marrying outside, become ever slimmer.
So they have already lost. Their racist ideas are so discredited and unpopular that they will never win at the ballot box. They cannot even keep unity in their own political parties, despite being single issue groups. Because they are full of flakes, projecting their anger and resentment at being failed human beings onto others.
In the world of high finance, or big corporations I have encountered little or no racism. Investment Banking on Wall Street is a melting pot, if ever I saw one. As is the IT industry. If you can write great software and help them make a return for the shareholders they don't care if you are fat, thin, green, yellow or blue.
These are the people with the money, power and influence to shape the media or politics, not the keyboard warriors on this Forum, nor those at Stormfront.
And, frankly, they are not even consistent. Had Tele been able to convince that Puerto Rican teenager to marry him, he would be having Amerindian/African/Anglo children with weird little moustaches around his feet right about now.
But he didn't manage it.
What predictable trash from the one note "trad" who never misses a shot at his erstwhile coreligionists.
Just remember that if any daughters are knocked up by blacks.
"It's a blessing"
That isn't the point. The point is that you don't abort or abandon the child that would result. Of course it is bad if a girl gets in trouble. It's the result of sin. And if it's a mixed-race situation that would increase the pain of the parents. But your solution seems to be to treat the child-who is innocent-as a kind of subhuman. Do you know, that many of the early arguments to legalize abortion in the US was to abort mixed-race illegitimate children?
-
Seriously? I can understand disagreeing with Clare-I certainly don't entirely agree with her. But this is completely uncalled-for. You should apologize.
No, her stupidity is breathtaking.
Please enlighten us as to her "stupidity". Her argument is flawed in some respects, but it certainly does not excuse the absolutely vile things you said about her.
-
That isn't the point. The point is that you don't abort or abandon the child that would result
You moron. I never said such a thing should be done.
You people aren't interested or are incapable of honest debate.
-
Seriously? I can understand disagreeing with Clare-I certainly don't entirely agree with her. But this is completely uncalled-for. You should apologize.
No, her stupidity is breathtaking.
Please enlighten us as to her "stupidity". Her argument is flawed in some respects, but it certainly does not excuse the absolutely vile things you said about her.
I already explained it. Learn to read.
-
Well Clare, I can see a positive side to all of this.
The blacks, spics, mutalatos, coons, darkies, pickaninnies, kikes and even tomahonkeys can, in fact, rest easy the world over and not worry about these fringe people with their fringe ideas. And this is for why.
Racist views are so extreme that most of these types cannot hold down full time decent paying careers. While they sit in their mother's basements jobless and unmarried, the days, months and years tick by and the chances of them ever spawning these children they would, if they had them, encourage to marry within their race, or disown for marrying outside, become ever slimmer.
So they have already lost. Their racist ideas are so discredited and unpopular that they will never win at the ballot box. They cannot even keep unity in their own political parties, despite being single issue groups. Because they are full of flakes, projecting their anger and resentment at being failed human beings onto others.
In the world of high finance, or big corporations I have encountered little or no racism. Investment Banking on Wall Street is a melting pot, if ever I saw one. As is the IT industry. If you can write great software and help them make a return for the shareholders they don't care if you are fat, thin, green, yellow or blue.
These are the people with the money, power and influence to shape the media or politics, not the keyboard warriors on this Forum, nor those at Stormfront.
And, frankly, they are not even consistent. Had Tele been able to convince that Puerto Rican teenager to marry him, he would be having Amerindian/African/Anglo children with weird little moustaches around his feet right about now.
But he didn't manage it.
Where is the melting pot in Wall Street? I've had a small amount of exposure to that field in my life and I can say they are usually white men.
-
Where is the melting pot in Wall Street? I've had a small amount of exposure to that field in my life and I can say they are usually white men.
he likes to tell stories about his alleged experiences, apparently having little better to do than to troll a forum like this.
-
Well Clare, I can see a positive side to all of this.
The blacks, spics, mutalatos, coons, darkies, pickaninnies, kikes and even tomahonkeys can, in fact, rest easy the world over and not worry about these fringe people with their fringe ideas. And this is for why.
Racist views are so extreme that most of these types cannot hold down full time decent paying careers. While they sit in their mother's basements jobless and unmarried, the days, months and years tick by and the chances of them ever spawning these children they would, if they had them, encourage to marry within their race, or disown for marrying outside, become ever slimmer.
So they have already lost. Their racist ideas are so discredited and unpopular that they will never win at the ballot box. They cannot even keep unity in their own political parties, despite being single issue groups. Because they are full of flakes, projecting their anger and resentment at being failed human beings onto others.
In the world of high finance, or big corporations I have encountered little or no racism. Investment Banking on Wall Street is a melting pot, if ever I saw one. As is the IT industry. If you can write great software and help them make a return for the shareholders they don't care if you are fat, thin, green, yellow or blue.
These are the people with the money, power and influence to shape the media or politics, not the keyboard warriors on this Forum, nor those at Stormfront.
And, frankly, they are not even consistent. Had Tele been able to convince that Puerto Rican teenager to marry him, he would be having Amerindian/African/Anglo children with weird little moustaches around his feet right about now.
But he didn't manage it.
Yes, and while you are at it...remember you will hold the same view of gαy marriage I am sure in your liberal mind. You should apply the same reasoning to marriage, that it matters not whether a man is married to a woman, a man to a man, a woman to a woman, a man to a child, a man to an animal...just as long as you can write great software and help them make a return for the shareholders...
People are so entrenched in the errors of modern society and liberalism they don't even realize it.
Let's look and see the origin of the word 'racism':
http://cofcc.org/2009/07/racism-was-coined-by-a-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ-activist/
-
Yes, and while you are at it...remember you will hold the same view of gαy marriage I am sure in your liberal mind. You should apply the same reasoning to marriage, that it matters not whether a man is married to a woman, a man to a man, a woman to a woman, a man to a child, a man to an animal...just as long as you can write great software and help them make a return for the shareholders...
He might not, but I wouldn't bet on his state-schooled educated children holding the line.
-
The topic is how to prevent race-mixing, whether through adultery or marriage, race-mixing is race-mixing.
-
Well Clare, I can see a positive side to all of this.
The blacks, spics, mutalatos, coons, darkies, pickaninnies, kikes and even tomahonkeys can, in fact, rest easy the world over and not worry about these fringe people with their fringe ideas. And this is for why.
Racist views are so extreme that most of these types cannot hold down full time decent paying careers. While they sit in their mother's basements jobless and unmarried, the days, months and years tick by and the chances of them ever spawning these children they would, if they had them, encourage to marry within their race, or disown for marrying outside, become ever slimmer.
So they have already lost. Their racist ideas are so discredited and unpopular that they will never win at the ballot box. They cannot even keep unity in their own political parties, despite being single issue groups. Because they are full of flakes, projecting their anger and resentment at being failed human beings onto others.
In the world of high finance, or big corporations I have encountered little or no racism. Investment Banking on Wall Street is a melting pot, if ever I saw one. As is the IT industry. If you can write great software and help them make a return for the shareholders they don't care if you are fat, thin, green, yellow or blue.
These are the people with the money, power and influence to shape the media or politics, not the keyboard warriors on this Forum, nor those at Stormfront.
And, frankly, they are not even consistent. Had Tele been able to convince that Puerto Rican teenager to marry him, he would be having Amerindian/African/Anglo children with weird little moustaches around his feet right about now.
But he didn't manage it.
Yes, and while you are at it...remember you will hold the same view of gαy marriage I am sure in your liberal mind. You should apply the same reasoning to marriage, that it matters not whether a man is married to a woman, a man to a man, a woman to a woman, a man to a child, a man to an animal...just as long as you can write great software and help them make a return for the shareholders...
People are so entrenched in the errors of modern society and liberalism they don't even realize it.
Let's look and see the origin of the word 'racism':
http://cofcc.org/2009/07/racism-was-coined-by-a-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ-activist/
Really? You think that interracial marriage is on the same level as a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ liaison? I wish you had told the Spanish that when they colonized the Americas. Maybe it isn't a coincidence that Spain did not lose the Faith, while the English did.
-
Yes, and while you are at it...remember you will hold the same view of gαy marriage I am sure in your liberal mind. You should apply the same reasoning to marriage, that it matters not whether a man is married to a woman, a man to a man, a woman to a woman, a man to a child, a man to an animal...just as long as you can write great software and help them make a return for the shareholders...
He might not, but I wouldn't bet on his state-schooled educated children holding the line.
I wouldn't bet on your home schooled ones either, if you had any.
I've been alive 11 years longer than you and have seen bitter and twist nutters like you bring up families and their children very commonly hate them for being nutters and they then rebel, flipping the other way because their father was a domineering jerk.
My kids have a pretty good chance. Your kids don't exist.
-
Really? You think that interracial marriage is on the same level as a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ liaison?
No, she didn't say that. She means that politically correct people will abandon social standards to conform and get ahead. Which is why it bothers them when others don't. That's why someone who is supposedly rich, with a beautiful wife and family, would hang out here. I'm not sure ggreg will ever support gαy marriage. However, because there are people who act like him - it will mean in 30 years time there will be some small corner remnant of the internet where pro-sodomite trolls do the same thing he's doing here. If there still is a free internet. Someone with supposedly lots of money and a high powered job is willing to take his time to troll this board. What it shows you is that that person has an agenda.
I wish you had told the Spanish that when they colonized the Americas.
The Spanish did hold the idea of casta. The exigencies of the New World Conquest are what made miscegenation typical but it was hardly viewed as a neutral matter.
Maybe it isn't a coincidence that Spain did not lose the Faith, while the English did.
Neither Bernadette or myself have any English background so far as I know. Thank God!
The UK is becoming an Orwellian place.
-
Well Clare, I can see a positive side to all of this.
The blacks, spics, mutalatos, coons, darkies, pickaninnies, kikes and even tomahonkeys can, in fact, rest easy the world over and not worry about these fringe people with their fringe ideas. And this is for why.
Racist views are so extreme that most of these types cannot hold down full time decent paying careers. While they sit in their mother's basements jobless and unmarried, the days, months and years tick by and the chances of them ever spawning these children they would, if they had them, encourage to marry within their race, or disown for marrying outside, become ever slimmer.
So they have already lost. Their racist ideas are so discredited and unpopular that they will never win at the ballot box. They cannot even keep unity in their own political parties, despite being single issue groups. Because they are full of flakes, projecting their anger and resentment at being failed human beings onto others.
In the world of high finance, or big corporations I have encountered little or no racism. Investment Banking on Wall Street is a melting pot, if ever I saw one. As is the IT industry. If you can write great software and help them make a return for the shareholders they don't care if you are fat, thin, green, yellow or blue.
These are the people with the money, power and influence to shape the media or politics, not the keyboard warriors on this Forum, nor those at Stormfront.
And, frankly, they are not even consistent. Had Tele been able to convince that Puerto Rican teenager to marry him, he would be having Amerindian/African/Anglo children with weird little moustaches around his feet right about now.
But he didn't manage it.
Yes, and while you are at it...remember you will hold the same view of gαy marriage I am sure in your liberal mind. You should apply the same reasoning to marriage, that it matters not whether a man is married to a woman, a man to a man, a woman to a woman, a man to a child, a man to an animal...just as long as you can write great software and help them make a return for the shareholders...
People are so entrenched in the errors of modern society and liberalism they don't even realize it.
Let's look and see the origin of the word 'racism':
http://cofcc.org/2009/07/racism-was-coined-by-a-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ-activist/
Really? You think that interracial marriage is on the same level as a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ liaison? I wish you had told the Spanish that when they colonized the Americas. Maybe it isn't a coincidence that Spain did not lose the Faith, while the English did.
Liberalism is a sin...you are guilty of it. Certainly, if you are one who thanks God for a child born out of wedlock, the result of a mixed race act of sin then you have lost all good sense and logic in exchange for stupidity.
-
The topic is how to prevent race-mixing, whether through adultery or marriage, race-mixing is race-mixing.
The one is sinful the other is not.
-
Being politically incorrect for the sale of itself is no different than being politically correct for the sake of it, in principle at least
Remember what B williamson said when he was accused of antisemotism
I am not concerned with th word antisemitism. I am concerned with the truth
Likewise we should ne. We should concern ourselves with whether or not so called minorities are truly deficient or lesser than euros. Not with whether or not it is politically correct or not
From phone
-
Well Clare, I can see a positive side to all of this.
The blacks, spics, mutalatos, coons, darkies, pickaninnies, kikes and even tomahonkeys can, in fact, rest easy the world over and not worry about these fringe people with their fringe ideas. And this is for why.
Racist views are so extreme that most of these types cannot hold down full time decent paying careers. While they sit in their mother's basements jobless and unmarried, the days, months and years tick by and the chances of them ever spawning these children they would, if they had them, encourage to marry within their race, or disown for marrying outside, become ever slimmer.
So they have already lost. Their racist ideas are so discredited and unpopular that they will never win at the ballot box. They cannot even keep unity in their own political parties, despite being single issue groups. Because they are full of flakes, projecting their anger and resentment at being failed human beings onto others.
In the world of high finance, or big corporations I have encountered little or no racism. Investment Banking on Wall Street is a melting pot, if ever I saw one. As is the IT industry. If you can write great software and help them make a return for the shareholders they don't care if you are fat, thin, green, yellow or blue.
These are the people with the money, power and influence to shape the media or politics, not the keyboard warriors on this Forum, nor those at Stormfront.
And, frankly, they are not even consistent. Had Tele been able to convince that Puerto Rican teenager to marry him, he would be having Amerindian/African/Anglo children with weird little moustaches around his feet right about now.
But he didn't manage it.
Yes, and while you are at it...remember you will hold the same view of gαy marriage I am sure in your liberal mind. You should apply the same reasoning to marriage, that it matters not whether a man is married to a woman, a man to a man, a woman to a woman, a man to a child, a man to an animal...just as long as you can write great software and help them make a return for the shareholders...
People are so entrenched in the errors of modern society and liberalism they don't even realize it.
Let's look and see the origin of the word 'racism':
http://cofcc.org/2009/07/racism-was-coined-by-a-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ-activist/
That is jumping to say he is OK with gαy marriage. He is not pro-sodomite. He has said he doesn't allow them to work for him.
-
And, frankly, they are not even consistent. Had Tele been able to convince that Puerto Rican teenager to marry him, he would be having Amerindian/African/Anglo children with weird little moustaches around his feet right about now.
You're violating Matthew's rules by bringing this up.
-
Being politically incorrect for the sale of itself is no different than being politically correct for the sake of it, in principle at least
That's a stupid comment. Who said I was being politically incorrect for the sake of it?
If it's intolerable "racism" to prefer one's children and grandchildren to have the same race as oneself, then we are in an oppressive society.
Remember what B williamson said when he was accused of antisemotism
I am not concerned with th word antisemitism. I am concerned with the truth
And Bishop Williamson mentioned at the conference that God made different races and that there is not necessarily equality among them. That they have different attributes.
Likewise we should ne. We should concern ourselves with whether or not so called minorities are truly deficient or lesser than euros.
That's a pretty stupid comment. Do you concern yourself with whether you are more likely to be a victim of violence at their hands? Have you ever had anyone in your family held up at gunpoint by "teenagers" - as the media euphemistically refers to them?
Not with whether or not it is politically correct or not
Except political correctness is an overarching, anti-Christian agenda.
-
When people can't debate the facts they resort to personal attack.
-
And, frankly, they are not even consistent. Had Tele been able to convince that Puerto Rican teenager to marry him, he would be having Amerindian/African/Anglo children with weird little moustaches around his feet right about now.
You're violating Matthew's rules by bringing this up.
:roll-laugh1: That a rule has to exist tells one ALL they need to know.
Can I have a special rule that the phrase "investment banker" cannot be used on this forum?
Or anything that rhymes with it? :roll-laugh1:
-
When people can't debate the facts they resort to personal attack.
And attacking Clare? Was that justified, or was it not personal?
-
And, frankly, they are not even consistent. Had Tele been able to convince that Puerto Rican teenager to marry him, he would be having Amerindian/African/Anglo children with weird little moustaches around his feet right about now.
You're violating Matthew's rules by bringing this up.
:roll-laugh1: That a rule has to exist tells one ALL they need to know.
Can I have a special rule that the phrase "investment banker" cannot be used on this forum?
Or anything that rhymes with it? :roll-laugh1:
What it says is that people who resort to personal attack, who don't know what they're talking about, aren't allowed to constantly hijack threads with the same shit when they come up empty in debate.
-
Really? You think that interracial marriage is on the same level as a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ liaison?
No, she didn't say that. She means that politically correct people will abandon social standards to conform and get ahead. Which is why it bothers them when others don't. That's why someone who is supposedly rich, with a beautiful wife and family, would hang out here. I'm not sure ggreg will ever support gαy marriage. However, because there are people who act like him - it will mean in 30 years time there will be some small corner remnant of the internet where pro-sodomite trolls do the same thing he's doing here. If there still is a free internet. Someone with supposedly lots of money and a high powered job is willing to take his time to troll this board. What it shows you is that that person has an agenda.
I wish you had told the Spanish that when they colonized the Americas.
The Spanish did hold the idea of casta. The exigencies of the New World Conquest are what made miscegenation typical but it was hardly viewed as a neutral matter.
Maybe it isn't a coincidence that Spain did not lose the Faith, while the English did.
Neither Bernadette or myself have any English background so far as I know. Thank God!
The UK is becoming an Orwellian place.
Yes, and while you are at it...remember you will hold the same view of gαy marriage I am sure in your liberal mind.
She made a pretty far reaching jump there saying he is pro-sodomite and OK with their marriages. I think he is full of it at times but this was a wrong accusation. Now you are saying she meant he will get will get there later because he isn't against mixed race marriages?
-
When people can't debate the facts they resort to personal attack.
And attacking Clare? Was that justified, or was it not personal?
Clare attacked me by suggesting my argument could be used in support of abortion.
That was untrue. Her statements were knee-jerk, incredibly stupid, and deserve contempt.
-
The topic is how to prevent race-mixing, whether through adultery or marriage, race-mixing is race-mixing.
The one is sinful the other is not.
If God wanted all men to be of one race, He would of created one race. Why demean and water down the different cultures God has created? Why bring children into the world who will suffer an identity crisis later in life?
-
Well Clare, I can see a positive side to all of this.
The blacks, spics, mutalatos, coons, darkies, pickaninnies, kikes and even tomahonkeys can, in fact, rest easy the world over and not worry about these fringe people with their fringe ideas. And this is for why.
Racist views are so extreme that most of these types cannot hold down full time decent paying careers. While they sit in their mother's basements jobless and unmarried, the days, months and years tick by and the chances of them ever spawning these children they would, if they had them, encourage to marry within their race, or disown for marrying outside, become ever slimmer.
So they have already lost. Their racist ideas are so discredited and unpopular that they will never win at the ballot box. They cannot even keep unity in their own political parties, despite being single issue groups. Because they are full of flakes, projecting their anger and resentment at being failed human beings onto others.
In the world of high finance, or big corporations I have encountered little or no racism. Investment Banking on Wall Street is a melting pot, if ever I saw one. As is the IT industry. If you can write great software and help them make a return for the shareholders they don't care if you are fat, thin, green, yellow or blue.
These are the people with the money, power and influence to shape the media or politics, not the keyboard warriors on this Forum, nor those at Stormfront.
And, frankly, they are not even consistent. Had Tele been able to convince that Puerto Rican teenager to marry him, he would be having Amerindian/African/Anglo children with weird little moustaches around his feet right about now.
But he didn't manage it.
Yes, and while you are at it...remember you will hold the same view of gαy marriage I am sure in your liberal mind. You should apply the same reasoning to marriage, that it matters not whether a man is married to a woman, a man to a man, a woman to a woman, a man to a child, a man to an animal...just as long as you can write great software and help them make a return for the shareholders...
People are so entrenched in the errors of modern society and liberalism they don't even realize it.
Let's look and see the origin of the word 'racism':
http://cofcc.org/2009/07/racism-was-coined-by-a-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ-activist/
Really? You think that interracial marriage is on the same level as a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ liaison? I wish you had told the Spanish that when they colonized the Americas. Maybe it isn't a coincidence that Spain did not lose the Faith, while the English did.
Liberalism is a sin...you are guilty of it. Certainly, if you are one who thanks God for a child born out of wedlock, the result of a mixed race act of sin then you have lost all good sense and logic in exchange for stupidity.
I would thank God, not for the sin, but for the life and the soul he created. He often brings good out of evil.
There are saints who were of illegitimate birth, and mulattos. What part about that is so difficult to understand? If you think that the child is worthless, then why would you be opposed to it's abortion (it is interesting to note that most Planned Parenthood abortion mills specifically target black and Hispanic neighborhoods)? You appear to consider the lives of white children to be of greater value than non-whites. Or failing that, would you demand that the child be abandoned/given away?
Would it be OK, or not as bad, if the child was not mixed race? That's the part I don't understand, about what you are saying. God created all humans, not just white people. If he created it, it must be good. That doesn't mean that we ignore the realities of fallen human nature (one of which is that races are not created equal in all things), but it does mean that God doesn't care, in the long run, whether you were white or black or Asian. Were you a good and faithful servant of the Lord? That is all that He will care about at the judgment.
I would be very careful about accusing other people of sinning.
-
When people can't debate the facts they resort to personal attack.
And attacking Clare? Was that justified, or was it not personal?
Clare attacked me by suggesting my argument could be used in support of abortion.
That was untrue. Her statements were knee-jerk, incredibly stupid, and deserve contempt.
But the fact is, your arguments have been used in the past, by Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) and others, in support of abortion.
-
The topic is how to prevent race-mixing, whether through adultery or marriage, race-mixing is race-mixing.
The one is sinful the other is not.
If God wanted all men to be of one race, He would of created one race. Why demean and water down the different cultures God has created? Why bring children into the world who will suffer an identity crisis later in life?
So if interracial marriage is sinful, then why is the Church OK with it?
-
But the fact is, your arguments have been used in the past, by Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) and others, in support of abortion.
I have never said anything to justify abortion. The fact that illegitimacy is an unwelcome phenomenon, and that miscegenation can have unwelcome consequences, is completely independent from the value of the life of the unborn child.
That you can't distinguish these things in your mind, but suggest that somehow my arguments are favoring abortion (Clare has in the past suggested that any stigma for unwed motherhood favors abortion - as though we must pretend unwed motherhood is good or one favors abortion) shows that your intellect is hobbled.
-
So if interracial marriage is sinful, then why is the Church OK with it?
She didn't say it was sinful.
There are lots of things the Church doesn't condemn. That doesn't mean they are ideal or desirable.
-
The topic is how to prevent race-mixing, whether through adultery or marriage, race-mixing is race-mixing.
The one is sinful the other is not.
If God wanted all men to be of one race, He would of created one race. Why demean and water down the different cultures God has created? Why bring children into the world who will suffer an identity crisis later in life?
Marrying outside one's race or culture is not a sin. There may be additional legal, immigration, cultural, financial difficulties, they maybe ostracized from the church social cliques, but that doesn't = sin.
Who is to say the children will have an identity crisis? A child raised within a loving family should have a strong identity. Loving Catholic parents raise children with great faith.
-
And, frankly, they are not even consistent. Had Tele been able to convince that Puerto Rican teenager to marry him, he would be having Amerindian/African/Anglo children with weird little moustaches around his feet right about now.
You're violating Matthew's rules by bringing this up.
:roll-laugh1: That a rule has to exist tells one ALL they need to know.
Can I have a special rule that the phrase "investment banker" cannot be used on this forum?
Or anything that rhymes with it? :roll-laugh1:
The "Tele issue" was run through the ground by a few people who no longer post, and eventually Matthew had enough of it.
He doesn't want people discussing it, I can assure you of that.
-
Where is the melting pot in Wall Street? I've had a small amount of exposure to that field in my life and I can say they are usually white men.
Obviously most of the Ivy League University output is white men. But there are Russians, Indians, African Americans and of course lots of women of every size, shape and colour working in Wall Street.
My brother in law is a Russian genius. Came to the UK at 16 went to University earlier, graduated at 19 and worked in a derivatives data firm for 3 years. Got picked up by Goldman Sachs and now programs the computers that do their program (Algo) Trading. They transfered his working visa. Now he is a Brit Passport holder.
Every trading room I have seen in the past five years has had 60% white men, 20% women and 30% of the total number not native to either UK or US.
There is an easier way to do this. I will run a quick check on my LinkedIn account and look at the faces and names for non natives of my 950 contacts.
-
I would thank God, not for the sin, but for the life and the soul he created.
You might as well say:
"Thank God for broken families"
You're at about the Fred Phelps level of logic.
Incidentally, they were Civil Rights activists before they started to troll funerals and work (probably intentionally) to discredit opposition to the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ lobby.
-
But the fact is, your arguments have been used in the past, by Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) and others, in support of abortion.
I have never said anything to justify abortion. The fact that illegitimacy is an unwelcome phenomenon, and that miscegenation can have unwelcome consequences, is completely independent from the value of the life of the unborn child.
That you can't distinguish these things in your mind, but suggest that somehow my arguments are favoring abortion (Clare has in the past suggested that any stigma for unwed motherhood favors abortion - as though we must pretend unwed motherhood is good or one favors abortion) shows that your intellect is hobbled.
I am not suggesting that you personally are in favor of abortion, but that the arguments you are making have been used by others in support of abortion.
Of course illegitimacy is not good. No one suggested otherwise; in fact the Church discriminates against the illegitimate by making it an impediment to the priesthood (though I believe that you can get a dispensation from Rome for that).
But the abortionists believe that the best way to fix illegitimacy is to abort the child. No hassle that way, they claim. Clare may be overreacting and not attaching enough stigma to illegitimacy, but this is most likely a reaction to abortionist arguments that illegitimate/mixed-race kids should be aborted so that they do not have to suffer the stigma of mixed-race/illegitimacy. The only thing that separates your arguments from those of the abortionists is that you still respect human life and the 5th Commandment.
-
I would thank God, not for the sin, but for the life and the soul he created.
You might as well say:
"Thank God for broken families"
You're at about the Fred Phelps level of logic.
Incidentally, they were Civil Rights activists before they started to troll funerals and work (probably intentionally) to discredit opposition to the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ lobby.
What??
How did you make that leap? How on earth do you construe what I am saying for support for divorce??? :confused1: :shocked:
-
There is an easier way to do this. I will run a quick check on my LinkedIn account and look at the faces and names for non natives of my 950 contacts.
How many are black Africans who aren't affirmative action hires?
You're a typical BS artists.
You say there's a melting pot on a thread about interracial mixing but then you start talking about Russians, as though they were a different race. Typical bait and switch.
-
How did you make that leap? How on earth do you construe what I am saying for support for divorce??? :confused1: :shocked:
So single mother families are intact families?
Where's the father?
-
I am not suggesting that you personally are in favor of abortion, but that the arguments you are making have been used by others in support of abortion.
No they haven't.
Of course illegitimacy is not good. No one suggested otherwise;
Yes they have. They say revulsion at such a situation is to reject God's blessing.
in fact the Church discriminates against the illegitimate by making it an impediment to the priesthood (though I believe that you can get a dispensation from Rome for that).
Right, before liberals took over, people didn't try to mitigate illegitimacy and miscegnation by using spurious "logic" to claim those against such things have arguments that favor abortion.
But the abortionists believe that the best way to fix illegitimacy is to abort the child. No hassle that way, they claim. Clare may be overreacting and not attaching enough stigma to illegitimacy, but this is most likely a reaction to abortionist arguments that illegitimate/mixed-race kids should be aborted so that they do not have to suffer the stigma of mixed-race/illegitimacy. The only thing that separates your arguments from those of the abortionists is that you still respect human life and the 5th Commandment.
And it has nothing to do with me, yet she tries to link my arguments with support for abortion. It's filthy.
-
How did you make that leap? How on earth do you construe what I am saying for support for divorce??? :confused1: :shocked:
So single mother families are intact families?
Where's the father?
And where did I say that I was in favor of single-mother families? Of course I'm not! The sin and stigma of illegitimacy are very real, and should not be downplayed, but the innocent child should not be rejected. That is all I am saying.
Why do you keep twisting what I am saying and accuse me falsely?
-
And, frankly, they are not even consistent. Had Tele been able to convince that Puerto Rican teenager to marry him, he would be having Amerindian/African/Anglo children with weird little moustaches around his feet right about now.
You're violating Matthew's rules by bringing this up.
:roll-laugh1: That a rule has to exist tells one ALL they need to know.
Can I have a special rule that the phrase "investment banker" cannot be used on this forum?
Or anything that rhymes with it? :roll-laugh1:
The "Tele issue" was run through the ground by a few people who no longer post, and eventually Matthew had enough of it.
He doesn't want people discussing it, I can assure you of that.
Fair enough, no more mention of it. Rulez is Rulez
But it is incredibly funny that the big racist with all the big ideas on this forum about who and what is Catholic, liberal, needs a piece of politicial correctness like that to protect his 'feelings'. I am pissing myself laughing.
It is exactly like a rule banning people from questioning the numbers who died in the h0Ɩ0cαųst. No relevant but embarassing facts allowed. I get it.
Well done Tele. You are now a protected minority with special rights.
:roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1:
-
So if interracial marriage is sinful, then why is the Church OK with it?
She didn't say it was sinful.
There are lots of things the Church doesn't condemn. That doesn't mean they are ideal or desirable.
The topic is how to prevent race-mixing, whether through adultery or marriage, race-mixing is race-mixing.
The one is sinful the other is not.
If God wanted all men to be of one race, He would of created one race. Why demean and water down the different cultures God has created? Why bring children into the world who will suffer an identity crisis later in life?
She pretty much implied it here with the all one race response answer to my statement that mixed race marriages are not a sin.
-
I am not suggesting that you personally are in favor of abortion, but that the arguments you are making have been used by others in support of abortion.
No they haven't.
Of course illegitimacy is not good. No one suggested otherwise;
Yes they have. They say revulsion at such a situation is to reject God's blessing.
in fact the Church discriminates against the illegitimate by making it an impediment to the priesthood (though I believe that you can get a dispensation from Rome for that).
Right, before liberals took over, people didn't try to mitigate illegitimacy and miscegnation by using spurious "logic" to claim those against such things have arguments that favor abortion.
But the abortionists believe that the best way to fix illegitimacy is to abort the child. No hassle that way, they claim. Clare may be overreacting and not attaching enough stigma to illegitimacy, but this is most likely a reaction to abortionist arguments that illegitimate/mixed-race kids should be aborted so that they do not have to suffer the stigma of mixed-race/illegitimacy. The only thing that separates your arguments from those of the abortionists is that you still respect human life and the 5th Commandment.
And it has nothing to do with me, yet she tries to link my arguments with support for abortion. It's filthy.
The whole point is that while there is a stigma for illegitimacy, this should not result in the rejection of the child that is a result of the sin. The rejection of the child usually leads to abortion, hence the stigma of unwed motherhood/miscegenation has been co-opted by the abortion lobby as a weapon to pressure unwed mothers into abortions.
Is that too difficult to understand?
-
Well Clare, I can see a positive side to all of this.
The blacks, spics, mutalatos, coons, darkies, pickaninnies, kikes and even tomahonkeys can, in fact, rest easy the world over and not worry about these fringe people with their fringe ideas. And this is for why.
Racist views are so extreme that most of these types cannot hold down full time decent paying careers. While they sit in their mother's basements jobless and unmarried, the days, months and years tick by and the chances of them ever spawning these children they would, if they had them, encourage to marry within their race, or disown for marrying outside, become ever slimmer.
So they have already lost. Their racist ideas are so discredited and unpopular that they will never win at the ballot box. They cannot even keep unity in their own political parties, despite being single issue groups. Because they are full of flakes, projecting their anger and resentment at being failed human beings onto others.
In the world of high finance, or big corporations I have encountered little or no racism. Investment Banking on Wall Street is a melting pot, if ever I saw one. As is the IT industry. If you can write great software and help them make a return for the shareholders they don't care if you are fat, thin, green, yellow or blue.
These are the people with the money, power and influence to shape the media or politics, not the keyboard warriors on this Forum, nor those at Stormfront.
And, frankly, they are not even consistent. Had Tele been able to convince that Puerto Rican teenager to marry him, he would be having Amerindian/African/Anglo children with weird little moustaches around his feet right about now.
But he didn't manage it.
Yes, and while you are at it...remember you will hold the same view of gαy marriage I am sure in your liberal mind. You should apply the same reasoning to marriage, that it matters not whether a man is married to a woman, a man to a man, a woman to a woman, a man to a child, a man to an animal...just as long as you can write great software and help them make a return for the shareholders...
People are so entrenched in the errors of modern society and liberalism they don't even realize it.
Let's look and see the origin of the word 'racism':
http://cofcc.org/2009/07/racism-was-coined-by-a-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ-activist/
Really? You think that interracial marriage is on the same level as a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ liaison? I wish you had told the Spanish that when they colonized the Americas. Maybe it isn't a coincidence that Spain did not lose the Faith, while the English did.
Liberalism is a sin...you are guilty of it. Certainly, if you are one who thanks God for a child born out of wedlock, the result of a mixed race act of sin then you have lost all good sense and logic in exchange for stupidity.
I would thank God, not for the sin, but for the life and the soul he created. He often brings good out of evil.
There are saints who were of illegitimate birth, and mulattos. What part about that is so difficult to understand? If you think that the child is worthless, then why would you be opposed to it's abortion (it is interesting to note that most Planned Parenthood abortion mills specifically target black and Hispanic neighborhoods)? You appear to consider the lives of white children to be of greater value than non-whites. Or failing that, would you demand that the child be abandoned/given away?
Would it be OK, or not as bad, if the child was not mixed race? That's the part I don't understand, about what you are saying. God created all humans, not just white people. If he created it, it must be good. That doesn't mean that we ignore the realities of fallen human nature (one of which is that races are not created equal in all things), but it does mean that God doesn't care, in the long run, whether you were white or black or Asian. Were you a good and faithful servant of the Lord? That is all that He will care about at the judgment.
I would be very careful about accusing other people of sinning.
Now the shoe is on the other foot and you are the one supposing me of sin....such hypocrisy is typical of liberal mindedness.
Common sense should dictate. Extreme mixed race marriages should be discouraged. God did create all humans not just white people...but ask yourself why God created different races.
I never said that the child born out of these circuмstance should not be loved as a soul created by God...I believe that people should be more discriminating in who they marry, and bring children into the world with...this goes for all races, the Orientals may discriminate, the Blacks may discriminate....not only may they discriminate, but they should. Your argument as well as ggregg is to point out the RACISM of anyone who objects out of common sense to mixed race marriage...I gave a link explaining the origin of the word RACISM...you might go back and read it.
Why is it ok to be PC and approve of babies born out of wedlock, to approve of mixed race marriage...but those who frown upon these things are treated with contempt?
-
But it is incredibly funny that the big racist with all the big ideas on this forum about who and what is Catholic, liberal, needs a piece of politicial correctness like that to protect his 'feelings'. I am pissing myself laughing.
You don't have a right to attack reputations with falsehoods, as you have.
It is exactly like a rule banning people from questioning the numbers who died in the h0Ɩ0cαųst. No relevant but embarassing facts allowed. I get it.
No, it's about harassment. Which is why you're on this forum.
-
Why is it ok to be PC and approve of babies born out of wedlock, to approve of mixed race marriage...but those who frown upon these things are treated with contempt?
Some people are dumb kids and women, and others know who butters their bread.
-
I am not suggesting that you personally are in favor of abortion, but that the arguments you are making have been used by others in support of abortion.
No they haven't.
Of course illegitimacy is not good. No one suggested otherwise;
Yes they have. They say revulsion at such a situation is to reject God's blessing.
in fact the Church discriminates against the illegitimate by making it an impediment to the priesthood (though I believe that you can get a dispensation from Rome for that).
Right, before liberals took over, people didn't try to mitigate illegitimacy and miscegnation by using spurious "logic" to claim those against such things have arguments that favor abortion.
But the abortionists believe that the best way to fix illegitimacy is to abort the child. No hassle that way, they claim. Clare may be overreacting and not attaching enough stigma to illegitimacy, but this is most likely a reaction to abortionist arguments that illegitimate/mixed-race kids should be aborted so that they do not have to suffer the stigma of mixed-race/illegitimacy. The only thing that separates your arguments from those of the abortionists is that you still respect human life and the 5th Commandment.
And it has nothing to do with me, yet she tries to link my arguments with support for abortion. It's filthy.
The whole point is that while there is a stigma for illegitimacy, this should not result in the rejection of the child that is a result of the sin. The rejection of the child usually leads to abortion, hence the stigma of unwed motherhood/miscegenation has been co-opted by the abortion lobby as a weapon to pressure unwed mothers into abortions.
Is that too difficult to understand?
Brainglitch read this post here
The problem Tiffany is the logic of saying that because the children are not to blame but are a blessing, that somehow that means there can't be reason for revulsion at the consequences of unlawful or unwise unions. The racial dimension aggravates such situations considerably.
-
Sorry Tele, I am not allowed to comment anymore.
If I speak my mind I will get banned.
:sign-surrender:
-
Why is it ok to be PC and approve of babies born out of wedlock, to approve of mixed race marriage...but those who frown upon these things are treated with contempt?
Some people are dumb kids and women, and others know who butters their bread.
Why do you feel the need to constantly resort to ad hominems, while whining that your reputation is being attacked?
-
Why do you feel the need to constantly resort to ad hominems
Because I shouldn't have to deal with PC idiots.
while whining that your reputation is being attacked?
Especially those whose main purpose here is to spread filth about me.
-
I am not suggesting that you personally are in favor of abortion, but that the arguments you are making have been used by others in support of abortion.
No they haven't.
Of course illegitimacy is not good. No one suggested otherwise;
Yes they have. They say revulsion at such a situation is to reject God's blessing.
in fact the Church discriminates against the illegitimate by making it an impediment to the priesthood (though I believe that you can get a dispensation from Rome for that).
Right, before liberals took over, people didn't try to mitigate illegitimacy and miscegnation by using spurious "logic" to claim those against such things have arguments that favor abortion.
But the abortionists believe that the best way to fix illegitimacy is to abort the child. No hassle that way, they claim. Clare may be overreacting and not attaching enough stigma to illegitimacy, but this is most likely a reaction to abortionist arguments that illegitimate/mixed-race kids should be aborted so that they do not have to suffer the stigma of mixed-race/illegitimacy. The only thing that separates your arguments from those of the abortionists is that you still respect human life and the 5th Commandment.
And it has nothing to do with me, yet she tries to link my arguments with support for abortion. It's filthy.
The whole point is that while there is a stigma for illegitimacy, this should not result in the rejection of the child that is a result of the sin. The rejection of the child usually leads to abortion, hence the stigma of unwed motherhood/miscegenation has been co-opted by the abortion lobby as a weapon to pressure unwed mothers into abortions.
Is that too difficult to understand?
Brainglitch read this post here
The problem Tiffany is the logic of saying that because the children are not to blame but are a blessing, that somehow that means there can't be reason for revulsion at the consequences of unlawful or unwise unions. The racial dimension aggravates such situations considerably.
And so in Tele's ideal world, an illegitimate child would not be aborted, they would simply look forward to getting treated like shit their whole lives by those who look down on them in revulsion. Especially if they are black. Gotcha. No wonder abortionists say, "better to abort them".*
Did you know that Don Juan of Austria, the hero who destroyed the Muslim navy at Lepanto, was illegitimate?
*And yes, of course, I am not in favor of single motherhood, nor do I think miscegenation or illegitimacy are OK. But that is not the child's problem.
-
Well Clare, I can see a positive side to all of this.
The blacks, spics, mutalatos, coons, darkies, pickaninnies, kikes and even tomahonkeys can, in fact, rest easy the world over and not worry about these fringe people with their fringe ideas. And this is for why.
Racist views are so extreme that most of these types cannot hold down full time decent paying careers. While they sit in their mother's basements jobless and unmarried, the days, months and years tick by and the chances of them ever spawning these children they would, if they had them, encourage to marry within their race, or disown for marrying outside, become ever slimmer.
So they have already lost. Their racist ideas are so discredited and unpopular that they will never win at the ballot box. They cannot even keep unity in their own political parties, despite being single issue groups. Because they are full of flakes, projecting their anger and resentment at being failed human beings onto others.
In the world of high finance, or big corporations I have encountered little or no racism. Investment Banking on Wall Street is a melting pot, if ever I saw one. As is the IT industry. If you can write great software and help them make a return for the shareholders they don't care if you are fat, thin, green, yellow or blue.
These are the people with the money, power and influence to shape the media or politics, not the keyboard warriors on this Forum, nor those at Stormfront.
And, frankly, they are not even consistent. Had Tele been able to convince that Puerto Rican teenager to marry him, he would be having Amerindian/African/Anglo children with weird little moustaches around his feet right about now.
But he didn't manage it.
Yes, and while you are at it...remember you will hold the same view of gαy marriage I am sure in your liberal mind. You should apply the same reasoning to marriage, that it matters not whether a man is married to a woman, a man to a man, a woman to a woman, a man to a child, a man to an animal...just as long as you can write great software and help them make a return for the shareholders...
People are so entrenched in the errors of modern society and liberalism they don't even realize it.
Let's look and see the origin of the word 'racism':
http://cofcc.org/2009/07/racism-was-coined-by-a-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ-activist/
Really? You think that interracial marriage is on the same level as a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ liaison? I wish you had told the Spanish that when they colonized the Americas. Maybe it isn't a coincidence that Spain did not lose the Faith, while the English did.
Liberalism is a sin...you are guilty of it. Certainly, if you are one who thanks God for a child born out of wedlock, the result of a mixed race act of sin then you have lost all good sense and logic in exchange for stupidity.
I would thank God, not for the sin, but for the life and the soul he created. He often brings good out of evil.
There are saints who were of illegitimate birth, and mulattos. What part about that is so difficult to understand? If you think that the child is worthless, then why would you be opposed to it's abortion (it is interesting to note that most Planned Parenthood abortion mills specifically target black and Hispanic neighborhoods)? You appear to consider the lives of white children to be of greater value than non-whites. Or failing that, would you demand that the child be abandoned/given away?
Would it be OK, or not as bad, if the child was not mixed race? That's the part I don't understand, about what you are saying. God created all humans, not just white people. If he created it, it must be good. That doesn't mean that we ignore the realities of fallen human nature (one of which is that races are not created equal in all things), but it does mean that God doesn't care, in the long run, whether you were white or black or Asian. Were you a good and faithful servant of the Lord? That is all that He will care about at the judgment.
I would be very careful about accusing other people of sinning.
Now the shoe is on the other foot and you are the one supposing me of sin....such hypocrisy is typical of liberal mindedness.
Common sense should dictate. Extreme mixed race marriages should be discouraged. God did create all humans not just white people...but ask yourself why God created different races.
I never said that the child born out of these circuмstance should not be loved as a soul created by God...I believe that people should be more discriminating in who they marry, and bring children into the world with...this goes for all races, the Orientals may discriminate, the Blacks may discriminate....not only may they discriminate, but they should. Your argument as well as ggregg is to point out the RACISM of anyone who objects out of common sense to mixed race marriage...I gave a link explaining the origin of the word RACISM...you might go back and read it.
Why is it ok to be PC and approve of babies born out of wedlock, to approve of mixed race marriage...but those who frown upon these things are treated with contempt?
You are back tracking here. Saying people should discriminate in who they marry is different than saying a mixed race marriage is wrong.
There should be no issue of "disapproval" or not of mixed race marriages. It should not bethought of on the same level as sin like fornication or adultery. It's not a sin even if it has the potential to introduce additional hardships.
-
And so in Tele's ideal world, an illegitimate child would not be aborted, they would simply look forward to getting treated like #### their whole lives by those who look down on them in revulsion. Especially if they are black. Gotcha. No wonder abortionists say, "better to abort them".*
This is another falsehood. I never said anything like that.
I said a man considering such a woman would feel revulsion at the thought of marrying her. That a father would feel revulsion at the thought of his daughter being in such a situation.
You people are quick to accuse me of racism, of hating bastards, hating unwed mothers, etc.
Those are rash judgments, but it's what you get from people who no longer know how to think, which is typical of the modern world. It's not possible to have a dispassionate conversation with dumb broads, dumb kids, or sellouts.
And so in Tele's ideal world, an illegitimate child would not be aborted, they would simply look forward to getting treated like #### their whole lives by those who look down on them in revulsion. Especially if they are black. Gotcha. No wonder abortionists say, "better to abort them".*
Again, I never said anything like that.
Truth is not your strong suit.
-
There should be no issue of "disapproval" or not of mixed race marriages.
This claim Tiffany.
It should not bethought of on the same level as sin like fornication or adultery.
Doesn't follow from the above premise. (a true premise)
It's not a sin even if it has the potential to introduce additional hardships
This premise is largely true I think, but it doesn't then follow one must not disapprove of racially mixed marriages.
-
And, frankly, they are not even consistent. Had Tele been able to convince that Puerto Rican teenager to marry him, he would be having Amerindian/African/Anglo children with weird little moustaches around his feet right about now.
You're violating Matthew's rules by bringing this up.
Telesphorus breaks this rule almost daily, constantly referring to fathers who forbid their daughters to court "devout men".
If he doesn't want anyone mentioning it, he should quit talking about it.
-
There should be no issue of "disapproval" or not of mixed race marriages.
This claim Tiffany.
It should not bethought of on the same level as sin like fornication or adultery.
Doesn't follow from the above premise. (a true premise)
It's not a sin even if it has the potential to introduce additional hardships
This premise is largely true I think, but it doesn't then follow one must not disapprove of racially mixed marriages.
It's being put on the same level of sin.
I think my son should finish a vo-tech program before he marries. It's the difference between him making $40 and hour or $10 an hour. It would be much more difficult for him to earn a living without that training. Additional hardships is not a sin though.
Him sinning with a married woman is a completely different type of disapproval though, it's a sin, always wrong.
I don't think we should just flat out disapprove of mixed race marriages. It can introduce additional problems but not necessarily.
-
Telesphorus breaks this rule almost daily, constantly referring to fathers who forbid their daughters to court "devout men".
No, I don't. And it's objectively a general subject.
If he doesn't want anyone mentioning it, he should quit talking about it.
It's a dirty personal attack, and that's why he's here.
Not to discuss the topic.
-
It's being put on the same level of sin.
No, Bernadette didn't say they were on the same level of sin. Not that I saw.
Her equivalence was perhaps too direct.
I think my son should finish a vo-tech program before he marries. It's the difference between him making $40 and hour or $10 an hour. It would be much more difficult for him to earn a living without that training. Additional hardships is not a sin though.
Never said it is.
Him sinning with a married woman is a completely different type of
disapproval though, it's a sin, always wrong.
Sure Tiffany, but the galvanic PC reaction to wrong views about those is the same, and will be the same in the future. The pro-homos are already making progress on boards like FE.
I don't think we should just flat out disapprove of mixed race marriages. It can introduce additional problems but not necessarily.
I don't think we should just flat out approve of them, how's that?
Sure, if two adults decide to do it, that's their business, unlike ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, however that doesn't mean we have to approve of it.
-
correction:
Sure Tiffany, but the galvanic PC reaction to "wrong" views about those is the same, and will be the same in the future. The pro-homos are already making progress on boards like FE.
Her equivalence was perhaps too direct.
I mean to say, she made an analogy without making sufficient distinction of the nature of the two issues.
-
And, frankly, they are not even consistent. Had Tele been able to convince that Puerto Rican teenager to marry him, he would be having Amerindian/African/Anglo children with weird little moustaches around his feet right about now.
You're violating Matthew's rules by bringing this up.
Telesphorus breaks this rule almost daily, constantly referring to fathers who forbid their daughters to court "devout men".
If he doesn't want anyone mentioning it, he should quit talking about it.
Tele hasn't said anything like that in months.
-
It's being put on the same level of sin.
No, Bernadette didn't say they were on the same level of sin. Not that I saw.
Her equivalence was perhaps too direct.
I think my son should finish a vo-tech program before he marries. It's the difference between him making $40 and hour or $10 an hour. It would be much more difficult for him to earn a living without that training. Additional hardships is not a sin though.
Never said it is.
Him sinning with a married woman is a completely different type of
disapproval though, it's a sin, always wrong.
Sure Tiffany, but the galvanic PC reaction to wrong views about those is the same, and will be the same in the future. The pro-homos are already making progress on boards like FE.
I don't think we should just flat out disapprove of mixed race marriages. It can introduce additional problems but not necessarily.
I don't think we should just flat out approve of them, how's that?
Sure, if two adults decide to do it, that's their business, unlike ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, however that doesn't mean we have to approve of it.
I don't know about boards like FE. I am sure I have never acted like the PC police. I am sincerely not catching what you are saying there?
Can you flat out disapprove of all of them. It's a Catholic board, not a foreign dating match up service where we all have to marry other races or even agree with it.
You didn't say it's a sin. She flat out replied to my post that mixed race marriages are not a sin with God created different races.
-
Can you flat out disapprove of all of them.
Is that what she said? That she disapproves of all of them that have ever happened and ever will happen?
Or rather that she has a general opposition to it, especially in her own family?
It's really amazing how much political correctness has damaged common sense thinking. Anyone who says anything about a certain group is met with a straw man representation of their position - as though they were asserting a universal law.
-
Can you flat out disapprove of all of them.
Is that what she said? That she disapproves of all of them that have ever happened and ever will happen?
Or rather that she has a general opposition to it, especially in her own family?
No that is what I said. I said you can flat out disapprove of all of them. My issue is not someone coming on here and saying, I think whites should marry whites and blacks should marry blacks. If they say it's a sin for whites and blacks to marry I have an issue with that.
-
The topic is how to prevent race-mixing, whether through adultery or marriage, race-mixing is race-mixing.
The one is sinful the other is not.
If God wanted all men to be of one race, He would of created one race. Why demean and water down the different cultures God has created? Why bring children into the world who will suffer an identity crisis later in life?
^
-
OK --
Enough about Telesphorus and his past.
But Telesphorus needs to stop grinding his axe -- the rule goes both ways.
If he brings up anything savoring of "axe grinding" about what happened to him PERSONALLY in the past, then we can talk about his PERSONAL past.
The "leave Telesphorus alone rule" needs to be clarified -- it's actually more of an anti-bullying statute. Don't chase Telesphorus (or anyone else) from thread to thread, harassing him with something of your choosing -- true or not.
But when a Nerd goes up to the lead Jock and says, "You know what? You're really ugly!" all my sympathy (and desire to level the playing field, protect, etc.) for said Nerd melts away into nothing.
In other words, I normally would frown on a jock beating up a nerd. But what if the nerd starts it? Then his blood is on his own head -- and he needs to be man enough to deal with the consequences he has brought upon himself.
Likewise, I'm sure many posters here are sick of Telesphorus' axe grinding against the SSPX as well. He generalizes things based on one or two PERSONAL experiences. And he was against the SSPX *before* they were openly declining, or before anyone (including himself) knew they were on the decline.
I don't want people harassing Telesphorus. But that doesn't mean that I want to create some sort of a monster -- allowing his anger and other issues to flourish unchecked. He needs to learn to deal with real Catholics in real life, without anyone "protecting" him like an endangered species.
As I said in the "Catholics have to go to college" thread, both ggreg and Telesphorus make some good points. Both of them miss at least a few points.
In my opinion, GGreg is too worldly and Telesphorus is too idealistic and has a lot of "issues". As such, I see no reason to ban either of them because they basically balance each other out.
-
There is a natural revulsion to such things.
Besides the revulsion, how is the father going to deal with the child identifying with its own race and rebelling against its "foster father."
Yes, there is, however, is it Natural or "natural"? Many effects of the Fall are "natural".
There is also a natural prejudice against ugly people, a strong and universally observable tendency to attribute malice and stupidity to them, whereas we would give good looking people a break and attribute it to innocent mistakes or the circuмstances.
Is this judgement of people who do not meet our biological urges to procreate/categorize each other "natural" and is it a good thing?
...
Quite.
It is natural to want to avoid people who irritate you. But what would a saint do, say St Therese? They would deliberately seek out their company!
It's not natural! But it is virtuous.
-
Listen Matthew, what's going on here isn't a playground or bullying.
Plenty of people know who I am, and his goal here is to disrupt the discussion.
It's defamation of character by liberal, someone who suggested the Church's teaching of the Gospel was altered by Constantine, someone who who accuses someone of being a "stormfront racist" for thinking that interracial marriage isn't a good idea.
And when he's at the bottom of the well, he starts trying to smear me over a specific personal incident.
Either you meant what you said or you didn't. Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay.
Either you approve of these fisheaters trolls who are here on this board for one reason - or you recognize what they're up to and what their agenda is.
What is it to such a person to come to this board and make these remarks unprovoked?
-
I'm now getting ads for meeting bi-racial singles.
Nice job guys.
:roll-laugh1:
-
And he was against the SSPX *before* they were openly declining, or before anyone (including himself) knew they were on the decline.
That's not true. People knew of the decline in 2008 and 2009. Particularly after the "Elder Brothers" comment.
When I see the priest not reading aloud the section of the prayer about Jєωs on the Feast of Christ the King, I took notice.
Suddenly it's only okay to have criticized the SSPX after a certain date even though what was going on was starting to become apparent?
Some people were prescient. The priests directing the SSPX didn't suddenly change their real agenda in the last two years.
-
Matthew, thanks for clarifying the rule.
-
I'm now getting ads for meeting bi-racial singles.
Nice job guys.
:roll-laugh1:
I am getting adverts for holidays in the Domincan Republic and the "British Islands", even the ad server appears to be obeying Matthew's rule.
That's AI on steroids. Amazing stuff.
-
And he was against the SSPX *before* they were openly declining, or before anyone (including himself) knew they were on the decline.
That's not true. People knew of the decline in 2008 and 2009. Particularly after the "Elder Brothers" comment.
When I see the priest not reading aloud the section of the prayer about Jєωs on the Feast of Christ the King, I took notice.
Suddenly it's only okay to have criticized the SSPX after a certain date even though what was going on was starting to become apparent?
Some people were prescient. The priests directing the SSPX didn't suddenly change their real agenda in the last two years.
Yes, some people (including the two of us) saw problems a few years ago.
But your criticisms of the SSPX were more about the priests being against young men, issues with marriage, courtship, etc. and were clearly seen through your subjective eyes.
You were criticizing them in ways they *didn't* deserve.
Are you saying you don't have issues? I get along with you and agree with at least 90% of what you post, but I won't abuse the truth enough to say you're perfect or you don't have baggage/issues.
Because I can see the truth -- including faults -- even in those very close to me (myself, my wife, children, etc.)
-
Seriously? I can understand disagreeing with Clare-I certainly don't entirely agree with her. But this is completely uncalled-for. You should apologize.
No, her stupidity is breathtaking.
And as long as you don't call someone a "fool", it's ok to be as verbally abusive as you like!
I would hope that you would be more patient and kind towards a person you really believed was mentally deficient and stupid.
But it is politically incorrect to insult mentally deficient people, so it must be good traditional Catholic behaviour.
:dancing:
-
But your criticisms of the SSPX were more about the priests being against young men, issues with marriage, courtship, etc. and were clearly seen through your subjective eyes.
The neo-SSPX doesn't like people who aren't well-off, people who stand up to them or people who they deem to be defective, male or female.
They cause a lot of damage to people, enable and sometimes even encourage very bad behavior.
Ultimately how is Bishop Williamson's expulsion justified? By character assassination - in particular - attempting to represent him as being deranged.
That's how these scuмmy people operate. When they don't like someone, they go to work on their reputations, slandering them, causing them to be ostracized, threatening those who associate with them, etc.
As Bishop Williamson says - liberals are rats.
-
I'm now getting ads for meeting bi-racial singles.
Nice job guys.
:roll-laugh1:
I am getting adverts for holidays in the Domincan Republic and the "British Islands", even the ad server appears to be obeying Matthew's rule.
That's AI on steroids. Amazing stuff.
I'm getting weight loss protein..I just finished off a bacon sandwich. :laugh2:
-
Seriously? I can understand disagreeing with Clare-I certainly don't entirely agree with her. But this is completely uncalled-for. You should apologize.
No, her stupidity is breathtaking.
And as long as you don't call someone a "fool", it's ok to be as verbally abusive as you like!
I would hope that you would be more patient and kind towards a person you really believed was mentally deficient and stupid.
But it is politically incorrect to insult mentally deficient people, so it must be good traditional Catholic behaviour.
:dancing:
I'm through with giving you the benefit of the doubt Clare.
Either you aren't intelligent enough to post on these boards or you are bad-willed.
-
When people can't debate the facts they resort to personal attack.
Erm.... Ahem. No comment.
-
When people can't debate the facts they resort to personal attack.
Erm.... Ahem. No comment.
The point of the insults Clare, is not because I haven't been debating the facts or showing how your statements are false and even absurd.
It's rather that you are the "Queen of Straw" - you never argue with my actual positions, and I don't see why I should put up with it politely.
-
Listen Matthew, what's going on here isn't a playground or bullying.
Plenty of people know who I am, and his goal here is to disrupt the discussion.
It's defamation of character by liberal, someone who suggested the Church's teaching of the Gospel was altered by Constantine, someone who who accuses someone of being a "stormfront racist" for thinking that interracial marriage isn't a good idea.
And when he's at the bottom of the well, he starts trying to smear me over a specific personal incident.
Either you meant what you said or you didn't. Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay.
Either you approve of these fisheaters trolls who are here on this board for one reason - or you recognize what they're up to and what their agenda is.
What is it to such a person to come to this board and make these remarks unprovoked?
I think I agree with you on the miscegenation issue. It's not a sin, but on the other hand God seems to want a variety of races. Also, mixing cultures (not necessarily races, but rather culture/way of life) causes plenty of problems in the practical realm. One's culture determines your views on children, lifestyle, taking care of parents, education, money, leisure, you name it.
Marriage is challenging enough without starting with a handicap.
Apparently there's a fine -- if not non-existent -- line between someone disagreeing with you, and being a troll.
After all, if they disagree with you they're "wrong", and being wrong means being in error. But why would someone come on here and spout error? They must have an agenda.
See how it looks to me? It's not as clear-cut as you say.
-
I don't want people harassing Telesphorus. But that doesn't mean that I want to create some sort of a monster -- allowing his anger and other issues to flourish unchecked. He needs to learn to deal with real Catholics in real life, without anyone "protecting" him like an endangered species.
lovely
-
Apparently there's a fine -- if not non-existent -- line between someone disagreeing with you, and being a troll.
That's nonsense and you know it.
It's not a matter of disagreement. Were my arguments being addressed, or was the goal to launch personal attacks to disrupt the conversation?
Is it not trolling to make filthy immoral jokes on this forum? Or to constantly hammer on a personal issue in order to provoke a response rather than to discuss the matter in a logical manner?
If I bring up the heterodox opinions expressed by this person, the resort to the secular state schools despite having the resources to set up his own school, etc, I'm simply pointing out that we're dealing with someone who can scarcely claim to belong on a Catholic forum.
I make a group of posts you agree with, that are logical - the response of that person is that it is "stormfront racism" and then launches into a host of attacks on my personality.
Did you mean what you said before?
then your "clarification" is in reality a change.
Is the poster we're discussing on this forum to discuss the issues or rather to discuss his problem with me?
-
Another response to Telesphorus --
It's not a playground or bullying?
So what is it, then? A daycare? elementary school? kids' birthday party?
It has to be something with children, because I certainly feel like I'm babysitting!
Mature men can carry on a rational conversation and ignore a random "personal jab" thrown their way. You can't.
Your anger issues are so severe, you can't let anything go. You hold on to every slight, every injustice, until your anger has fermented into hatred. You really need to learn how to forgive, and a bit of humility.
"Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make our hearts like unto Thine!"
You need to just ignore when someone brings up "your past" and not get livid with rage each and every time. My whole "Telesphorus rule" was basically constructed because of your weakness -- you realize that, I hope.
But it's not part of CathInfo Canon Law, because I never put it into the official rules. I am the best judge of "what the lawgiver meant" so I'm going to have to claim "epikeia" on this one.
-
This is an internet forum and either you approve of "Catholics" posting filth here and disrupting the board with trolling or you don't. You're the mod and owner.
You obviously (finally) saw before the problem with letting these people come after me, as they are obsessed with the issue. And now you're backtracking. Suggesting I brought it on myself. No, I didn't bring it up in these threads.
Now either you try to make this board a good and helpful place for Catholics to have fruitful discussions or you give free range to trolls who regard you and your beliefs with contempt.
Mature men can carry on a rational conversation and ignore a random "personal jab" thrown their way. You can't.
There's nothing random about this person's presence on this forum or the persistent attempt to goad me on this forum.
Your anger issues are so severe, you can't let anything go. You hold on to every slight, every injustice, until your anger has fermented into hatred. You really need to learn how to forgive, and a bit of humility.
Yet you are here enabling those who are here very clearly with the intent to goad me, with slights on my name
"Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make our hearts like unto Thine!"
You need to just ignore when someone brings up "your past" and not get livid with rage each and every time.
Sorry Matthew, but it's not "my past" - it's falsehoods about my past.
I have a right to my reputation. And you don't have the right to enable these people to smear it.
My whole "Telesphorus rule" was basically constructed because of your weakness -- you realize that, I hope.
It's not a "weakness" to guard one's reputation.
But it's not part of CathInfo Canon Law, because I never put it into the official rules. I am the best judge of "what the lawgiver meant" so I'm going to have to claim "epikeia" on this one.
It is part of the moral law that you not enable these people to attack the personal lives of posters with falsehoods. And it is certainly necessary for the sake of fruitful discussion to get rid of liberal trolls on this board.
-
This is an internet forum and either you approve of "Catholics" posting filth here and disrupting the board with trolling or you don't. You're the mod and owner.
You obviously (finally) saw before the problem with letting these people come after me, as they are obsessed with the issue. And now you're backtracking. Suggesting I brought it on myself. No, I didn't bring it up in these threads.
Now either you try to make this board a good and helpful place for Catholics to have fruitful discussions or you give free range to trolls who regard you and your beliefs with contempt.
Mature men can carry on a rational conversation and ignore a random "personal jab" thrown their way. You can't.
There's nothing random about this person's presence on this forum or the persistent attempt to goad me on this forum.
Your anger issues are so severe, you can't let anything go. You hold on to every slight, every injustice, until your anger has fermented into hatred. You really need to learn how to forgive, and a bit of humility.
Yet you are here enabling those who are here very clearly with the intent to goad me, with slights on my name
"Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make our hearts like unto Thine!"
You need to just ignore when someone brings up "your past" and not get livid with rage each and every time.
Sorry Matthew, but it's not "my past" - it's falsehoods about my past.
I have a right to my reputation. And you don't have the right to enable these people to smear it.
My whole "Telesphorus rule" was basically constructed because of your weakness -- you realize that, I hope.
It's not a "weakness" to guard one's reputation.
But it's not part of CathInfo Canon Law, because I never put it into the official rules. I am the best judge of "what the lawgiver meant" so I'm going to have to claim "epikeia" on this one.
It is part of the moral law that you not enable these people to attack the personal lives of posters with falsehoods. And it is certainly necessary for the sake of fruitful discussion to get rid of liberal trolls on this board.
Troll=Everyone who disagrees with Tele.
You're right, it's impossible to have a good discussion with you.
-
Troll=Everyone who disagrees with Tele.
Did I accuse you of trolling? Have any substance to that claim?
I call "everyone who disagrees" with me a troll?
Or is that just something you made up out of desperation?
-
Oh great, egoveritas the super-troll agrees with me....I'm probably wrong then....
Seems like Brainglitch earlier recognized the sort of people who are on this board to troll.
-
Troll=Everyone who disagrees with Tele.
Did I accuse you of trolling? Have any substance to that claim?
I call "everyone who disagrees" with me a troll?
Or is that just something you made up out of desperation?
No. You called everyone on this thread (me, Clare, ggreg) "Dumb kids" "dumb broads" "liberals", among other things. You made it clear that you believe that it is wrong for people to disagree with you. You have referred to the people who disagreed with you as "trolls" (in the plural!) for "slighting" you, "smearing" you, etc. You refused to treat the issues being discussed and launched into ad hominem attacks on several posters. ggreg, I will admit, was not being fair to you, and not sticking to the topic. But neither Clare nor myself or anyone else were attacking your reputation.
I don't know anything about your "past". I honestly don't give a shit about it. However, you reference it on almost every single thread in order to bash the SSPX, or your opponents.
What I do take issue with is the fact that every time race comes up, you go into rabid attack mode.
-
You have referred to the people who disagreed with you as "trolls" (in the plural!)
There have been many of them here. You yourself acknowledged the existence of such a troll. In fact you called that one a "super-troll"
Saying that I call everyone who disagrees with me a troll doesn't fit the facts. It's false, not just literally, but false in the general sense of the expression as well.
-
Wasn't super-troll the name of a James Brown song?
-
Wasn't super-troll the name of a James Brown song?
I think it was Super Train! :smoke-pot:
-
No you are thinking Night Train.
-
Maybe it was "Super Tramp".
-
No they are a British rock band that used to be called Daddy
-
As for inter-racial marriage, it's not sinful, but I agree with others on this thread that people should generally stick to marrying someone their own race.
-
When I was younger I found older black men in the deep south often have very strong traditional masculine traits - strong work ethic, strong sense of right from wrong, decisive, a strong sense of protecting those around them, respectful of authority, willingness to endure a not so great job or two of them to provide without complaint, they seem to understand the realities of lives who had different experiences than their own unlike most of the white men who were my age.
It's terrible that "black men" are being spoken of in this way.
I find that interesting how you prop up black men on such a high pedestal. Have you been watching the Green Mile too much? Yes there are good black people out there. But this preconceived notion that black men hold these qualities more so than white men. I think thats garbage. As a white man, I have no problem doing jobs that don't pay very much, and working hard at that job. Whatever job I have I usually am a hard worker. I don't mind sweating things out. At the same time, I have the brains to be able to figure out that I can go to school, and get a college degree which will set me up for a better paying job. Anybody can do what i am doing now. Joining the military has given me the opportunity to go back to school and make something of myself. That same opportunity exists for your so-called southern black men who work hard at dead end jobs.
-
There should be no issue of "disapproval" or not of mixed race marriages.
This claim Tiffany.
It should not bethought of on the same level as sin like fornication or adultery.
Doesn't follow from the above premise. (a true premise)
It's not a sin even if it has the potential to introduce additional hardships
This premise is largely true I think, but it doesn't then follow one must not disapprove of racially mixed marriages.
It's being put on the same level of sin.
I think my son should finish a vo-tech program before he marries. It's the difference between him making $40 and hour or $10 an hour. It would be much more difficult for him to earn a living without that training. Additional hardships is not a sin though.
Him sinning with a married woman is a completely different type of disapproval though, it's a sin, always wrong.
I don't think we should just flat out disapprove of mixed race marriages. It can introduce additional problems but not necessarily.
My issue with mixed marriages is the rate in which they are occurring. Our government has put us into a situation where 59% of the population is white and the rest are minorities. It is inevitable that we are going to all be one race within the next 200 years. At which point, the Jєωιѕн Agenda will claim victory, and many Christians will be persecuted. Barring that nothing is done with Illegal Immigration, this is a harsh reality. You should really consider taking more of a stance against Interracial dating/marriages. Especially with the state that our society is currently in. Your stance is a nonchalant stance that will set the future generations of Christians up for severe persecution.
-
Common sense should dictate. Extreme mixed race marriages should be discouraged. God did create all humans not just white people...but ask yourself why God created different races.
God did not create different races.
Races are geographically and socially defined genetic groups, which can only arise after the Fall.
It is not a surprise that pale skinned people able to tolerate lactose in adulthood live in the colder and less lighted north, and that dark skinned people, more likely to be resistant to malaria, but usually unable to digest lactose in adulthood live in the warmer and equatorial regions.
While there are social situations, it is also no wonder that mixing occurs when people are in more diverse settings.
The races were "separated" because of accidents and they are mixed because of accidents.
The family of Noe was the basis for the races because a single group of people, with their own mix of genetics, went out into the world in different directions and multiplied and the ENVIRONMENT resulted in racial differences.
-
God did not create different races.
You do realize that God's Creation is ongoing?
If God didn't create didn't races, he didn't create the people in them, and he didn't create you.
God surely has brought into existence different nations and peoples of different races. And for each of them he has had a role and a plan.
Those who wish to create a "new order" use the Tower of Babel as a symbol. As a symbol of rebellion against the natural order.
-
When I was younger I found older black men in the deep south often have very strong traditional masculine traits - strong work ethic, strong sense of right from wrong, decisive, a strong sense of protecting those around them, respectful of authority, willingness to endure a not so great job or two of them to provide without complaint, they seem to understand the realities of lives who had different experiences than their own unlike most of the white men who were my age.
It's terrible that "black men" are being spoken of in this way.
I live in the South and the above in complete and utter fiction.
-
Most of the black men over the age of 18 are in jail or dead. Most of the black women are on some form of assistance because of the number of illegitimate children that they produce yearly.
-
When I was younger I found older black men in the deep south often have very strong traditional masculine traits - strong work ethic, strong sense of right from wrong, decisive, a strong sense of protecting those around them, respectful of authority, willingness to endure a not so great job or two of them to provide without complaint, they seem to understand the realities of lives who had different experiences than their own unlike most of the white men who were my age.
It's terrible that "black men" are being spoken of in this way.
I live in the South and the above in complete and utter fiction.
Yeah, I also live in the South and I don't believe the above description of black men is accurate either.
-
So I was thinking about how to prevent this crisis that we are having in our country today. Here is my solution...
1) Move to an area with minimal minorities. This of course would lessen the chances of your children race mixing.
2) Don't allow your children to date (have girlfriends/boyfriends) until 16 or 18 years old. The goal here is not to stop them from dating. They will have their little girlfriends and boyfriends secretly no matter what. But the goal is to make it exciting for them. Yes, exciting. Kids frequently do things behind their parents' back because of the thrill. So if your kids get a kick out of simply just dating then you have pretty much eliminated the thrill of interracial dating. Your kids get that same thrill from dating period. A lot of times people interracially date because of the thrill they get out of it. They were raised in a way that did not allow them to interracially date, and they did anyways because of the thrill of getting away with it. So basically what we are doing here is we are replacing the thrill of interracial dating by creating another thrill...which is dating in general. That way, your kids get the same thrill out of dating someone of their own kind as they would from interracial dating.
3) Try to find ways to discourage interracial dating with your kids. Maybe by using positive and negative reinforcement. Also, keeping them away from certain media. And explaining to them why it is important for them to find someone of the same belief system. You might even throw in how important it is to preserve our culture and way of life. You can raise them to be proud of being white. You don't have to teach them to hate other races or anything.
Any other suggestions?
Or you could be a Catholic and stop espousing racist, heretical nonsense. Just a thought.
Before you start using the word racist against me please tell me how my statement was racist. I never once implied that my race is superior to other races. Just because I am against interracial dating does not mean that I think my race is superior. That might hold true for some people, but even the people that you might think are racist are really not. They just don't like it thats all.
There is no Catholic basis for saying that interracial marriage is wrong. If you are only attracted to members of your won race, that is fine. People are attracted to whomever they are attracted to. Suggesting that interracial relationships are wrong on a Catholic forum certainly seems to me to imply that you think such an attitude is consistent with believing that God made of one blood all nations (as Sacred Scripture clearly teaches) and that Christ sanctified all humans who are part of his Church through His incarnation and baptism. It isn't.
-
There is a natural revulsion to such things.
Besides the revulsion, how is the father going to deal with the child identifying with its own race and rebelling against its "foster father."
Yes, there is, however, is it Natural or "natural"? Many effects of the Fall are "natural".
There is also a natural prejudice against ugly people, a strong and universally observable tendency to attribute malice and stupidity to them, whereas we would give good looking people a break and attribute it to innocent mistakes or the circuмstances.
Is this judgement of people who do not meet our biological urges to procreate/categorize each other "natural" and is it a good thing?
Race is an accidental selection and reinforcement of genetic characteristics. There are tendencies to certain ways of acting as these characteristics are more distinct from others, but all these races are from a single couple, and then again from a small family.
One must be careful in finding significance in natural "revulsion" as they tend to go against morality and lend themselves to the sin of respect of persons (http://blog.nonpeccabis.com/2012/12/respect-of-persons-is-sin-matter-of.html).
It would be a shame to find a particular socio-economic situation in a given area, or a biological result of the Fall, used for any moral guidance.
TO ROSARIUM: I noticed two of your posts, and feel that both stand out like diamonds briefly flashing in a mudslide. The same to some other people on this thread. I wonder if it really is true that there are a lot of "racist trads," since racial put-downs at the start had 7-14 "thumbs down" above them. In mentioning Jєωιѕн background(on the WWIII thread), and that Jesus was Jєωιѕн (or a/The "Hebrew") Who practiced all of the Jєωιѕн customs, I got "critics" who said that communism and Judaism were the same, "all Jєωs will be damned," and most misguided attacks. Yet Scripture notes that Jesus was "King of the Jєωs," though not in this world. It simply helps to know that Jesus' Last Supper was the Passover Seder, since liberal professors teach that Christianity got the Mass from a "Roman mystery-cult" much later on. Knowledge about the Seder is good.
The тαℓмυd and Jєωιѕн Seder remain a source of prophecy to the Jєωs, but I doubt any Jєω who might convert would stay on this forum long (I'm glad I converted as a teen by myself).
Unfortunately, one otherwise kind soul had read that the Seder was called "impure" by a saint (perhaps in medieval times)and feared it was intrinsically evil. Nasty labels emerged like "a plague of apostate [something]" and "feminist." Does everyone who dislikes racism have 3 critics? I expect to have more now, but se la vie. I didn't block, don't understand "likers" or "critics," and hope that doesn't have to change.
The real "crisis" is that our children become inundated with super "liberal" ideas and twisted sɛҳuąƖ stimuli very early (if TV is around at all). They get "yoked" with un-Christian spouses who are often divorced or headed that way. Nothing was said of "how to encourage our kids to find holy marriage partners." In defense, the atheist Darwin was consulted? Please keep up the fight.
Douay-Rheims Bible:
There is neither Jєω nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.--Gal. 3:28 (This seems to go for African or European too)
God Bless~
Anne
-
God did not create different races.
You do realize that God's Creation is ongoing?
If God didn't create didn't races, he didn't create the people in them, and he didn't create you.
God surely has brought into existence different nations and peoples of different races. And for each of them he has had a role and a plan.
Those who wish to create a "new order" use the Tower of Babel as a symbol. As a symbol of rebellion against the natural order.
I think he means that God didn't create a white Adam and Eve and then a black version of them that was dumber and smoked crack. There's Adam and Eve, and we all come from them, the differences at this point are natural variations as a result of environment. Of course you're right that God's creation is ongoing and He's allowed for races and nations to develop, but the significance of it is accidental (in the philosophical sense) more than anything.
-
The topic is how to prevent race-mixing, whether through adultery or marriage, race-mixing is race-mixing.
The one is sinful the other is not.
If God wanted all men to be of one race, He would of created one race. Why demean and water down the different cultures God has created? Why bring children into the world who will suffer an identity crisis later in life?
My children are quite sure of who they are. They are Catholic children of God.
-
In mentioning Jєωιѕн background(on the WWIII thread), and that Jesus was Jєωιѕн (or a/The "Hebrew") Who practiced all of the Jєωιѕн customs, I got "critics" who said that communism and Judaism were the same, "all Jєωs will be damned," and most misguided attacks. Yet Scripture notes that Jesus was "King of the Jєωs," though not in this world. It simply helps to know that Jesus' Last Supper was the Passover Seder, since liberal professors teach that Christianity got the Mass from a "Roman mystery-cult" much later on. Knowledge about the Seder is good.
Judaism and Communism basically are the same thing, just as Judaism and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ are basically the same. You'll find some differences in doctrine, but they go hand in hand. I recommend reading Hugh Akins' book "ѕуηαgσgυє Rising".
All Jєωs will be damned. It is a Dogma of the Catholic Church that there is no salvation outside of her.
As for Jesus being King of the Jєωs, they rejected Him as their King and thus are no longer His chosen people.
Unfortunately, one otherwise kind soul had read that the Seder was called "impure" by a saint (perhaps in medieval times)and feared it was intrinsically evil.
The feasts of the Jєωs are impure, Anne. They are a mockery to Christ and are displeasing to Him. I am in full agreement with what St. John Chrysostom said on the matter.
-
but the significance of it is accidental (in the philosophical sense) more than anything.
So the Hebrew race was "accidental?"
I don't think the family tree of mankind is simply "accidental."
God created the social order, and the natural order. He created different kinds, with different characteristics.
The idea that one should be indifferent, willfully blind to racial differences, pretend as though they don't exist, or are just accidental markings without any greater significance is simply wrong, and the insistence on it by the politically correct is starting to verge on totalitarian.
-
The тαℓмυd and Jєωιѕн Seder remain a source of prophecy to the Jєωs, but I doubt any Jєω who might convert would stay on this forum long (I'm glad I converted as a teen by myself).
Unfortunately, one otherwise kind soul had read that the Seder was called "impure" by a saint (perhaps in medieval times)and feared it was intrinsically evil. Nasty labels emerged like "a plague of apostate [something]" and "feminist." Does everyone who dislikes racism have 3 critics? I expect to have more now, but se la vie. I didn't block, don't understand "likers" or "critics," and hope that doesn't have to change.
The real "crisis" is that our children become inundated with super "liberal" ideas and twisted sɛҳuąƖ stimuli very early (if TV is around at all). They get "yoked" with un-Christian spouses who are often divorced or headed that way. Nothing was said of "how to encourage our kids to find holy marriage partners." In defense, the atheist Darwin was consulted? Please keep up the fight.
Douay-Rheims Bible:
There is neither Jєω nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.--Gal. 3:28 (This seems to go for African or European too)
God Bless~
Anne
Converted Jєωs make the best Catholics. I firmly believe that. I was taught that bit of wisdom by +Williamson.
The fact is that the Jєωs are the most intelligent of all the races, and they have certain gifts that God gave them (which He doesn't take back -- even when they collectively go completely astray)
Jacob's Blessing is a gift for amassing wealth. It's why they have a sixth sense for acquiring money.
And who can compare to the Jєωs when it comes to financial acuмen! They think up complicated vehicles to acquire wealth (derivatives, etc.) which most people can't comprehend. Heck, most people can't even grasp the nature of compound interest vs. simple. And that's basic stuff!
They also have a gift for understanding people and human nature. That's why they're so good in the Entertainment industry. They know what makes us tick -- what makes us laugh, what makes us cry. They were supposed to use this gift as Apostles to convert the world to Christ.
And, one day, they will. When the Jєωs convert, WATCH OUT! Imagine all the genius of the Jєωs directed at building up the Church, instead of dragging humankind ever downward into lower and lower forms of baseness and immorality.
To address another point --
I agree that I wish people had given more concrete suggestions in this thread as to how to help our children find good marriage partners. With the corruption of the modern world, it's got to be pretty hard these days.
-
I should have known that even if I clearly stated how I was using the word 'accidental' it would still be treated as if I used it a different way.
-
I should have known that even if I clearly stated how I was using the word 'accidental' it would still be treated as if I used it a different way.
Your statement is in any case vacuous. To suggest there's nothing essential about race is in reality is hardly different than saying there's nothing essential about family, about human relations, human genetic characteristics. Whether or not such things are essential has no real bearing on their practical importance.
-
I should have known that even if I clearly stated how I was using the word 'accidental' it would still be treated as if I used it a different way.
Your statement is in any case vacuous. To suggest there's nothing essential about race is in reality is hardly different than saying there's nothing essential about family, about human relations, human genetic characteristics. Whether or not such things are essential has no real bearing on their practical importance.
I certainly don't think there's anything essential about skin color. That's what I take you to mean when you say 'race.' I differentiate between race and ethnicity, they're not entirely interchangeable.
-
I certainly don't think there's anything essential about skin color.
We're talking about ancestry and genetic heritage, not skin color.
That's what I take you to mean when you say 'race.'
Nope. What a dumb comment.
I differentiate between race and ethnicity, they're not entirely interchangeable.
No, they're not, but that is of course irrelevant.
-
For all those reading this thread (lurkers as well as members), if you're curious what the "official CathInfo position" is on race, or what the owner's position is, then here you go:
Some revere race to excess -- the "Stormfront" crowd. They place race even ahead of the Faith. This is obviously wrong.
Others act like race is no more important than eye color or what digits are in your phone number -- completely irrelevant. This is equally wrong.
God did create or allow a multitude of peoples and races, and race is one of the 4 kinds of identity (gender, race, religion, and nationality). The Bad Guys who unfortunately run the modern world would like to destroy all 4 forms of identity, so that we will all be rudderless, without direction -- so they can suggest a direction FOR us. It's easier for them to change the world when we have no family traditions, no solid gender roles, no national culture, and no one race to identify with. It makes us a clean slate, with nothing holding us back from radical change. And I'm talking about radical change that THEY want to effect.
So while race is not unimportant, it's also true that the Faith comes first.
Also, there are practical matters. Race is one of many traits that can cause division or problems within a marriage. Others include: how you were raised, culture, economic status, education, etc. The more two spouses have in common, the fewer sources of strife. Why swim upstream if you don't have to?
Nowadays, race isn't the biggest issue in marital harmony. Especially as most Americans are many generations removed from our original nations.
Let's put it this way -- I'm married, and my wife is the same nationality as me. We're both mostly German. I can see many ways that our families were similar in their views, culture, etc. and that results in a great marital harmony for the two of us. We were from two different parts of the country (Illinois and Texas) but our mothers, for example, are extremely similar. But we were both descended from German CATHOLICS. If she had lived in a Lutheran German family, we wouldn't have gotten along at all. Her culture would have been far different. THAT would have been the problem -- religion and culture.
And there are other practical matters in marrying someone from another race. For example, my wife's cousin (blond, blue-eyed, pale German) is engaged to a Hispanic man, and she is already half-lamenting that she won't have any children with blue eyes (as she holds our 2 month old blue-eyed girl). Not a huge cross, but it's something she's giving up. On the other hand, they're both Catholic (novus ordo), so they're united on religion.
Really, the topic is kind of an academic one -- a question of acceptable vs. good vs. better vs. best.
Anyhow, my position is basically the Catholic one.
Hatred of anyone is obviously wrong, but one can have a moderate pride in their nationality. And that includes those of European descent :)
Acknowledging that race exists -- and disagreeing that race is something to be destroyed -- is not the same as hatred of other races.
And it's better to marry within the Catholic Faith and outside one's race, than vice-versa!
These things seem obvious, at least to me, but you'd be surprised at how many moderns get extremely confused when liberal brainwashing comes into the picture.
-
Is it ok to be different kinds of white?
-
The тαℓмυd and Jєωιѕн Seder remain a source of prophecy to the Jєωs, but I doubt any Jєω who might convert would stay on this forum long (I'm glad I converted as a teen by myself).
Unfortunately, one otherwise kind soul had read that the Seder was called "impure" by a saint (perhaps in medieval times)and feared it was intrinsically evil. Nasty labels emerged like "a plague of apostate [something]" and "feminist." Does everyone who dislikes racism have 3 critics? I expect to have more now, but se la vie. I didn't block, don't understand "likers" or "critics," and hope that doesn't have to change.
The real "crisis" is that our children become inundated with super "liberal" ideas and twisted sɛҳuąƖ stimuli very early (if TV is around at all). They get "yoked" with un-Christian spouses who are often divorced or headed that way. Nothing was said of "how to encourage our kids to find holy marriage partners." In defense, the atheist Darwin was consulted? Please keep up the fight.
Douay-Rheims Bible:
There is neither Jєω nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.--Gal. 3:28 (This seems to go for African or European too)
God Bless~
Anne
Converted Jєωs make the best Catholics. I firmly believe that. I was taught that bit of wisdom by +Williamson.
The fact is that the Jєωs are the most intelligent of all the races, and they have certain gifts that God gave them (which He doesn't take back -- even when they collectively go completely astray)
Jacob's Blessing is a gift for amassing wealth. It's why they have a sixth sense for acquiring money.
And who can compare to the Jєωs when it comes to financial acuмen! They think up complicated vehicles to acquire wealth (derivatives, etc.) which most people can't comprehend. Heck, most people can't even grasp the nature of compound interest vs. simple. And that's basic stuff!
They also have a gift for understanding people and human nature. That's why they're so good in the Entertainment industry. They know what makes us tick -- what makes us laugh, what makes us cry. They were supposed to use this gift as Apostles to convert the world to Christ.
And, one day, they will. When the Jєωs convert, WATCH OUT! Imagine all the genius of the Jєωs directed at building up the Church, instead of dragging humankind ever downward into lower and lower forms of baseness and immorality.
To address another point --
I agree that I wish people had given more concrete suggestions in this thread as to how to help our children find good marriage partners. With the corruption of the modern world, it's got to be pretty hard these days.
I might disagree with you on that. I don't think that the Jєωs invented the majority of the things that we use today (i.e. Automobile, Trains, Airplanes, Television, etc.). They have invented some things though. I'm pretty sure they have been responsible for a lot of psychology, banking, financial instruments(like you say), etc. I personally view psychology as having its purpose but for the most part it is garbage.
You also have to figure in all of the Philosophy and stuff that non-Jєωιѕн whites have contributed to. Starting with the earliest greek philosophers. Thanks to them people can use their brain logically and think for themselves.
I think that a good amount of practicing Catholics are highly intelligent people. Especially the ones who study theology. Many of those people who come to websites like these are very intelligent and do a very good job of teaching the truth. After all, you have to be intelligent to get the message across effectively. Not to mention, they have to be smart enough to have flocked to Catholicism and not buy into all the other distractions out there.
Have you read some of the things Albert Einstein wrote regarding his belief in God? That wasn't all that intelligent to be honest. I can't think of anything off hand but I have run across some of it throughout the years. I remember it being off so to speak.
-
Is it ok to be different kinds of white?
You're bringing up the point that it's not just about race, but the real issue is nationality and ultimately culture. Culture helps determine our views on a myriad of topics.
I'm sure that Slavic Europeans are raised quite differently than midwest Americans, even though both could be equally white.
-
I think that a good amount of practicing Catholics are highly intelligent people. Especially the ones who study theology. Many of those people who come to websites like these are very intelligent and do a very good job of teaching the truth. After all, you have to be intelligent to get the message across effectively. Not to mention, they have to be smart enough to have flocked to Catholicism and not buy into all the other distractions out there.
Yes, and that's why the tactic of disruption has been so critical. To break down Catholic institutions through infiltration and subversion. They don't want Catholics functioning with any real autonomy from the wider culture. They want to prevent the formation of serious Catholic institutions (all the SSPX could put together for laity is St. Mary's) Catholic families and corrupt the children when they have the chance.
When Catholics have functioned autonomously in this country in the past they developed remarkable communities that produced many, many intelligent people - and before Vatican II those people often remained loyal to the Faith. It had a tremendous impact on society.
PS Jєωs also want gentiles to worship them.
-
I might disagree with you on that. I don't think that the Jєωs invented the majority of the things that we use today (i.e. Automobile, Trains, Airplanes, Television, etc.). They have invented some things though. I'm pretty sure they have been responsible for a lot of psychology, banking, financial instruments(like you say), etc. I personally view psychology as having its purpose but for the most part it is garbage.
You also have to figure in all of the Philosophy and stuff that non-Jєωιѕн whites have contributed to. Starting with the earliest greek philosophers. Thanks to them people can use their brain logically and think for themselves.
I think that a good amount of practicing Catholics are highly intelligent people. Especially the ones who study theology. Many of those people who come to websites like these are very intelligent and do a very good job of teaching the truth. After all, you have to be intelligent to get the message across effectively. Not to mention, they have to be smart enough to have flocked to Catholicism and not buy into all the other distractions out there.
I never said that other races weren't a mere 10 points below them on the IQ scale.
I think Fisher-Price (note: every page of their catalog features a White, Black, and Asian) would be ashamed to make a new kids toy, "Inventors of our World" featuring 50 little figurines of various inventors that made things we use everyday in our modern world. Let's just say there wouldn't be enough diversity for them.
-
Thank you for your last couple of posts, Matthew.
-
I might disagree with you on that. I don't think that the Jєωs invented the majority of the things that we use today (i.e. Automobile, Trains, Airplanes, Television, etc.). They have invented some things though. I'm pretty sure they have been responsible for a lot of psychology, banking, financial instruments(like you say), etc. I personally view psychology as having its purpose but for the most part it is garbage.
You also have to figure in all of the Philosophy and stuff that non-Jєωιѕн whites have contributed to. Starting with the earliest greek philosophers. Thanks to them people can use their brain logically and think for themselves.
I think that a good amount of practicing Catholics are highly intelligent people. Especially the ones who study theology. Many of those people who come to websites like these are very intelligent and do a very good job of teaching the truth. After all, you have to be intelligent to get the message across effectively. Not to mention, they have to be smart enough to have flocked to Catholicism and not buy into all the other distractions out there.
I never said that other races weren't a mere 10 points below them on the IQ scale.
I think Fisher-Price (note: every page of their catalog features a White, Black, and Asian) would be ashamed to make a new kids toy, "Inventors of our World" featuring 50 little figurines of various inventors that made things we use everyday in our modern world. Let's just say there wouldn't be enough diversity for them.
In that case, its a matter of them having the extra time on their hands (while us cattle are too busy doing the grunt work) to make society a better place. Its not about them being genetically more intelligent. Am I gathering you correctly?
-
I never said that other races weren't a mere 10 points below them on the IQ scale.
The following article discusses Jєωιѕн overrepresentation at elite universities:
on the basis of Richard Lynn’s estimates of αѕнкenαzι Jєωιѕн IQ and correcting for the greater numbers of European Whites, the ratio of non-Jєωιѕн Whites to Jєωs should be around 7 to 1 (IQ >130) or 4.5 to 1 (IQ > 145). Instead, the ratio of non-Jєωιѕн Whites to Jєωs is around 1 to 1 or less.
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2010/07/kevin-macdonald-Jєωιѕн-overrepresentation-at-elite-universities-explained/
Now the fact of the matter is these institutions recruit gentiles to do the bidding of the Jєωs that dominate them.
The job those gentiles have is to betray their own upbringing, morals, and people.
That's why some of the most underrepresented groups (adjusted for IQ and grades) are rural or lower income whites. They don't want those people around. They're too hard to control.
Back in the 40s things were a bit different. My WWII vet neighbor growing up grew up on a farm and was sent to Yale on an accelerated program in the Marines
However, he didn't fit in.
They want people who who will help to impose this anti-Christian system on us.
-
Is it ok to be different kinds of white?
You're bringing up the point that it's not just about race, but the real issue is nationality and ultimately culture. Culture helps determine our views on a myriad of topics.
I'm sure that Slavic Europeans are raised quite differently than midwest Americans, even though both could be equally white.
My "different kind of white" spouse is also different culture, different nationality, different language. Once we learned to understand each other things went from good to better. We both started out novus ordo Catholic and came together to tradition.
I am pleased you spelled out your stance Matthew. There was grave need of it.
-
Well Clare, I can see a positive side to all of this.
The blacks, spics, mutalatos, coons, darkies, pickaninnies, kikes and even tomahonkeys can, in fact, rest easy the world over and not worry about these fringe people with their fringe ideas. And this is for why.
Racist views are so extreme that most of these types cannot hold down full time decent paying careers. While they sit in their mother's basements jobless and unmarried, the days, months and years tick by and the chances of them ever spawning these children they would, if they had them, encourage to marry within their race, or disown for marrying outside, become ever slimmer.
So they have already lost. Their racist ideas are so discredited and unpopular that they will never win at the ballot box. They cannot even keep unity in their own political parties, despite being single issue groups. Because they are full of flakes, projecting their anger and resentment at being failed human beings onto others.
In the world of high finance, or big corporations I have encountered little or no racism. Investment Banking on Wall Street is a melting pot, if ever I saw one. As is the IT industry. If you can write great software and help them make a return for the shareholders they don't care if you are fat, thin, green, yellow or blue.
These are the people with the money, power and influence to shape the media or politics, not the keyboard warriors on this Forum, nor those at Stormfront.
And, frankly, they are not even consistent. Had Tele been able to convince that Puerto Rican teenager to marry him, he would be having Amerindian/African/Anglo children with weird little moustaches around his feet right about now.
But he didn't manage it.
Yes, and while you are at it...remember you will hold the same view of gαy marriage I am sure in your liberal mind. You should apply the same reasoning to marriage, that it matters not whether a man is married to a woman, a man to a man, a woman to a woman, a man to a child, a man to an animal...just as long as you can write great software and help them make a return for the shareholders...
People are so entrenched in the errors of modern society and liberalism they don't even realize it.
Let's look and see the origin of the word 'racism':
http://cofcc.org/2009/07/racism-was-coined-by-a-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ-activist/
Really? You think that interracial marriage is on the same level as a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ liaison? I wish you had told the Spanish that when they colonized the Americas. Maybe it isn't a coincidence that Spain did not lose the Faith, while the English did.
Liberalism is a sin...you are guilty of it. Certainly, if you are one who thanks God for a child born out of wedlock, the result of a mixed race act of sin then you have lost all good sense and logic in exchange for stupidity.
Then St. Augustine wasn't a saint and was stupid?? He had a son born to him when he was still in error and not married. After his conversion, St. Augustine named that son "gift of God" in Latin. I think that's "Deo datis," though my Latin's rusty.
The true "Liberals" were people like Margaret Sanger, who proposed limiting the births of poor minorities through eugenics. Her legacy was adopted by both Hiter AND Communist fanatics alike.
-
I find it ironic that modern-day liberals HATE Hitler and LOVE Planned Parenthood. But you can't do that, at least not without being a hypocrite!
Hitler and Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood) were on the same page.
(Just to be clear, I would advocate being against BOTH.)
Indeed, Planned Parenthood TO THIS DAY kills more minorities than whites through abortion. Look up the stats.
-
As Planned Parenthood marks its 96th anniversary today, new research shows the abortion business targets blacks and Hispanics by putting 79% of its abortion clinics in minority neighborhoods.
New research released by Protecting Black Life (an outreach of Life Issues Institute) reveals that 79% of Planned Parenthood’s surgical abortion facilities are located within walking distance of African American and/or Hispanic/Latino communities.
The group has a new map (http://www.protectingblacklife.org/pp_targets/) which serves as a powerful visual — illustrating in full color on a website portal integrated with Google Maps functionality just how Planned Parenthood targets minorities. This interactive site gives viewers an up close and personal look at just how close these facilities are to their neighborhoods.
The claim that Planned Parenthood is targeting minorities is not new but the research is new, as it relies on verifiable statistics from 2010 Census Data tracts. Census tracts are a means for measuring demographic data about a geographic area, designed to reflect homogeneous characteristics like race, income level and home values. It focuses only on Planned Parenthood surgical abortion facilities within walking distance of minority neighborhoods, rather than looking at a larger geographical area, such as zip code.
“Minority communities are the #1 targets of Planned Parenthood,” says Rev. Arnold Culbreath, Director of Protecting Black Life and a founding member of the National Black Pro-Life Coalition. “It’s no wonder abortion remains the leading cause of death among African Americans, higher than all other causes combined. Getting this information to as many people as possible is not only critical, it’s a matter of life and death for countless babies and oft times even their mothers.”
Bradley Mattes, Executive Director of Life Issues Institute, added, “This solid evidence is overwhelmingly convincing that Planned Parenthood’s business model is to generate income from an increased number of abortions in minority neighborhoods.”
The groups add: “These census results clearly show that Planned Parenthood continues to pursue the eugenics philosophy of its founder, Margaret Sanger, who believed that Blacks and the poor were “unfit” to reproduce. She dedicated her life to controlling the population of these “undesirables” by advancing birth control and sterilization in their neighborhoods. Later, the legalization of abortion gave Planned Parenthood an effective and lucrative means for furthering this eugenics agenda. Although Planned Parenthood denies it, these maps show conclusively that they continue to target minorities for abortion.”
Abortion statistics validate the claim that Planned Parenthood targets minorities.
According to the National Vital Statistics Report from June 2012, African American women experience an average of 1.6 times more pregnancies than white women, but have 5 times more abortions over their lifetime. Hispanic/Latina women experience an average of 1.5 times more pregnancies than white women, and have 2.3 times as many abortions over their lifetime. (Source: National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 60, No. 7, June 20, 2012, Page 6, Figure 7. Accessed at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_07.pdf)
In Fiscal Year 2009-2010, Planned Parenthood’s annual report shows it earned an estimated $154 million from the 329,445 abortions performed. An estimated 40% of those aborted were minority babies.
In 2011, a Life Dynamics study, which used data from the 2000 Census, came to the same conclusion. Life Dynamics analyzed the zip code area where the Planned Parenthood facility was located and compared its minority population to that of the state.
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/16/79-of-planned-parenthood-abortion-clinics-target-blacks-hispanics/
-
In mentioning Jєωιѕн background(on the WWIII thread), and that Jesus was Jєωιѕн (or a/The "Hebrew") Who practiced all of the Jєωιѕн customs, I got "critics" who said that communism and Judaism were the same, "all Jєωs will be damned," and most misguided attacks. Yet Scripture notes that Jesus was "King of the Jєωs," though not in this world. It simply helps to know that Jesus' Last Supper was the Passover Seder, since liberal professors teach that Christianity got the Mass from a "Roman mystery-cult" much later on. Knowledge about the Seder is good.
Judaism and Communism basically are the same thing, just as Judaism and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ are basically the same. You'll find some differences in doctrine, but they go hand in hand. I recommend reading Hugh Akins' book "ѕуηαgσgυє Rising".
All Jєωs will be damned. It is a Dogma of the Catholic Church that there is no salvation outside of her.
As for Jesus being King of the Jєωs, they rejected Him as their King and thus are no longer His chosen people.
Unfortunately, one otherwise kind soul had read that the Seder was called "impure" by a saint (perhaps in medieval times)and feared it was intrinsically evil.
The feasts of the Jєωs are impure, Anne. They are a mockery to Christ and are displeasing to Him. I am in full agreement with what St. John Chrysostom said on the matter.
I don't know what "Judaism" you mean, but all I meant was the type that is explained in the Torah (Old Testament), and was acceptable to Moses AND Jesus Christ. The current "Jєωs" may be something else entirely, and many are , frankly atheists! I never condoned that. Yet it is wrong to say that the people who followed the Old Testament were the "same" as Communists. To prove it, just read the Bible!
Nobody should be attacked just because they have Jєωιѕн blood! Yet though I explained my conversion, I have , as predicted, gained new "critics."
I was going to refrain from this thread, leaving the others to point out how ugly race-hate is, but I felt cowardly doing it. I can sleep better now with more "critics." :sleep:
-
In mentioning Jєωιѕн background(on the WWIII thread), and that Jesus was Jєωιѕн (or a/The "Hebrew") Who practiced all of the Jєωιѕн customs, I got "critics" who said that communism and Judaism were the same, "all Jєωs will be damned," and most misguided attacks. Yet Scripture notes that Jesus was "King of the Jєωs," though not in this world. It simply helps to know that Jesus' Last Supper was the Passover Seder, since liberal professors teach that Christianity got the Mass from a "Roman mystery-cult" much later on. Knowledge about the Seder is good.
Judaism and Communism basically are the same thing, just as Judaism and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ are basically the same. You'll find some differences in doctrine, but they go hand in hand. I recommend reading Hugh Akins' book "ѕуηαgσgυє Rising".
All Jєωs will be damned. It is a Dogma of the Catholic Church that there is no salvation outside of her.
As for Jesus being King of the Jєωs, they rejected Him as their King and thus are no longer His chosen people.
Unfortunately, one otherwise kind soul had read that the Seder was called "impure" by a saint (perhaps in medieval times)and feared it was intrinsically evil.
The feasts of the Jєωs are impure, Anne. They are a mockery to Christ and are displeasing to Him. I am in full agreement with what St. John Chrysostom said on the matter.
I don't know what "Judaism" you mean, but all I meant was the type that is explained in the Torah (Old Testament), and was acceptable to Moses AND Jesus Christ. The current "Jєωs" may be something else entirely, and many are , frankly atheists! I never condoned that. Yet it is wrong to say that the people who followed the Old Testament were the "same" as Communists. To prove it, just read the Bible!
Nobody should be attacked just because they have Jєωιѕн blood! Yet though I explained my conversion, I have , as predicted, gained new "critics."
I was going to refrain from this thread, leaving the others to point out how ugly race-hate is, but I felt cowardly doing it. I can sleep better now with more "critics." :sleep:
Having missed most of the rest of this thread, would i add a comment here?
And what a prohibitively controversial subject this is! That's racist! You racist!
The genealogy of Jesus indicates that he is the "Son of David" and also descended from King Solomon and the tribe of Judah. The Virgin Mary and Elizabeth were cousins and St. John the Baptist was the last of the cohens. For what was left of the tribe of Levi and the cohens after the destruction of the First Temple, St. John the Baptist represented the end of that line of Aaron.
In terms of the Old Testament Levitical priesthood, God almighty was a racist. Aaronic privilege and preference! That's racist!
Q: Was Jesus a "Jєω"?
A: Not like the Jєωs today, and not like the Pharisees and тαℓмυdic Jєωs of his time on earth or since.
Q: Are the Jєωs today only тαℓмυdic Kazars and communists?
A: That's what a lot of people say, and that they run Hollywood, the Federal Reserve conspiracy, pornography, drugs (legal and illegal), TV and the NAACP, and open borders, ObamaCare and the NWO from well leveraged and select positions out of New York, Washington DC, and the City of London ... etc.
Q: Are Barbara Streisand and Stephen Spielberg like Jesus or not ... racially?
A: Hey now, that's racist! Everybody's equal and everybody's got to be somewhere, but Barbara Streisand and Stephen Spielberg are inbred idiotic liberals with tendencies to freaky and weird ways. They are quite racially inferior to average white people and Scotsmen, much less Jesus. Please don't compare them with Jesus or the Apostles or any of the Scottish clans.
Q: Aren't most Jєωs on Prozac?
A: Stop the racist questions, will you? Enough already. Many Jєωs are "mental", of course.
Q: Are Jєωs obsessed with Negroes, sɛҳuąƖ perversion, and "equality"?
A: It sure seems like it.
Q: Why?
A: This has been enough already. Good evening.
-
The тαℓмυd and Jєωιѕн Seder remain a source of prophecy to the Jєωs, but I doubt any Jєω who might convert would stay on this forum long (I'm glad I converted as a teen by myself).
Unfortunately, one otherwise kind soul had read that the Seder was called "impure" by a saint (perhaps in medieval times)and feared it was intrinsically evil. Nasty labels emerged like "a plague of apostate [something]" and "feminist." Does everyone who dislikes racism have 3 critics? I expect to have more now, but se la vie. I didn't block, don't understand "likers" or "critics," and hope that doesn't have to change.
The real "crisis" is that our children become inundated with super "liberal" ideas and twisted sɛҳuąƖ stimuli very early (if TV is around at all). They get "yoked" with un-Christian spouses who are often divorced or headed that way. Nothing was said of "how to encourage our kids to find holy marriage partners." In defense, the atheist Darwin was consulted? Please keep up the fight.
Douay-Rheims Bible:
There is neither Jєω nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.--Gal. 3:28 (This seems to go for African or European too)
God Bless~
Anne
Converted Jєωs make the best Catholics. I firmly believe that. I was taught that bit of wisdom by +Williamson.
The fact is that the Jєωs are the most intelligent of all the races, and they have certain gifts that God gave them (which He doesn't take back -- even when they collectively go completely astray)
Jacob's Blessing is a gift for amassing wealth. It's why they have a sixth sense for acquiring money.
And who can compare to the Jєωs when it comes to financial acuмen! They think up complicated vehicles to acquire wealth (derivatives, etc.) which most people can't comprehend. Heck, most people can't even grasp the nature of compound interest vs. simple. And that's basic stuff!
They also have a gift for understanding people and human nature. That's why they're so good in the Entertainment industry. They know what makes us tick -- what makes us laugh, what makes us cry. They were supposed to use this gift as Apostles to convert the world to Christ.
And, one day, they will. When the Jєωs convert, WATCH OUT! Imagine all the genius of the Jєωs directed at building up the Church, instead of dragging humankind ever downward into lower and lower forms of baseness and immorality.
To address another point --
I agree that I wish people had given more concrete suggestions in this thread as to how to help our children find good marriage partners. With the corruption of the modern world, it's got to be pretty hard these days.
I read one more post before bed... I was surprised that it was friendly, but happy. Unfortunately, I was not one to inherit the "gift" of making wealth!! lol
I remain concerned for my friends like Sanctus who feel that merely studying the SEDER will "infect" people with evil, even though the Bible clearly states that Jesus' "Last Supper" was the Passover meal (called theSeder). The saint he mentions didn't want it to continue with Catholics because they had the Mass. For that matter, the bronze serpent Moses put up in the desert became "impure" after people began to worship it, and was destroyed! I agree that the Jєωs are lost without Christ. When THEY celebrate the Seder (not me, as I take Communion when at Mass) and see that the Afikomen "is symbolic of the Passover Lamb," they often put it together that the destruction of their Temple (70AD)means that they missed the Messiah, since they have NO "passover Lamb!"
Why do these people think learning is sinful? I don't recommend going to a Seder, but it is still the same feast. Do they think that looking at the Matzo bread at a supermarket will make them "impure??" Sex is pure when used correctly, but "impure" when abused. At one point, the Seder was holy. Now it still stands as an historical reminder to the Jєωs that they have no Temple... They question, and are converting more today...
Communists are atheists, and those with Jєωιѕн blood are a stain on the ancestral "race." Hitler was raised Catholic, but I don't give him the "credit" of that name, nor do I attack all Germans because of him!
I've never stated any "heresy," so most of this stuff has mystified me. Anyway, it's past my bed-time.
God Bless & Save us ALL! :pray: :sleep:
-
I find it ironic that modern-day liberals HATE Hitler and LOVE Planned Parenthood. But you can't do that, at least not without being a hypocrite!
Hitler and Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood) were on the same page.
(Just to be clear, I would advocate being against BOTH.)
Indeed, Planned Parenthood TO THIS DAY kills more minorities than whites through abortion. Look up the stats.
Ok, I'll bite --
Who didn't like this post? I can't believe this post got a single thumbs-down on a traditional Catholic forum.
I'm giving you a chance to come clean on your own (which might involve growing something-or-other).
(Generally speaking, I don't like "whaaah! someone down-thumbed me!" posts like this. It's not about the points. I'm seriously shocked that someone here could disagree or not like the above post.)
-
When I was younger I found older black men in the deep south often have very strong traditional masculine traits - strong work ethic, strong sense of right from wrong, decisive, a strong sense of protecting those around them, respectful of authority, willingness to endure a not so great job or two of them to provide without complaint, they seem to understand the realities of lives who had different experiences than their own unlike most of the white men who were my age.
It's terrible that "black men" are being spoken of in this way.
I live in the South and the above in complete and utter fiction.
I told you my experience of the men I worked with.
-
When I was younger I found older black men in the deep south often have very strong traditional masculine traits - strong work ethic, strong sense of right from wrong, decisive, a strong sense of protecting those around them, respectful of authority, willingness to endure a not so great job or two of them to provide without complaint, they seem to understand the realities of lives who had different experiences than their own unlike most of the white men who were my age.
It's terrible that "black men" are being spoken of in this way.
I find that interesting how you prop up black men on such a high pedestal. Have you been watching the Green Mile too much? Yes there are good black people out there. But this preconceived notion that black men hold these qualities more so than white men. I think thats garbage. As a white man, I have no problem doing jobs that don't pay very much, and working hard at that job. Whatever job I have I usually am a hard worker. I don't mind sweating things out. At the same time, I have the brains to be able to figure out that I can go to school, and get a college degree which will set me up for a better paying job. Anybody can do what i am doing now. Joining the military has given me the opportunity to go back to school and make something of myself. That same opportunity exists for your so-called southern black men who work hard at dead end jobs.
I have no idea what GreenMile is.
I am not putting black men or any group on a pedestal. Black men were being spoken negatively about and I was shared my experience.
I attended an urban high school, was one of the few white females there, we lived in projects as one of the only white families there, we have been victims of crime that left deep trauma in our lives, right now we live in a terrible NYC culture Puerto Rican neighborhood, I'm not putting the black race on any pedestal above whites.
-
There should be no issue of "disapproval" or not of mixed race marriages.
This claim Tiffany.
It should not bethought of on the same level as sin like fornication or adultery.
Doesn't follow from the above premise. (a true premise)
It's not a sin even if it has the potential to introduce additional hardships
This premise is largely true I think, but it doesn't then follow one must not disapprove of racially mixed marriages.
It's being put on the same level of sin.
I think my son should finish a vo-tech program before he marries. It's the difference between him making $40 and hour or $10 an hour. It would be much more difficult for him to earn a living without that training. Additional hardships is not a sin though.
Him sinning with a married woman is a completely different type of disapproval though, it's a sin, always wrong.
I don't think we should just flat out disapprove of mixed race marriages. It can introduce additional problems but not necessarily.
My issue with mixed marriages is the rate in which they are occurring. Our government has put us into a situation where 59% of the population is white and the rest are minorities. It is inevitable that we are going to all be one race within the next 200 years. At which point, the Jєωιѕн Agenda will claim victory, and many Christians will be persecuted. Barring that nothing is done with Illegal Immigration, this is a harsh reality. You should really consider taking more of a stance against Interracial dating/marriages. Especially with the state that our society is currently in. Your stance is a nonchalant stance that will set the future generations of Christians up for severe persecution.
How is the the government when white people are contracepting and view children as a luxury? Or they never have children? It's not just the government. I am against all immigration except families too. I know that is a problem. Except for the plain community though I don't see white people having 15 children and 70 grandchildren.
Yes I think there is a definite agenda out to destroy traditional Western Culture/Christianity and contempt for it. Personally I feel I have been persecuted from a very young age for being Christian. I wish I had been more educated about it than just thinking this person or that person isn't nice but now I'm learning. OTOH it is frightening. Race is not religion though.
-
The тαℓмυd and Jєωιѕн Seder remain a source of prophecy to the Jєωs, but I doubt any Jєω who might convert would stay on this forum long (I'm glad I converted as a teen by myself).
Unfortunately, one otherwise kind soul had read that the Seder was called "impure" by a saint (perhaps in medieval times)and feared it was intrinsically evil. Nasty labels emerged like "a plague of apostate [something]" and "feminist." Does everyone who dislikes racism have 3 critics? I expect to have more now, but se la vie. I didn't block, don't understand "likers" or "critics," and hope that doesn't have to change.
The real "crisis" is that our children become inundated with super "liberal" ideas and twisted sɛҳuąƖ stimuli very early (if TV is around at all). They get "yoked" with un-Christian spouses who are often divorced or headed that way. Nothing was said of "how to encourage our kids to find holy marriage partners." In defense, the atheist Darwin was consulted? Please keep up the fight.
Douay-Rheims Bible:
There is neither Jєω nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.--Gal. 3:28 (This seems to go for African or European too)
God Bless~
Anne
Converted Jєωs make the best Catholics. I firmly believe that. I was taught that bit of wisdom by +Williamson.
The fact is that the Jєωs are the most intelligent of all the races, and they have certain gifts that God gave them (which He doesn't take back -- even when they collectively go completely astray)
Jacob's Blessing is a gift for amassing wealth. It's why they have a sixth sense for acquiring money.
And who can compare to the Jєωs when it comes to financial acuмen! They think up complicated vehicles to acquire wealth (derivatives, etc.) which most people can't comprehend. Heck, most people can't even grasp the nature of compound interest vs. simple. And that's basic stuff!
They also have a gift for understanding people and human nature. That's why they're so good in the Entertainment industry. They know what makes us tick -- what makes us laugh, what makes us cry. They were supposed to use this gift as Apostles to convert the world to Christ.
And, one day, they will. When the Jєωs convert, WATCH OUT! Imagine all the genius of the Jєωs directed at building up the Church, instead of dragging humankind ever downward into lower and lower forms of baseness and immorality.
To address another point --
I agree that I wish people had given more concrete suggestions in this thread as to how to help our children find good marriage partners. With the corruption of the modern world, it's got to be pretty hard these days.
I read one more post before bed... I was surprised that it was friendly, but happy. Unfortunately, I was not one to inherit the "gift" of making wealth!! lol
I remain concerned for my friends like Sanctus who feel that merely studying the SEDER will "infect" people with evil, even though the Bible clearly states that Jesus' "Last Supper" was the Passover meal (called theSeder). The saint he mentions didn't want it to continue with Catholics because they had the Mass. For that matter, the bronze serpent Moses put up in the desert became "impure" after people began to worship it, and was destroyed! I agree that the Jєωs are lost without Christ. When THEY celebrate the Seder (not me, as I take Communion when at Mass) and see that the Afikomen "is symbolic of the Passover Lamb," they often put it together that the destruction of their Temple (70AD)means that they missed the Messiah, since they have NO "passover Lamb!"
Why do these people think learning is sinful? I don't recommend going to a Seder, but it is still the same feast. Do they think that looking at the Matzo bread at a supermarket will make them "impure??" Sex is pure when used correctly, but "impure" when abused. At one point, the Seder was holy. Now it still stands as an historical reminder to the Jєωs that they have no Temple... They question, and are converting more today...
Communists are atheists, and those with Jєωιѕн blood are a stain on the ancestral "race." Hitler was raised Catholic, but I don't give him the "credit" of that name, nor do I attack all Germans because of him!
I've never stated any "heresy," so most of this stuff has mystified me. Anyway, it's past my bed-time.
God Bless & Save us ALL! :pray: :sleep:
I'm Jєωιѕн and didn't seem to get that "gift" with $ either. :laugh1:
-
God created man with an intellect and a will. That exists in all races. The color of skin is just an accident. The soul is colorless.
With that said, there are dangers to marrying outside of one's race or culture. This is not to say it could not work, but there are increased risks.
Presupposing that both are Catholic and by that I mean truly Catholic, then we have to look at what factors culture plays on a marriage.
Many cultures have different ideas on the role of man and women, the raising of children, the type of food in the home, how to spend free time, the type of involvement of in-laws and friends, how money is to be saved and spent, and on and on the list could go.
I have a friend and recently their daughter who is white married an Indian man (from India, not American Indian). The man is not a Catholic, and she was strongly warned by friends, family and clergy that this was a bad idea, but went forward anyway.
After the marriage, she found out all sorts of interesting and stressful things about his ideas and culture on marriage that she did not know before. Their family tradition calls for the mother-in-law to move in for 6 months to "help with the new baby," which basically meant the mother in law took control of the baby and the parenting, and his ideas on many other things stressing the girl out.
I could sit back and say, "I told you so," but I would rather spend my time praying for the man. If he becomes a Catholic, I am sure things will get better for them.
-
Judaism and Communism basically are the same thing, just as Judaism and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ are basically the same. You'll find some differences in doctrine, but they go hand in hand. I recommend reading Hugh Akins' book "ѕуηαgσgυє Rising".
Sigh, ServusSpiritusSancti, you're upholding Archbishop Lefebvre and his follower Bishop Williamson "too much". That's just too much for modern "tradcats". They prefer the Newchurch lies about an alleged "ʝʊdɛօ-Christian" occident, "Our Elder Brothers" (B.Fellay) nonsense, "The Jєωs are the Chosen People" (B.Fellay) nonsense, "We're all Jєωs in some way", blah-bah. Krah, Krah!
And to underline how "too much" this "too much" really is, I'll quote your paragons! :-)
Since Israel refused the true Messiah, it would give itself another messianism that is temporal and earthbound, dominating the world by money, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, Revolution, and social democracy.
We must not, however, forget that those Jєωs who were disciples of the true Messiah founded the true Israel, the spiritual kingdom, which prepares the heavenly kingdom.
The worldwide designs of the Jєωs are being brought about in our time, but they started with the foundation of Masonry and the Revolution which has decapitated the Church and set up worldwide socialist democracy.
("Marcel Lefebvre: The biography", Angelus Press. English edition was published shortly before 2008)
[..]
And the condemnations of the ѕуηαgσgυє, which is the religion not of Abraham and Moses, but of Anas and Caiphas, have been elementary self-defense on the part of the Catholic Church, because the spiritual descendants of those two judicial murderers of Jesus Christ have for 2,000 years been continuing their work of hatred against the Mystical Body of Christ, the Catholic Church.
[..]
("Letters from the Rector: The Future of Tradition", 10 June 1991)
[..]
The bad news is that the official Church is even accelerating in its downhill plunge. Towards the beginning of last month the Consistory of Cardinals in Rome was due to consider with the Pope a docuмent newly issuing from the Vatican Secretariat of State projecting ways to celebrate the Jubilee Millennial year of 2,000. The Pope then broke his hip and the Consistory was at least delayed, but the projects are no less hair-raising from a Catholic point of view, for instance another major ecuмenical meeting of Christians, Jєωs and Mohammedans, this time on Mount Sinai!
The idea is to bring together the three religions that acknowledge Abraham as their ancestor, but in what sense, for instance, are the Jєωs of today's ѕуηαgσgυє the descendants of Abraham? тαℓмυdic Jєωs are the spiritual descendants of the Pharisees, to whom already in his own day Our Lord had to say, "If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham" (Jn. VIII, 39). Jєωs who reject Jesus Christ reject thereby Abraham, yet here are Christ's own Vicar and many Cardinals apparently ready to pretend they are friends of Abraham! On the mountain of the Ten Commandments the one true God, Lord God of Hosts, three in one and one in three, struck holy terror into the hearts of His people (Exodus XIX, XX). Just how much further will He allow Himself to be mocked by His own ministers?
[..]
("Letters from the Rector: The SSPX's General Chapter, 7 June 1994)
[..]
Secondly, Jesus died on the Cross to save all of us sinful human beings from our sins, and in this sense all men were and are the purpose of his death. But only the Jєωs (leaders and people) were the prime agents of the deicide because it is obvious from the Gospels that the Gentile most involved, Pontius Pilate, would never have condemned Jesus to death had not the Jєωιѕн leaders roused the Jєωιѕн people to clamour for his crucifixion (Mt. XXVII, 20). Certainly the learned leaders were more guilty than the unlearned people, says St Thomas Aquinas (Summa III, 47, 5), but they all cried together for Jesus’ blood to come down upon them and their children (Mt. XXVII, 25).
Thirdly, at least Pope Leo XIII considered there to be a real solidarity between the Jєωs clamouring then for Jesus to be killed and the collectivity of Jєωs of modern times. Did he not in his Act of Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus have the entire Church, from the end of the 19th century onwards, pray to God that he turn his “eyes of mercy towards the children of that race, once God’s chosen people: of old they called down upon themselves the Blood of the Saviour; may it now descend upon them a laver (i.e. washing) of redemption and life”?
But Leo XIII is by no means alone in observing such a continuity amongst Jєωs down the centuries. Do they themselves not lay claim today to the land of Palestine on the grounds that it is theirs by right from the God of the Old Testament? Has there ever been a race-people-nation on the face of the earth more proudly self-identifying as identical down the ages? Originally raised by God to cradle the Messiah, alas, when he came they refused, collectively, to recognize him. Collectively also, meaning there are always noble exceptions, they have remained faithful to that rejection, so that they changed their religion from that of Abraham and Moses and the Old Testament to that of Anas, Caiphas and the тαℓмυd. Tragically, their very messianic training by God drives them to go on rejecting the one whom they hold to be a false messiah. Until they convert at the end of the world, as the Church has always taught they will do (cf. Rom. XI, 26-27), they seem bound to choose to go on acting, collectively, as enemies of the true Messiah.
How can the Pope let go of such ancient truths?
Kyrie eleison.
("Eleison Comments CCXXII: Ancestral Pride", 15 October 2011)
-
Great! Another thread about race-mixing! Anti-miscegenation! Racial supremacy, and all that!
I really thought that we would've advanced the conversation a bit at this point. But it is as if we are starting with a blank slate, every time. Constantly re-inventing the wheel. Nothing new is gained from past conversations, it seems.
Meh.
- - - -
The following is true:
1. White people exist
2. White people have the right to exist
3.White people have the right to exist as White people
Racial-mixing, however, is not a sin. It is not posted as a sin anywhere in the Bible or the Catechism. The entire time, it is the condition of our souls that matter.
However, it is clear that there are ethnic and cultural differences, for as the Catechism states, God made different kinds of people with different kinds of gifts.
And it is clear that the whites have problems with blacks primarily in this country, and hispanics secondarily.
Yet, you should marry someone based on how virtuous a Catholic she is.
If you unmarried guys come across a black girl who turns you on, and she's a devoted modest Catholic girl who only seeks to treat you right and pray the Rosary and go to Mass every day, then you'd be a damned fool to brush her off.
But if you want to fall into this nice race trap that's been opening wide for the American people in the last few years, jump in. Everyone else is. I $hit you not, racism is spreading like wildfire in this country. And fellas who get squeamish around the "$hit-colored" races better stay out of my neighborhood, because that won't be tolerated outside of lily white suburbia.
It's a fact that Judaics have been engineering this crisis, long since at least the founding of the NAACP. They've cultivated a lot of hate in blacks against the whites. A comment I read over at the Vox Day blog summed it up nicely:
Blacks HATE whites, at the very core of their souls, and want more than anything else on earth to have vengeance on whites, and to see whites debased and humiliated. And they will put up with ANY policy, even one contrary to their own real interests, so long as the prime directive is fulfilled: Kill the Cracka and Rape The Shit Out Of His Women. This is chthonic, purely atavistic stuff, not accessible to reason. Jєωs know this, and they have exploited it masterfully, weaponizing the violent, stupid, impulsive, oversexed negro as a proxy weapon to attack whites, and it's worked brilliantly. Look at the historic 50-year-track destruction of the great cities. Look at the climate of fear in which whites have been forced to live, in the country which they themselves built, but which they've now been hypnotized into handing over, without a fight, to peoples who hate them. Look at the level of ritualized formal public debasement and abasement to which whites subject themselves, for no good practical reason whatsoever that benefits whites. Blacks have Buttons which are easily Pushed. If they lose employment opportunities to illegal Latinos, or if they are ethnically cleansed from their own historical spaces by invading Latinos, it'll be worth it to them to create the coalition of the Great Non-White Majority whose true goal is to Get Whitey.
This was a comment from a non-Catholic website.
This guy was right. People are learning out there. But to become a bunch of racial supremacists is not the answer. The end will be similar to the situation of the blacks.
And you know what? I'm getting tired of whites. Self-destructive, stupid American whites. Morons will cut their own throats, so long as it's trendy. Whites are falling into the same fucking traps that the blacks fell into about a century ago.
Racial supremacy is building nicely. Keep pumping the bellows. We'll see just how proud God is gonna be that you stayed true to your own people.
- - - -
The Judaics think they can erase their competition from the gentiles by mixing them into a bunch of morlocks.
Why, InfiniteFaith, do you believe that the Judaics are right in this presumption?
Why do you believe that the Judaics are correct in their philosophy of racial supremacy?
Why do you think that the Judaics can win using that philosophy?
Myself? I think the Judaics are in grave error.
Yes, racial mixing is not a sin, but yeah, it's definitely difficult. It's difficult to raise children in a world with people such as yourselves who will piss all over them if they're not like you. But in the end, we'll all see what Christ has to say about it.
-
I'm Jєωιѕн and didn't seem to get that "gift" with $ either. :laugh1:
Tiffany, if you're Catholic, and raised in a church, you aren't Jєωιѕн anymore.
-
Tiffany, if you're Catholic, and raised in a church, you aren't Jєωιѕн anymore.
You aren't religiously Jєωιѕн, but you are still ethnically Jєωιѕн. Being Jєωιѕн is also an ethnicity.
-
You aren't religiously Jєωιѕн, but you are still ethnically Jєωιѕн. Being Jєωιѕн is also an ethnicity.
Converting seriously to Catholicism means that Jєωs no longer regard the person as part of the in-group.
-
I find it ironic that modern-day liberals HATE Hitler and LOVE Planned Parenthood. But you can't do that, at least not without being a hypocrite!
Hitler and Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood) were on the same page.
(Just to be clear, I would advocate being against BOTH.)
Indeed, Planned Parenthood TO THIS DAY kills more minorities than whites through abortion. Look up the stats.
Ok, I'll bite --
Who didn't like this post? I can't believe this post got a single thumbs-down on a traditional Catholic forum.
I'm giving you a chance to come clean on your own (which might involve growing something-or-other).
(Generally speaking, I don't like "whaaah! someone down-thumbed me!" posts like this. It's not about the points. I'm seriously shocked that someone here could disagree or not like the above post.)
As the moderator I would have thought you would have your finger on the pulse of this place. Allow me to enlighten you somewhat. Many of the posts on this thread show that this forum is quickly becoming an asylum.
BTW, I agreed with your posts in this thread.
-
Converting seriously to Catholicism means that Jєωs no longer regard the person as part of the in-group.
This is true, however blacks who "act white" are not regarded by other blacks as in "their group" either.
-
Many of the posts on this thread show that this forum is quickly becoming an asylum.
It's very common for certain types of people to say things like that, but what you typically find is that they're trying to brush with a broad stroke and don't want to give specifics. It's a very, very convenient technique.
To attempt to stigmatize traditional Catholics (and it's not just one individual here - indeed, - what we see is that in referring to individuals here constantly comparisons are made to other "bitter nutters" etc off the forum) as being mentally ill is something anyone could do here, at any time since this forum's inception. It requires no evidence or even explanation, it's just a blunt appeal to the prejudice of liberal and politically correct minded people.
-
As for inter-racial marriage, it's not sinful, but I agree with others on this thread that people should generally stick to marrying someone their own race.
How does an individual take this advice, which is a generalisation and apply it to their specific choice or choices?,
A young Trad women, white, of 21 has two suitors who are clearly interested in her. One is a huge fit athletic black guy she is naturally very attracted to (looks like Denzel Washington in his prime) and the other an intellectual nerdy white guy with horn rim glasses who she likes because he has a weird sense of humor and can make her laugh.
Taking your general advice above, how does she apply it in order to reach a decision about whom she should marry? Does she use a ratings system and, if so, by what percentage/ratio or factor does she discount the merits of the black suitor because "generally" people should stick to marrying someone within their race?
Many young women of course are not in this situation of having two suitors at a time. They have to deal with one suitor at a time and might not have many offers of marriage. How long should a girl or guy wait before deciding to break the "generally" rule and date outside of their race?
-
I have a Jєωιѕн parent. I was not raised in the Jєωιѕн religion. Protestant relatives helped raise me and I baptized Catholic as an adult. I remember as a young child going to an extended family gather at my Bubby's house and waiting and waiting for the prayer. Finally someone asked me why I wasn't eating. Since it was a sit down at a table meal I was waiting for an adult to pray. I didn't know you could eat without praying. :laugh1:
-
God did not create different races.
You do realize that God's Creation is ongoing?
If God didn't create didn't races, he didn't create the people in them, and he didn't create you.
God surely has brought into existence different nations and peoples of different races. And for each of them he has had a role and a plan.
And His ongoing creation includes mixed-race people too.
-
And His ongoing creation includes mixed-race people too.
Yes, and babies conceived in rape, and the mentally retarded, those with severe birth defects.
They are all part of God's Creation.
Now, your point is?
-
Different races show vast inequality in talents and intelligence.
-
Different races show vast inequality in talents and intelligence.
I had a few black friends in high school (a private Catholic "country day" school) in my class. Some were from wealthy families, an intelligent albino I served as NO confirmation sponsor for.
They are now all PC leftists, one is a race hustling minister, another likes Planned Parenthood on her page.
These are the sort of people in the "upper crust" of the black community.
It's impossible to have a rational discourse with them. They are basically unabashed racial chauvinists who haven't the introspection to recognize what they are.
-
Different races show vast inequality in talents and intelligence.
Define "vast" in your statement.
I would probably agree that there is a shift in the bell curve for an entire population, but nobody is marrying a population. In any racial group there are plenty of intelligent enough people to marry.
It is not the case that 60 % of whites have IQ scores over 110 while 60 percent of Blacks have IQs of under 90. That would be a vast difference.
Any racial difference is marginal and entirely swallowed up by the differences in the individual in question.
-
Different races show vast inequality in talents and intelligence.
Define "vast" in your statement.
I would probably agree that there is a shift in the bell curve for an entire population, but nobody is marrying a population. In any racial group there are plenty of intelligent enough people to marry.
It is not the case that 60 % of whites have IQ scores over 110 while 60 percent of Blacks have IQs of under 90. That would be a vast difference.
Any racial difference is marginal and entirely swallowed up by the differences in the individual in question.
Good point.
My experience with whites is about the same as Tele's experience with blacks that he just posted about. I still found a fine looking and intellectually capable Swede German to marry.
-
And His ongoing creation includes mixed-race people too.
Yes, and babies conceived in rape, and the mentally retarded, those with severe birth defects.
They are all part of God's Creation.
Now, your point is?
Well, mixed-race people (unlike mentally retarded people) can go on to produce mixed-race (in a different ratio) children of their own (preferably within marriage!), etc, who will also be part of God's ongoing creation.
-
My experience with whites is about the same as Tele's experience with blacks that he just posted about.
Not mine. The whites who went to my school are simply on different wave-length. That is to say, they aren't Obama idol worshippers who are essentially leftists.
I still found a fine looking and intellectually capable Swede German to marry.
You mean you didn't marry a black? Wow. Who would have thought.
-
Well, mixed-race people (unlike mentally retarded people) can go on to produce mixed-race (in a different ratio) children of their own (preferably within marriage!), etc, who will also be part of God's ongoing creation.
Right. For example. A white single mother with black bastards who lives in public housing will likely have children who also engage in race mixing.
That is to say, there will be a continual degradation of the community, which is what is happening now where mass migration from darker regions is being encouraged.
-
Define "vast" in your statement.
I would probably agree that there is a shift in the bell curve for an entire population, but nobody is marrying a population. In any racial group there are plenty of intelligent enough people to marry.
It is not the case that 60 % of whites have IQ scores over 110 while 60 percent of Blacks have IQs of under 90. That would be a vast difference.
Any racial difference is marginal and entirely swallowed up by the differences in the individual in question.
Blacks and Hispanics, as a race, show less intelligence than whites and Asians. That is scientifically proven.
-
As for inter-racial marriage, it's not sinful, but I agree with others on this thread that people should generally stick to marrying someone their own race.
How does an individual take this advice, which is a generalisation and apply it to their specific choice or choices?,
A young Trad women, white, of 21 has two suitors who are clearly interested in her. One is a huge fit athletic black guy she is naturally very attracted to (looks like Denzel Washington in his prime) and the other an intellectual nerdy white guy with horn rim glasses who she likes because he has a weird sense of humor and can make her laugh.
Taking your general advice above, how does she apply it in order to reach a decision about whom she should marry? Does she use a ratings system and, if so, by what percentage/ratio or factor does she discount the merits of the black suitor because "generally" people should stick to marrying someone within their race?
Many young women of course are not in this situation of having two suitors at a time. They have to deal with one suitor at a time and might not have many offers of marriage. How long should a girl or guy wait before deciding to break the "generally" rule and date outside of their race?
I married outside of my race and nationality. He appeared to be very, family oriented, and he didn't seem wordly or materialistic. He was smart about world politics too, he had a different perspective on wars, history, I enjoyed talking to him. I loved the culture, the food, and the women were so so nice.
One thing that I think shyed me away from most American men is most seemed to be very wordly, like they watched tv, movies, went to parties, things like that. I'm not saying it wasn't me. Maybe not being from two parent family or at least someone to teach me I didn't have the right social skills. There were many descent single men in my church growing up that could have courted me when I was 16 but none did. I was close with them too, one was my teacher in jr high, another was a former Sunday school teacher from second grade, another one I saw three times a week for 10 years, all were men I knew for many years.
-
We don't need blacks to have a civilized life. Blacks need whites to have any sort of functioning modern society.
In general, respecting those in the US, I suspect they'd have been better off if they'd stayed in the South in agrarian communities.
-
God did not create different races.
You do realize that God's Creation is ongoing?
If God didn't create didn't races, he didn't create the people in them, and he didn't create you.
God, being the First Cause, surely can be said to have created everything using this way of thinking.
However, I think my point was clear. God did not create the distinct races. They arose because of the ENVIRONMENT.
It is the ENVIRONMENT which dictates racial developments. Throughout most of human history, people were highly subject to the surrounding environment, and through "natural selection" certain characteristics survived, resulting in particular races.
Now, that dependency on the environment is reduced for many, which results in "mixing", and the creation of new "races".
Do you think that creation stopped? You said it is "ongoing", which means that new races will be "created", right?
Do you think people were suddenly blond haired pale Swedes and dark skinned Nigerians? No, it happened over time, as the genetic characteristics separated.
It was not a deliberate human effort.
What you suggest in your posts is to defy God's order of creation in making MAN the creator and sustainer of our humanity.
God surely has brought into existence different nations and peoples of different races. And for each of them he has had a role and a plan.
You need to study what the Church teaches.
Those who wish to create a "new order" use the Tower of Babel as a symbol. As a symbol of rebellion against the natural order.
You do not know what the "Natural Order" is.
You are glorifying accidents of the environment.
(http://static.thesocietypages.org/socimages/files/2011/01/1.gif)
-
I married outside of my race and nationality. He appeared to be very, family oriented,
Obviously that didn't work.
-
For all those reading this thread (lurkers as well as members), if you're curious what the "official CathInfo position" is on race, or what the owner's position is, then here you go:
Some revere race to excess -- the "Stormfront" crowd. They place race even ahead of the Faith. This is obviously wrong.
Others act like race is no more important than eye color or what digits are in your phone number -- completely irrelevant. This is equally wrong.
Equally wrong?
You mean full denial of Charity and Christian teaching is equal to both?
No. Race is nothing. It is genetic chances of the environment.
To those who see any meaning in it beyond this, unless they happen to be part of prophecy concerning the progenitor of a race, are shortsighted and misguided.
42 Q. How is it possible for original sin to be transmitted to all men?
A. Original sin is transmitted to all men because God, having conferred sanctifying grace and other supernatural gifts on the human race in Adam, on the condition that Adam should not disobey Him; and Adam having disobeyed, as head and father of the human race, rendered human nature rebellious against God. And hence, human nature is transmitted to all the descendants of Adam in a state of rebellion against God, and deprived of divine grace and other gifts.
All the "race" issues are specific to particular times and places. People speak of race here as if their locality was the whole world.
It is just like those who were against the Irish and Italians coming to the USA, bringing their lack of culture, barbaric tendencies, and Popish religion.
-
I married outside of my race and nationality. He appeared to be very, family oriented,
Obviously that didn't work.
thanks..
-
Why stop at race then? Even within a uniform race you have intellectual classes or castes who are on different wavelengths in terms of the way they run their lives.
Should the lower working class lass who has grown up with her caste borrowing money from doorstep lenders and living a hand to mouth existence marry the upper middle class lad who has seen his parents earn and save, never get into personal debt, invest their money into education etc. Assuming that each wants to continue to live the way they were brought up?
Would the economic, fiscal and aspirational aspects of one's social class not be a more important factor for the suitability of a marriage marriage than the racial difference?
In other words, all things being otherwise equal, would the white upper middle class junior doctor whose father was a doctor also, not be better off marrying the university educated negress whose father is also a medical doctor, than the white hospital nightshift cleaner of his own race whose father was a casual labourer?
-
thanks..
I'm sorry to be rude Tiffany but it seems to me your misapprehension of your husband should have caused you to have a somewhat different perspective on this issue.
-
We don't need blacks to have a civilized life. Blacks need whites to have any sort of functioning modern society.
In general, respecting those in the US, I suspect they'd have been better off if they'd stayed in the South in agrarian communities.
Blacks in the USA often are the descendants of those taken to the USA against their will.
Africa, as a continent, does not need "whites". The situation is often the result of colonialism, which caused social differences, but it has nothing to do with race. It has to do with a nation or two getting power.
The large European colonial subjugation of Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa) says nothing about the superiority of "white" modern functioning societies than the more stable and long lasting Islamic expansion.
It looks "good" now to you, but open your eyes and your mind. What is like all over the world? What was it like before? What will it be like in the future?
All this is passing. Do not become enamored by it.
-
We don't need blacks to have a civilized life. Blacks need whites to have any sort of functioning modern society.
In general, respecting those in the US, I suspect they'd have been better off if they'd stayed in the South in agrarian communities.
I would be ready to finance a survey of their opinions on the matter if you would be willing to conduct it.
-
Genetics aren't determined by a person's success in life. They are determined by ancestry
If you want descendants who are more like the blacks you see around you, then marry a black. Even a talented black who is a fine person will likely have descendants who express those aspects of their character that are rather less compatible with civilization. That's the way genetics works.
Many generations were required to create the races, and it is folly to throw away that heritage by indiscriminately mixing as though race didn't exist.
-
Define "vast" in your statement.
I would probably agree that there is a shift in the bell curve for an entire population, but nobody is marrying a population. In any racial group there are plenty of intelligent enough people to marry.
It is not the case that 60 % of whites have IQ scores over 110 while 60 percent of Blacks have IQs of under 90. That would be a vast difference.
Any racial difference is marginal and entirely swallowed up by the differences in the individual in question.
Blacks and Hispanics, as a race, show less intelligence than whites and Asians. That is scientifically proven.
That does not answer the question. Less might mean 1 percent less or 50 percent less. One would make a marked difference and the other would not.
Nobody is marrying the population of an African or Latin American country, just one individual.
-
Under Jim Crow, blacks had intact families, a much lower rate of crime, a generally more peaceful, more regular life.
That's not to say things were great. Obviously a lot of blacks were held back by blind hatred and that wasn't just. However, as a community, it seems likely they were better off.
-
Since the "Civil Rights Movement" what has happened is that more and more blacks end up in prison:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States
-
Since the "Civil Rights Movement" what has happened is that more and more blacks end up in prison:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States
one in 11 African-Americans (9.2 percent)
Not 1 in 11 men. One in 11 of the whole population.
So, whites are afraid to call you the N-word, but it's likely you have relatives in jail or on probation. And it's likely most of the mothers in your family are unwed.
Fair trade? It seems to me there are worse things than paternalistic racism.
-
thanks..
I'm sorry to be rude Tiffany but it seems to me your misapprehension of your husband should cause you to have a somewhat different perspective on this issue.
I was explaining back to ggreg what I experienced, and also posted to share with other parents.
If you recall past threads I've been very vocal with warnings and concerns about marrying into foreign cultures. I've also tried to share all that glitters isn't gold when foreign non Christian cultures with much feminism or what appear to be traditional values comes up. In CI style :rolleyes: that was met with accusations of me promoting feminism and/or Jєωιѕн thought. I've also warned with mass media now it's not the the same as it was for our uncles bringing home brides from SE Asia 40 years ago.
This didn't apply to me just something I've learned but I've also warned about VAWA laws that gives an open door for unscrupulous women. <--That would be a good example of what you posted yesterday of how it being a foreigner would make a difficult situation more difficult.
-
We don't need blacks to have a civilized life. Blacks need whites to have any sort of functioning modern society.
In general, respecting those in the US, I suspect they'd have been better off if they'd stayed in the South in agrarian communities.
I would be ready to finance a survey of their opinions on the matter if you would be willing to conduct it.
Ggreg I'd guesstimate at least 75% of American black children would stave to death in about 3 weeks if government programs funded by Debt To China were cut off tomorrow. For infants even faster and higher numbers.
-
We don't need blacks to have a civilized life. Blacks need whites to have any sort of functioning modern society.
In general, respecting those in the US, I suspect they'd have been better off if they'd stayed in the South in agrarian communities.
I would be ready to finance a survey of their opinions on the matter if you would be willing to conduct it.
Ggreg I'd guesstimate at least 75% of American black children would stave to death in about 3 weeks if government programs funded by Debt To China were cut off tomorrow. For infants even faster and higher numbers.
After looking at New Orleans I don't think they would be forming orderly bread lines but I am of the opinion that people should be free to make their own decisions in life. Whenever in history some higher caste or class of people have decided or pressured for some change for the "good" of another group it has nearly always ended in a blood bath.
As humans with sub 100 year lifespans, we might just be looking at these problems on too short a time horizon to be able to give a useful judgement. They might take 100s of years to play out.
Imagine if a Mayfly judged the competence of a painter and decorator. In the first half of the Mayfly's life the painter would only seem to be making a mess, even when the painting was being done the room would be unusable and the house would stink.
If black Americans behaved better in the past I have no doubt it was because of fear of the white man's stick, gun and noose if they stepped over the white man's line. People can get dogs and police horses to behave if they "train" them using brutality and fear.
Does not seem the way Christ told us to treat one another.
-
Since the "Civil Rights Movement" what has happened is that more and more blacks end up in prison:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States
We can't deny the systems influence. It's a whole business around it leading up to adults in prison. The public schools which get 2 -3x what many private schools get yet they do not educate the children even in the most basic skills, the pediatric psychiatric - social work -police-juvenile justice system ring, the sex education with out of teen pregnancies, many people are earning a living and have descent paying jobs with state benefits due to parts of the system which are not helping but they are taking in the $ to.
-
We don't need blacks to have a civilized life. Blacks need whites to have any sort of functioning modern society.
In general, respecting those in the US, I suspect they'd have been better off if they'd stayed in the South in agrarian communities.
I would be ready to finance a survey of their opinions on the matter if you would be willing to conduct it.
Ggreg I'd guesstimate at least 75% of American black children would stave to death in about 3 weeks if government programs funded by Debt To China were cut off tomorrow. For infants even faster and higher numbers.
After looking at New Orleans I don't think they would be forming orderly bread lines but I am of the opinion that people should be free to make their own decisions in life. Whenever in history some higher caste or class of people have decided or pressured for some change for the "good" of another group it has nearly always ended in a blood bath.
As humans with sub 100 year lifespans, we might just be looking at these problems on too short a time horizon to be able to give a useful judgement. They might take 100s of years to play out.
Imagine if a Mayfly judged the competence of a painter and decorator. In the first half of the Mayfly's life the painter would only seem to be making a mess, even when the painting was being done the room would be unusable and the house would stink.
If black Americans behaved better in the past I have no doubt it was because of fear of the white man's stick, gun and noose if they stepped over the white man's line. People can get dogs and police horses to behave if they "train" them using brutality and fear.
Does not seem the way Christ told us to treat one another.
Ggreg all of that went over my head after the first line. Can you explain it differently?
-
If black Americans behaved better in the past I have no doubt it was because of fear of the white man's stick, gun and noose if they stepped over the white man's line.
There's always a line. That's civilization. And blacks are going to prison in large numbers, at this time.
The difference today, is that if a black youth beats some guy, starts knocking his head against the pavement, and gets shot, then the man who shot him is made into an honorary "white racist" and is railroaded without a fair trial.
Justice must be sacrificed at the altar of the masonic "equality"
Consider my father robbed at gunpoint. He saw too blacks walking, and because of his naivety he didn't move fast enough to get away from them. (he was on the adjacent street, several hundred feet from our house)
The police drove right by them a few moments before for fear of "racial profiling"
After several robberies in the area, they finally changed policy and started aggressively confronting those peopl.
But the fact of the matter is, whenever any efforts are made by whites to insulate themselves from this problem, they start to get legally harassed by malignant liberals.
If they dare speak their mind on this, their reputations are blackened.
In short, we have a bunch of liberals who have a basically malicious, masonic view of the world, encouraging the worst behavior and restraining just steps for self-preservation by those whom they hate. And they will justify it in the name of "Christ" - that's hardly different from what the Marxists do with their "liberation theology."
-
We don't need blacks to have a civilized life. Blacks need whites to have any sort of functioning modern society.
In general, respecting those in the US, I suspect they'd have been better off if they'd stayed in the South in agrarian communities.
I would be ready to finance a survey of their opinions on the matter if you would be willing to conduct it.
Ggreg I'd guesstimate at least 75% of American black children would stave to death in about 3 weeks if government programs funded by Debt To China were cut off tomorrow. For infants even faster and higher numbers.
And a good number of those not on food assistance, WIC, or free school lunches, have parents with state or city basically government jobs where they have a preference for hiring minorities.
Many places are reluctant to fire blacks, even in a right to work state because of the thread of law suits. So they get promoted to higher level management jobs.
Even with skilled jobs like nursing, I've seen an incompetent hateful floor manager get promoted to a higher paying Diversity Police position when a large number of her staff quit - and there were black nurses included in those who quit too.
-
Eustace Mullins, St. Ephraim the Syrian, St. Catherine Emmerich and others went so far as to accept actual anthroplogical and genealogical attributions embarrassingly subsequent to the the Biblical curses of Canaan, Ham, and Cain.
Isn't there some "Table of Nations" apocrypha that Protestants read? Like the "Book of Jubilees" but different?
Aren't different judgments at work in different races, because of their sins?
Isn't the doctrine of the Incarnation and the Resurrection "racial"? Is this what drives the Marxists and the devils so crazy?
Is the eucharist "racist"? and the Immaculate Conception too?
Is Ellen Degeneres not only morally reprehensible but also racially defective?
The racial content of the human race is something important or not? If Marxism destroys the truth, what about "equality" and sedcular humanism?
Q: Do the NWO Jєωs today have a racial agenda?
A: Yes, obviously they do.
Q: Bill Maher, HBO, and Bibi Netanyahu have a racial agenda?
A: Yes, apparently they do. They are quite animated and driven about "race isssues", like Wolf Blitzer and CNN and ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.
Q: What is their racial agenda then?
A: That's enough already. Some of this is top secret, like the NAACP and Django, but can you not tell which way the wind blows and what is going on? Do you have the good sense that God gave a mule?
-
God created man with an intellect and a will. That exists in all races. The color of skin is just an accident. The soul is colorless.
With that said, there are dangers to marrying outside of one's race or culture. This is not to say it could not work, but there are increased risks.
Presupposing that both are Catholic and by that I mean truly Catholic, then we have to look at what factors culture plays on a marriage.
Many cultures have different ideas on the role of man and women, the raising of children, the type of food in the home, how to spend free time, the type of involvement of in-laws and friends, how money is to be saved and spent, and on and on the list could go.
I have a friend and recently their daughter who is white married an Indian man (from India, not American Indian). The man is not a Catholic, and she was strongly warned by friends, family and clergy that this was a bad idea, but went forward anyway.
After the marriage, she found out all sorts of interesting and stressful things about his ideas and culture on marriage that she did not know before. Their family tradition calls for the mother-in-law to move in for 6 months to "help with the new baby," which basically meant the mother in law took control of the baby and the parenting, and his ideas on many other things stressing the girl out.
I could sit back and say, "I told you so," but I would rather spend my time praying for the man. If he becomes a Catholic, I am sure things will get better for them.
By that do you mean to imply that by becoming Catholic he will need to become more Westernized? Isn't hoping for that rather hypocritical, since traditional Catholics are supposed to be for the authority of the father? I'm not on the offensive against you, I gave your post a "thumbs up" since it illustrates clearly what I've warned in the past - however, I raise this question because your post seems to be in line with the assumptions of some that conversion to Catholicism necessitates a simultaneous conversion to Western culture.
When a women marries a man she marries into his family - she has to follow him and his culture, not the opposite.
This isn't just the non-Western in my talking either - it goes both ways. A Chinese woman once complained to me that her (foreign) husband wouldn't learn Chinese. I thought it was rather ridiculous.
As for InfiniteFaith's obtuse original post, I think you (referring to the Whites on this board that are so zealous about their cultures and the supposed superiority of it over all others...) take yourselves too seriously. Not every "minority" is crouching in wait to snatch your daughters when you aren't looking. Quite frankly, you wouldn't even be able to pay me to marry a Westerner. And for the record, I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of my racial brethren share the same feelings (there will always be exceptions, and I do not look down on those who choose to marry outside their race, save for those who do so solely for profit). Don't blame it on minorities if your children want to marry outside their race - blame it on the deficiencies of your own race. If your children are good Catholics, obviously the other white males/females, etc are lacking some sort of virtue or good quality that they are looking for in their future spouse and therefore they must look outside the white population.
-
Many places are reluctant to fire blacks, even in a right to work state because of the thread of law suits. So they get promoted to higher level management jobs.
If there is ever conflict or altercation in the workplace between a white and black, it is almost invariably that the white person gets the axe. It's forbidden to stand up to yourself against black aggression. The same thing applies to a large degree in the schools as well. My poor little sister once had a retail job with a group of black women. They mistreated her, fortunately she was out of there soon and got a better job.
-
Don't blame it on minorities if your children want to marry outside their race - blame it on the deficiencies of your own race.
So do you blame the deficiencies of your race for the behavior of east asian women?
-
Don't blame it on minorities if your children want to marry outside their race - blame it on the deficiencies of your own race.
So do you blame the deficiencies of your race for the behavior of east asian women?
Of course. I'd blame deficiencies in my culture that have been brewing for centuries and are now growing out of control, in no small part due to the influence of Western culture in the modern Orient. We're bad enough on our own, but the steady Westernization through media culture, etc is taking the worst of the East and West and throwing out all the good in both.
I'm not sure how you want me to answer this question, so I'm going to venture out on a limb and clarify that actually, what makes some East Asian women so unattractive to me is the fact that they are Westernized and feminist - so the problematic behaviour I find in women of my own race is not so much the standard character defects that plague my own people, but the fact that they have adopted foreign influences in addition to those... But even this willingness to be Westernized can, arguably, be traced to my culture's difficulty in maintaining a healthy balance between being hard-headed and overly proud of one's culture - even when it has problems that need repair, versus mindlessly adopting every new novelty imported from the West or Korean soap operas.
That fact that so many East Asian women marry foreigners is in no small part due to a failing on the part of East Asian men to be proper men.
-
By that do you mean to imply that by becoming Catholic he will need to become more Westernized? Isn't hoping for that rather hypocritical, since traditional Catholics are supposed to be for the authority of the father? I'm not on the offensive against you, I gave your post a "thumbs up" since it illustrates clearly what I've warned in the past - however, I raise this question because your post seems to be in line with the assumptions of some that conversion to Catholicism necessitates a simultaneous conversion to Western culture.
When a women marries a man she marries into his family - she has to follow him and his culture, not the opposite.
Many Western practices and traditional culture is based on Christianity though.
Secondly what if the wife is a Christian and his culture is not? It's deeper and more varied than just making rice instead of potatoes or choosing to communicate in his language. Does she adopt those practices? Allow the children to? Say no to his parents? The husband becoming Catholic would improve her situation.
Many foreigners also think "the system" is superior. They are not into things like homeschooling, home birthing, anti-vac, anti-circ, natural remedies, things like that.
-
in no small part due to the influence of Western culture in the modern Orient.
Okay, you see it as "western culture" - traditional Christians see it as ʝʊdɛօ-masonic/cultural marxist influence that is really foreign, even though it is taking over society, penetrating traditional groups.
-
Q: Quentin Tarantino says "nigger" a lot. Does that make him a racist or a freak?
A: Tarantino is both whether he says the "N" word or not. He is a bad person besides. Vile. He pretends that he is "Italian", but I think he is Jєωιѕн. He looks like another product of Jєωιѕн inbreeding and global misanthropy. I think he is a "marrano" like Nancy Peℓσѕι, only uglier.
Q: Are Samuel L. Jackson and Danny Glover and Harry Belafonte racist?
A: Of course. As much as Michelle Obama any day. Do you think everybody fell off the turnip truck only yesterday? I fell off at least a few weeks ago and have begun to figure these things out.
Q: What's a "Pecker Wood"? have you known any of them?
A: A "Pecker Wood" is a white man in jail or prison who will not be raped by Negroes. He's too strong.
-
racially defective
There is no such thing as being racially defective. Perhaps St. Martin de Porres was "racially defective"?
-
racially defective
There is no such thing as being racially defective. Perhaps St. Martin de Porres was "racially defective"?
Defective as a term cannot be qualified by race? Think about that again.
-
How to prevent race mixing?
Castration.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, therefore, you can't prevent race mixing any other way that castration or celibacy.
I don't mean this in a bad way, for I have no business deciding who anyone else sees a beautiful and wants to marry. People here are just expressing their idea of beauty. You can't impose your idea of beauty on others, it is a waste of time. The proof is all over the world, specially in South America, where the majority of the population is mixed.
-
By that do you mean to imply that by becoming Catholic he will need to become more Westernized? Isn't hoping for that rather hypocritical, since traditional Catholics are supposed to be for the authority of the father? I'm not on the offensive against you, I gave your post a "thumbs up" since it illustrates clearly what I've warned in the past - however, I raise this question because your post seems to be in line with the assumptions of some that conversion to Catholicism necessitates a simultaneous conversion to Western culture.
When a women marries a man she marries into his family - she has to follow him and his culture, not the opposite.
Many Western practices and traditional culture is based on Christianity though.
Secondly what if the wife is a Christian and his culture is not? It's deeper and more varied than just making rice instead of potatoes or choosing to communicate in his language. Does she adopt those practices? Allow the children to? Say no to his parents? The husband becoming Catholic would improve her situation.
Many foreigners also think "the system" is superior. They are not into things like homeschooling, home birthing, anti-vac, anti-circ, natural remedies, things like that.
This is a good post.
My first quibble is that I don't see a significant correlation between modern Western practice, what little remains of traditional culture and Christianity. What I see in America is largely influences of Protestantism, and, among traditionalists, an attempt to revive long abandoned practices in order to "bring back" Western culture - which implies that Western culture is in shambles, if not entirely lost already. The latter attempts often seem rather arbitrary and not founded in any sort of historical continuity passed down to the present generation.
I know that's a rather vague criticism, but I'd have to see an actual example of what you have in mind before replying in any more detail.
I think the wife should adopt her husband's culture if that is his desire. As long as the in-laws aren't doing anything like indoctrinating the children in paganism, etc then why should the wife not allow them to live in the same house? I think this is just a manifestation of the American idea that you *need* to be independent of your parents after you're 18 and as far as you are concerned they can stay out of the rest of your life, save for when they send you a check to pay the bills, etc.
I don't disagree that a Catholic husband would help greatly, but in the context of this thread, that statement seems to insinuate that conversion would help because it would make him more Western.
I don't disagree with your third point. Yet traditional medicine shops and acupuncture shops, etc thrive in the overseas Oriental communities. So there is definitely some grey area. I think the way these ideas are presented often makes them less appealing as well.
Okay, you see it as "western culture" - traditional Christians see it as ʝʊdɛօ-masonic/cultural marxist influence that is really foreign, even though it is taking over society, penetrating traditional groups.
That's true. That doesn't change the fact that those ideologies are Western in origin.
-
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, therefore, you can't prevent race mixing any other way that castration or celibacy.
Seems like it wasn't very common most places until rather recently.
I don't understand why the fallacy of saying "such things will always happen" is used as a response to a claim "we should try to prevent such things" - as though the first actually answered the second.
Don't understand what I'm saying? Let me make it real clear.
If someone says:
"We should take steps to prevent abortion"
the answer
"Abortion will always be practiced"
Is an illogical, fallacious response.
-
an attempt to revive long abandoned practices in order to "bring back" Western culture
I disagree with that. The Catholic religion and Catholic family life are not "long abandoned practices"
Traditionalists are not trying to resurrect defunct practices. We're talking about things that have always been practiced and until recently were not at all rare.
-
I don't know what "Judaism" you mean, but all I meant was the type that is explained in the Torah (Old Testament), and was acceptable to Moses AND Jesus Christ. The current "Jєωs" may be something else entirely, and many are , frankly atheists! I never condoned that. Yet it is wrong to say that the people who followed the Old Testament were the "same" as Communists. To prove it, just read the Bible!
Communism was not around in the days of the Old Testament. Today's modern Zionists, however, support Communism.
Nobody should be attacked just because they have Jєωιѕн blood! Yet though I explained my conversion, I have , as predicted, gained new "critics."
I didn't attack anyone who has Jєωιѕн blood. It's the religion that I take issue with.
-
an attempt to revive long abandoned practices in order to "bring back" Western culture
I disagree with that. The Catholic religion and Catholic family life are not "long abandoned practices"
Traditionalists are not trying to resurrect defunct practices. We're talking about things that have always been practiced and until recently were not at all rare.
Again, I'd like to see an example of what you have in mind.
An attempt to bring back medieval "chivalry" or Elizabethan etiquette and then universally impose them other people and pass it off as baggage that must come with Catholicism, seems rather strange to me.
I'll give one example - kissing women on the hand and opening the doors for them makes no sense to me. The first practice I find utterly improper, and I see no reason that I should adopt the latter since it isn't a part of my culture. Despite that, I do hold the door for women here in America since it could potentially be a vice of singularity were I to insist on refusing to adopt some American habits seeing that I live in America. Also were I to not hold the door, no one is going to think "Oh, that guy isn't holding the door because he's abiding by his cultural practices", they will just assume that I've been assimilated into modern American culture which doesn't require that civility.
-
As for inter-racial marriage, it's not sinful, but I agree with others on this thread that people should generally stick to marrying someone their own race.
How does an individual take this advice, which is a generalisation and apply it to their specific choice or choices?,
A young Trad women, white, of 21 has two suitors who are clearly interested in her. One is a huge fit athletic black guy she is naturally very attracted to (looks like Denzel Washington in his prime) and the other an intellectual nerdy white guy with horn rim glasses who she likes because he has a weird sense of humor and can make her laugh.
Taking your general advice above, how does she apply it in order to reach a decision about whom she should marry? Does she use a ratings system and, if so, by what percentage/ratio or factor does she discount the merits of the black suitor because "generally" people should stick to marrying someone within their race?
Many young women of course are not in this situation of having two suitors at a time. They have to deal with one suitor at a time and might not have many offers of marriage. How long should a girl or guy wait before deciding to break the "generally" rule and date outside of their race?
I am not saying that someone should never marry outside of their race, or that it would be sinful to do so. Of course a Catholic white woman would be better off marrying someone of a different race who was Catholic than someone her same race who was not Catholic. That's a rare exception, however.
I simply think that, as a general rule, people should stick to marrying someone their own race.
-
There's nothing inherently wrong with encouraging your children to not marry outside the race, although that shouldn't be the primary factor. Remember, our children are gifts to us from God and we should take their spiritual development seriously.
Marrying outside the race is a handicap in almost every category.
However, love sometimes finds a way so we must be honest with our children.
-
I simply think that, as a general rule, people should stick to marrying someone their own race.
As a white european male I agree with this but only because most american trads are white. In this case its more like matthew said. Better to marry within the faith and outside the race than otside the faith and within the race. If it was reversed and whites were th minority of trads I would say th opposite
But if all things were equal I would definitely agree that a spouse of similar race would foster a lesss tumultuous marriage
From phone
-
"East Asian women" - ?
They marry outside their race for, primarily, financial reasons and almost never due to love. I am speaking of the women who deliberately marry a foreigner and not an American born girl who is of asian descent but almost exlusively culturally American.
No offense intended to anyone on this.
-
Men are very good at saying the right things to trick women into bed or a false relationship. This is why "honor your father and your mother" is so brilliant. Fathers know what men are like because he is a man. He understands marriage is not the only thing men want from his daughter. Mothers have already went through the process of finding a husband. She has the experience. Young men are very much like the silver tongued serpent in the garden. A young girl can fall for all the traps men lay for her. She is in love. Right? She is in a trance. She can't even see in front of her own feet but her parents can. Children not taking good advice from parents do so at their own risk.
A son or daughter marrying someone their parents dislike can put a strain on the family and even destroy the relationship with their parents. Can parents be wrong? Yes. However, I think parents are right most of the time. Fathers are not the authority they once were in a family. I think this is why there are so many failed marriages and kids being born out of wedlock. The main goal of parents is to raise their children as good Catholics and make sure they stay on that path throughout their lives. Can this be done in an interracial marriage? Yes. However, I think we should take in consideration that interracial marriages have a higher rate of divorce. Interracial marriages are not as stable as regular marriages.
Race is a temporal issue and not a spiritual one. One is not saved by their race. Races/ethnicities can develop unique cultures and communities that bind them together. A Catholic culture is more important than the ethnic culture. I know people don't like to give that up the ethnic culture and they shouldn't have to. Well unless that culture has bad elements. I think Catholics should not put a wedge between Catholic and ethnic culture. We will lose a lot of Catholics that way. You might say they should give up their ethnic culture. I think that it is tough. It is tough because a lot of ethnic cultures are fused with their Catholicism. It is who they are!
Many people see interracial marriage as a threat to their ethnic culture. It can be if it happens on large scale and immigration goes unchecked. America is certainly changing and many other western nations too. You can not deny American politics and culture have changed because of these factors.
Catholics that want to preserve their ethnic culture must remember to be respectful to others.
-
Why do these people think learning is sinful? I don't recommend going to a Seder, but it is still the same feast. Do they think that looking at the Matzo bread at a supermarket will make them "impure??" Sex is pure when used correctly, but "impure" when abused. At one point, the Seder was holy. Now it still stands as an historical reminder to the Jєωs that they have no Temple... They question, and are converting more today...
It is still the same feast, yes, but one that is no longer pleasing to Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Circuмcision used to be customary as well, but no longer is. For as St. Paul says:
Behold, I Paul tell you, that if you be circuмcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. (Galatians 5:2)
The Jєωs were supposed to abandon those customs when Christ established the Catholic Church, but they didn't and rejected Him as their King. Thus, their feasts are now abominations.
You seem to be a kind soul, Anne. I just wanted to make a point to you that such customs are, as St. John Chrysostom says, impure because they are displeasing to Our Lord Jesus Christ. I hope this makes sense.
God Bless.
-
I think the wife should adopt her husband's culture if that is his desire. As long as the in-laws aren't doing anything like indoctrinating the children in paganism, etc then why should the wife not allow them to live in the same house? I think this is just a manifestation of the American idea that you *need* to be independent of your parents after you're 18 and as far as you are concerned they can stay out of the rest of your life, save for when they send you a check to pay the bills, etc.
I said nothing about not living with in laws, you are assuming a lot there.
What does a wife do then when the parents are not Christian and the culture is not Christian? Average nominally Christian boomer in-laws that were raised going to church on Easter or Christmas but didn't raise their own kids Christian aren't going to have a problem with the husband and wife crossing themselves and saying prayers before meals. Yes the MIL might sigh to herself and tell her best friend her DIL is over the top or make a criticisms but typically it's going to be far less of a big deal than if the husband's family is nominally Buddhist Muslim or Hindu. If the husband is OK with it, what kind of position does it put him between him and his parents? What about their non-Christian special holidays? Do you want your little girls dressed for them? Attend a party for them? Even if people are not devout religion to their there can be many conflicts.
It could be friends of the family. The elderly grandma family friend who wants to whisper false religion stuff in your child's ear. Nobody wants to say No to her or offend her.
When your spouse is in the hospital do you want the Buddhist relatives doing their chants over them? Are you going to ask them to leave the room? People can suddenly get very religious during a crisis.
Does your mom or wife ever sit down to eat while your eating? Or is she constantly serving you and the table and eats her then cold meal when the men go to smoke and correct the world's wrongs in the other room? Or do you want your children to wait until their mother sits down to eat?
Does your mother refuse to hug (touch) your teenager daughter when she is menstruating? Do you teach your daughter that grandma's religion is different but grandma is still good like PC police?
.
-
Both Tiffany and Vladimir make good points. Cultural differences are a source of conflict and not some nonsensical "our diversity is our strength".
-
Men are very good at saying the right things to trick women into bed or a false relationship. This is why "honor your father and your mother" is so brilliant. Fathers know what men are like because he is a man. He understands marriage is not the only thing men want from his daughter. Mothers have already went through the process of finding a husband. She has the experience. Young men are very much like the silver tongued serpent in the garden. A young girl can fall for all the traps men lay for her. She is in love. Right? She is in a trance. She can't even see in front of her own feet but her parents can. Children not taking good advice from parents do so at their own risk.
A son or daughter marrying someone their parents dislike can put a strain on the family and even destroy the relationship with their parents. Can parents be wrong? Yes. However, I think parents are right most of the time. Fathers are not the authority they once were in a family. I think this is why there are so many failed marriages and kids being born out of wedlock. The main goal of parents is to raise their children as good Catholics and make sure they stay on that path throughout their lives. Can this be done in an interracial marriage? Yes. However, I think we should take in consideration that interracial marriages have a higher rate of divorce. Interracial marriages are not as stable as regular marriages.
Race is a temporal issue and not a spiritual one. One is not saved by their race. Races/ethnicities can develop unique cultures and communities that bind them together. A Catholic culture is more important than the ethnic culture. I know people don't like to give that up the ethnic culture and they shouldn't have to. Well unless that culture has bad elements. I think Catholics should not put a wedge between Catholic and ethnic culture. We will lose a lot of Catholics that way. You might say they should give up their ethnic culture. I think that it is tough. It is tough because a lot of ethnic cultures are fused with their Catholicism. It is who they are!
Many people see interracial marriage as a threat to their ethnic culture. It can be if it happens on large scale and immigration goes unchecked. America is certainly changing and many other western nations too. You can not deny American politics and culture have changed because of these factors.
Catholics that want to preserve their ethnic culture must remember to be respectful to others.
Even without a father I think teaching against fornication and adultery and no exposure to sex ed makes a difference.
Most Christian parents have no issue letting their teenage daughters out with other girls without chaperons and many allow them with the opposite sex unchaperoned too. Yes kids could sneak out but I rarely see parents who insist on chaperons.
We need to create social events for them to meet potentional spouses we approve of. In this day it means work for the parents, setting up, cleaning up, sitting there, playing chauffeur.
We need to teach our girls to give polite men a chance and not be superficial. Not the Cosmo/17 mag values they are going to get from their girlfriends. There are other men than the popular boy who has probably been with 2 of her girlfriends.
-
Great! Another thread about race-mixing! Anti-miscegenation! Racial supremacy, and all that!
I really thought that we would've advanced the conversation a bit at this point. But it is as if we are starting with a blank slate, every time. Constantly re-inventing the wheel. Nothing new is gained from past conversations, it seems.
Meh.
- - - -
The following is true:
1. White people exist
2. White people have the right to exist
3.White people have the right to exist as White people
Racial-mixing, however, is not a sin. It is not posted as a sin anywhere in the Bible or the Catechism. The entire time, it is the condition of our souls that matter.
However, it is clear that there are ethnic and cultural differences, for as the Catechism states, God made different kinds of people with different kinds of gifts.
And it is clear that the whites have problems with blacks primarily in this country, and hispanics secondarily.
Yet, you should marry someone based on how virtuous a Catholic she is.
If you unmarried guys come across a black girl who turns you on, and she's a devoted modest Catholic girl who only seeks to treat you right and pray the Rosary and go to Mass every day, then you'd be a damned fool to brush her off.
But if you want to fall into this nice race trap that's been opening wide for the American people in the last few years, jump in. Everyone else is. I $hit you not, racism is spreading like wildfire in this country. And fellas who get squeamish around the "$hit-colored" races better stay out of my neighborhood, because that won't be tolerated outside of lily white suburbia.
It's a fact that Judaics have been engineering this crisis, long since at least the founding of the NAACP. They've cultivated a lot of hate in blacks against the whites. A comment I read over at the Vox Day blog summed it up nicely:
Blacks HATE whites, at the very core of their souls, and want more than anything else on earth to have vengeance on whites, and to see whites debased and humiliated. And they will put up with ANY policy, even one contrary to their own real interests, so long as the prime directive is fulfilled: Kill the Cracka and Rape The #### Out Of His Women. This is chthonic, purely atavistic stuff, not accessible to reason. Jєωs know this, and they have exploited it masterfully, weaponizing the violent, stupid, impulsive, oversexed negro as a proxy weapon to attack whites, and it's worked brilliantly. Look at the historic 50-year-track destruction of the great cities. Look at the climate of fear in which whites have been forced to live, in the country which they themselves built, but which they've now been hypnotized into handing over, without a fight, to peoples who hate them. Look at the level of ritualized formal public debasement and abasement to which whites subject themselves, for no good practical reason whatsoever that benefits whites. Blacks have Buttons which are easily Pushed. If they lose employment opportunities to illegal Latinos, or if they are ethnically cleansed from their own historical spaces by invading Latinos, it'll be worth it to them to create the coalition of the Great Non-White Majority whose true goal is to Get Whitey.
This was a comment from a non-Catholic website.
This guy was right. People are learning out there. But to become a bunch of racial supremacists is not the answer. The end will be similar to the situation of the blacks.
And you know what? I'm getting tired of whites. Self-destructive, stupid American whites. Morons will cut their own throats, so long as it's trendy. Whites are falling into the same ####ing traps that the blacks fell into about a century ago.
Racial supremacy is building nicely. Keep pumping the bellows. We'll see just how proud God is gonna be that you stayed true to your own people.
- - - -
The Judaics think they can erase their competition from the gentiles by mixing them into a bunch of morlocks.
Why, InfiniteFaith, do you believe that the Judaics are right in this presumption?
Why do you believe that the Judaics are correct in their philosophy of racial supremacy?
Why do you think that the Judaics can win using that philosophy?
Myself? I think the Judaics are in grave error.
Yes, racial mixing is not a sin, but yeah, it's definitely difficult. It's difficult to raise children in a world with people such as yourselves who will piss all over them if they're not like you. But in the end, we'll all see what Christ has to say about it.
This is not the way that this crisis should be viewed at all. The problem is the rate in which these relationships are occurring. Yes I agree that race mixing is not a sin. I don't hold any views regarding racial supremacy so I wouldn't know anything about Jєωιѕн supremacy.
-
Converting seriously to Catholicism means that Jєωs no longer regard the person as part of the in-group.
This is true, however blacks who "act white" are not regarded by other blacks as in "their group" either.
Let us not forget the mulattos in Brazil that discriminate against blacks. Which goes to show that race mixing does not end racism.
-
Q: If Jim Crow were a banker, what would he say about the Federal Reserve circa Dec. 1913? That it is egregiously racist? Would he be wrong?
A: Considering that the Federal Reserve is actually a criminal and unconstitutional conspiracy by international bankers to control the wealth and credit of the "United States", and that it has always been run from the top down by Jєωs, he could say that and be correct. The Fedral Reserve is as racist as Saturday Night Live, which is also run from the top down by Jєωs.
-
God created man with an intellect and a will. That exists in all races. The color of skin is just an accident. The soul is colorless.
With that said, there are dangers to marrying outside of one's race or culture. This is not to say it could not work, but there are increased risks.
Presupposing that both are Catholic and by that I mean truly Catholic, then we have to look at what factors culture plays on a marriage.
Many cultures have different ideas on the role of man and women, the raising of children, the type of food in the home, how to spend free time, the type of involvement of in-laws and friends, how money is to be saved and spent, and on and on the list could go.
I have a friend and recently their daughter who is white married an Indian man (from India, not American Indian). The man is not a Catholic, and she was strongly warned by friends, family and clergy that this was a bad idea, but went forward anyway.
After the marriage, she found out all sorts of interesting and stressful things about his ideas and culture on marriage that she did not know before. Their family tradition calls for the mother-in-law to move in for 6 months to "help with the new baby," which basically meant the mother in law took control of the baby and the parenting, and his ideas on many other things stressing the girl out.
I could sit back and say, "I told you so," but I would rather spend my time praying for the man. If he becomes a Catholic, I am sure things will get better for them.
By that do you mean to imply that by becoming Catholic he will need to become more Westernized? Isn't hoping for that rather hypocritical, since traditional Catholics are supposed to be for the authority of the father? I'm not on the offensive against you, I gave your post a "thumbs up" since it illustrates clearly what I've warned in the past - however, I raise this question because your post seems to be in line with the assumptions of some that conversion to Catholicism necessitates a simultaneous conversion to Western culture.
When a women marries a man she marries into his family - she has to follow him and his culture, not the opposite.
This isn't just the non-Western in my talking either - it goes both ways. A Chinese woman once complained to me that her (foreign) husband wouldn't learn Chinese. I thought it was rather ridiculous.
As for InfiniteFaith's obtuse original post, I think you (referring to the Whites on this board that are so zealous about their cultures and the supposed superiority of it over all others...) take yourselves too seriously. Not every "minority" is crouching in wait to snatch your daughters when you aren't looking. Quite frankly, you wouldn't even be able to pay me to marry a Westerner. And for the record, I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of my racial brethren share the same feelings (there will always be exceptions, and I do not look down on those who choose to marry outside their race, save for those who do so solely for profit). Don't blame it on minorities if your children want to marry outside their race - blame it on the deficiencies of your own race. If your children are good Catholics, obviously the other white males/females, etc are lacking some sort of virtue or good quality that they are looking for in their future spouse and therefore they must look outside the white population.
Hahaha...."obtuse". I will have to remember that word.
First of all, just because I want to preserve my culture and way of life does not mean that I believe that my culture is superior. Although it can mean that to some people.
Second, I don't blame interracial dating on deficiencies in my own race. I blame a lot of it on our government, but the media more so. There seems to be a trend with making the white man into this immature weakling these days. Whereas the black man is becoming the mature, protector, kind hearted, loving, intelligent type. Its agenda. Women lack the capacity to see through the garbage and they buy into the fantasy. And I'm sorry, but I really think that at least 90% of women are like this. They also lack the capacity to put a stop to things like illegal immigration and race mixing because they empathize way too much. It is much harder for a woman to want to send 20 million people back to their respective countries than a man. They would feel bad about it. This is one of the reasons I am starting to think women should not be in charge of anything. They allow the trojan horse to sneak in because they empathize too much.
As for the deficiencies in my own race thing...that would also apply to women of my own race. On top of that, I would say that there is probably one thing that makes dating within my race better. And that is Catholicism. Have you looked around lately? There are not many black Catholics especially in the United States. There are mestizos though I will say that.
-
How to prevent race mixing?
Castration.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, therefore, you can't prevent race mixing any other way that castration or celibacy.
I don't mean this in a bad way, for I have no business deciding who anyone else sees a beautiful and wants to marry. People here are just expressing their idea of beauty. You can't impose your idea of beauty on others, it is a waste of time. The proof is all over the world, specially in South America, where the majority of the population is mixed.
And racism still occurs with mixed race people discriminating against other minorities I might add.
If we eliminate all illegal immigrants then people will be much more likely to fall in love with someone of their own race. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. they wouldn't even know the difference.
-
Q: If Jim Crow were a banker, what would he say about the Federal Reserve circa Dec. 1913? That it is egregiously racist? Would he be wrong?
A: Considering that the Federal Reserve is actually a criminal and unconstitutional conspiracy by international bankers to control the wealth and credit of the "United States", and that it has always been run from the top down by Jєωs, he could say that and be correct. The Fedral Reserve is as racist as Saturday Night Live, which is also run from the top down by Jєωs.
I honestly never thought Saturday Night Live was really that funny.
-
God created man with an intellect and a will. That exists in all races. The color of skin is just an accident. The soul is colorless.
With that said, there are dangers to marrying outside of one's race or culture. This is not to say it could not work, but there are increased risks.
Presupposing that both are Catholic and by that I mean truly Catholic, then we have to look at what factors culture plays on a marriage.
Many cultures have different ideas on the role of man and women, the raising of children, the type of food in the home, how to spend free time, the type of involvement of in-laws and friends, how money is to be saved and spent, and on and on the list could go.
I have a friend and recently their daughter who is white married an Indian man (from India, not American Indian). The man is not a Catholic, and she was strongly warned by friends, family and clergy that this was a bad idea, but went forward anyway.
After the marriage, she found out all sorts of interesting and stressful things about his ideas and culture on marriage that she did not know before. Their family tradition calls for the mother-in-law to move in for 6 months to "help with the new baby," which basically meant the mother in law took control of the baby and the parenting, and his ideas on many other things stressing the girl out.
I could sit back and say, "I told you so," but I would rather spend my time praying for the man. If he becomes a Catholic, I am sure things will get better for them.
By that do you mean to imply that by becoming Catholic he will need to become more Westernized? Isn't hoping for that rather hypocritical, since traditional Catholics are supposed to be for the authority of the father? I'm not on the offensive against you, I gave your post a "thumbs up" since it illustrates clearly what I've warned in the past - however, I raise this question because your post seems to be in line with the assumptions of some that conversion to Catholicism necessitates a simultaneous conversion to Western culture.
When a women marries a man she marries into his family - she has to follow him and his culture, not the opposite.
This isn't just the non-Western in my talking either - it goes both ways. A Chinese woman once complained to me that her (foreign) husband wouldn't learn Chinese. I thought it was rather ridiculous.
As for InfiniteFaith's obtuse original post, I think you (referring to the Whites on this board that are so zealous about their cultures and the supposed superiority of it over all others...) take yourselves too seriously. Not every "minority" is crouching in wait to snatch your daughters when you aren't looking. Quite frankly, you wouldn't even be able to pay me to marry a Westerner. And for the record, I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of my racial brethren share the same feelings (there will always be exceptions, and I do not look down on those who choose to marry outside their race, save for those who do so solely for profit). Don't blame it on minorities if your children want to marry outside their race - blame it on the deficiencies of your own race. If your children are good Catholics, obviously the other white males/females, etc are lacking some sort of virtue or good quality that they are looking for in their future spouse and therefore they must look outside the white population.
Hahaha...."obtuse". I will have to remember that word.
First of all, just because I want to preserve my culture and way of life does not mean that I believe that my culture is superior. Although it can mean that to some people.
Second, I don't blame interracial dating on deficiencies in my own race. I blame a lot of it on our government, but the media more so. There seems to be a trend with making the white man into this immature weakling these days. Whereas the black man is becoming the mature, protector, kind hearted, loving, intelligent type. Its agenda. Women lack the capacity to see through the garbage and they buy into the fantasy. And I'm sorry, but I really think that at least 90% of women are like this. They also lack the capacity to put a stop to things like illegal immigration and race mixing because they empathize way too much. It is much harder for a woman to want to send 20 million people back to their respective countries than a man. They would feel bad about it. This is one of the reasons I am starting to think women should not be in charge of anything. They allow the trojan horse to sneak in because they empathize too much.
As for the deficiencies in my own race thing...that would also apply to women of my own race. On top of that, I would say that there is probably one thing that makes dating within my race better. And that is Catholicism. Have you looked around lately? There are not many black Catholics especially in the United States. There are mestizos though I will say that.
Oh yeah...and the white man gets made into the stuck up evil jerk.
-
God created man with an intellect and a will. That exists in all races. The color of skin is just an accident. The soul is colorless.
With that said, there are dangers to marrying outside of one's race or culture. This is not to say it could not work, but there are increased risks.
Presupposing that both are Catholic and by that I mean truly Catholic, then we have to look at what factors culture plays on a marriage.
Many cultures have different ideas on the role of man and women, the raising of children, the type of food in the home, how to spend free time, the type of involvement of in-laws and friends, how money is to be saved and spent, and on and on the list could go.
I have a friend and recently their daughter who is white married an Indian man (from India, not American Indian). The man is not a Catholic, and she was strongly warned by friends, family and clergy that this was a bad idea, but went forward anyway.
After the marriage, she found out all sorts of interesting and stressful things about his ideas and culture on marriage that she did not know before. Their family tradition calls for the mother-in-law to move in for 6 months to "help with the new baby," which basically meant the mother in law took control of the baby and the parenting, and his ideas on many other things stressing the girl out.
I could sit back and say, "I told you so," but I would rather spend my time praying for the man. If he becomes a Catholic, I am sure things will get better for them.
By that do you mean to imply that by becoming Catholic he will need to become more Westernized? Isn't hoping for that rather hypocritical, since traditional Catholics are supposed to be for the authority of the father? I'm not on the offensive against you, I gave your post a "thumbs up" since it illustrates clearly what I've warned in the past - however, I raise this question because your post seems to be in line with the assumptions of some that conversion to Catholicism necessitates a simultaneous conversion to Western culture.
When a women marries a man she marries into his family - she has to follow him and his culture, not the opposite.
This isn't just the non-Western in my talking either - it goes both ways. A Chinese woman once complained to me that her (foreign) husband wouldn't learn Chinese. I thought it was rather ridiculous.
As for InfiniteFaith's obtuse original post, I think you (referring to the Whites on this board that are so zealous about their cultures and the supposed superiority of it over all others...) take yourselves too seriously. Not every "minority" is crouching in wait to snatch your daughters when you aren't looking. Quite frankly, you wouldn't even be able to pay me to marry a Westerner. And for the record, I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of my racial brethren share the same feelings (there will always be exceptions, and I do not look down on those who choose to marry outside their race, save for those who do so solely for profit). Don't blame it on minorities if your children want to marry outside their race - blame it on the deficiencies of your own race. If your children are good Catholics, obviously the other white males/females, etc are lacking some sort of virtue or good quality that they are looking for in their future spouse and therefore they must look outside the white population.
No, it is as I wrote, if he becomes Catholic, things will be better. I never said westernized. I do not pray for people to become westernized, I do pray for them to become Catholic.
-
The term "supremacism" seems to have been rendered meaningless. Just another example of what seems to be the over-politicizing of language.
As far as I can tell, the term means our group is better than your group and the only political problem I can see with something like that is the revolutionary and seemingly anti-catholic idea of egalitarianism, contradicts the superiority of any group over any other group for any reason, other than the one allowed ideological exception: "egalitarians vs supermacists."
When catholics claim that salvation is only found through the catholic church, that claim would appear to be, by modern standards, an example of "catholic supremacism." Basically, asserting the belief that catholicism is "superior" to all other religions of the world.
Personally, I think catholicism is superior to all other religions of the world.
As far as racial/ethnic "supremacy" is concerned, I see little/no reason to think that there is something wrong with a man "excluding" women from other races/ethnic groups from his choice of wife and prospective daughter in laws, presumably because he views his own racial/ethinc group as in some fundamental way, better than any other group, at least for him. Of course, once this kind of thinking is accepted at the faith and family level, it will come to dominate the culture.
-
How to prevent race mixing?
Castration.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, therefore, you can't prevent race mixing any other way that castration or celibacy.
I don't mean this in a bad way, for I have no business deciding who anyone else sees a beautiful and wants to marry. People here are just expressing their idea of beauty. You can't impose your idea of beauty on others, it is a waste of time. The proof is all over the world, specially in South America, where the majority of the population is mixed.
And racism still occurs with mixed race people discriminating against other minorities I might add.
If we eliminate all illegal immigrants then people will be much more likely to fall in love with someone of their own race. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. they wouldn't even know the difference.
I'm against all non family legal immigration too. No refugees, lotteries, or work visas.
What is so ridiculous is they have laws turning a blind eye to illegals here with anchor babies so they can get public assistance for the children. Even if they had 2 billion dollars the children are too young to sponsor their parents. The parents have no right to be here.
The system wants illegals here, especially the public schools where funding is based on attendance.
OTOH the lower income who are employed but cannot get a residency for a family member (who should be able to live here legally) who has marketable skills because they don't earn enough to sponsor them. There are many mixed nationality marriages where they have been married for years but one of the spouses is here illegally working under the table or unemployed because the other spouse does not earn enough to sponsor them. Having that income requirement makes sense but not when you are also bending over backwards for a huge population of uneducated unskilled illegal immigrants with children on public assistance.
-
I am a white man. Back in my worldly days before I was a Catholic I had a girlfriend who was Chinese. I am sure that if we did marry and have children I would have loved my children even though they were only half-white. I am glad I did not marry her not because our children would not have been pure, but because she was not Catholic and was very worldly so it is likely that if I ever married her I would have never converted and me and her and all of our children would likely have been damned.
-
I am a white man. Back in my worldly days before I was a Catholic I had a girlfriend who was Chinese. I am sure that if we did marry and have children I would have loved my children even though they were only half-white. I am glad I did not marry her not because our children would not have been pure, but because she was not Catholic and was very worldly so it is likely that if I ever married her I would have never converted and me and her and all of our children would likely have been damned.
I find that a lot of foreign women, especially like Russian and Chinese, are worldly like that. I like to think of it as more like having a hardened heart, and being blind to God because of sin. They haven't had much exposure to the Catholic Church and are unclean.
Theres something about a good practicing Catholic woman that radiates that holy aura which reflects our mother Mary. Something about that to me is so beautiful.
-
I find that a lot of foreign women, especially like Russian and Chinese, are worldly like that. I like to think of it as more like having a hardened heart, and being blind to God because of sin.
I can't remember ever meeting a single girl outside of an SSPX chapel that wasn't too worldly. I am a bit of a hermit.
-
I am a white man. Back in my worldly days before I was a Catholic I had a girlfriend who was Chinese. I am sure that if we did marry and have children I would have loved my children even though they were only half-white. I am glad I did not marry her not because our children would not have been pure, but because she was not Catholic and was very worldly so it is likely that if I ever married her I would have never converted and me and her and all of our children would likely have been damned.
I find that a lot of foreign women, especially like Russian and Chinese, are worldly like that. I like to think of it as more like having a hardened heart, and being blind to God because of sin. They haven't had much exposure to the Catholic Church and are unclean.
Theres something about a good practicing Catholic woman that radiates that holy aura which reflects our mother Mary. Something about that to me is so beautiful.
I know all have sinned but I do think there is something about a woman who has been chaste to her state in life no matter what her religion or age. You just see it even if she has gray hair and not wearing makeup.
-
How to prevent race mixing?
Castration.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, therefore, you can't prevent race mixing any other way that castration or celibacy.
I don't mean this in a bad way, for I have no business deciding who anyone else sees a beautiful and wants to marry. People here are just expressing their idea of beauty. You can't impose your idea of beauty on others, it is a waste of time. The proof is all over the world, specially in South America, where the majority of the population is mixed.
And racism still occurs with mixed race people discriminating against other minorities I might add.
If we eliminate all illegal immigrants then people will be much more likely to fall in love with someone of their own race. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. they wouldn't even know the difference.
I'm against all non family legal immigration too. No refugees, lotteries, or work visas.
What is so ridiculous is they have laws turning a blind eye to illegals here with anchor babies so they can get public assistance for the children. Even if they had 2 billion dollars the children are too young to sponsor their parents. The parents have no right to be here.
The system wants illegals here, especially the public schools where funding is based on attendance.
OTOH the lower income who are employed but cannot get a residency for a family member (who should be able to live here legally) who has marketable skills because they don't earn enough to sponsor them. There are many mixed nationality marriages where they have been married for years but one of the spouses is here illegally working under the table or unemployed because the other spouse does not earn enough to sponsor them. Having that income requirement makes sense but not when you are also bending over backwards for a huge population of uneducated unskilled illegal immigrants with children on public assistance.
The ones who come here and have a family are the ones we really have to worry about. They are pumping out 10 kids while eating up all kinds of federal benefits.Not to mention, with illegal immigrants causing such high growth rates amongst minorities (mostly mexicans) race mixing is only become that much more popular. The more the white man becomes a minority the more race mixing will occur.
Our government spent 109 billion dollars on illegal immigrants in 2010. That is like 8% of the federal spending budget. We could be doing other things with that money. Our bond ratings probably would not have been lowered had we not been spending money on illegal immigrants.
Our government says that it would cost too much to build a fence on our border. If we cut costs by sending illegal immigrants (along with their kids) home then we could use the money that we were spending on them to build a fence. Its really that simple. But no, our government wants them here. They just keep feeding the public with BS to keep people from getting angry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY7sICVGHWY
-
As for inter-racial marriage, it's not sinful, but I agree with others on this thread that people should generally stick to marrying someone their own race.
How does an individual take this advice, which is a generalisation and apply it to their specific choice or choices?,
A young Trad women, white, of 21 has two suitors who are clearly interested in her. One is a huge fit athletic black guy she is naturally very attracted to (looks like Denzel Washington in his prime) and the other an intellectual nerdy white guy with horn rim glasses who she likes because he has a weird sense of humor and can make her laugh.
Taking your general advice above, how does she apply it in order to reach a decision about whom she should marry? Does she use a ratings system and, if so, by what percentage/ratio or factor does she discount the merits of the black suitor because "generally" people should stick to marrying someone within their race?
Many young women of course are not in this situation of having two suitors at a time. They have to deal with one suitor at a time and might not have many offers of marriage. How long should a girl or guy wait before deciding to break the "generally" rule and date outside of their race?
I am not saying that someone should never marry outside of their race, or that it would be sinful to do so. Of course a Catholic white woman would be better off marrying someone of a different race who was Catholic than someone her same race who was not Catholic. That's a rare exception, however.
I simply think that, as a general rule, people should stick to marrying someone their own race.
I was asking how people would discern on the other rare exceptions to your general rule?
You avoided answering.
-
I simply think that, as a general rule, people should stick to marrying someone their own race.
As a white european male I agree with this but only because most american trads are white. In this case its more like matthew said. Better to marry within the faith and outside the race than otside the faith and within the race. If it was reversed and whites were th minority of trads I would say th opposite
But if all things were equal I would definitely agree that a spouse of similar race would foster a lesss tumultuous marriage
From phone
How would you feel if you were Traditionalist Australian Abo looking for a wife?
-
As for inter-racial marriage, it's not sinful, but I agree with others on this thread that people should generally stick to marrying someone their own race.
How does an individual take this advice, which is a generalisation and apply it to their specific choice or choices?,
A young Trad women, white, of 21 has two suitors who are clearly interested in her. One is a huge fit athletic black guy she is naturally very attracted to (looks like Denzel Washington in his prime) and the other an intellectual nerdy white guy with horn rim glasses who she likes because he has a weird sense of humor and can make her laugh.
Taking your general advice above, how does she apply it in order to reach a decision about whom she should marry? Does she use a ratings system and, if so, by what percentage/ratio or factor does she discount the merits of the black suitor because "generally" people should stick to marrying someone within their race?
Many young women of course are not in this situation of having two suitors at a time. They have to deal with one suitor at a time and might not have many offers of marriage. How long should a girl or guy wait before deciding to break the "generally" rule and date outside of their race?
I am not saying that someone should never marry outside of their race, or that it would be sinful to do so. Of course a Catholic white woman would be better off marrying someone of a different race who was Catholic than someone her same race who was not Catholic. That's a rare exception, however.
I simply think that, as a general rule, people should stick to marrying someone their own race.
I was asking how people would discern on the other rare exceptions to your general rule?
You avoided answering.
You did not mention religion in your example.
Religion always plays a role. If the black and white men are both non-Catholics or are Catholics in name only, she shouldn't marry either.
There's always the option of continuing to search.
-
I simply think that, as a general rule, people should stick to marrying someone their own race.
As a white european male I agree with this but only because most american trads are white. In this case its more like matthew said. Better to marry within the faith and outside the race than otside the faith and within the race. If it was reversed and whites were th minority of trads I would say th opposite
But if all things were equal I would definitely agree that a spouse of similar race would foster a lesss tumultuous marriage
From phone
How would you feel if you were Traditionalist Australian Abo looking for a wife?
It goes for all....a traditionalist Australian Abo should be looking for a traditionalist Abo wife.
-
How to prevent race mixing?
Castration.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, therefore, you can't prevent race mixing any other way that castration or celibacy.
I don't mean this in a bad way, for I have no business deciding who anyone else sees a beautiful and wants to marry. People here are just expressing their idea of beauty. You can't impose your idea of beauty on others, it is a waste of time. The proof is all over the world, specially in South America, where the majority of the population is mixed.
And racism still occurs with mixed race people discriminating against other minorities I might add.
If we eliminate all illegal immigrants then people will be much more likely to fall in love with someone of their own race. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. they wouldn't even know the difference.
I'm against all non family legal immigration too. No refugees, lotteries, or work visas.
What is so ridiculous is they have laws turning a blind eye to illegals here with anchor babies so they can get public assistance for the children. Even if they had 2 billion dollars the children are too young to sponsor their parents. The parents have no right to be here.
The system wants illegals here, especially the public schools where funding is based on attendance.
OTOH the lower income who are employed but cannot get a residency for a family member (who should be able to live here legally) who has marketable skills because they don't earn enough to sponsor them. There are many mixed nationality marriages where they have been married for years but one of the spouses is here illegally working under the table or unemployed because the other spouse does not earn enough to sponsor them. Having that income requirement makes sense but not when you are also bending over backwards for a huge population of uneducated unskilled illegal immigrants with children on public assistance.
The ones who come here and have a family are the ones we really have to worry about. They are pumping out 10 kids while eating up all kinds of federal benefits.Not to mention, with illegal immigrants causing such high growth rates amongst minorities (mostly mexicans) race mixing is only become that much more popular. The more the white man becomes a minority the more race mixing will occur.
Our government spent 109 billion dollars on illegal immigrants in 2010. That is like 8% of the federal spending budget. We could be doing other things with that money. Our bond ratings probably would not have been lowered had we not been spending money on illegal immigrants.
Our government says that it would cost too much to build a fence on our border. If we cut costs by sending illegal immigrants (along with their kids) home then we could use the money that we were spending on them to build a fence. Its really that simple. But no, our government wants them here. They just keep feeding the public with BS to keep people from getting angry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY7sICVGHWY
Or states could not turn a blind eye when they apply for school or public assistance for their anchor babies.
-
I simply think that, as a general rule, people should stick to marrying someone their own race.
As a white european male I agree with this but only because most american trads are white. In this case its more like matthew said. Better to marry within the faith and outside the race than otside the faith and within the race. If it was reversed and whites were th minority of trads I would say th opposite
But if all things were equal I would definitely agree that a spouse of similar race would foster a lesss tumultuous marriage
From phone
How would you feel if you were Traditionalist Australian Abo looking for a wife?
It goes for all....a traditionalist Australian Abo should be looking for a traditionalist Abo wife.
He might have a long walkabout
-
As for inter-racial marriage, it's not sinful, but I agree with others on this thread that people should generally stick to marrying someone their own race.
How does an individual take this advice, which is a generalisation and apply it to their specific choice or choices?,
A young Trad women, white, of 21 has two suitors who are clearly interested in her. One is a huge fit athletic black guy she is naturally very attracted to (looks like Denzel Washington in his prime) and the other an intellectual nerdy white guy with horn rim glasses who she likes because he has a weird sense of humor and can make her laugh.
Taking your general advice above, how does she apply it in order to reach a decision about whom she should marry? Does she use a ratings system and, if so, by what percentage/ratio or factor does she discount the merits of the black suitor because "generally" people should stick to marrying someone within their race?
Many young women of course are not in this situation of having two suitors at a time. They have to deal with one suitor at a time and might not have many offers of marriage. How long should a girl or guy wait before deciding to break the "generally" rule and date outside of their race?
I am not saying that someone should never marry outside of their race, or that it would be sinful to do so. Of course a Catholic white woman would be better off marrying someone of a different race who was Catholic than someone her same race who was not Catholic. That's a rare exception, however.
I simply think that, as a general rule, people should stick to marrying someone their own race.
I was asking how people would discern on the other rare exceptions to your general rule?
You avoided answering.
You did not mention religion in your example.
Religion always plays a role. If the black and white men are both non-Catholics or are Catholics in name only, she shouldn't marry either.
There's always the option of continuing to search.
An option many exercise.
-
I don't know what "Judaism" you mean, but all I meant was the type that is explained in the Torah (Old Testament), and was acceptable to Moses AND Jesus Christ. The current "Jєωs" may be something else entirely, and many are , frankly atheists! I never condoned that. Yet it is wrong to say that the people who followed the Old Testament were the "same" as Communists. To prove it, just read the Bible!
Communism was not around in the days of the Old Testament. Today's modern Zionists, however, support Communism.
Nobody should be attacked just because they have Jєωιѕн blood! Yet though I explained my conversion, I have , as predicted, gained new "critics."
I didn't attack anyone who has Jєωιѕн blood. It's the religion that I take issue with.
Just as I thought, I came back to find more "critics" and one "ignore," despite the fact that I have never: promoted Judaism, called anyone an "heretic," or written reams of angry attacks on others here. I have only brought some knowledge of things that foster Jєωιѕн conversion.
Servus, in case you are not the "ignore," I ask you if you have not accidentally fallen into "rash judgement?"
I am a conservative "Roman Catholic Christian." I agree there's a crisis in the Church, and that our morals have become debased. I try to follow this in my home and whenever possible at church. I've already affirmed that the Jєωs committed a great crime in failing to follow Jesus and killing Him(though NOT all did, for Mary was raised in Jєωιѕн/Hebraic customs, as were St. Anne, St. Joachim, ALL the Apostles... and so on). Because I've said something like "more bees are caught with honey than vinegar," I've been labeled every liberal thing in the book? That is the problem with racial hatreds. If my white son comes home with a modest Catholic Christian wife who is black, I would be content.
The thing I'm being hated for? Please tell me what is it, if not that some relatives happen to be Jєωs. The only Jєωs I personally know were elderly relations who read the Old Testament and still practiced the ancient customs-- not realizing that Jesus fulfilled them. One 93-year-old Jєωιѕн aunt had never been able to see a New Testament, but she was kind to me and my Catholic husband in a time of need. I tried to share with her, and she died listening to my tapes of Gregorian chant. Why not pray for her soul instead of pronouncing her "damned?" Are you certain God did not find a way to her? I don't know liberal Jєωs or Communist Jєωs. Aunt Ruth was no "Communist," however. I don't really know "any" Jєωs at this time.
Marx was a Lutheran, but seemed to hide Jєωιѕн blood because the "cause"(Communism) was anti-semetic, anti-Catholic, anti-Orthodox, anti-Protestant and anti-God generally. They would never encourage "religious Jєωs"(those who observe kosher foods, etc.) Stalin was an Eastern Orthodox. Do you know the number of schismatic Orthodox who were Communist? Do you say that the Orthodox Church in Russia was the same as Communism. In part, that would be accurate, because Secret Police infiltrated all the Orthodox churches in Russia, placing the "real" ones in prison. As for me, my parents were atheists, and disowned me over matters related to the Faith. Though one happened to have some "Jєωιѕн blood," she hated Judaica as well.
Is the Communist Manifesto similar to the Torah or even the тαℓмυd (which I have heard contains ancient things Catholic Christians could use to advantage? Does anyone know that Stalin had plans to exterminate the Jєωs also? All forms of extremism meet in hatred. One can go so far "Left" that they wind up as a "nαzι." The reverse is true as well. Without charity, we can go so far "Right" that we act like spying Communists. Why not balance things with charity?
-
Servus, in case you are not the "ignore," may I ask you if you have not accidentally fallen into "rash judgement?"
I was not the one who put you on ignore. As for rash judgement, where am I guilty of that?
I've been labeled every liberal thing in the book?
I didn't label you as anything. You may be confusing me with someone else.
That is the problem with racial hatreds. If my white son comes home with a modest Catholic Christian wife who is black, I would be content.
Faith should be put above race, but if I had a daughter (and I'm white, by the way) who only wanted to date, say, blacks, I wouldn't approve. It's not racial hatred.
Why not pray for her soul instead of pronouncing her "damned?" Are you certain God did not find a way to her?
I don't know where her soul ended up, that's for God to judge. It's not me who said all Jєωs were damned, however. It was Saint Fulgentius who said that, and it is, in fact, a Dogma of the Catholic Church that all souls who die outside of her aren't saved.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with praying for the soul of your aunt because you don't know for certain where her soul is.
I don't know liberal Jєωs or Communist Jєωs.
Perhaps not, but 72% of Jєωs did vote for Obama.
Is the Communist Manifesto similar to the Torah or even the тαℓмυd (which I have heard contains ancient things Catholic Christians could use to advantage? Does anyone know that Stalin had plans to exterminate the Jєωs also? All forms of extremism meet in hatred. One can go so far "Left" that they wind up as a "nαzι." The reverse is true as well. Without charity, we can go so far "Right" that we act like spying Communists. Why not balance things with charity?
There's nothing extreme about believing that Jєωs are enemies of Christ.
Sorry if you felt I was labeling you as anything. That was not my intent.
God Bless.
-
I missed a post where Sanctus said that I "seemed like a good soul," and so I sent a message to him that he seems to be attempting charity here. I'm sorry that I missed that post. I also applaud his explanation of his "intent." I will believe it.
-
There's nothing extreme about believing that Jєωs are enemies of Christ.
Jєωs are enemies of Christ, as are Muslims, Protestants, and people of all non-Catholic religions. But it IS extreme to believe this today. Our religion is extreme and this is a good thing because it is extreme truth.
-
I simply think that, as a general rule, people should stick to marrying someone their own race.
As a white european male I agree with this but only because most american trads are white. In this case its more like matthew said. Better to marry within the faith and outside the race than otside the faith and within the race. If it was reversed and whites were th minority of trads I would say th opposite
But if all things were equal I would definitely agree that a spouse of similar race would foster a lesss tumultuous marriage
From phone
Wanted to clarify this response, that if one could marry a trad of the same race and a trad of the other, I really don't think it would matter which they chose simply because trads, regardless of race, will have the same culture. In that case just marry the one that looks better and has more money. :smile:
-
You've obviously not met many Trad Philippinas Mith
I can assure you they have a very different culture to us.
-
You've obviously not met many Trad Philippinas Mith
I can assure you they have a very different culture to us.
How so?
By culture I was more referring to a moral culture. I am making the assumption that if the man and woman both come from practicing trad cat families, any cultural differences would be minor and would be more than cancelled out by the religious similarities.
-
Several of my friends are married to Philippina Trads.
There is normally a strong expectation that when you marry them you support the extended family back in the Phillippines too, to some degree or other. That is the way they role out there and how they live. If one family member has money they share with the group and their status in the group is a complex variable of how generously they share when compared with how rich they are supposed to be. Richness is a complex equation. It is not net income, or assets but a combination of many factors.
The individualism of our culture is seen as selfishness there and a lot of nasty gossip then goes on. Your wife could well be mocked in Tagalog and you would be none the wiser unless she told you, which she might not because of their shame/honour culture.
I don't mind it at all, I am very open minded. Some of my friends hate it, others accept it as part of the deal and one like me actually likes supporting and having the extended family closely associated with his life.
The important thing is to consider this going in and to be mature enough to know how you might react.
-
Fascinating.
Ggreg, were these friends aware of this cultural dynamic when they married their women?
Do Phillipina gals let their men know about this before they get married?
A part of me finds this very funny.
-
. . . But if all things were equal I would definitely agree that a spouse of similar race would foster a lesss tumultuous marriage
From phone
Wanted to clarify this response, that if one could marry a trad of the same race and a trad of the other, I really don't think it would matter which they chose simply because trads, regardless of race, will have the same culture. In that case just marry the one that looks better and has more money. :smile:[/quote]
So which is it? There was no need for clarification--both statements are clear. They simply assert two seemingly contradictory positions. If these two statements are not contradictory in your mind, then perhaps now clarification is in order.
-
I agree with the posters who've said that the question of how to encourage kids to marry within their own race is a kind of subset, if you will, of the question of how to encourage them to make the best possible choice for a spouse. And I think the way to do that is for both parents to make themselves the most perfect father/husband / mother/wife humanly and divinely possible so the kids will want someone just like them. I think we're already somewhat hardwired to choose someone like our opposite sex parent anyway, for better or for worse!
And I agree with others who've said it's probably not wise to mention race as far as choosing a spouse is concerned. If that strong desire that every child has when they're very young to make their parents happy isn't discouraged by the parents, that would probably do it, I think.
-
I know that some try to use the argument that we all come from Adam and Eve to promote race mixing, but overtime the human race did sort of branch off into separate races. I don't care what anyone says, this is how God intended it to be. It wasn't a random occurrence. God knew that would happen before it even happened. I'm pretty sure that God created it that way because thats what happened. Not to mention, God sort of created differences in mankind with the tower of babel incident. He wanted there to be differences in mankind for a reason. Thats why today we have different races and different languages. Why would he divide us up accordingly so that later on down the road we can become one race again? He didn't. He didn't intend for us to become one large race. He wanted us to remain different. After all, he was the very cause of us being different in the first place. Yeah race mixing is not a sin, but I don't think God intended race mixing to occur at high rates so that over time we would all become one race again. I think its ok from time to time, but not at mass levels that will eventually lead to Jєωιѕн domination and the destruction of nationalism. Race mixing is being used as a tool. Wake Up! People are fornicating because of easy access to something different. They get a thrill out of trying something new, and that they are.
People like Tiffany and Sigimund would not engage in such activity if there wasn't such easy access to it. They would be married to someone of their own kind right now if this country was 95% white.
One thing I'm getting angry about is Europe right now. I've been looking into the demographics of Germany, France, and England and things are getting out of hand. Minorities are taking them over as well. I think Jєωs are starting to take power there and thats why things are the way they are. I think Kate Middleton is a closet Jєω, and I also think the president of France is a damn Jєω.
-
God did not create different races.
You do realize that God's Creation is ongoing?
If God didn't create didn't races, he didn't create the people in them, and he didn't create you.
God surely has brought into existence different nations and peoples of different races. And for each of them he has had a role and a plan.
And His ongoing creation includes mixed-race people too.
Doe the people who down thumbed this post think that mixed race people are not part of God's ongoing creation. Are my children some sort of godless anomaly? Or do you just hate Clare so much that your automatically down thumb any post she makes?
-
Several of my friends are married to Philippina Trads.
There is normally a strong expectation that when you marry them you support the extended family back in the Phillippines too, to some degree or other. That is the way they role out there and how they live. If one family member has money they share with the group and their status in the group is a complex variable of how generously they share when compared with how rich they are supposed to be. Richness is a complex equation. It is not net income, or assets but a combination of many factors.
The individualism of our culture is seen as selfishness there and a lot of nasty gossip then goes on. Your wife could well be mocked in Tagalog and you would be none the wiser unless she told you, which she might not because of their shame/honour culture.
I don't mind it at all, I am very open minded. Some of my friends hate it, others accept it as part of the deal and one like me actually likes supporting and having the extended family closely associated with his life.
The important thing is to consider this going in and to be mature enough to know how you might react.
You just gave a perfect example of why marriage between two such diverse races with such different customs should not occur.
-
Oh yeah...please watch this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY7sICVGHWY
-
racially defective
There is no such thing as being racially defective. Perhaps St. Martin de Porres was "racially defective"?
Was St. Martin de Porres racially defective? It would be grat if some of the downthumbers would actually answer this question.
-
I find several of these ideas sickening and absolutely repugnant.
-
Fascinating.
Ggreg, were these friends aware of this cultural dynamic when they married their women?
Do Phillipina gals let their men know about this before they get married?
A part of me finds this very funny.
The Philippines actually has a partially Catholic culture. Like France, Italy, Ireland, Spain, even Quebec.
All of these sick ideas on race were brewed in the 1950s, WASP, Calvinist culture of the US.
-
I find several of these ideas sickening and absolutely repugnant.
why?
-
I find several of these ideas sickening and absolutely repugnant.
why?
Because this idea that "miscegenation" is "evil" is stupid, and non-Catholic. Judging a person entirely on the color of their skin, regardless of anything else, is a moron move.
Here on this Catholic forum, during the Holy Season of Lent, I am absolutely sickened that people would seriously entertain such ideas.
I know white trads, black trads, filipino trads, mexican trads, and vietnamese trads, and so on. It reflects quite well on our holy Faith, which is, being Catholic, a universal one.
I really find this quite laughable, and wonder if all these keyboard warriors have actually even dated a trad girl. If some white dude wants to tell me that if he liked a brown eyed, brown skinned devout trad but wouldn't even give her time of day just because it's "miscegenation," that's a joke, and you really need to examine your logic.
This sounds more like Klansman logic than anything remotely close to Catholicism.
Just take a looksie here: http://www.kkk.bz/a_core_belief_of_the_knights_is_.htm
-
Blacks and Hispanics, as a race, show less intelligence than whites and Asians. That is scientifically proven.
:roll-laugh1:
-
I see the discussion as being about trying to ensure our kids are as content as possible in their marriages. I don't see many people here claiming that their race or any other is superior. A few have said so but I don't think it's the majority by any means. And the few who've said so might be right. I've never studied the issue so I really don't know.
But I believe trads tent to think that women are less intelligent in general than men, so I don't really see why it would be problematic to say that maybe one race, the Jєωs for example, are intellectually superior to others. But I don't place a great deal of value on intellect anyway, since the devil is almost infinitely more intelligent than any of us.
-
Under Jim Crow, blacks had intact families, a much lower rate of crime, a generally more peaceful, more regular life.
That's not to say things were great. Obviously a lot of blacks were held back by blind hatred and that wasn't just. However, as a community, it seems likely they were better off.
What made things bad for minorities were the 1960s, Welfare State, and Great Society. Jim Crow was terrible.
-
The next time I see my mother, I need to tell her she needs to make reparations for her "sin" of "miscegenation." Never mind than man she married was the descendant of a true Catholic hero.
-
I see the discussion as being about trying to ensure our kids are as content as possible in their marriages. I don't see many people here claiming that their race or any other is superior. A few have said so but I don't think it's the majority by any means. And the few who've said so might be right. I've never studied the issue so I really don't know.
But I believe trads tent to think that women are less intelligent in general than men, so I don't really see why it would be problematic to say that maybe one race, the Jєωs for example, are intellectually superior to others. But I don't place a great deal of value on intellect anyway, since the devil is almost infinitely more intelligent than any of us.
Ensuring your kids are happy as possible means helping them find good Catholics to marry. Not good leave it to beaver, little house on the prairie types.
I find all of this truly unbelievable.
Oh no, miscegenation!!!!
-
And His ongoing creation includes mixed-race people too.
Yes, and babies conceived in rape, and the mentally retarded, those with severe birth defects.
They are all part of God's Creation.
Now, your point is?
You cannot equate mixed race children conceived in Holy Matrimony with children conceived because of the crime of rape.
Think about what you're saying.
-
I find several of these ideas sickening and absolutely repugnant.
why?
Because this idea that "miscegenation" is "evil" is stupid, and non-Catholic. Judging a person entirely on the color of their skin, regardless of anything else, is a moron move.
Here on this Catholic forum, during the Holy Season of Lent, I am absolutely sickened that people would seriously entertain such ideas.
I know white trads, black trads, filipino trads, mexican trads, and vietnamese trads, and so on. It reflects quite well on our holy Faith, which is, being Catholic, a universal one.
I really find this quite laughable, and wonder if all these keyboard warriors have actually even dated a trad girl. If some white dude wants to tell me that if he liked a brown eyed, brown skinned devout trad but wouldn't even give her time of day just because it's "miscegenation," that's a joke, and you really need to examine your logic.
This sounds more like Klansman logic than anything remotely close to Catholicism.
Just take a looksie here: http://www.kkk.bz/a_core_belief_of_the_knights_is_.htm
The main issue here is the rate at which interracial relationships are occurring. It is dangerous. You are aware of the Jєωιѕн agenda are you not?
"We must realize that our party's most powerful weapon is racial tension. By pounding into the consciousness of the dark races, that for centuries they have been oppressed by whites, we can mold them into the program of the Communist Party. In America, we aim for several victories. While inflaming the Negro minorities against the whites, we will instill in the whites a guilt complex for their supposed exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Blacks to rise to prominence in every walk of life and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige,, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and will begin the process which will deliver America to our cause." (Jєωιѕн Playwright Israel Cohen, A Radical Program For The Twentieth Century. Also entered into the Congressional Record on June 7, 1957, by Rep. Thomas Abernathy).
If anything, the law should encourage, not forbid, the intermingling of bloods...But legislation cannot change the human heart. The only way we can accomplish that, the only we can achieve a Final Solution to racial prejudice, is to create a m‚lange of races so universal that no one can preen himself on his racial 'purity' or practice the barbarism to safeguard it.
The deliberate encouragement of interracial marriages is the only way to hasten this process. And it may be that time is growing short. The dominance of our world has begun to shift, like cargo in a listing vessel, from the White races to the colored. The sooner we adjust to this fact, the better it will be for our children. For we might well acknowledge, even the most enlightened of us, that we will never completely eliminate racial prejudice until we eliminate separate races."
(Rabbi Abraham L. Feinberg, Maclean's Magazine, September 5, 1967).
Why would you not take some sort of stance against race mixing after reading this? I'm not saying to go around splitting interracial couples up, but rather take the indirect approach by sending home illegal immigrants. Rebalance the demographics of this country and make white people 80% of the population once again. Race Mixing would not occur at such mass levels...The Jєωs would not accomplish what they are trying to do.
-
The next time I see my mother, I need to tell her she needs to make reparations for her "sin" of "miscegenation." Never mind than man she married was the descendant of a true Catholic hero.
Oh now I see why are you are so pro miscegenation. You don't have a solid ethnic identity. You don't know what it is like to be racially pure. You don't have anything to lose. You would rather everyone be like you.
-
The next time I see my mother, I need to tell her she needs to make reparations for her "sin" of "miscegenation." Never mind than man she married was the descendant of a true Catholic hero.
Oh now I see why are you are so pro miscegenation. You don't have a solid ethnic identity. You don't know what it is like to be racially pure. You don't have anything to lose. You would rather everyone be like you.
I'm not encouraging or discouraging it. If two trads fall in love and want it to work, then God help them.
You do not know anything about me. So, before you talk about racial "purity," or my apparent lack of identity, remember that.
God bless you.
-
The next time I see my mother, I need to tell her she needs to make reparations for her "sin" of "miscegenation." Never mind than man she married was the descendant of a true Catholic hero.
Oh now I see why are you are so pro miscegenation. You don't have a solid ethnic identity. You don't know what it is like to be racially pure. You don't have anything to lose. You would rather everyone be like you.
I'm not encouraging or discouraging it. If two trads fall in love and want it to work, then God help them.
You do not know anything about me. So, before you talk about racial "purity," or my apparent lack of identity, remember that.
God bless you.
You just said that you were a product of miscegenation. Thats all I needed to know.
-
I find
The main issue here is the rate at which interracial relationships are occurring. It is dangerous. You are aware of the Jєωιѕн agenda are you not?
"We must realize that our party's most powerful weapon is racial tension. By pounding into the consciousness of the dark races, that for centuries they have been oppressed by whites, we can mold them into the program of the Communist Party. In America, we aim for several victories. While inflaming the Negro minorities against the whites, we will instill in the whites a guilt complex for their supposed exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Blacks to rise to prominence in every walk of life and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige,, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and will begin the process which will deliver America to our cause." (Jєωιѕн Playwright Israel Cohen, A Radical Program For The Twentieth Century. Also entered into the Congressional Record on June 7, 1957, by Rep. Thomas Abernathy).
If anything, the law should encourage, not forbid, the intermingling of bloods...But legislation cannot change the human heart. The only way we can accomplish that, the only we can achieve a Final Solution to racial prejudice, is to create a m‚lange of races so universal that no one can preen himself on his racial 'purity' or practice the barbarism to safeguard it.
The deliberate encouragement of interracial marriages is the only way to hasten this process. And it may be that time is growing short. The dominance of our world has begun to shift, like cargo in a listing vessel, from the White races to the colored. The sooner we adjust to this fact, the better it will be for our children. For we might well acknowledge, even the most enlightened of us, that we will never completely eliminate racial prejudice until we eliminate separate races."
(Rabbi Abraham L. Feinberg, Maclean's Magazine, September 5, 1967).
Why would you not take some sort of stance against race mixing after reading this? I'm not saying to go around splitting interracial couples up, but rather take the indirect approach by sending home illegal immigrants. Rebalance the demographics of this country and make white people 80% of the population once again. Race Mixing would not occur at such mass levels...The Jєωs would not accomplish what they are trying to do.
Those quotes have to deal with reds trying to use interracial marriages to promote communism.
A black trad marrying a white trad doesn't do that.
-
The next time I see my mother, I need to tell her she needs to make reparations for her "sin" of "miscegenation." Never mind than man she married was the descendant of a true Catholic hero.
Oh now I see why are you are so pro miscegenation. You don't have a solid ethnic identity. You don't know what it is like to be racially pure. You don't have anything to lose. You would rather everyone be like you.
I'm not encouraging or discouraging it. If two trads fall in love and want it to work, then God help them.
You do not know anything about me. So, before you talk about racial "purity," or my apparent lack of identity, remember that.
God bless you.
You just said that you were a product of miscegenation. Thats all I needed to know.
Am I the result of an "evil act?" Will I ever measure up as a "pure" man. The last time I checked, I thought purity of heart and purity of the soul were the most important. Not something you are trying to pass off as good.
-
The next time I see my mother, I need to tell her she needs to make reparations for her "sin" of "miscegenation." Never mind than man she married was the descendant of a true Catholic hero.
Oh now I see why are you are so pro miscegenation. You don't have a solid ethnic identity. You don't know what it is like to be racially pure. You don't have anything to lose. You would rather everyone be like you.
I'm not encouraging or discouraging it. If two trads fall in love and want it to work, then God help them.
You do not know anything about me. So, before you talk about racial "purity," or my apparent lack of identity, remember that.
God bless you.
You just said that you were a product of miscegenation. Thats all I needed to know.
Am I the result of an "evil act?" Will I ever measure up as a "pure" man. The last time I checked, I thought purity of heart and purity of the soul were the most important. Not something you are trying to pass off as good.
I never said it is an evil act. I just believe that it is happening at dangerously high levels. That is my stance.
Yes, spiritually you are the same as everyone else.
-
The blacks, spics, mutalatos, coons, darkies, pickaninnies, kikes and even tomahonkeys can, in fact, rest easy the world over and not worry about these fringe people with their fringe ideas.
The blacks, spics, kikes, etc., are probably more racist than “these fringe people”. I watched an interview of Mohammed Ali on Firing Line. He was an extremely racist fellow, who believed, like the rest of the influential Nation of Islam, that whites are evil. He even defended violent black nationalist revolution. And I dare you to claim that’s not a common sentiment among American and British blacks. So while they can perhaps rest easy, can we?
I would probably agree that there is a shift in the bell curve for an entire population, but nobody is marrying a population.
In a way that’s exactly what they’re doing. Certainly not in a sacramental sense, but in a practical sense. You illustrated this yourself, with the example of the Philippina. Through her, the white husband is tying himself to her family, and extended family, who are tied, through blood, marriage, and culture, to an entire population. So a white who marries a black is, in a similar way, effectively tying himself or herself to blacks as a group. Is this wise? Generally, no.
I am of the opinion that people should be free to make their own decisions in life.
Please elaborate, this is a liberal opinion.
These people who can’t understand the value that race and culture have, who argue that we’re all human individuals, that marriage is a contract between human individuals, are basically liberals anyway. They may adhere to the Church’s moral doctrine, yes, but they aren’t seeing how the understanding of this doctrine, natural and supernatural, has deteriorated through centuries of humanism, individualism, egalitarianism, and decades of multiculturalism.
-
The next time I see my mother, I need to tell her she needs to make reparations for her "sin" of "miscegenation." Never mind than man she married was the descendant of a true Catholic hero.
Oh now I see why are you are so pro miscegenation. You don't have a solid ethnic identity. You don't know what it is like to be racially pure. You don't have anything to lose. You would rather everyone be like you.
I'm not encouraging or discouraging it. If two trads fall in love and want it to work, then God help them.
You do not know anything about me. So, before you talk about racial "purity," or my apparent lack of identity, remember that.
God bless you.
You just said that you were a product of miscegenation. Thats all I needed to know.
Am I the result of an "evil act?" Will I ever measure up as a "pure" man. The last time I checked, I thought purity of heart and purity of the soul were the most important. Not something you are trying to pass off as good.
I never said it is an evil act. I just believe that it is happening at dangerously high levels. That is my stance.
Yes, spiritually you are the same as everyone else.
Thank you for the clarification.
Now, lets limit our discussion to trads, not secular people. What is so dangerous about it for trads?
If a Frenchman marries a Filipina, both devout trads, what's wrong?
-
The next time I see my mother, I need to tell her she needs to make reparations for her "sin" of "miscegenation." Never mind than man she married was the descendant of a true Catholic hero.
Oh now I see why are you are so pro miscegenation. You don't have a solid ethnic identity. You don't know what it is like to be racially pure. You don't have anything to lose. You would rather everyone be like you.
I'm not encouraging or discouraging it. If two trads fall in love and want it to work, then God help them.
You do not know anything about me. So, before you talk about racial "purity," or my apparent lack of identity, remember that.
God bless you.
You just said that you were a product of miscegenation. Thats all I needed to know.
Am I the result of an "evil act?" Will I ever measure up as a "pure" man. The last time I checked, I thought purity of heart and purity of the soul were the most important. Not something you are trying to pass off as good.
I never said it is an evil act. I just believe that it is happening at dangerously high levels. That is my stance.
Yes, spiritually you are the same as everyone else.
Thank you for the clarification.
Now, lets limit our discussion to trads, not secular people. What is so dangerous about it for trads?
If a Frenchman marries a Filipina, both devout trads, what's wrong?
Personally I don't see any difference between Catholics doing it and secular people doing it. It still contributes to the overall effect of races intermingling which leads to one race. At which point, the Jєωs will have accomplished their goals.
Honestly, that is just one of the reasons why I am against though. I wouldn't like it even if I didn't know anything about the Jєωιѕн agenda.
-
It seems like common sense to me: marry somebody of the same ancestry as your father. Carry on his line. If you need a religious reason for that, the only one that immediately comes to my mind is "honor your father and mother." But again, I think this would have been extremely obvious to, for example, roman sensibilities in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 8th century. I don't know why it would be progress to outgrow that. Although, it does seem to smack of the old protestant disconnect between the physical and the spiritual. That is the erroneous idea that morality is confined to the realm of a far away spiritual world and the muddy world of the physical must be governed by its own gritty laws. I think the two must be connected and catholicism demonstrates that connection profoundly, every time catholics celebrate the mass. So, maintaining the purity of your ancestral line, i think, physically manifests what i hope is a deep reverence for your parents, in particular your father's line, and their ancestors. I can't see how that is not the same sensibilities that catholics have traditionally held for nearly all of catholic history.
-
It seems like common sense to me: marry somebody of the same ancestry as your father. Carry on his line. If you need a religious reason for that, the only one that immediately comes to my mind is "honor your father and mother." But again, I think this would have been extremely obvious to, for example, roman sensibilities in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 8th century. I don't know why it would be progress to outgrow that. Although, it does seem to smack of the old protestant disconnect between the physical and the spiritual. That is the erroneous idea that morality is confined to the realm of a far away spiritual world and the muddy world of the physical must be governed by its own gritty laws. I think the two must be connected and catholicism demonstrates that connection profoundly, every time catholics celebrate the mass. So, maintaining the purity of your ancestral line, i think, physically manifests what i hope is a deep reverence for your parents, in particular your father's line, and their ancestors. I can't see how that is not the same sensibilities that catholics have traditionally held for nearly all of catholic history.
What if you are a convert from Judaism, and your father's 'line' is full of Zionist, Catholic hating usurers? That aside, I don't know that honoring thy father and mother generally applies to marriage between two traditional Catholic adults. I would think that, in these times where it's hard enough to find a practicing Catholic (period) much less someone who holds to the faith of our fathers that any sane trad parent would take great exception to their child marrying a trad of a different ethnic background.
And then, what further obligations does this couple have to their parents, once they're married? Do the grandparents pick the names of the children the couple has? Do they decide where the couple lives? What job the husband has? This sounds like that awful Raymond show, trad-cat style.
IMO, making sure your kid is marrying a responsible and moral trad Catholic is about as far as the parent ought to go, and doing so is about the extent of a trad Catholic's responsibility to honoring his parents-- though it's primarily an issue of honoring God.
-
No doubt, we live in desperate times and we must all do the best we can. I think the west has lost touch with patriarchy. A last name means a lot, yet without any concern for the line it would be sort of "rootless." I think that's become the modern ideal, driven by our "internationalist" minded elites, who seem to not care about communities.
-
How to prevent ... without leadership from traditionally moral governmental authority. etc.
... the trainwreck of destruction and ills that are from liberalism and world communism?
... total social collapse and breakdown?
No issue is completely isolated. Neither is this one. It's related to a larger pyramid scheme of demise. How to prevent a malignant pyramid scheme from crashing down on your house?
Marxism and Hell drag people down into it. Marx used to write stuff about dragging others down into Hell with him. So it goes for many poor souls.
Cortes said "prevenir antes ser prevenido". Check the largeness and probability of the opinions of anyone like Cortes or Cervantes or Don Quijote about this subject. It seems obvious to me they would all be politically incorrect in today's "USA".
Nobody thinks these three fellows were "racist"?
Liberalism and world communism are designed to make things backwards and turn the world upside down, including the the thought patterns inside your head.
"That's racism"!
-
I simply think that, as a general rule, people should stick to marrying someone their own race.
. . .
But if all things were equal I would definitely agree that a spouse of similar race would foster a lesss tumultuous marriage
From phone
Wanted to clarify this response, that if one could marry a trad of the same race and a trad of the other, I really don't think it would matter which they chose simply because trads, regardless of race, will have the same culture. In that case just marry the one that looks better and has more money. :smile:
So which is it? There was no need for clarification--both statements are clear. They simply assert two seemingly contradictory positions. If these two statements are not contradictory in your mind, then perhaps now clarification is in order.
-
Several of my friends are married to Philippina Trads.
There is normally a strong expectation that when you marry them you support the extended family back in the Phillippines too, to some degree or other. That is the way they role out there and how they live. If one family member has money they share with the group and their status in the group is a complex variable of how generously they share when compared with how rich they are supposed to be. Richness is a complex equation. It is not net income, or assets but a combination of many factors.
The individualism of our culture is seen as selfishness there and a lot of nasty gossip then goes on. Your wife could well be mocked in Tagalog and you would be none the wiser unless she told you, which she might not because of their shame/honour culture.
I don't mind it at all, I am very open minded. Some of my friends hate it, others accept it as part of the deal and one like me actually likes supporting and having the extended family closely associated with his life.
The important thing is to consider this going in and to be mature enough to know how you might react.
You just gave a perfect example of why marriage between two such diverse races with such different customs should not occur.
To you maybe it is the perfect example of why a marriage should not occur. To me it is just an example.
They are all still married and have 4, 6 and 6 children. So they must be doing something right.
Perhaps this is one aspect to the marriage that people have to cope with. Another aspect might be that these Philippina women often stay sɛҳuąƖly attractive for 20 years longer than their western counterparts and don't expect their husband to change half the diapers and wash half the dishes.
A lot of men would gladly trade that for 6 hours of overtime per week.
I.e. It is a choice, like any other choice.
-
Do Phillipina gals let their men know about this before they get married?
It's no secret, if that is what you mean. I have known about it for 17 years and I have never even dated a woman from the Philippines.
Would you date a Russian chick and be surprised that her Dad liked Vodka and wanted to hug you everytime you met?
-
Would you date a Russian chick and be surprised that her Dad liked Vodka and wanted to hug you everytime you met?
Does he wrestle bears too?
I think we've covered just about all the Russian stereotypes there :laugh1:
Seriously, though, I've said many times that stereotypes would die a quick death if there were no element of truth to them.
-
I lived there for two years. Let me assure you that Vodka drinking men who like to hug when they meet is not uncommon in Russia.
In fact, I have never met a middle aged father of a family who wasn't like this.
First time I went there in 1993 I dropped my suitcase on the floor and heard the chink chink of glasses in the Soviet kitchen. We finished a pint of Vodka between the two of us, while the ladies made lunch.
-
This thread is a rat's nest of innuendo and confusion.
racially defective
There is no such thing as being racially defective. Perhaps St. Martin de Porres was "racially defective"?
Was St. Martin de Porres racially defective? It would be grat if some of the downthumbers would actually answer this question.
Without having any way of knowing where a quote came from, there is no way
of checking to see what the missing information is, so if one has not been reading
the whole messy lot of thousands of posts, you will never be able to drop in
and see what's going on.
It's a shortcoming of the entire forum, really, because each quote does not
reference the source automatically as some other platforms do.
Who said "racially defective?" Here is a quote of brainglitch quoting a mystery
member, and there is no easy way to find out who it was. It could have been
10, 100 or 311 posts previous to this one.
Source (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=23228&min=289&num=20)
E.g., it took me 26 mouse clicks to add that Source link, above. Who's going to
go to that trouble? I've yet to see even ONE post on this forum that does so
that was not written by ME.
This inherent shortcoming only serves to promote the interests of nutter-trolls
like ggreg.
-
Neil, Donachie didn't mean that certain races were defective, he meant that Ellen Degeneres was a degenerate example of her race. However, I generally don't try to parse Donachie.
God in Providence created nations, peoples and races. And so there is a natural advantage in their cohesion, that different kinds of people have different kinds of collective attributes that they preserve by remaining with their own kind.
Now before I noticed that I made a post that might confuse some people.
Someone before denied that God created races, an almost Deist view.
I pointed out that was absurd, and the response was that "God creates mixed race people"
Which is certainly true - but it has nothing to do with whether or not there are not the divisions of the races serve a God-given purpose. It is a vacuous statement. When I mentioned that there are some conceived in rape or incest or born with very grave genetic or congenital problems, etc, I never once said that race-mixing was equivalent to those things, nor meant to suggest it. I was making the point to Clare, that just because things are allowed by God's permissive will does not mean we should desire them. We will accept an illegitimate child, that doesn't mean we desire illegitimacy, or that unwed motherhood is natural (in the social order that exists by natural law). Yes, God makes a woman an unwed mother when she conceives a child. Yet that doesn't mean then that God ordains illegitimacy as a preference we should have.
When people marry, they do so for good reasons or for bad reasons, or perhaps a combination of both.
I think that very, very few people marry without some concern for the genetic compatibility of their partner. If someone is intelligent, to marry someone unintelligent, to very likely then have unintelligent children one can't relate to, does that makes sense?
God gives people aesthetic appreciation of beauty to help them make the right choice in a spouse. And in fact there is little doubt in my mind that part of that sense of beauty, is racially specific. While there seem to be objective attributes in the nature of beauty, there are no doubt some variations that are a matter of preference.
Now this desire can also be disordered by concupiscence. So a woman might be attracted to an athletic frame or a deep voice, in a way that disregards the higher faculties. Indeed, women seem to have a love of beautiful animals that elevates their bestial characteristics to a higher level than they ought to be raised.
Should we consider it perfectly "natural" (in accord with what should be preferred by nature) if a white woman is attracted to a fellow like Mike Tyson? Or to a serial killer like Joran Van Der Sloot, because he's a killer?
We have to recognize that people are often attracted for wrong or distorted reasons. And there is little doubt that interracial attraction very often fits such a pattern.
It's not that I don't like mixed race children, anymore than I would not like a bastard child, or a slow child, etc. It's a matter of what it is natural and just to prefer. In saying this in no way am I saying that illegitimacy is the same as being mixed race. I'm saying that the preservation of race, especially among whites, is a good thing.
The President of the USA was born by a white mother, raised by white grandparents, yet clearly identifies with racist blacks like the Rev. Wright.
He was also abandoned by the father. I'm guessing that that sort of thing is quite common, even though it probably isn't talked about that much.
-
Dr David Allen White (Recorded class on Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice" at the Winona seminary):
"If I looked out my window, I would not expect to see a bluejay mating with a robin, because like tends to stick with like."
-
The next time I see my mother, I need to tell her she needs to make reparations for her "sin" of "miscegenation." Never mind than man she married was the descendant of a true Catholic hero.
Oh now I see why are you are so pro miscegenation. You don't have a solid ethnic identity. You don't know what it is like to be racially pure. You don't have anything to lose. You would rather everyone be like you.
:roll-laugh1:
For an American to be talking about racial purity.....hahahaha. That's a good one. Even white Americans are a mixture of every European ethnicity under the sun. Most don't even know all of the diverse parts that constitute their ancestry, unless they are one of the few whose families married exclusively within their own ethnic group. Not to mention that a lot of "white" Americans are part Native American and even a little black.
Am I to understand that the Catholic understanding of race, based on this thread, is that:
Miscegenation is always bad,
Black people, American Indians, etc., are all intrinsically inferior to white people,
Mixed race people are inferior, stupid, etc.
I suppose it would just kill you to venerate "racially defective" dark-skinned saints like St. Martin de Porres, or martyrs like Charles Lwanga?
The white race has been responsible for more deaths and more suffering than any other in the history of the world. Were the nαzιs black? The Communists? The English? The Americans who exterminated millions of Native Americans? (Oh I forgot, those deaths don't count because those people are racially defective.)
Do we have to defrock all of the non-white priests, because they're
racially defective? Or perhaps we can grant divorces to mixed-race trad couples. After all, the darker-skinned half of that marriage is racially defective. Don't you people see where this kind of crap that you're spewing leads to?
Before anyone accuses me of being a crypto-Jєω or a "colored person", I'll have you know that I'm lily-white, my genealogy goes back 20 generations on my father's side, and my mother's family has been in the US since New York was New Amsterdam. So I don't have personal stake in defending the fact that darker skinned people are NOT intrinsically inferior to whites.
-
God did not create different races.
You do realize that God's Creation is ongoing?
If God didn't create didn't races, he didn't create the people in them, and he didn't create you.
God surely has brought into existence different nations and peoples of different races. And for each of them he has had a role and a plan.
And His ongoing creation includes mixed-race people too.
Doe the people who down thumbed this post think that mixed race people are not part of God's ongoing creation. Are my children some sort of godless anomaly? Or do you just hate Clare so much that your automatically down thumb any post she makes?
Some of the posters here have made it very clear that they do not believe that non-whites are worthy of the same human dignity as white people. So they no doubt believe that your children are an "anomaly".
-
Even white Americans are a mixture of every European ethnicity under the sun
And if they go to China or Black Africa, they are whites. They stand out. As whites. Because they're white.
Pretending that the differences between European ethnicities are equivalent to the differences between races is moronic sophistry.
-
Some of the posters here have made it very clear that they do not believe that non-whites are worthy of the same human dignity as white people. So they no doubt believe that your children are an "anomaly".
No, it's thumbed down because it's a typical non sequitur by Clare.
I've noticed that critical thinking is not your strong point.
-
Some of the posters here have made it very clear that they do not believe that non-whites are worthy of the same human dignity as white people. So they no doubt believe that your children are an "anomaly".
No, it's thumbed down because it's a typical non sequitur by Clare.
I've noticed that critical thinking is not your strong point.
And I have noticed that you are incapable of argumentation without ad hominems. :smile:
-
And I have noticed that you are incapable of argumentation without ad hominems. :smile:
It's impossible to argue with stupid people.
-
Statistically speaking, race mixing is a non-issue even with the non-stop propaganda. Over 90 percent don't marry out of their own people. I talked to a black colleague and he stated that more black women marry white men than the reverse. Upper class and intelligent black women have very few choices within their respective communities. He was speaking about blacks in the US. I believe that I read that the most prominent intermarriage for US white men is with Asian women. I read an article from the perspective of a Korean woman and she stated Korean husbands are not as "emotional" as white us husbands. In her perspective, white American men were more willing to spend quality time with their wives and children than Korean men. Obviously the article was biased and anecdotal, but I believe their was probably some truth to her perspective. I have great respect for the Korean people as they are a martial race and seem to straddle the divide between the vices of the Japanese and the Chinese.
-
Sedetrad is right.
Interracial marriages may seem to be 70% of the marriage if you go off the nonsensical TV commercials so the propaganda is hard at work but the stats don't lie.
-
I have never received an apology over the insinuation and damaging allegation that I support eugenics. The moderating staff didn't do much either.
-
[Race mixing] still contributes to the overall effect of races intermingling which leads to one race. At which point, the Jєωs will have accomplished their goals.
1. Once the lot of us are in heaven, why does this matter? How can mixed race people matter once they are in eternity?
2. Why do you agree with the Jєωs? That is, why do you agree with the Jєωs that they can win if they race-mix people?
-
Dr David Allen White (Recorded class on Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice" at the Winona seminary):
"If I looked out my window, I would not expect to see a bluejay mating with a robin, because like tends to stick with like."
But blue jays and robins are different species (which means they cannot reproduce).
-
[Race mixing] still contributes to the overall effect of races intermingling which leads to one race. At which point, the Jєωs will have accomplished their goals.
1. Once the lot of us are in heaven, why does this matter? How can mixed race people matter once they are in eternity?
2. Why do you agree with the Jєωs? That is, why do you agree with the Jєωs that they can win if they race-mix people?
Money talks, and that is what they have a lot of control over thats why.
-
Tiffany, if you're Catholic, and raised in a church, you aren't Jєωιѕн anymore.
You aren't religiously Jєωιѕн, but you are still ethnically Jєωιѕн. Being Jєωιѕн is also an ethnicity.
While it CAN be an "ethnicity," it often just happens that one gets a Jєωιѕн relative or two, and learns about it later. Jєωιѕн "Law" dictates that if the mother is Jєωιѕн, the child is. But why should that be held by Catholics? Culturally, I know about Judaism, but never had the "Basmitsva" or all that stuff.
Funny how "Jєωιѕн blood" doesn't seem to carry wealth to a LOT of folks! :cheers:
-
Tiffany is Jєωιѕн?
-
How rich! How funny that I ask two questions, and they get a thumbs down! As if the questions themselves are someone's bane! Lol!
Not even statements! I find this highly amusing.
[Race mixing] still contributes to the overall effect of races intermingling which leads to one race. At which point, the Jєωs will have accomplished their goals.
1. Once the lot of us are in heaven, why does this matter? How can mixed race people matter once they are in eternity?
2. Why do you agree with the Jєωs? That is, why do you agree with the Jєωs that they can win if they race-mix people?
Money talks, and that is what they have a lot of control over thats why.
That is no answer to my two questions.
If I did accept your answer, it would be silly.
In regards to question one, money has no place in Heaven. You don't take currency with you when you die. Also, people lose control over anything in this world once they die.
Does a mixed race person have difficulty in Heaven? Do they just cease to exist because they are soulless? Do they become demons and help Satan in Hell?
1. What does it matter if mixed race people are with God in eternity?
2. Why do you agree with Judaics? I don't. Most of us don't. Their philosophy is very wrong. Why agree with them?
-
The white race is going to die out thanks to the "no such thing as race" thinking of people such as on this site.
-
What are you trying to say, Laramie?
-
While it CAN be an "ethnicity...:"
It IS an ethnicity....
-
The OP isn't talking about Heaven or the spiritual status of non-whites so let's stick to the topic.
The topic is how to prevent race-mixing.
-
I have never received an apology over the insinuation and damaging allegation that I support eugenics. The moderating staff didn't do much either.
I wouldn't worry about it. You're never going to get one from the liberals on this thread. To people such as this you're going to be the evil nαzι, racist, and bigot.
-
I have never received an apology over the insinuation and damaging allegation that I support eugenics. The moderating staff didn't do much either.
I wouldn't worry about it. You're never going to get one from the liberals on this thread. To people such as this you're going to be the evil nαzι, racist, and bigot.
Trad Guy, two wrongs don't make a right - although you are right about race baiters and their lack of self-reflection but don't insult the people who insulted John, that's sinking to their level.
John Grace, who was it that made those insinuations against you?
-
I would really like the logic explained here.....
as Catholics we believe that all humans are descended from two people... Adam and Eve. This is now even verifiable by DNA research, from what I understand.
Obviously Adam and Eve could not have been straight-up caucasion, right? (who ever was 100% of any race, ever, really?) They would have had to display characteristics that can be found throughout the ethnic spectrum.
Isn't it common assumption that life began in the northern African/ Middle Eastern area of the world? Are not "darker" traits dominant? If so, they probably would have not looked like the Swiss Miss girl.
My point is that, are we not all mixed to some degree because of our common heritage? So where is this race- mixing phobia coming from, other than from a concern for cultural harmony within a marriage? There are different cultures within an ethnic category, so shouldn't the concern be cultural & theological differences rather than racial/ ethnic?
I do not need a bit-by-bit breakdown full of insults as a reply, either. I haven't been around long enough to garner any protection or defense on this forum! I honestly would like an explanation.
-
Trad Guy, two wrongs don't make a right. Don't insult the people who insulted John, that's sinking to their level.
Nonsense I have no problems insulting the people who disagree with me politically, since their ideas are very harmful.
-
I would really like the logic explained here.....
as Catholics we believe that all humans are descended from two people... Adam and Eve. This is now even verifiable by DNA research, from what I understand.
Obviously Adam and Eve could not have been straight-up caucasion, right? (who ever was 100% of any race, ever, really?) They would have had to display characteristics that can be found throughout the ethnic spectrum.
Isn't it common assumption that life began in the northern African/ Middle Eastern area of the world? Are not "darker" traits dominant? If so, they probably would have not looked like the Swiss Miss girl.
My point is that, are we not all mixed to some degree because of our common heritage? So where is this race- mixing phobia coming from, other than from a concern for cultural harmony within a marriage? There are different cultures within an ethnic category, so shouldn't the concern be cultural & theological differences rather than racial/ ethnic?
I do not need a bit-by-bit breakdown full of insults as a reply, either. I haven't been around long enough to garner any protection or defense on this forum! I honestly would like an explanation.
Then please ask for an explanation.
What are you asking of us anyway?
If all races are "pretty similar" then why is there such a wide divergence of achievement among the races?
-
I would really like the logic explained here.....
as Catholics we believe that all humans are descended from two people... Adam and Eve. This is now even verifiable by DNA research, from what I understand.
Obviously Adam and Eve could not have been straight-up caucasion, right? (who ever was 100% of any race, ever, really?) They would have had to display characteristics that can be found throughout the ethnic spectrum.
Isn't it common assumption that life began in the northern African/ Middle Eastern area of the world? Are not "darker" traits dominant? If so, they probably would have not looked like the Swiss Miss girl.
My point is that, are we not all mixed to some degree because of our common heritage? So where is this race- mixing phobia coming from, other than from a concern for cultural harmony within a marriage? There are different cultures within an ethnic category, so shouldn't the concern be cultural & theological differences rather than racial/ ethnic?
I do not need a bit-by-bit breakdown full of insults as a reply, either. I haven't been around long enough to garner any protection or defense on this forum! I honestly would like an explanation.
Then please ask for an explanation.
What are you asking of us anyway?
If all races are "pretty similar" then why is there such a wide divergence of achievement among the races?
I am asking where the issue with race-mixing is coming from other than from a culture-difference concern? If those who are against race-mixing are against it because of an achievement divergence, I am interested in hearing more about that.
-
I am asking where the issue with race-mixing is coming from other than from a culture-difference concern? If those who are against race-mixing are against it because of an achievement divergence, I am interested in hearing more about that.
The different races deserve to be preserved and that includes the white race as well.
Also if you read The Bell Curve it shows that Blacks and Hispanics show lower intelligence than whites and Asians (even though Asians in America are usually liberal).
-
What are you trying to say, Laramie?
I'm not trying to make any kind of a statement. The depth lies in the two questions I asked ONLY.
The OP isn't talking about Heaven or the spiritual status of non-whites so let's stick to the topic.
The topic is how to prevent race-mixing.
Not about Heaven or the spiritual status of non-whites?
This is a strange statement to me. Because I thought that here, at Cathinfo, a website for Catholics, we would be examining the topics of the world THROUGH THE LENS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, GOD'S GIFT TO US ALL.
If you want me to make a statment, you can check my past messages on anti-miscegenation threads. I've spoken ad nauseum about this crap, that there's plenty of material to look at to see where I stand. Obviously, I disagree with the entire premise of InfiniteFaith--that one should avoid race-mixing at all. And obviously I think that it is the soul and spiritual growth of a person that matters, not their race. That's just where I'm coming from, and you all know it. It is a given.
Why would InfiniteFaith come to a Catholic forum and ask this unCatholic question, if it were not to get answers through the Catholic lens?
- - - -
My ultimate recommendation? If InfinteFaith wants to know how to avoid race-mixing, and further enrich his racial-supremacist views, he ought to go to prothink.org, or www.kkk.com.
Plenty of information on those two sites alone that would give him all of the temporal world-based answers he wants.
...unless he's just trying to goad Cathinfo members for a long silly thread, that is. But who am I to make that accusation?
-
I am asking where the issue with race-mixing is coming from other than from a culture-difference concern? If those who are against race-mixing are against it because of an achievement divergence, I am interested in hearing more about that.
The different races deserve to be preserved and that includes the white race as well.
Also if you read The Bell Curve it shows that Blacks and Hispanics show lower intelligence than whites and Asians (even though Asians in America are usually liberal).
I will look into that, it will be interesting to see what the research was.....I always assumed that similar cultures would produce similar results, regardless of race.
Do we need to protect races, or cultures? Or both? They aren't always tied together.
Also, what race would you label a Native American? Speaking of preservation....
-
If InfinteFaith wants to know how to avoid race-mixing, and further enrich his racial-supremacist views, he ought to go to prothink.org, or www.kkk.com.
Calling people KKK members is what liberals do.
-
26 For see your vocation, brethren, that there are not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble: 27 But the foolish things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the wise; and the weak things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the strong. 28 And the base things of the world, and the things that are contemptible, hath God chosen, and things that are not, that he might bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his sight. 30 But of him are you in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and justice, and sanctification, and redemption: 31 That, as it is written: He that glorieth, may glory in the Lord.
1 Corinthians 26-31
We should not boast or be proud of our particular ethnic composition.
This does not mean men and women cannot be discriminating in their
choices of spouses, but it does mean that we should not criticize those
who with sound mind and spirit take a spouse of different ethnic origin.
-
Do we need to protect races, or cultures? Or both? They aren't always tied together.
Both.
Also, what race would you label a Native American? Speaking of preservation....
I use the term American Indian since they were not "native" to this continent. Nevertheless since most Hispanics are full-blood Indian or mestizo I assume the American Indian would show about the same brain-power as Hispanics.
-
We should not boast or be proud of our particular ethnic composition.
This does not mean men and women cannot be discriminating in their
choices of spouses, but it does mean that we should not criticize those
who with sound mind and spirit take a spouse of different ethnic origin.
On the contrary we should boast if our particular race shows more accomplishments than all others. For example those from Europe definitely show more cultural accomplishments than all others.
-
Also, what race would you label a Native American? Speaking of preservation....
I use the term American Indian since they were not "native" to this continent. Nevertheless since most Hispanics are full-blood Indian or mestizo I assume the American Indian would show about the same brain-power as Hispanics.[/quote]
They were not "native" to this continent.... so where did they come from? It is thought they came from Asia via a land bridge in present-day Alaska. Wouldn't that make them Asian? There are huge differences between groups of American Indians, ethnically and culturally. Yes, Hispanics are Indian or mestizo, but the Indian of Mexico is much different than an Indian found in the north.
-
They were not "native" to this continent.... so where did they come from? It is thought they came from Asia via a land bridge in present-day Alaska. Wouldn't that make them Asian? There are huge differences between groups of American Indians, ethnically and culturally. Yes, Hispanics are Indian or mestizo, but the Indian of Mexico is much different than an Indian found in the north.
Well the American Indian is also well known for their tomahawking of early settlers, their cannibalism, and human sacrifice. :wink:
Whether there are different ethnicties, one race always unites together, hence we have the black power and "Latino pride."
-
They were not "native" to this continent.... so where did they come from? It is thought they came from Asia via a land bridge in present-day Alaska. Wouldn't that make them Asian? There are huge differences between groups of American Indians, ethnically and culturally. Yes, Hispanics are Indian or mestizo, but the Indian of Mexico is much different than an Indian found in the north.
Well the American Indian is also well known for their tomahawking of early settlers, their cannibalism, and human sacrifice. :wink:
Whether there are different ethnicties, one race always unites together, hence we have the black power and "Latino pride."
I think you are missing the point, in this particular part of the discussion. The Indian of the Latinos is different than the Indian of North America, racially and ethnically. I have never met an American Indian, non-hispanic, who identified with Latino pride or culture.
And the American Indian wasn't the only group of people to display barbaric behavior. Paganism spans all nations, always has.
-
I think you are missing the point, in this particular part of the discussion. The Indian of the Latinos is different than the Indian of North America, racially and ethnically. I have never met an American Indian, non-hispanic, who identified with Latino pride or culture.
And the American Indian wasn't the only group of people to display barbaric behavior. Paganism spans all nations, always has.
When I look at the Greeks and Romans, who were pagans, I see more cultural accomplishments than I do the American Indian.
Nevertheless there is one thing all minorities can agree on, and that is getting more money out of "whitey" and feeling good about themselves by being "empowered."
-
If InfinteFaith wants to know how to avoid race-mixing, and further enrich his racial-supremacist views, he ought to go to prothink.org, or www.kkk.com.
Calling people KKK members is what liberals do.
Hilarious! I was referring to two websites, not calling names! Your skin is so thin! If I throw salt at you, will you cry out in pain?
If InfiniteFaith wants some kind of direction for how to keep his kids white, and he wants to speak with like-minded people, he should go to the two websites I recommended.
Prothink.org, which is run by Mike Delaney
Or the website of the Klu Klux Klan, www.kkk.com
Not really saying much more than that. They've got lots of material on how to "stick to your own."
-
Or the website of the Klu Klux Klan, www.kkk.com
I don't think they would like us here. The KKK is anti-Catholic.
-
Hilarious! I was referring to two websites, not calling names! Your skin is so thin! If I throw salt at you, will you cry out in pain?
Why would you refer to two websites? IF isn't even close to KKK members anyway.
Speaking of which if you threw salt at me then I would gladly fight it out with you with my fists.
Speaking of "race being Jєωιѕн" and all obviously you know nothing about Jєωs because American society is very anti-racist but is dominated by Jєωs.
-
Speaking of which LH you did call IF names by saying his "racial supremacist" views. This shouldn't be seen as a defense of IF either since I have disagreed with him before but more of my concern with the "racist" and "anti-Semetic" propaganda going on as of late.
The term racist, anti-Semetic, and "KKK member" is used by the Left to silence opponents or discredit them and comes directly from Communism.
-
Speaking of "race being Jєωιѕн" and all obviously you know nothing about Jєωs because American society is very anti-racist but is dominated by Jєωs.
:shocked: Golly! I had no idea! Does the President know? :shocked:
-
Why would you refer to two websites? IF isn't even close to KKK members anyway.
Well, prothink.org has some insightful videos that seem to be something InfiniteFaith is looking for. I've watched a few of them. Plus, they have some interesting articles from time to time, though they have revamped their website, so I don't know how well they're doing at the moment.
www.kkk.com? I guess because their arguments cut right to the chase with such questions as posed here.
Speaking of which LH you did call IF names by saying his "racial supremacist" views.
Lol! No I didn't! I called his views "racial supremacist!" I was disparaging his views, not the man himself.
The term racist, anti-Semetic, and "KKK member" is used by the Left to silence opponents or discredit them and comes directly from Communism.
Like a broken freaking record. Ya just don't know me!
-
Statistically speaking, race mixing is a non-issue even with the non-stop propaganda.
Someone could easily have speciously argued the same thing about mass immigration in the 70s.
The rate of race-mixing has increased substantially. A brief google search ought to clear up that issue.
I talked to a black colleague and he stated that more black women marry white men than the reverse
There are gender disparities as well: black men marry outside the race at a far higher rate than black women.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/us/pew-study-americans-more-accepting-of-interracial-marriage.html?_r=0
Among the upper middle class these things haven't made great inroads, just as the fundamental breakdown of marriage and the rise of illegitimacy have not yet started to deeply affect those people.
Sure, among black women from fairly rich families, I don't doubt some of those would marry white men.
Even if the macro-trends regarding racial demographics weren't dangerous, the damage caused by the microtrends are pretty horrible.
If a trad Catholic's daughter becomes pregnant by a black, he has a very high chance of having a criminal who doesn't identify with his own family for a grandchild. Not that the PC scuм actually care about their fellow Catholics. They will sell us out every time, all the time.
-
I know that some try to use the argument that we all come from Adam and Eve to promote race mixing, but overtime the human race did sort of branch off into separate races. I don't care what anyone says, this is how God intended it to be. It wasn't a random occurrence. God knew that would happen before it even happened. I'm pretty sure that God created it that way because thats what happened. Not to mention, God sort of created differences in mankind with the tower of babel incident. He wanted there to be differences in mankind for a reason. Thats why today we have different races and different languages. Why would he divide us up accordingly so that later on down the road we can become one race again? He didn't. He didn't intend for us to become one large race. He wanted us to remain different. After all, he was the very cause of us being different in the first place. Yeah race mixing is not a sin, but I don't think God intended race mixing to occur at high rates so that over time we would all become one race again. I think its ok from time to time, but not at mass levels that will eventually lead to Jєωιѕн domination and the destruction of nationalism. Race mixing is being used as a tool. Wake Up! People are fornicating because of easy access to something different. They get a thrill out of trying something new, and that they are.
People like Tiffany and Sigimund would not engage in such activity if there wasn't such easy access to it. They would be married to someone of their own kind right now if this country was 95% white.
One thing I'm getting angry about is Europe right now. I've been looking into the demographics of Germany, France, and England and things are getting out of hand. Minorities are taking them over as well. I think Jєωs are starting to take power there and thats why things are the way they are. I think Kate Middleton is a closet Jєω, and I also think the president of France is a damn Jєω.
And then I would not have had my wife and we would not have given birth to our children, one of whom is a priest and all of whom are serious Catholics and are raising their children to be serious Catholics. How could we possible have done better if we were both white?
-
Tiffany did marry a Caucasian.
-
The next time I see my mother, I need to tell her she needs to make reparations for her "sin" of "miscegenation." Never mind than man she married was the descendant of a true Catholic hero.
Oh now I see why are you are so pro miscegenation. You don't have a solid ethnic identity. You don't know what it is like to be racially pure. You don't have anything to lose. You would rather everyone be like you.
I'm not encouraging or discouraging it. If two trads fall in love and want it to work, then God help them.
You do not know anything about me. So, before you talk about racial "purity," or my apparent lack of identity, remember that.
God bless you.
You just said that you were a product of miscegenation. Thats all I needed to know.
And the fact that you think that one piece of information defines a person is all we need to know to see that you are clearly every bit the racist heretic I said you were earlier in this thread.
-
I find
The main issue here is the rate at which interracial relationships are occurring. It is dangerous. You are aware of the Jєωιѕн agenda are you not?
"We must realize that our party's most powerful weapon is racial tension. By pounding into the consciousness of the dark races, that for centuries they have been oppressed by whites, we can mold them into the program of the Communist Party. In America, we aim for several victories. While inflaming the Negro minorities against the whites, we will instill in the whites a guilt complex for their supposed exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Blacks to rise to prominence in every walk of life and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige,, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and will begin the process which will deliver America to our cause." (Jєωιѕн Playwright Israel Cohen, A Radical Program For The Twentieth Century. Also entered into the Congressional Record on June 7, 1957, by Rep. Thomas Abernathy).
If anything, the law should encourage, not forbid, the intermingling of bloods...But legislation cannot change the human heart. The only way we can accomplish that, the only we can achieve a Final Solution to racial prejudice, is to create a m‚lange of races so universal that no one can preen himself on his racial 'purity' or practice the barbarism to safeguard it.
The deliberate encouragement of interracial marriages is the only way to hasten this process. And it may be that time is growing short. The dominance of our world has begun to shift, like cargo in a listing vessel, from the White races to the colored. The sooner we adjust to this fact, the better it will be for our children. For we might well acknowledge, even the most enlightened of us, that we will never completely eliminate racial prejudice until we eliminate separate races."
(Rabbi Abraham L. Feinberg, Maclean's Magazine, September 5, 1967).
Why would you not take some sort of stance against race mixing after reading this? I'm not saying to go around splitting interracial couples up, but rather take the indirect approach by sending home illegal immigrants. Rebalance the demographics of this country and make white people 80% of the population once again. Race Mixing would not occur at such mass levels...The Jєωs would not accomplish what they are trying to do.
Those quotes have to deal with reds trying to use interracial marriages to promote communism.
A black trad marrying a white trad doesn't do that.
I have run out of up thumbs for Pius IX, so I will express my support this way:
:applause:
-
The next time I see my mother, I need to tell her she needs to make reparations for her "sin" of "miscegenation." Never mind than man she married was the descendant of a true Catholic hero.
Oh now I see why are you are so pro miscegenation. You don't have a solid ethnic identity. You don't know what it is like to be racially pure. You don't have anything to lose. You would rather everyone be like you.
I'm not encouraging or discouraging it. If two trads fall in love and want it to work, then God help them.
You do not know anything about me. So, before you talk about racial "purity," or my apparent lack of identity, remember that.
God bless you.
You just said that you were a product of miscegenation. Thats all I needed to know.
Am I the result of an "evil act?" Will I ever measure up as a "pure" man. The last time I checked, I thought purity of heart and purity of the soul were the most important. Not something you are trying to pass off as good.
:applause:
-
The next time I see my mother, I need to tell her she needs to make reparations for her "sin" of "miscegenation." Never mind than man she married was the descendant of a true Catholic hero.
Oh now I see why are you are so pro miscegenation. You don't have a solid ethnic identity. You don't know what it is like to be racially pure. You don't have anything to lose. You would rather everyone be like you.
I'm not encouraging or discouraging it. If two trads fall in love and want it to work, then God help them.
You do not know anything about me. So, before you talk about racial "purity," or my apparent lack of identity, remember that.
God bless you.
You just said that you were a product of miscegenation. Thats all I needed to know.
Am I the result of an "evil act?" Will I ever measure up as a "pure" man. The last time I checked, I thought purity of heart and purity of the soul were the most important. Not something you are trying to pass off as good.
I never said it is an evil act. I just believe that it is happening at dangerously high levels. That is my stance.
Yes, spiritually you are the same as everyone else.
Thank you for the clarification.
Now, lets limit our discussion to trads, not secular people. What is so dangerous about it for trads?
If a Frenchman marries a Filipina, both devout trads, what's wrong?
:applause:
-
God did not create different races.
You do realize that God's Creation is ongoing?
If God didn't create didn't races, he didn't create the people in them, and he didn't create you.
God surely has brought into existence different nations and peoples of different races. And for each of them he has had a role and a plan.
And His ongoing creation includes mixed-race people too.
Doe the people who down thumbed this post think that mixed race people are not part of God's ongoing creation. Are my children some sort of godless anomaly? Or do you just hate Clare so much that your automatically down thumb any post she makes?
Some of the posters here have made it very clear that they do not believe that non-whites are worthy of the same human dignity as white people. So they no doubt believe that your children are an "anomaly".
Yes, so it seems. I hope it will surprise no one that I prefer my children, my grandchildren, the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching of his Church, and simple reason to the rantings of heretical racists.
-
The white race is going to die out thanks to the "no such thing as race" thinking of people such as on this site.
And Catholicism is likely to die out if the racial attitudes an increasing number of people on this site seem to think are reconcilable to it ever predominate.
-
If InfinteFaith wants to know how to avoid race-mixing, and further enrich his racial-supremacist views, he ought to go to prothink.org, or www.kkk.com.
Calling people KKK members is what liberals do.
Actually, Laramie wasn't calling anyone a KKK member, but merely suggesting that Infinite Faith might be happy as one.
-
And Catholicism is likely to die out if the racial attitudes an increasing number of people on this site seem to think are reconcilable to it ever predominate.
The reality is that the overwhelming majority of Catholics held similar attitudes until Vatican II. Substituting political correctness for the Faith is part of the general apostasy.
-
And Catholicism is likely to die out if the racial attitudes an increasing number of people on this site seem to think are reconcilable to it ever predominate.
The reality is that the overwhelming majority of Catholics held similar attitudes until Vatican II. Substituting political correctness for the Faith is part of the general apostasy.
The overwhelming majority of Catholics were Arians at one time too. (Yes, yes, I know that is really an oxymoron). The fact is, the Gospel and the teaching of the Church do not support the idea that "Race-mixing" is a bad thing. Please show my I am wrong if I am.
-
If a trad Catholic's daughter becomes pregnant by a black, he has a very high chance of having a criminal who doesn't identify with his own family for a grandchild.
The implication being, of course, that being a traditional Catholic is a "white" thing, eh?
-
I forget if I said this on the board earlier, but the attitudes and sentiments expressed here by some is very disturbing, in particular for a Catholic forum. Particularly concerning is that they are not being condemned by more people.
-
The implication being, of course, that being a traditional Catholic is a "white" thing, eh?
Generally speaking that is the case in this country.
There's nothing I believe about this issue that wasn't the common belief of European descended Catholics before Vatican II. The reality is most liberal "trads" are fundamentally at variance with their ancestors beliefs.
Liberals care way more about being PC (and enforcing it) than they care about being Catholic. (or in the welfare of their fellow Catholics)
-
Generally speaking that is the case in this country.
Not from what I've seen.
-
Not from what I've seen.
I doubt asian or mexicans are too keen on their daughters being in that situation either.
-
Liberals care way more about being PC (and enforcing it) than they care about being Catholic. (or in the welfare of their fellow Catholics)
And it seems that some "Catholics" on this board care more about the color of someone's skin than their being Catholic.
Runs both ways, y'know.
-
Not from what I've seen.
I doubt asian or mexicans are too keen on their daughters being in that situation either.
From your quote "got pregnant by a black man," it seems to imply rape or fornication. Not marriage.
-
And it seems that some "Catholics" on this board care more about the color of someone's skin than their being Catholic.
Runs both ways, y'know.
"Seems" that way to you, but your "racist" namecalling at fathers who want their daughters to have children that look like them and identify with them and not with ghetto blacks is pathetic liberal filth.
Like I've said before, the people who don't care about poor white Catholics having to be sent to horrid integrated schools are little different than Obama and have an attitude that is virtually Communist in its callous disregard for the welfare of whites.
Believing what people believed in the 50s about this is good enough for me.
It's not good enough for people who side with this anti-Christian society against Catholics and their families.
-
From your quote "got pregnant by a black man," it seems to imply rape or fornication. Not marriage.
Filthy liberals will say to whites whose daughters are impregnated by blacks:
"Let them use contraception or resort to abortion."
Catholics who willingly expose their daughters to a population where a huge proportion will end up in prison, where they idolize immoral "music" celebrating pimps and gangsters, and where the illegitimacy rate greatly exceeds the rate of children born in wedlock, are fools. And those who wish it upon the whites they look down upon as "racist" are scuм.
-
"Seems" that way to you, but your "racist" namecalling at fathers who don't want their daughters to have children that look like them and identify with them and not with ghetto blacks is pathetic liberal filth.
Blacks aren't necessarily ghetto, and men wanting their daughters to find good Catholics, not good white Catholics, as a dating parameter is not "liberal filth."
Like I've said before, the people who don't care about poor white Catholics having to be sent to horrid integrated schools are little different than Obama and have an attitude that is virtually Communist in its callous disregard for the welfare of whites.
Most trads in the US aren't poor. Struggling, but not poor. No one is lining up at soup kitchens, or is renting a motel room.
Believing what people believed in the 50s about this is good enough for me.
It's not good enough for people who side with this anti-Christian society against Catholics and their families.
This is a strawman.
-
I forget if I said this on the board earlier, but the attitudes and sentiments expressed here by some is very disturbing, in particular for a Catholic forum. Particularly concerning is that they are not being condemned by more people.
So says someone who allows Protestants to spew heresy on their forum.
-
Blacks aren't necessarily ghetto,
Favoring integrated schools means favoring putting one's children into proximity to black culture. Period. Everyone rich in this country segregates themselves from blacks except for the token affirmative action blacks they bring into their various social organizations.
The "racist" name-callers are disgusting hypocrites.
and men wanting their daughters to find good Catholics, not good white Catholics, as a dating parameter is not "liberal filth."
Calling people "racist" or non-Catholic for wanting their children to look like them is utterly disgusting political correctness that has nothing to do with the Catholic Faith and is 100% about being a liberal.
Most trads in the US aren't poor. Struggling, but not poor. No one is lining up at soup kitchens, or is renting a motel room.
Poor is a relative term. Any Catholic who has to send their child to an integrated urban school is suffering a definite privation of the worst sort.
This is a strawman.
No, calling people racists for trying to insulate themselves from the behavior of blacks is political correctness. Those who do it side with the anti-Christians against their own people. Absolutely.
-
From your quote "got pregnant by a black man," it seems to imply rape or fornication. Not marriage.
Filthy liberals will say to whites whose daughters are impregnated by blacks:
"Let them use contraception or resort to abortion."
Catholics who willingly expose their daughters to a population where a huge proportion will end up in prison, where they idolize immoral "music" celebrating pimps and gangsters, and where the illegitimacy rate greatly exceeds the rate of children born in wedlock, are fools. And those who wish it upon the whites they look down upon as "racist" are scuм.
How about a trad white man who marries a black woman?
-
I forget if I said this on the board earlier, but the attitudes and sentiments expressed here by some is very disturbing, in particular for a Catholic forum. Particularly concerning is that they are not being condemned by more people.
So says someone who allows Protestants to spew heresy on their forum.
We put an end to that. We actually had a huge discussion where myself and another mod told you the actions we took to rectify that.
-
And it seems that some "Catholics" on this board care more about the color of someone's skin than their being Catholic.
Runs both ways, y'know.
"Seems" that way to you, but your "racist" namecalling at fathers who want their daughters to have children that look like them and identify with them and not with ghetto blacks is pathetic liberal filth.
Like I've said before, the people who don't care about poor white Catholics having to be sent to horrid integrated schools are little different than Obama and have an attitude that is virtually Communist in its callous disregard for the welfare of whites.
Believing what people believed in the 50s about this is good enough for me.
It's not good enough for people who side with this anti-Christian society against Catholics and their families.
:roll-laugh2:
Okay.
-
I forget if I said this on the board earlier, but the attitudes and sentiments expressed here by some is very disturbing, in particular for a Catholic forum. Particularly concerning is that they are not being condemned by more people.
So says someone who allows Protestants to spew heresy on their forum.
We put an end to that. We actually had a huge discussion where myself and another mod told you the actions we took to rectify that.
If you put an end to it, why is he still there? And why are his posts on that thread still there?
-
Blacks aren't necessarily ghetto,
Favoring integrated schools means favoring putting one's children into proximity to black culture. Period. Everyone rich in this country segregates themselves from blacks except for the token affirmative action blacks they bring into their various social organizations.
The "racist" name-callers are disgusting hypocrites.
and men wanting their daughters to find good Catholics, not good white Catholics, as a dating parameter is not "liberal filth."
Calling people "racist" or non-Catholic for wanting their children to look like them is utterly disgusting political correctness that has nothing to do with the Catholic Faith and is 100% about being a liberal.
Most trads in the US aren't poor. Struggling, but not poor. No one is lining up at soup kitchens, or is renting a motel room.
Poor is a relative term. Any Catholic who has to send their child to an integrated urban school is suffering a definite privation of the worst sort.
This is a strawman.
No, calling people racists for trying to insulate themselves from the behavior of blacks is political correctness. Those who do it side with the anti-Christians against their own people. Absolutely.
Tele, I honestly don't believe you are serious. I don't.
Blacks and whites go to school now. It's old news, and since Catholic schools weren't subject to Plessy v. Ferguson, plenty of Catholic schools were "integrated" for decades all around the world.
-
How about a trad white man who marries a black woman?
People will marry who they will. It's their decision.
That doesn't mean one has to think it's wise and wonderful.
-
I forget if I said this on the board earlier, but the attitudes and sentiments expressed here by some is very disturbing, in particular for a Catholic forum. Particularly concerning is that they are not being condemned by more people.
So says someone who allows Protestants to spew heresy on their forum.
We put an end to that. We actually had a huge discussion where myself and another mod told you the actions we took to rectify that.
If you put an end to it, why is he still there? And why are his posts on that thread still there?
Why? Because he hasn't broken any rules since we amended them.
And what posts? The ones in the thread where he said you were a heretic? I've talked with like 5 different Catholics (ranging from NO to SSPX to sedevacantist) who don't see any Protestantism being spewed.
-
Blacks and whites go to school now. It's old news, and since Catholic schools weren't subject to Plessy v. Ferguson, plenty of Catholic schools were "integrated" for decades all around the world.
Yes, because of the Warren Court that paved the way to Roe vs. Wade.
And whites are suffering being forced into those hell-holes. And the liberal rats approve of it.
They are scuм.
-
His belief that the woman can and should work outside the home if she desires directly contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius XI.
Also, you shouldn't allow a Protestant to get away with accusing a fellow Trad of heresy. It's not right.
-
It's pretty obvo who's doing the thumbs down!
:reporter:
-
His belief that the woman can and should work outside the home if she desires directly contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius XI.
Also, you shouldn't allow a Protestant to get away with accusing a fellow Trad of heresy. It's not right.
Vetus never called you a heretic or accused you of heresy, he just said your mindset was cultic and non-Catholic. I think there is a difference.
Also, from what I've read, Pope Pius XI states that a wife working outside the home is wrong, not women in general.
-
Vetus never called you a heretic, he just said your mindset was cultic and non-Catholic. I think there is a difference.
He did say that (interesting, too, coming from a Protestant). However, he also specifically accused me or my position of heresy.
Also, from what I've read, Pope Pius XI states that a wife working outside the home is wrong, not women in general.
Yes, this is what I meant. Vetus did not agree.
-
Try to find ways to discourage interracial dating with your kids. Maybe by using positive and negative reinforcement. Also, keeping them away from certain media. And explaining to them why it is important for them to find someone of the same belief system. You might even throw in how important it is to preserve our culture and way of life. You can raise them to be proud of being white. You don't have to teach them to hate other races or anything.
This is something one would find on the Klan's website. It has little to do with preserving the Catholic Faith of all times.
-
I don't think there's anything wrong with encouraging children to marry someone their own race.
-
This is something one would find on the Klan's website. It has little to do with preserving the Catholic Faith of all times.
This is a garbage response. It's just name-calling.
There is NOTHING wrong with people wanting their children to look like themselves, carry on the identity of their ancestors, and appreciate and value their own people, and not with the 95% plus of blacks who support Obama, or the disgusting black culture that rules most of black America.
When a large section of blacks start separating themselves from their broader culture in large numbers, and start showing completely different behavior from what's typical, then some of us might be tempted to view association with general black society differently.
Until then, it's a case by case basis. And even so, that doesn't mean we have to believe it's normal or ideal to have children of a different race than ourselves.
-
Vetus never called you a heretic, he just said your mindset was cultic and non-Catholic. I think there is a difference.
He did say that (interesting, too, coming from a Protestant). However, he also specifically accused me or my position of heresy.
Also, from what I've read, Pope Pius XI states that a wife working outside the home is wrong, not women in general.
Yes, this is what I meant. Vetus did not agree.
No, he told you this:
Believing that the Church of Rome can fall into heresy is in itself a heresy. Apparently Christ revealed this to the Apostles.
Do you believe that? I hope not.
As to the working bit:
You said this:
So you're saying that a woman, if she desires, can and should get a job outside the home merely as an "occupation"?
Vetus replied:
Yes, if it's not objectively detrimental to her family and to the education of her children. I believe that women are not defined merely by the roles they ought to perform. There are godly mothers and wifes in this world who do work outside the home and who have other occupations besides being wives and mothers. Not to mention godly women who do not happen to be either wives or mothers.
Pope Pius XI says in "Casti Connubii":
The same false teachers who try to dim the luster of conjugal faith and purity do not scruple to do away with the honorable and trusting obedience which the woman owes to the man. Many of them even go further and assert that such a subjection of one party to the other is unworthy of human dignity, that the rights of husband and wife are equal; wherefore, they boldly proclaim the emancipation of women has been or ought to be effected. This emancipation in their ideas must be threefold, in the ruling of the domestic society, in the administration of family affairs and in the rearing of the children. It must be social, economic, physiological: – physiological, that is to say, the woman is to be freed at her own good pleasure from the burdensome duties properly belonging to a wife as companion and mother (We have already said that this is not an emancipation but a crime); social, inasmuch as the wife being freed from the cares of children and family, should, to the neglect of these, be able to follow her own bent and devote herself to business and even public affairs; finally economic, whereby the woman even without the knowledge and against the wish of her husband may be at liberty to conduct and administer her own affairs, giving her attention chiefly to these rather than to children, husband and family.
This, however, is not the true emancipation of woman, nor that rational and exalted liberty which belongs to the noble office of a Christian woman and wife; it is rather the debasing of the womanly character and the dignity of motherhood, and indeed of the whole family, as a result of which the husband suffers the loss of his wife, the children of their mother, and the home and the whole family of an ever watchful guardian. More than this, this false liberty and unnatural equality with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman descends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the walls of the home by means of the Gospel, she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery (if not in appearance, certainly in reality) and become as amongst the pagans the mere instrument of man.
From my reading, it looks as though Vetus agrees with Pope Pius XI. Also, Vetus's bold is my emphasis.
-
You're mistaken, Kaesekopf. I never said what Vetus accused me of.
And no, Vetus doesn't agree with Pope Pius XI, who taught that the woman may only work outside the home as a necessity, not merely as an "occupation".
-
This is something one would find on the Klan's website. It has little to do with preserving the Catholic Faith of all times.
This is a garbage response. It's just name-calling.
There is NOTHING wrong with people wanting their children to look like themselves, carry on the identity of their ancestors, and appreciate and value their own people, and not with the 95% plus of blacks who support Obama, or the disgusting black culture that rules most of black America.
When a large section of blacks start separating themselves from their broader culture in large numbers, and start showing completely different behavior from what's typical, then some of us might be tempted to view association with general black society differently.
Until then, it's a case by case basis. And even so, that doesn't mean we have to believe it's normal or ideal to have children of a different race than ourselves.
Can you separate the culture from the race?
What if your son or daughter wanted to date a young black man or woman who was incredibly well read, dressed exceedingly well, and was a devout trad?
-
You're mistaken, Kaesekopf. I never said what Vetus accused me of.
And no, Vetus doesn't agree with Pope Pius XI, who taught that the woman may only work outside the home as a necessity, not merely as an "occupation".
He didn't accuse you of anything. He stated what is heretical. Read all you want into it, but he didn't accuse you.
Besides which, are women instructed by divine decree to stay at the home forever and all times?
-
What if your son or daughter wanted to date a young black man or woman who was incredibly well read, dressed exceedingly well, and was a devout trad?
It's up to them but all of that doesn't change genetics - the collective ancestry of such a person will tell in the offspring and descendants. There is absolutely nothing wrong with recognizing the importance of genetics. Everyone who looks for an attractive spouse is doing just that, and everyone who wants their grandchildren to be of the same race as themselves is doing the same thing. It's a perfectly legitimate value to hold.
It isn't generally true that people of a race separate completely from their original racial identity.
Ultimately, it always comes down to whites wanting to preserve themselves, their families, their cultures, their nations, being called "racist" whenever they oppose the left-wing agenda that sellouts almost invariably conform to get ahead.
No true Catholic with any knowledge and sense can go along with that.
-
Duties of a Wife:
“On the other hand, the duties of a wife are thus summed up by the Prince of the Apostles: Let wives be subject to their husbands. That if any believe not the word, they may be one without the word by the conversation of the wives, considering your chaste conversation with fear. Let not their adorning be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel: but the hidden man of the heart in the incorruptibility of a quiet and meek spirit, which is rich in the sight of God. For after this manner heretofore the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling hint lord.
To train their children in the practice of virtue and to pay particular attention to their domestic concerns should also be especial objects of their attention. The wife should love to remain at home, unless compelled by necessity to go out; and she should never presume to leave home without her husband’s consent.
Again, and in this the conjugal union chiefly consists, let wives never forget that next to God they are to love their husbands, to esteem them above all others, yielding to them in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety, a willing and ready obedience.”
-
What if your son or daughter wanted to date a young black man or woman who was incredibly well read, dressed exceedingly well, and was a devout trad?
It's up to them but all of that doesn't change genetics - the collective ancestry of such a person will tell in the offspring and descendants. There is absolutely nothing wrong with recognizing the importance of genetics. Everyone who looks for an attractive spouse is doing just that, and everyone who wants their grandchildren to be of the same race as themselves is doing the same thing. It's a perfectly legitimate value to hold.
It isn't generally true that people of a race separate completely from their original racial identity.
Ultimately, it always comes down to whites wanting to preserve themselves, their families, their cultures, their nations, being called "racist" whenever they oppose the left-wing agenda that sellouts almost invariably conform to get ahead.
No true Catholic with any knowledge and sense can go along with that.
So what, in your opinion, are the essential characteristics of african genes? When you say that it isn't "generally true that people of a race separate completely from their original racial identity" does that mean it can happen sometimes?
What if you met a young black men that acted "white" in every way? Would you allow your daughter to court him?
-
Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii said:
"This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband’s every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love."
More Casti Connubii
"28. Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions of persons, place and time. In fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family. But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact."
-
This is something one would find on the Klan's website. It has little to do with preserving the Catholic Faith of all times.
This is a garbage response. It's just name-calling.
There is NOTHING wrong with people wanting their children to look like themselves, carry on the identity of their ancestors, and appreciate and value their own people, and not with the 95% plus of blacks who support Obama, or the disgusting black culture that rules most of black America.
When a large section of blacks start separating themselves from their broader culture in large numbers, and start showing completely different behavior from what's typical, then some of us might be tempted to view association with general black society differently.
Until then, it's a case by case basis. And even so, that doesn't mean we have to believe it's normal or ideal to have children of a different race than ourselves.
Can you separate the culture from the race?
What if your son or daughter wanted to date a young black man or woman who was incredibly well read, dressed exceedingly well, and was a devout trad?
I still wouldn't like it too much. I am all about preserving the European culture and way of life. My children shouldn't have any problem falling in love with someone of their own race. The Catholic Church teaches that we should marry someone who is equally yoked. This means that there are limitations to who we should marry. There isn't some open border policy that says we can marry whatever we are attracted to or have feelings for. Even though the Church does not place limitations on interracial marriages, I don't think high rates of these types of marriages are a good thing. After all, God diversified mankind at the tower of Babel and low and behold...race. Because God diversified mankind in such ways for a reason...I don't think he intended for them to eventually assimilate. Otherwise, there would have been no reason for God to diversify mankind in the first place. God does everything for a reason.
1) God diversified mankind in terms of language and race.
2) Everything God does is for a reason. He doesn't do things for no reason.
3) Race-mixing at mass levels in order to create one race contradicts God's plan for diversification. Otherwise, He would have never diversified mankind in the first place.
--------
Conclusion: Race-Mixing is against God's plan if intended to eliminate diversification. Mass levels of race-mixing eliminates diversification.
-
Even though the Church does not place limitations on interracial marriages...
Conclusion: Race-Mixing is against God's plan if intended to eliminate diversification. Mass levels of race-mixing eliminates diversification.
:facepalm:
-
This is something one would find on the Klan's website. It has little to do with preserving the Catholic Faith of all times.
This is a garbage response. It's just name-calling.
There is NOTHING wrong with people wanting their children to look like themselves, carry on the identity of their ancestors, and appreciate and value their own people, and not with the 95% plus of blacks who support Obama, or the disgusting black culture that rules most of black America.
When a large section of blacks start separating themselves from their broader culture in large numbers, and start showing completely different behavior from what's typical, then some of us might be tempted to view association with general black society differently.
Until then, it's a case by case basis. And even so, that doesn't mean we have to believe it's normal or ideal to have children of a different race than ourselves.
Can you separate the culture from the race?
What if your son or daughter wanted to date a young black man or woman who was incredibly well read, dressed exceedingly well, and was a devout trad?
I still wouldn't like it too much. I am all about preserving the European culture and way of life. My children shouldn't have any problem falling in love with someone of their own race. The Catholic Church teaches that we should marry someone who is equally yoked. This means that there are limitations to who we should marry. There isn't some open border policy that says we can marry whatever we are attracted to or have feelings for. Even though the Church does not place limitations on interracial marriages, I don't think high rates of these types of marriages are a good thing. After all, God diversified mankind at the tower of Babel and low and behold...race. Because God diversified mankind in such ways for a reason...I don't think he intended for them to eventually assimilate. Otherwise, there would have been no reason for God to diversify mankind in the first place. God does everything for a reason.
1) God diversified mankind in terms of language and race.
2) Everything God does is for a reason. He doesn't do things for no reason.
3) Race-mixing at mass levels in order to create one race contradicts God's plan for diversification. Otherwise, He would have never diversified mankind in the first place.
--------
Conclusion: Race-Mixing is against God's plan if intended to eliminate diversification. Mass levels of race-mixing eliminates diversification.
God diversified man because he attempted to use his unity as an affront to God. The Church attempts that same unity but with the goal of glorifying God.
I understand your pride in European culture. Would I love for my daughter to marry another Irishman? Of course.
But the Church has said nothing against inter-racial marriages (which you've already admitted). Such distinctions of race are transcended by the universal sacrament of marriage.
Culture is indeed a good thing, but I think we should be wary of making it the end all and be all of our views, especially when it comes to our views of how people interact within the Church.
If She has always allowed a black man and a white woman to marry I think we are out of our place to say that such a thing is wrong. If it were wrong, surely Holy Mother Church wouldn't have dropped the ball on it for 2,000 years.
-
So what, in your opinion, are the essential characteristics of african genes?
This is an irrelevant question. What does one expect in the temperament, intelligence, appearance, way of life lived by blacks? Is there not ample evidence that there is a genetic component to that? Do I want descendants similar to my own ancestors, or descendants in which the characteristics of my ancestors are muted by dominant African characteristics?
-
This is something one would find on the Klan's website. It has little to do with preserving the Catholic Faith of all times.
This is a garbage response. It's just name-calling.
There is NOTHING wrong with people wanting their children to look like themselves, carry on the identity of their ancestors, and appreciate and value their own people, and not with the 95% plus of blacks who support Obama, or the disgusting black culture that rules most of black America.
When a large section of blacks start separating themselves from their broader culture in large numbers, and start showing completely different behavior from what's typical, then some of us might be tempted to view association with general black society differently.
Until then, it's a case by case basis. And even so, that doesn't mean we have to believe it's normal or ideal to have children of a different race than ourselves.
Can you separate the culture from the race?
What if your son or daughter wanted to date a young black man or woman who was incredibly well read, dressed exceedingly well, and was a devout trad?
I still wouldn't like it too much. I am all about preserving the European culture and way of life. My children shouldn't have any problem falling in love with someone of their own race. The Catholic Church teaches that we should marry someone who is equally yoked. This means that there are limitations to who we should marry. There isn't some open border policy that says we can marry whatever we are attracted to or have feelings for. Even though the Church does not place limitations on interracial marriages, I don't think high rates of these types of marriages are a good thing. After all, God diversified mankind at the tower of Babel and low and behold...race. Because God diversified mankind in such ways for a reason...I don't think he intended for them to eventually assimilate. Otherwise, there would have been no reason for God to diversify mankind in the first place. God does everything for a reason.
1) God diversified mankind in terms of language and race.
2) Everything God does is for a reason. He doesn't do things for no reason.
3) Race-mixing at mass levels in order to create one race contradicts God's plan for diversification. Otherwise, He would have never diversified mankind in the first place.
--------
Conclusion: Race-Mixing is against God's plan if intended to eliminate diversification. Mass levels of race-mixing eliminates diversification.
God diversified man because he attempted to use his unity as an affront to God. The Church attempts that same unity but with the goal of glorifying God.
I understand your pride in European culture. Would I love for my daughter to marry another Irishman? Of course.
But the Church has said nothing against inter-racial marriages (which you've already admitted). Such distinctions of race are transcended by the universal sacrament of marriage.
Culture is indeed a good thing, but I think we should be wary of making it the end all and be all of our views, especially when it comes to our views of how people interact within the Church.
If She has always allowed a black man and a white woman to marry I think we are out of our place to say that such a thing is wrong. If it were wrong, surely Holy Mother Church wouldn't have dropped the ball on it for 2,000 years.
I don't think She has a problem with a black man and a white women marrying. At the same time, I think She has a problem with mass waves of Interracial marriages because they eliminate diversification. If God intended for complete assimilation then He would have never diversified man in the first place.
-
So what, in your opinion, are the essential characteristics of african genes?
This is an irrelevant question. What does one expect in the temperament, intelligence, appearance, way of life lived by blacks? Is there not ample evidence that there is a genetic component to that? Do I want descendants similar to my own ancestors, or descendants in which the characteristics of my ancestors are muted by dominant African characteristics?
I don't think there is ample evidence of that, no. I think there is ample evidence that many members of a specific race share certain characteristics but not that all do.
I've met a substantial amount of people in my life who acted quite different than the rest of their racial culture.
-
This is something one would find on the Klan's website. It has little to do with preserving the Catholic Faith of all times.
This is a garbage response. It's just name-calling.
There is NOTHING wrong with people wanting their children to look like themselves, carry on the identity of their ancestors, and appreciate and value their own people, and not with the 95% plus of blacks who support Obama, or the disgusting black culture that rules most of black America.
When a large section of blacks start separating themselves from their broader culture in large numbers, and start showing completely different behavior from what's typical, then some of us might be tempted to view association with general black society differently.
Until then, it's a case by case basis. And even so, that doesn't mean we have to believe it's normal or ideal to have children of a different race than ourselves.
Can you separate the culture from the race?
What if your son or daughter wanted to date a young black man or woman who was incredibly well read, dressed exceedingly well, and was a devout trad?
I still wouldn't like it too much. I am all about preserving the European culture and way of life. My children shouldn't have any problem falling in love with someone of their own race. The Catholic Church teaches that we should marry someone who is equally yoked. This means that there are limitations to who we should marry. There isn't some open border policy that says we can marry whatever we are attracted to or have feelings for. Even though the Church does not place limitations on interracial marriages, I don't think high rates of these types of marriages are a good thing. After all, God diversified mankind at the tower of Babel and low and behold...race. Because God diversified mankind in such ways for a reason...I don't think he intended for them to eventually assimilate. Otherwise, there would have been no reason for God to diversify mankind in the first place. God does everything for a reason.
1) God diversified mankind in terms of language and race.
2) Everything God does is for a reason. He doesn't do things for no reason.
3) Race-mixing at mass levels in order to create one race contradicts God's plan for diversification. Otherwise, He would have never diversified mankind in the first place.
--------
Conclusion: Race-Mixing is against God's plan if intended to eliminate diversification. Mass levels of race-mixing eliminates diversification.
God diversified man because he attempted to use his unity as an affront to God. The Church attempts that same unity but with the goal of glorifying God.
I understand your pride in European culture. Would I love for my daughter to marry another Irishman? Of course.
But the Church has said nothing against inter-racial marriages (which you've already admitted). Such distinctions of race are transcended by the universal sacrament of marriage.
Culture is indeed a good thing, but I think we should be wary of making it the end all and be all of our views, especially when it comes to our views of how people interact within the Church.
If She has always allowed a black man and a white woman to marry I think we are out of our place to say that such a thing is wrong. If it were wrong, surely Holy Mother Church wouldn't have dropped the ball on it for 2,000 years.
I don't think She has a problem with a black man and a white women marrying. At the same time, I think She has a problem with mass waves of Interracial marriages because they eliminate diversification. If God intended for complete assimilation then He would have never diversified man in the first place.
Keep in mind that He would never have diversified man if it wasn't for his sin.
At any rate, I don't think this is something worth discussing. Most people meet and marry someone of their own race. You don't have to force that. It's just how things work.
White people are not going to stop marrying white people anytime soon.
-
:smoke-pot:
-
This is something one would find on the Klan's website. It has little to do with preserving the Catholic Faith of all times.
This is a garbage response. It's just name-calling.
There is NOTHING wrong with people wanting their children to look like themselves, carry on the identity of their ancestors, and appreciate and value their own people, and not with the 95% plus of blacks who support Obama, or the disgusting black culture that rules most of black America.
When a large section of blacks start separating themselves from their broader culture in large numbers, and start showing completely different behavior from what's typical, then some of us might be tempted to view association with general black society differently.
Until then, it's a case by case basis. And even so, that doesn't mean we have to believe it's normal or ideal to have children of a different race than ourselves.
Can you separate the culture from the race?
What if your son or daughter wanted to date a young black man or woman who was incredibly well read, dressed exceedingly well, and was a devout trad?
I still wouldn't like it too much. I am all about preserving the European culture and way of life. My children shouldn't have any problem falling in love with someone of their own race. The Catholic Church teaches that we should marry someone who is equally yoked. This means that there are limitations to who we should marry. There isn't some open border policy that says we can marry whatever we are attracted to or have feelings for. Even though the Church does not place limitations on interracial marriages, I don't think high rates of these types of marriages are a good thing. After all, God diversified mankind at the tower of Babel and low and behold...race. Because God diversified mankind in such ways for a reason...I don't think he intended for them to eventually assimilate. Otherwise, there would have been no reason for God to diversify mankind in the first place. God does everything for a reason.
1) God diversified mankind in terms of language and race.
2) Everything God does is for a reason. He doesn't do things for no reason.
3) Race-mixing at mass levels in order to create one race contradicts God's plan for diversification. Otherwise, He would have never diversified mankind in the first place.
--------
Conclusion: Race-Mixing is against God's plan if intended to eliminate diversification. Mass levels of race-mixing eliminates diversification.
God diversified man because he attempted to use his unity as an affront to God. The Church attempts that same unity but with the goal of glorifying God.
I understand your pride in European culture. Would I love for my daughter to marry another Irishman? Of course.
But the Church has said nothing against inter-racial marriages (which you've already admitted). Such distinctions of race are transcended by the universal sacrament of marriage.
Culture is indeed a good thing, but I think we should be wary of making it the end all and be all of our views, especially when it comes to our views of how people interact within the Church.
If She has always allowed a black man and a white woman to marry I think we are out of our place to say that such a thing is wrong. If it were wrong, surely Holy Mother Church wouldn't have dropped the ball on it for 2,000 years.
I don't think She has a problem with a black man and a white women marrying. At the same time, I think She has a problem with mass waves of Interracial marriages because they eliminate diversification. If God intended for complete assimilation then He would have never diversified man in the first place.
Keep in mind that He would never have diversified man if it wasn't for his sin.
At any rate, I don't think this is something worth discussing. Most people meet and marry someone of their own race. You don't have to force that. It's just how things work.
White people are not going to stop marrying white people anytime soon.
Have you seen the statistics regarding recent interracial marriages? 1 in 7 marriages are interracial. 8-9% of black men marry white women. At that rate it won't be very long before there isn't any more diversification. We are talking maybe 100-200 years. Maybe sooner. Especially with the way people are being brainwashed and manipulated into it.
Not to mention, Interracial dating is happening at much higher rates than marriage.
-
I don't think there is ample evidence of that, no.
Well, denial of reality has a lot to do with the liberal view on race.
I think there is ample evidence that many members of a specific race share certain characteristics but not that all do.
And while some people may differ from the general characteristics of their race, they still carry the genes of the type, of their ancestors.
A beautiful blonde who marries a black is never going to have descendants with the same favorable racial traits she has (which is what makes her so attractive), probably ever again.
I've met a substantial amount of people in my life who acted quite different than the rest of their racial culture.
Of course. That doesn't change their identification.
The very fact that so many such people (blacks) adhere to the post-68 state ideology on race - even when they think of themselves as traditional conservatives - shows that they cannot separate their racial identity from their judgments. They are more race conscious than whites and always will be.
-
I don't think there is ample evidence of that, no.
Well, denial of reality has a lot to do with the liberal view on race.
I think there is ample evidence that many members of a specific race share certain characteristics but not that all do.
And while some people may differ from the general characteristics of their race, they still carry the genes of the type, of their ancestors.
A beautiful blonde who marries a black is never going to have descendants with the same favorable racial traits she has (which is what makes her so attractive), probably ever again.
I've met a substantial amount of people in my life who acted quite different than the rest of their racial culture.
Of course. That doesn't change their identification.
The very fact that so many such people (blacks) adhere to the post-68 state ideology on race - even when they think of themselves as traditional conservatives - shows that they cannot separate their racial identity from their judgments. They are more race conscious than whites and always will be.
What makes a white, blonde woman more beautiful than someone else? I mean, isn't that preference?
You're not saying that white women are objectively more beautiful than other women, are you?
-
What makes a white, blonde woman more beautiful than someone else? I mean, isn't that preference?
You're not saying that white women are objectively more beautiful than other women, are you?
Why shouldn't they be?
Beauty correlates with many objective traits.
There is no reason one race should not be more beautiful or intelligent than another.
There is no doubt that non-whites are often attracted to whites, because they regard the traits of whites as being more favorable than those of their own kind.
-
This is something one would find on the Klan's website. It has little to do with preserving the Catholic Faith of all times.
This is a garbage response. It's just name-calling.
There is NOTHING wrong with people wanting their children to look like themselves, carry on the identity of their ancestors, and appreciate and value their own people, and not with the 95% plus of blacks who support Obama, or the disgusting black culture that rules most of black America.
When a large section of blacks start separating themselves from their broader culture in large numbers, and start showing completely different behavior from what's typical, then some of us might be tempted to view association with general black society differently.
Until then, it's a case by case basis. And even so, that doesn't mean we have to believe it's normal or ideal to have children of a different race than ourselves.
Can you separate the culture from the race?
What if your son or daughter wanted to date a young black man or woman who was incredibly well read, dressed exceedingly well, and was a devout trad?
I still wouldn't like it too much. I am all about preserving the European culture and way of life. My children shouldn't have any problem falling in love with someone of their own race. The Catholic Church teaches that we should marry someone who is equally yoked. This means that there are limitations to who we should marry. There isn't some open border policy that says we can marry whatever we are attracted to or have feelings for. Even though the Church does not place limitations on interracial marriages, I don't think high rates of these types of marriages are a good thing. After all, God diversified mankind at the tower of Babel and low and behold...race. Because God diversified mankind in such ways for a reason...I don't think he intended for them to eventually assimilate. Otherwise, there would have been no reason for God to diversify mankind in the first place. God does everything for a reason.
1) God diversified mankind in terms of language and race.
2) Everything God does is for a reason. He doesn't do things for no reason.
3) Race-mixing at mass levels in order to create one race contradicts God's plan for diversification. Otherwise, He would have never diversified mankind in the first place.
--------
Conclusion: Race-Mixing is against God's plan if intended to eliminate diversification. Mass levels of race-mixing eliminates diversification.
God diversified man because he attempted to use his unity as an affront to God. The Church attempts that same unity but with the goal of glorifying God.
I understand your pride in European culture. Would I love for my daughter to marry another Irishman? Of course.
But the Church has said nothing against inter-racial marriages (which you've already admitted). Such distinctions of race are transcended by the universal sacrament of marriage.
Culture is indeed a good thing, but I think we should be wary of making it the end all and be all of our views, especially when it comes to our views of how people interact within the Church.
If She has always allowed a black man and a white woman to marry I think we are out of our place to say that such a thing is wrong. If it were wrong, surely Holy Mother Church wouldn't have dropped the ball on it for 2,000 years.
I don't think She has a problem with a black man and a white women marrying. At the same time, I think She has a problem with mass waves of Interracial marriages because they eliminate diversification. If God intended for complete assimilation then He would have never diversified man in the first place.
Keep in mind that He would never have diversified man if it wasn't for his sin.
At any rate, I don't think this is something worth discussing. Most people meet and marry someone of their own race. You don't have to force that. It's just how things work.
White people are not going to stop marrying white people anytime soon.
Have you seen the statistics regarding recent interracial marriages? 1 in 7 marriages are interracial. 8-9% of black men marry white women. At that rate it won't be very long before there isn't any more diversification. We are talking maybe 100-200 years. Maybe sooner. Especially with the way people are being brainwashed and manipulated into it.
Not to mention, Interracial dating is happening at much higher rates than marriage.
This will never end while blacks and whites live together. Certainly there should be some sort of segregation then. Perhaps the US should become a whites only country and the blacks should form their own country.
It seems to me that the logical end of this is some sort of nationalism. If it's truly wrong for races to mix then we should do everything in our power to stop it, no?
-
What makes a white, blonde woman more beautiful than someone else? I mean, isn't that preference?
You're not saying that white women are objectively more beautiful than other women, are you?
Why shouldn't they be?
Beauty correlates with many objective traits.
There is no reason one race should not be more beautiful or intelligent than another.
There is no doubt that non-whites are often attracted to whites, because they regard the traits of whites as being more favorable than those of their own kind.
So is it disordered for a white man to be more attracted to say, Latino women, or Indian women?
-
If it's truly wrong for races to mix then we should do everything in our power to stop it, no?
That's a huge leap of logic.
But that's what one has to deal with on this issue. The post-68 side is so accustomed to hearing their mantras uncritically that they lack the ability to discern the sophistry that undergirds their view.
-
So is it disordered for a white man to be more attracted to say, Latino women, or Indian women?
That doesn't follow from what I said.
-
Aesthetic sensibilities differ. That attractive whites are generally regarded favorably in comparison to other races, however, is certainly not the result of arbitrary preference or cultural conditioning.
I suspect many white men become put off by modern behavior, and because of that they find foreign women more amenable.
I doubt they consider the most beautiful non-white women more attractive than the most attractive whites.
In Latin American and Indian film the more caucasian appearances predominate.
That isn't mere culture.
-
So is it disordered for a white man to be more attracted to say, Latino women, or Indian women?
That doesn't follow from what I said.
A man should be ordered to love beauty, and thus to appreciate the more beautiful more than the less beautiful.
If so, there would be something wrong if a man found the less beautiful more beautiful.
Let me know where I'm going wrong.
-
I don't think there is ample evidence of that, no.
Well, denial of reality has a lot to do with the liberal view on race.
I think there is ample evidence that many members of a specific race share certain characteristics but not that all do.
And while some people may differ from the general characteristics of their race, they still carry the genes of the type, of their ancestors.
A beautiful blonde who marries a black is never going to have descendants with the same favorable racial traits she has (which is what makes her so attractive), probably ever again.
I've met a substantial amount of people in my life who acted quite different than the rest of their racial culture.
Of course. That doesn't change their identification.
The very fact that so many such people (blacks) adhere to the post-68 state ideology on race - even when they think of themselves as traditional conservatives - shows that they cannot separate their racial identity from their judgments. They are more race conscious than whites and always will be.
What makes a white, blonde woman more beautiful than someone else? I mean, isn't that preference?
You're not saying that white women are objectively more beautiful than other women, are you?
Dark skinned men think they are
-
A man should be ordered to love beauty, and thus to appreciate the more beautiful more than the less beautiful.
When I first read it I thought you said attracted to them, not more attracted to them.
If so, there would be something wrong if a man found the less beautiful more beautiful.
It's a difficult subject but it's quite possible that if they excluded white women in favor of a foreign type that some other factor has put them off white women.
Let me know where I'm going wrong.
I don't put much stock in whites who say they find the attractive women of other races more attractive than white women, based strictly on physical appearance.
-
I don't think there is ample evidence of that, no.
Well, denial of reality has a lot to do with the liberal view on race.
I think there is ample evidence that many members of a specific race share certain characteristics but not that all do.
And while some people may differ from the general characteristics of their race, they still carry the genes of the type, of their ancestors.
A beautiful blonde who marries a black is never going to have descendants with the same favorable racial traits she has (which is what makes her so attractive), probably ever again.
I've met a substantial amount of people in my life who acted quite different than the rest of their racial culture.
Of course. That doesn't change their identification.
The very fact that so many such people (blacks) adhere to the post-68 state ideology on race - even when they think of themselves as traditional conservatives - shows that they cannot separate their racial identity from their judgments. They are more race conscious than whites and always will be.
What makes a white, blonde woman more beautiful than someone else? I mean, isn't that preference?
You're not saying that white women are objectively more beautiful than other women, are you?
Dark skinned men think they are
Many seem to, yes. Many people also think Picasso paintings are beautiful.
I'm failing to see what that proves.
-
If someone wants to say beauty is strictly in the eye of the beholder then they should ask why is it someone they regard as beautiful is likely to be considered beautiful by others.
Shouldn't it rather random if that were really the case?
Of course it's not, we're dealing with sophists.
-
A man should be ordered to love beauty, and thus to appreciate the more beautiful more than the less beautiful.
When I first read it I thought you said attracted to them, not more attracted to them.
If so, there would be something wrong if a man found the less beautiful more beautiful.
It's a difficult subject but it's quite possible that if they excluded white women in favor of a foreign type that some other factor has put them off white women.
Let me know where I'm going wrong.
I don't put much stock in whites who say they find the attractive women of other races more attractive than white women, based strictly on physical appearance.
I feel like you didn't really answer my question.
If white women are objectively more beautiful than Latino women, wouldn't it be disordered (perhaps not morally, but at least intellectually) for a white man to prefer Latino women over white women? Forget about excluding white women. I'm talking only preference.
-
If someone wants to say beauty is strictly in the eye of the beholder then they should ask why is it someone they regard as beautiful is likely to be considered beautiful by others.
Shouldn't it rather random if that were really the case?
Of course it's not, we're dealing with sophists.
I'm not saying beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But I'm also rejecting the notion that a majority opinion proves anything.
People can be conditioned to find white women more attractive than other kinds of women, especially if they're raised watching white moves from white Hollywood while white Americans are rich, living in the world's only superpower (one which is largely portrayed as white).
-
I would consider such a person to have somewhat warped aesthetics.
-
What makes a white, blonde woman more beautiful than someone else? I mean, isn't that preference?
You're not saying that white women are objectively more beautiful than other women, are you?
Why shouldn't they be?
Beauty correlates with many objective traits.
There is no reason one race should not be more beautiful or intelligent than another.
There is no doubt that non-whites are often attracted to whites, because they regard the traits of whites as being more favorable than those of their own kind.
So is it disordered for a white man to be more attracted to say, Latino women, or Indian women?
It is understandable for 2 people of the same race to be together because they share more in common. Outside of that, God did not create people to be exclusively attracted to a different race like that. So you might be able to classify that as disordered. Not in a psychological sense, but its just not the way that people were intended to be.
Its likely that the person who has those thoughts were brainwashed that way or they hold some sort of view about latinos that makes them more attracted. If they were to change that view then they wouldn't be like that.
-
I would consider such a person to have somewhat warped aesthetics.
Ok. Fair enough. Now we're getting somewhere.
-
People can be conditioned to find white women more attractive than other kinds of women.
Sure, people can be conditioned to like all sorts of things, but it is nonsense to say recognition of beauty is a matter of conditioning.
Little infants can recognize it. And they know their own kind as well.
-
post-68 political correctness depends on denying that objective reasons for preferring one's own race can exist or be justified.
It's obvious that such reasons can exist. Those who deny that they do exist, are typically found trying to distort reality or attempt to deny the validity of certain types of judgments.
A cultural relativist will end up putting JS Bach on the same level as - take your pick.
-
post-68 political correctness depends on denying that objective reasons for preferring one's own race can exist or be justified.
It's obvious that such reasons can exist. Those who deny that they do exist, are typically found trying to distort reality or attempt to deny the validity of certain types of judgments.
A cultural relativist will end up putting JS Bach on the same level as - take your pick.
But I think you're going further than merely preferring the company of your own race or culture. You're saying that you don't want to mix with other cultures at all.
-
I have a Jєωιѕн parent. I was not raised in the Jєωιѕн religion. Protestant relatives helped raise me and I baptized Catholic as an adult. I remember as a young child going to an extended family gather at my Bubby's house and waiting and waiting for the prayer. Finally someone asked me why I wasn't eating. Since it was a sit down at a table meal I was waiting for an adult to pray. I didn't know you could eat without praying. :laugh1:
Tiffany, I personally cannot see why anyone would dislike what you said here if you had not mentioned that you "had a Jєωιѕн parent." Perhaps they also blame you that "Protestant relatives raised" you, as if this was your special choice.
I find this thread really sad, and hope that no "minority" thinking of converting to the Faith sees it.
One post defends blacks, but dislikes "Jєωs"(even if they just have "Jєωιѕн blood?"). Others want to avoid blacks as "marriage partners" for their kids, but don't seem to worry about their kids dating whites "secretly," which in today's standards means "promiscuously." They feel it happens "anyway?"
I cannot agree with looking down on "blacks," "hispanics" or any other so-called "minorities" just because of some strange "natural revulsion." People are individuals, not just part of some hated "group." Behind the "post-ers" we attack are just real people-- not vast "cօռspιʀαcιҽs." Why should someone like me answer for Barbara Streisand, Karl Marx, or every evil person who was "Jєωιѕн"in any way throughout history?(WWIII thread) I am a Christian and Catholic, and only answer for myself.
Once in 1st grade, another little girl was crying because kids were calling her "ni##er" and other names (learned from their parents and "elders"). The "natural" thing then was to go over to her and be her friend. That's what I would have wanted in her place. I still remember her name: Virginia, a sweet little girl who happened to be "black"-- nothing more.
If by treating strangers well, "some have entertained angels unaware," we'd better hope that angels don't appear here as "black" people, ethnic "Jєωs," or any other "minority."
Honestly, most ultra-conservative Catholics I know would still see this thread as something reminiscent of KKK mentality. This thread is just the kind of scandal liberals like to use against Catholics, too...
I cannot see "charity" as any object of this thread, even though people I've met individually here do seem to value charity.
-
So Tele, not in the spirit of wishing to break any rules or dredge up the past, but in a spirit of genuine enquiry.
What attracted you to a Puerto Rican lady? Puerto Ricans are, I am reliably informed, AmerIndian and Negroid in the largest part but certainly not white and certainly not racially pure?
Have you changed your mind since then or did you think much the same then as you do now?
I don't intend to return to the thread and grill you on it. I am genuinely interested to know your thoughts and motivations at the time.
-
I am reliably informed, AmerIndian and Negroid in the largest part but certainly not white and certainly not racially pure?
My high school chemistry teacher was a white Puerto Rican with tow-headed children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Puerto_Rico#Genetic_studies
The girl's mother is white and of German descent if I recall correctly and I'd estimate the father to be no more than 25% amerind. While one couldn't be sure what's in the woodpile I would guess that when the children of that family marry they will marry whites and their children will not be too strikingly mixed.
I have a friend whose whose father and mother both are about half American Indian. He's a very, very dark fellow, epecially in the sun. Indian blood shows up very strongly.
Amusingly his sister was about the same age (a year older) and and with the same given name as the one at Church, the same long dark hair (looks a lot less Indian than her brother) even liked to write, wear long skirts and ride horses (much more appropriately - seeing she lives on 1200 acres and they own about a dozen horses).
However I only got to meet her one time. She's a crazy offshoot of Seventh Day Adventism and likes to collect knives as well when she isn't tending to the goats.
My friend tells me his sister and him, if they do marry, would marry American Indians.
-
I think that Wikipedia entry might be outdated.
http://www.centrelink.org/KearnsDNA.html
Most Puerto Ricans know, or think they know, their ethnic and racial history: a blending of Taino (Indian), Spanish and African. Students of the islands’ past have read the same account for over 300 years; that the Native people, and their societies, were killed off by the Spanish invaders by the 1600s. It was always noted though, how many of the original colonists married Taino women or had Taino concubines, producing the original mestizaje (mixture) that, when blended with African, would produce Puerto Ricans.
Those first unions, according to the conventional wisdom, explain why some Puerto Ricans have "a little bit" of Native heritage. Mainly we are Spanish, we are told, with a little African blood and far-away Taino ancestry.
But the order of that sequence will have to change.
Dr. Juan Martinez Cruzado, a geneticist from the University of Puerto Rico Mayaguez who designed an island-wide DNA survey, has just released the final numbers and analysis of the project, and these results tell a different story.
According to the study funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation, 61 percent of all Puerto Ricans have Amerindian mitochondrial DNA, 27 percent have African and 12 percent Caucasian. (Nuclear DNA, or the genetic material present in a gene’s nucleus, is inherited in equal parts from one’s father and mother. Mitochondrial DNA is inherited only from one’s mother and does not change or blend with other materials over time.)
In other words a majority of Puerto Ricans have Native blood.
"Our study showed there was assimilation," Martinez Cruzado explained, "but the people were not extinguished. Their political and social structure was but the genes were not.
"The people were assimilated into a new colonial order and became mixed … but that’s what Puerto Ricans are: Indians mixed with Africans and Spaniards," he asserted.
"There has been an under-estimation of the Amerindian heritage of Puerto Rico, much larger than most historians will admit," he said
-
I think that Wikipedia entry might be outdated.
http://www.centrelink.org/KearnsDNA.html
Most Puerto Ricans know, or think they know, their ethnic and racial history: a blending of Taino (Indian), Spanish and African. Students of the islands’ past have read the same account for over 300 years; that the Native people, and their societies, were killed off by the Spanish invaders by the 1600s. It was always noted though, how many of the original colonists married Taino women or had Taino concubines, producing the original mestizaje (mixture) that, when blended with African, would produce Puerto Ricans.
Those first unions, according to the conventional wisdom, explain why some Puerto Ricans have "a little bit" of Native heritage. Mainly we are Spanish, we are told, with a little African blood and far-away Taino ancestry.
But the order of that sequence will have to change.
Dr. Juan Martinez Cruzado, a geneticist from the University of Puerto Rico Mayaguez who designed an island-wide DNA survey, has just released the final numbers and analysis of the project, and these results tell a different story.
According to the study funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation, 61 percent of all Puerto Ricans have Amerindian mitochondrial DNA, 27 percent have African and 12 percent Caucasian. (Nuclear DNA, or the genetic material present in a gene’s nucleus, is inherited in equal parts from one’s father and mother. Mitochondrial DNA is inherited only from one’s mother and does not change or blend with other materials over time.)
In other words a majority of Puerto Ricans have Native blood.
"Our study showed there was assimilation," Martinez Cruzado explained, "but the people were not extinguished. Their political and social structure was but the genes were not.
"The people were assimilated into a new colonial order and became mixed … but that’s what Puerto Ricans are: Indians mixed with Africans and Spaniards," he asserted.
"There has been an under-estimation of the Amerindian heritage of Puerto Rico, much larger than most historians will admit," he said
Did you even read the link?
As for maternal DNA, 61.1% of those sampled were found as having Amerindian maternal mtDNA. This means that if a person could trace back in time from daughter to mother, she would eventually reach women who lived in Puerto Rico in Pre-Columbian time. The rest divides between 26.4% with female African ancestors and 12.5% with female European ancestors
And that's the mtDNA. The Y DNA of the group is primarily European.
This family certainly doesn't look black, at all.
Julia Migenes looks like she might be part black, not these people.
-
Fair enough, thanks for the reply.
-
Almost every Latin has mixed ancestry, somewhere up the line. Criollos, mestizos, etc.
-
Even the whitest Puerto Ricans won't identify with Northern Europeans or "Anglos," for example.
-
The implication being, of course, that being a traditional Catholic is a "white" thing, eh?
Generally speaking that is the case in this country.
There's nothing I believe about this issue that wasn't the common belief of European descended Catholics before Vatican II. The reality is most liberal "trads" are fundamentally at variance with their ancestors beliefs.
Liberals care way more about being PC (and enforcing it) than they care about being Catholic. (or in the welfare of their fellow Catholics)
The fact that our ancestors believed something is irrelevant. It matters what Christ teaches and what the faith of the Church is. Our ancestors believed a lot of silly things, or at least things that are clearly silly now.
-
Blacks aren't necessarily ghetto,
Favoring integrated schools means favoring putting one's children into proximity to black culture. Period. Everyone rich in this country segregates themselves from blacks except for the token affirmative action blacks they bring into their various social organizations.
The "racist" name-callers are disgusting hypocrites.
and men wanting their daughters to find good Catholics, not good white Catholics, as a dating parameter is not "liberal filth."
Calling people "racist" or non-Catholic for wanting their children to look like them is utterly disgusting political correctness that has nothing to do with the Catholic Faith and is 100% about being a liberal.
Most trads in the US aren't poor. Struggling, but not poor. No one is lining up at soup kitchens, or is renting a motel room.
Poor is a relative term. Any Catholic who has to send their child to an integrated urban school is suffering a definite privation of the worst sort.
This is a strawman.
No, calling people racists for trying to insulate themselves from the behavior of blacks is political correctness. Those who do it side with the anti-Christians against their own people. Absolutely.
Tele, I honestly don't believe you are serious. I don't.
Blacks and whites go to school now. It's old news, and since Catholic schools weren't subject to Plessy v. Ferguson, plenty of Catholic schools were "integrated" for decades all around the world.
I am afraid he is serious.
I lvved in an integrated neighborhood for much of my life. Neither I nor any of my children were ever victims of racially motivated crime.
-
I don't think there's anything wrong with encouraging children to marry someone their own race.
There isn't necessarily, if that person is a decent human being, Catholic, and able to support a family. What is wrong is insisting that race should be a part of the considerations involved. The point of the op on this thread was how to prevent race-mixing. That suggests that there is some Catholic reason for doing so. This is nonsense.
-
Neither I nor any of my children were ever victims of racially motivated crime.
And that proves what Sigismund? Nothing. Nor would the fact my father was robbed by gunpoint by blacks shipped out from the inner city into an adjacent neighborhood with section 8 housing. Nor would it prove anything that the moment blacks are moved out to rural towns by the government with subsidized housing - that suddenly crimes pick up, that suddenly children are chased off the playgrounds that used to be safe for the children of their small white town. Nor would it prove anything that our next door neighbor's child was roughed up by black kids moving through this neighborhood. Or that the woman on the other side, next door to us, went into her kitchen one night to find a negro rifling through her purse.
What does prove the danger, are the overall statistics.
And we live in neighborhood with a safe reputation. You might try growing up in a neighborhood that had turned black, like my best and oldest friend. His next door neighbor opened the door one day and was shot dead.
Sure, people live in black neighborhoods and sometimes nothing happens.
The fact remains anyone sending their child to an integrated school is likely to be sending their children to a group with many future criminals who listen to music that glorifies gangsters and pimps.
You're willfully blind, or maybe not. I really wonder about you Sigismund.
The people who call us racist for not wanting to be around those people are some pretty callous, self-righteous, frankly, disgusting people.
-
And the other problem, is that these racial minorities are far too tribal to look at this issue objectively. They reflexively side with minorities against whites, because they are very conscious of their inferiority.
That being said, the other racial minorities in the US are undoubtedly more racist against blacks than whites are.
-
`'The biographer of Pacelli's cause for beatification, Fr Peter Grumpel, links Pacelli's request with the case of the "Black Shame" after WWI in Germany when occupying black French troops were accused of rape and pillage by the German authorities. Acc to Gumpel, Pacelli was convinced that black troops were more prone to acts of rape than white troops; the Pontiff believed moreover that there had been evidence of just such atrocious behavior on the part of American blacks as the Allies proceeded north through Italy'.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Racism-and-Pius-XIIXIII
-
I don't think there's anything wrong with encouraging children to marry someone their own race.
There isn't necessarily, if that person is a decent human being, Catholic, and able to support a family. What is wrong is insisting that race should be a part of the considerations involved. The point of the op on this thread was how to prevent race-mixing. That suggests that there is some Catholic reason for doing so. This is nonsense.
It is not nonsense, it is common sense...something that has gone out of style with liberal ideas. Today's Catholics, the majority of trads included, are so steeped in liberalism, that they are not even aware of it. It is a no-brainer that race mixing is equal to opening up a can of worms...starting off on the wrong foot...races should desire to protect themselves and their culture, traditions. It is unbelievable how many of you here on the forum have lost all common sense, never mind Catholic sense.
-
I've seen people from mixed nation parents who are very sadly ostracized by both sets of grandparents. I'm sure we've all met people from 'Italian' families that are similarly ostracized because one of their parents were from the wrong part of 'Italy'. (I put Italy in quotes because many people reject a united Italy.)
I don't see anyone here arguing that race (or nationality) is more important than religion and I've read the whole thread. If people are disturbed by it being discussed on a Catholic forum maybe they should consider the topic irrelevant to them and just move on.
-
Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii said:
"This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband’s every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love."
More Casti Connubii
"28. Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions of persons, place and time. In fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family. But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact."
No one said there aren't exceptions to the rule. But I think it's pretty liberal of you to ignore the quotes I provided and attempt to make it look like submission isn't necessary.
Exhibit A of how the FE crowd tends to be worldly.
-
Once in 1st grade, another little girl was crying because kids were calling her "ni##er" and other names (learned from their parents and "elders"). The "natural" thing then was to go over to her and be her friend. That's what I would have wanted in her place. I still remember her name: Virginia, a sweet little girl who happened to be "black"-- nothing more.
At university I studied some of the poetry of Sonia Sanchez. The lines "wite/motha/f*cka wite/motha/f*cka" are memorable.
Even in England blacks call each other nigger or nigga all the time. Many white people are turning black. The degenerate modern world of the multi racial, multi cultural society.
-
A question to be answered is the home nation and people entitled to the unequivocal possession of their homeland? Of course they are. Ireland an homogeneous society is one example of going the same route as England. Mass immigration is about cheap foreign labour and the replacement of the indigenous people.
Ancestors were mentioned by Sigismund. By blood and soil our forefathers sweated and toiled for love of God, family, nation.
I will never apologise to these liberal rats who support immigration or miscegenation.
-
It is not nonsense, it is common sense...something that has gone out of style with liberal ideas. Today's Catholics, the majority of trads included, are so steeped in liberalism, that they are not even aware of it. It is a no-brainer that race mixing is equal to opening up a can of worms...starting off on the wrong foot...races should desire to protect themselves and their culture, traditions. It is unbelievable how many of you here on the forum have lost all common sense, never mind Catholic sense.
:applause:
-
And that proves what Sigismund? Nothing. Nor would the fact my father was robbed by gunpoint by blacks shipped out from the inner city into an adjacent neighborhood with section 8 housing. Nor would it prove anything that the moment blacks are moved out to rural towns by the government with subsidized housing - that suddenly crimes pick up, that suddenly children are chased off the playgrounds that used to be safe for the children of their small white town. Nor would it prove anything that our next door neighbor's child was roughed up by black kids moving through this neighborhood. Or that the woman on the other side, next door to us, went into her kitchen one night to find a negro rifling through her purse.
What does prove the danger, are the overall statistics.
And we live in neighborhood with a safe reputation. You might try growing up in a neighborhood that had turned black, like my best and oldest friend. His next door neighbor opened the door one day and was shot dead.
Sure, people live in black neighborhoods and sometimes nothing happens.
The fact remains anyone sending their child to an integrated school is likely to be sending their children to a group with many future criminals who listen to music that glorifies gangsters and pimps.
You're willfully blind, or maybe not. I really wonder about you Sigismund.
The people who call us racist for not wanting to be around those people are some pretty callous, self-righteous, frankly, disgusting people.
When my parents lived in England and before they married, they encountered blacks. They found the older West Indies people very law abiding and decent but at that point black youths were problematic.
My mother lived with her aunt and her husband and could never go out after dark because of black youths, who would gather. She never could take the lift/elevator to the flats and if she heard blacks on the stairs above she had to risk life and limb to go up one flight of stairs to get to the flat. This was London over 30 yrs ago.
It's far worse today.
-
Even the other day I some black people in an Irish city. Nothing unusual now but they were so out of place. Black youths now attending school here. Naturally, those who support the mass immigration, multi racial society won't be sending their children to those schools with many immigrants.
It was quite sad the other day when I went for a cup of coffee. The employee, who was Irish had to ask a man (the manager) with oriental features for the keys to open the till. Rather sad really. Naturally, I won't be buying a coffee there again.
The immigrant will take all they can get whilst the locals foot the bill. Even in Irish schools already parents feel their children are being held back in their learning because of immigrants.
The conciliar church and the hierarchy are fully behind the multi culti cultural project as they benefit financially from it. This was discussed on another thread.
-
The implication being, of course, that being a traditional Catholic is a "white" thing, eh?
Generally speaking that is the case in this country.
There's nothing I believe about this issue that wasn't the common belief of European descended Catholics before Vatican II. The reality is most liberal "trads" are fundamentally at variance with their ancestors beliefs.
Liberals care way more about being PC (and enforcing it) than they care about being Catholic. (or in the welfare of their fellow Catholics)
The fact that our ancestors believed something is irrelevant. It matters what Christ teaches and what the faith of the Church is. Our ancestors believed a lot of silly things, or at least things that are clearly silly now.
Sigismund is nothing if not eloquent. His above statement is essentially the Complete Works of Karl Marx in a pithy nutshell. Comrade Marx also saw himself as a most pious admirer of an updated "true" Catholicism, of which Marx himself was the actual inventor. Comrade Lenin also saw himself as a "true" Christian, as did our Dear Comrade Uncle Joe Stalin. If Sigismund were but consistent he would now eagerly join the Soviet Communist Party, if only such an antiquated relic could still be found.
Alas, the Russian Revolution has no future, whereas historic Roman Catholicism does. Poor Comrade Karl is now weeping in his grave...
Methinks that perhaps it is our Comrade Sigismund who is become irrelevant, not the several thousand years of historic Roman Catholicism.
-
Almost every Latin has mixed ancestry, somewhere up the line. Criollos, mestizos, etc.
How many ways can we spell "G-E-N-O-C-I-D-E"? If the White Latin race can be insulted, this is about as successful as such insults can get.
First we pretend a vast and ancient community simply doesn't exist and then we're free to massacre them because, well, after all, they never existed in the first place. Virgil? The Roman Empire? Just figments of the imagination. No, there are no white people in Italy, France, Spain, and so on and so forth. Argentina? All Negroes black as coal!
When Marxists want to eliminate some group, they always simply claim there's no such thing. The N.K.V.D. and K.G.B. have taught some of us well...
Perhaps too well!!!
-
And that proves what Sigismund? Nothing. Nor would the fact my father was robbed by gunpoint by blacks shipped out from the inner city into an adjacent neighborhood with section 8 housing. Nor would it prove anything that the moment blacks are moved out to rural towns by the government with subsidized housing - that suddenly crimes pick up, that suddenly children are chased off the playgrounds that used to be safe for the children of their small white town. Nor would it prove anything that our next door neighbor's child was roughed up by black kids moving through this neighborhood. Or that the woman on the other side, next door to us, went into her kitchen one night to find a negro rifling through her purse.
What does prove the danger, are the overall statistics.
And we live in neighborhood with a safe reputation. You might try growing up in a neighborhood that had turned black, like my best and oldest friend. His next door neighbor opened the door one day and was shot dead.
Sure, people live in black neighborhoods and sometimes nothing happens.
The fact remains anyone sending their child to an integrated school is likely to be sending their children to a group with many future criminals who listen to music that glorifies gangsters and pimps.
You're willfully blind, or maybe not. I really wonder about you Sigismund.
The people who call us racist for not wanting to be around those people are some pretty callous, self-righteous, frankly, disgusting people.
When my parents lived in England and before they married, they encountered blacks. They found the older West Indies people very law abiding and decent but at that point black youths were problematic.
My mother lived with her aunt and her husband and could never go out after dark because of black youths, who would gather. She never could take the lift/elevator to the flats and if she heard blacks on the stairs above she had to risk life and limb to go up one flight of stairs to get to the flat. This was London over 30 yrs ago.
It's far worse today.
Are you sure that some actually want a multi racial society? If so, why would they want to do that? Common Sense tells me its a national security threat. You don't just hand your country and way of life over like that.
-
Even the other day I some black people in an Irish city. Nothing unusual now but they were so out of place. Black youths now attending school here. Naturally, those who support the mass immigration, multi racial society won't be sending their children to those schools with many immigrants.
It was quite sad the other day when I went for a cup of coffee. The employee, who was Irish had to ask a man (the manager) with oriental features for the keys to open the till. Rather sad really. Naturally, I won't be buying a coffee there again.
The immigrant will take all they can get whilst the locals foot the bill. Even in Irish schools already parents feel their children are being held back in their learning because of immigrants.
The conciliar church and the hierarchy are fully behind the multi culti cultural project as they benefit financially from it. This was discussed on another thread.
I'm not so sure the Novus Ordo supports that...
"Illegal immigration should be prevented" -John Paul II
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/migration/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_mes_25071995_undocuмented_migrants_en.html
-
Are you sure that some actually want a multi racial society? If so, why would they want to do that? Common Sense tells me its a national security threat. You don't just hand your country and way of life over like that.
The "U.S.A." has been completely undermined by international communism and ʝʊdɛօ-Masonry. People are living in a dream, the "American dream", and it is not what many of them had imangined.
The NWO 2013 is deeply entrenched at an "apocalyptic" level. They have the keys to all the gates. This is the fall of the "U.S.A.", imo.
-
Just for clarification I wasn't including Clare in the "liberal rat" category. I would have to to disagree with telesophorus. An attack on Clare is not right.
-
Bernadette summed it up well and I gave it a round of applause earlier.
It is not nonsense, it is common sense...something that has gone out of style with liberal ideas. Today's Catholics, the majority of trads included, are so steeped in liberalism, that they are not even aware of it. It is a no-brainer that race mixing is equal to opening up a can of worms...starting off on the wrong foot...races should desire to protect themselves and their culture, traditions. It is unbelievable how many of you here on the forum have lost all common sense, never mind Catholic sense.
-
. . .
The conciliar church and the hierarchy are fully behind the multi culti cultural project as they benefit financially from it. This was discussed on another thread.
I'm not so sure the Novus Ordo supports that...
"Illegal immigration should be prevented" -John Paul II
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/migration/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_mes_25071995_undocuмented_migrants_en.html
Take a look at these quotes from the link you cite:
The first way to help these people is to listen to them in order to become acquainted with their situation, and, whatever their legal status with regard to State law, to provide them with the necessary means of subsistence.
"Thus it is important to help illegal migrants to complete the necessary administrative papers to obtain a residence permit. Social and charitable institutions can make contact with the authorities in order to seek appropriate, lawful solutions to various cases. This kind of effort should be made especially on behalf of those who, after a long stay, are so deeply rooted in the local society that returning to their country of origin would be tantamount to a form of reverse emigration, with serious consequences particularly for the children.
Illegal immigration is merely a matter of paperwork to those liberals in the conciliar world.
It is necessary to guard against the rise of new forms of racism or xenophobic behaviour, which attempt to make these brothers and sisters of ours scapegoats for what may be difficult local situations.
Do you appreciate their concern for your "brothers and sisters" InfiniteFaith? Why do you defend conciliarism? Don't you comprehend that those modernists would cast your views upon the heap of "racism or xenophobic behaviour?"
Due to the considerable proportions reached by the illegal migrant phenomenon, legislation in all the countries involved should be brought into harmony . . .
Advocating uniform laws across sovereign countries? Isn't this akin to the goals you attribute to Judaism and NWO?
In the Church no one is a stranger, and the Church is not foreign to anyone, anywhere. As a sacrament of unity and thus a sign and a binding force for the whole human race, the Church is the place where illegal immigrants are also recognized and accepted as brothers and sisters. It is the task of the various Dioceses actively to ensure that these people, who are obliged to live outside the safety net of civil society, may find a sense of brotherhood in the Christian community.
Today the illegal migrant comes before us like that "stranger" in whom Jesus asks to be recognized. To welcome him and to show him solidarity is a duty of hospitality and fidelity to Christian identity itself.
Sounds to me like conciliarism is embracing the idea of you having little Jamaal as a guest in your home, letting him date your little girl, helping him get a job, and otherwise solidifying with him.
"Race relations" was one of the first topics back in the early 1960s where my dad first recognized a departure from previous church interests. The heretical modernist priest (incidentally who later married) was celebrating some event in which a bunch of minorities blocked a road or did something to purposefully inconvenience the citizenry and my dad took issue with him about his position.
100 years before the modernists overtook the hierarchy, the Holy Father expressed some favor with the government of the CSA during the War of Northern Aggression. The same could not be expected today with modernists, effeminates, fαɢɢօts, and lovers of minorities entrenched in conciliarism.
I consider how issues float on the (pseudo-)CAF as fairly indicative of the pulse of conciliarism. Why don't you try floating your ideas there and observe the reaction they elicit?
-
And that proves what Sigismund? Nothing. Nor would the fact my father was robbed by gunpoint by blacks shipped out from the inner city into an adjacent neighborhood with section 8 housing. Nor would it prove anything that the moment blacks are moved out to rural towns by the government with subsidized housing - that suddenly crimes pick up, that suddenly children are chased off the playgrounds that used to be safe for the children of their small white town. Nor would it prove anything that our next door neighbor's child was roughed up by black kids moving through this neighborhood. Or that the woman on the other side, next door to us, went into her kitchen one night to find a negro rifling through her purse.
What does prove the danger, are the overall statistics.
And we live in neighborhood with a safe reputation. You might try growing up in a neighborhood that had turned black, like my best and oldest friend. His next door neighbor opened the door one day and was shot dead.
Sure, people live in black neighborhoods and sometimes nothing happens.
The fact remains anyone sending their child to an integrated school is likely to be sending their children to a group with many future criminals who listen to music that glorifies gangsters and pimps.
You're willfully blind, or maybe not. I really wonder about you Sigismund.
The people who call us racist for not wanting to be around those people are some pretty callous, self-righteous, frankly, disgusting people.
When my parents lived in England and before they married, they encountered blacks. They found the older West Indies people very law abiding and decent but at that point black youths were problematic.
My mother lived with her aunt and her husband and could never go out after dark because of black youths, who would gather. She never could take the lift/elevator to the flats and if she heard blacks on the stairs above she had to risk life and limb to go up one flight of stairs to get to the flat. This was London over 30 yrs ago.
It's far worse today.
How did they feel about the signs?
In 1960's England, and in London in particular, many landlords and owners of bed & breakfasts and boarding houses put signs in their windows stating "No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish". Other owners of property and rented accommodation put up signs stating "Vacancies available - Irish Need Not Apply". These signs became known as "INNA" signs, and the blatant anti-Irish prejudice and discrimination was apparent
-
Google up:
Irish apes in the US, anti Irish US, etc. and you will find millions of racist cartoons, books about it, etc.
The Irish were treated as Blacks are being treated on this thread, in the 1800's in America. They were considered sub human, ape-like, papists, of low intelligence and morals, prone to criminal behavior, breeding like rabbits, physically inferior.
:cheers:
-
It is understandable for 2 people of the same race to be together because they share more in common.
Not necessarily. They might only have race in common. They might not even speak the same language!
As traditional Catholics, we have very little in common with most people of our race, or of any race.
-
... races should desire to protect themselves and their culture, traditions. It is unbelievable how many of you here on the forum have lost all common sense, never mind Catholic sense.
Well, that "races should desire to protect themselves and their culture, traditions" is not in any catechism that I've seen.
Furthermore, some cultures and traditions should absolutely not be preserved! And to say that they do smacks of indifferentism and liberalism!
-
It is understandable for 2 people of the same race to be together because they share more in common.
Not necessarily. They might only have race in common. They might not even speak the same language!
As traditional Catholics, we have very little in common with most people of our race, or of any race.
American whites have a heck of a lot more in common than American Blacks and American Whites. Your just pandering to the cause with a statement like that. I don't know why you are such a supporter when there is a Jєωιѕн Agenda which will lead to the persecution of Christians.
I'm sorry but I don't believe in turning over the best country on earth like that. The smart thing is to preserve what you have going. Not take risks by interracially mixing and assimilating Cultures and beliefs. You don't go changing something that is already working. Besides, the white man made this country...therefore, He and His offspring should be entitled to it. It is not someone else's to take. If you are a minority then you should go home and try to make your country better. Stop coming to ours in order to leech and to try changing things around.
-
... races should desire to protect themselves and their culture, traditions. It is unbelievable how many of you here on the forum have lost all common sense, never mind Catholic sense.
Well, that "races should desire to protect themselves and their culture, traditions" is not in any catechism that I've seen.
Furthermore, some cultures and traditions should absolutely not be preserved! And to say that they do smacks of indifferentism and liberalism!
Just because it is not in the Catechism doesn't mean squat. Perhaps this issue should be taken to the Pope. Maybe it will then be put in the Catechism. We already know that Illegal Immigration should be prevented.
-
It is understandable for 2 people of the same race to be together because they share more in common.
Not necessarily. They might only have race in common. They might not even speak the same language!
As traditional Catholics, we have very little in common with most people of our race, or of any race.
American whites have a heck of a lot more in common than American Blacks and American Whites. Your just pandering to the cause with a statement like that. I don't know why you are such a supporter when there is a Jєωιѕн Agenda which will lead to the persecution of Christians.
Christianity is not a race. It embraces people of all races and all combinations of races, and that is not a weakness.
I'm sorry but I don't believe in turning over the best country on earth like that. The smart thing is to preserve what you have going. Not take risks by interracially mixing and assimilating Cultures and beliefs.
I'm not defending the mixing of cultures and beliefs.
You don't go changing something that is already working. Besides, the white man made this country...therefore, He and His offspring should be entitled to it.
Yes, even his mixed race offspring, because they are still his descendents.
-
... races should desire to protect themselves and their culture, traditions. It is unbelievable how many of you here on the forum have lost all common sense, never mind Catholic sense.
Well, that "races should desire to protect themselves and their culture, traditions" is not in any catechism that I've seen.
...
Just because it is not in the Catechism doesn't mean squat. Perhaps this issue should be taken to the Pope. Maybe it will then be put in the Catechism. We already know that Illegal Immigration should be prevented.
Well, as I recall the catechism does say that people may not marry close relatives. That would surely be the ideal place to mention any prohibition on marrying very distant relatives too.
It ain't there though.
-
I'm sorry but I don't believe in turning over the best country on earth like that.
Do you really believe that the United States of America is the Best Country on earth? The United States of America has been anti-Catholic from the beginning. I don't think God would call the United States of America the best country on earth. Not that there are any good Catholic countries left in the world today.
-
White people made the country prod, or as some would rightly argue deist. But the Spanish arrived earlier, and although they didn't make the country what it is, they were far more civilized. They were Catholic. Their settlements were up and down the east and west coasts before any white people came, but sadly the white prods wiped them out, along with a lot of natives.
-
Google up:
Irish apes in the US, anti Irish US, etc. and you will find millions of racist cartoons, books about it, etc.
The Irish were treated as Blacks are being treated on this thread, in the 1800's in America. They were considered sub human, ape-like, papists, of low intelligence and morals, prone to criminal behavior, breeding like rabbits, physically inferior.
:cheers:
I don't think anyone here is arguing that blacks shouldn't be given the right to work, or that they're subhuman, or any of the other things you seem to be implying. And if I missed it, at least I can say for sure that no one's said they're physically inferior!
-
Lots of interesting posts made on this thread in the last day and a half. Since so much has been said, I thought I'd repost a couple of posts.
The term "supremacism" seems to have been rendered meaningless. Just another example of what seems to be the over-politicizing of language.
As far as I can tell, the term means our group is better than your group and the only political problem I can see with something like that is the revolutionary and seemingly anti-catholic idea of egalitarianism, contradicts the superiority of any group over any other group for any reason, other than the one allowed ideological exception: "egalitarians vs supermacists."
When catholics claim that salvation is only found through the catholic church, that claim would appear to be, by modern standards, an example of "catholic supremacism." Basically, asserting the belief that catholicism is "superior" to all other religions of the world.
Personally, I think catholicism is superior to all other religions of the world.
As far as racial/ethnic "supremacy" is concerned, I see little/no reason to think that there is something wrong with a man "excluding" women from other races/ethnic groups from his choice of wife and prospective daughter in laws, presumably because he views his own racial/ethinc group as in some fundamental way, better than any other group, at least for him. Of course, once this kind of thinking is accepted at the faith and family level, it will come to dominate the culture.
-
It seems like common sense to me: marry somebody of the same ancestry as your father. Carry on his line. If you need a religious reason for that, the only one that immediately comes to my mind is "honor your father and mother." But again, I think this would have been extremely obvious to, for example, roman sensibilities in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 8th century. I don't know why it would be progress to outgrow that. Although, it does seem to smack of the old protestant disconnect between the physical and the spiritual. That is the erroneous idea that morality is confined to the realm of a far away spiritual world and the muddy world of the physical must be governed by its own gritty laws. I think the two must be connected and catholicism demonstrates that connection profoundly, every time catholics celebrate the mass. So, maintaining the purity of your ancestral line, i think, physically manifests what i hope is a deep reverence for your parents, in particular your father's line, and their ancestors. I can't see how that is not the same sensibilities that catholics have traditionally held for nearly all of catholic history.
-
In regards to places like Puerto Rico, the old cia world factbook put that place as overwhelmingly of the spanish ethnicity. Also, I've met some actual central american indians and they look extremely different from spaniards, italians or french from europe. In fact, they look far more like chinese people, than they do europeans. Of course, they have a much redder/rusty complexion than chinese do, but they have similar body and facial shapes.
-
Almost every Latin has mixed ancestry, somewhere up the line. Criollos, mestizos, etc.
How many ways can we spell "G-E-N-O-C-I-D-E"? If the White Latin race can be insulted, this is about as successful as such insults can get.
First we pretend a vast and ancient community simply doesn't exist and then we're free to massacre them because, well, after all, they never existed in the first place. Virgil? The Roman Empire? Just figments of the imagination. No, there are no white people in Italy, France, Spain, and so on and so forth. Argentina? All Negroes black as coal!
When Marxists want to eliminate some group, they always simply claim there's no such thing. The N.K.V.D. and K.G.B. have taught some of us well...
Perhaps too well!!!
Sadly, I think you are right about that. :pray:
-
I'm sorry but I don't believe in turning over the best country on earth like that.
Do you really believe that the United States of America is the Best Country on earth? The United States of America has been anti-Catholic from the beginning. I don't think God would call the United States of America the best country on earth. Not that there are any good Catholic countries left in the world today.
I never knew that the USA was anti-Catholic and I live here. Our Constitution grants freedom of religion to everyone. I can't think of any country off-hand that is better economically than the United States. I think we probably have more liberty as well.
-
It is understandable for 2 people of the same race to be together because they share more in common.
Not necessarily. They might only have race in common. They might not even speak the same language!
As traditional Catholics, we have very little in common with most people of our race, or of any race.
American whites have a heck of a lot more in common than American Blacks and American Whites. Your just pandering to the cause with a statement like that. I don't know why you are such a supporter when there is a Jєωιѕн Agenda which will lead to the persecution of Christians.
Christianity is not a race. It embraces people of all races and all combinations of races, and that is not a weakness.
I'm sorry but I don't believe in turning over the best country on earth like that. The smart thing is to preserve what you have going. Not take risks by interracially mixing and assimilating Cultures and beliefs.
I'm not defending the mixing of cultures and beliefs.
You don't go changing something that is already working. Besides, the white man made this country...therefore, He and His offspring should be entitled to it.
Yes, even his mixed race offspring, because they are still his descendents.
It embraces people of all races and cultures...yes. It didn't intend for those races and cultures to assimilate. We know this because God diversified mankind at the Tower of Babel as well as race. God did not intend for a diversified mankind to assimilate. Otherwise he would have never diversified us in the first place.
The bible says that we should follow the law of the land. Illegal Immigration is against the law. Liberals will always cook up some illogical reason to go against that because they don't want to own up to their mistakes. Its pointless for me to argue with them.
-
I'm sorry but I don't believe in turning over the best country on earth like that.
Do you really believe that the United States of America is the Best Country on earth? The United States of America has been anti-Catholic from the beginning. I don't think God would call the United States of America the best country on earth. Not that there are any good Catholic countries left in the world today.
I never knew that the USA was anti-Catholic and I live here. Our Constitution grants freedom of religion to everyone. I can't think of any country off-hand that is better economically than the United States. I think we probably have more liberty as well.
Then you don't know our sad history with the Know-Nothing persecutions especially, and the persecutions during the 1600s in the English colonies as well as the 1700s. That so-called freedom of religion comes with a terrible price: watering down of our doctrines to the point where Catholic simply coexist with Protestants and other religions without making any efforts to convert them!
More "liberty"? For the moment, maybe, but the Patriot Acts and other such encroachments of government have made this country nearly Socialist, if not outright like Europe.
As for the US better off economically, don't make me laugh. A huge debt on the American people, gas prices soaring, more people filing for bankruptcy: these are not signs of a robust economy.
-
It's still better than Haiti!
-
It goes to stand that the US of course is still better than any Third World country, but that isn't saying much.
-
I'm sorry but I don't believe in turning over the best country on earth like that.
Do you really believe that the United States of America is the Best Country on earth? The United States of America has been anti-Catholic from the beginning. I don't think God would call the United States of America the best country on earth. Not that there are any good Catholic countries left in the world today.
I never knew that the USA was anti-Catholic and I live here. Our Constitution grants freedom of religion to everyone. I can't think of any country off-hand that is better economically than the United States. I think we probably have more liberty as well.
Then you don't know our sad history with the Know-Nothing persecutions especially, and the persecutions during the 1600s in the English colonies as well as the 1700s. That so-called freedom of religion comes with a terrible price: watering down of our doctrines to the point where Catholic simply coexist with Protestants and other religions without making any efforts to convert them!
More "liberty"? For the moment, maybe, but the Patriot Acts and other such encroachments of government have made this country nearly Socialist, if not outright like Europe.
As for the US better off economically, don't make me laugh. A huge debt on the American people, gas prices soaring, more people filing for bankruptcy: these are not signs of a robust economy.
Yes our economy is starting to fall apart. It is not the end though. There are things that can be done still. I do agree that our rights are dwindling away as well. Probably not a whole lot we can do about it at this point. Other than overthrow the you know what.
-
I'm sorry but I don't believe in turning over the best country on earth like that.
Do you really believe that the United States of America is the Best Country on earth? The United States of America has been anti-Catholic from the beginning. I don't think God would call the United States of America the best country on earth. Not that there are any good Catholic countries left in the world today.
I never knew that the USA was anti-Catholic and I live here. Our Constitution grants freedom of religion to everyone. I can't think of any country off-hand that is better economically than the United States. I think we probably have more liberty as well.
Yeah, well, if you think the USA is the best country in the world, give Obama another four years and it won't be. :facepalm:
-
It goes to stand that the US of course is still better than any Third World country, but that isn't saying much.
and it's better than mexico....
-
I never knew that the USA was anti-Catholic and I live here. Our Constitution grants freedom of religion to everyone. I can't think of any country off-hand that is better economically than the United States. I think we probably have more liberty as well.
Wow! Are you serious about not knowing that the USA is and has always been anti-Catholic? Maybe there are areas that I haven't visited and am not aware of where it is not noticeable.
Aren't you the one who has posted quite a bit about some sort of judaic/NWO conspiracy? Don't you see the USA government and institutions facilitating this? Don't you see that the modernization of Rome and the resulting conciliar church is a cog in the plan? All you've written about this must have been parroted from some nut-job source that brings disrepute to the whole concept--some source that's probably a patsy to discredit the opposition--rather than your own critical thinking. I'm sorry if I'm being overly harsh. But I don't see how one could be a critical independent thinker and miss the role of the USA and conciliarism in what you've written.
-
Almost every Latin has mixed ancestry, somewhere up the line. Criollos, mestizos, etc.
How many ways can we spell "G-E-N-O-C-I-D-E"? If the White Latin race can be insulted, this is about as successful as such insults can get.
First we pretend a vast and ancient community simply doesn't exist and then we're free to massacre them because, well, after all, they never existed in the first place. Virgil? The Roman Empire? Just figments of the imagination. No, there are no white people in Italy, France, Spain, and so on and so forth. Argentina? All Negroes black as coal!
When Marxists want to eliminate some group, they always simply claim there's no such thing. The N.K.V.D. and K.G.B. have taught some of us well...
Perhaps too well!!!
I don't understand the hostility, and am certainly not a Marxist.
All I'm saying is that Europeans married indigenous people.
My own father was a "white" Mexican. He didn't look like George Lopez.
-
I never knew that the USA was anti-Catholic and I live here. Our Constitution grants freedom of religion to everyone. I can't think of any country off-hand that is better economically than the United States. I think we probably have more liberty as well.
Wow! Are you serious about not knowing that the USA is and has always been anti-Catholic? Maybe there are areas that I haven't visited and am not aware of where it is not noticeable.
Aren't you the one who has posted quite a bit about some sort of judaic/NWO conspiracy? Don't you see the USA government and institutions facilitating this? Don't you see that the modernization of Rome and the resulting conciliar church is a cog in the plan? All you've written about this must have been parroted from some nut-job source that brings disrepute to the whole concept--some source that's probably a patsy to discredit the opposition--rather than your own critical thinking. I'm sorry if I'm being overly harsh. But I don't see how one could be a critical independent thinker and miss the role of the USA and conciliarism in what you've written.
I have lived in the USA all my life, and yes I have been through persecution. I can't say for sure if that is because I am Catholic, but it could be. As for the rest of what you are saying...I do see this judaic plot unfolding as we speak. I'm not convinced about how the Church in Rome is playing a role in that however. I would need to see more info behind why you are claiming that.
-
And the other problem, is that these racial minorities are far too tribal to look at this issue objectively. They reflexively side with minorities against whites, because they are very conscious of their inferiority.
That being said, the other racial minorities in the US are undoubtedly more racist against blacks than whites are.
Yeah, there's no tribal myopia here. :rolleyes:
-
Almost every Latin has mixed ancestry, somewhere up the line. Criollos, mestizos, etc.
How many ways can we spell "G-E-N-O-C-I-D-E"? If the White Latin race can be insulted, this is about as successful as such insults can get.
First we pretend a vast and ancient community simply doesn't exist and then we're free to massacre them because, well, after all, they never existed in the first place. Virgil? The Roman Empire? Just figments of the imagination. No, there are no white people in Italy, France, Spain, and so on and so forth. Argentina? All Negroes black as coal!
When Marxists want to eliminate some group, they always simply claim there's no such thing. The N.K.V.D. and K.G.B. have taught some of us well...
Perhaps too well!!!
I don't understand the hostility, and am certainly not a Marxist.
All I'm saying is that Europeans married indigenous people.
My own father was a "white" Mexican. He didn't look like George Lopez.
Yes it happened but not at the rates in which it is happening now here in the US. As far as Interracial in general goes.
-
I do see this judaic plot unfolding as we speak. I'm not convinced about how the Church in Rome is playing a role in that however. I would need to see more info behind why you are claiming that.
Benedict XVI has called for a world government, and in 2011, the Vatican called for a world bank. This is part of the Jєωs' plot.
-
The implication being, of course, that being a traditional Catholic is a "white" thing, eh?
Generally speaking that is the case in this country.
There's nothing I believe about this issue that wasn't the common belief of European descended Catholics before Vatican II. The reality is most liberal "trads" are fundamentally at variance with their ancestors beliefs.
Liberals care way more about being PC (and enforcing it) than they care about being Catholic. (or in the welfare of their fellow Catholics)
The fact that our ancestors believed something is irrelevant. It matters what Christ teaches and what the faith of the Church is. Our ancestors believed a lot of silly things, or at least things that are clearly silly now.
Sigismund is nothing if not eloquent. His above statement is essentially the Complete Works of Karl Marx in a pithy nutshell. Comrade Marx also saw himself as a most pious admirer of an updated "true" Catholicism, of which Marx himself was the actual inventor. Comrade Lenin also saw himself as a "true" Christian, as did our Dear Comrade Uncle Joe Stalin. If Sigismund were but consistent he would now eagerly join the Soviet Communist Party, if only such an antiquated relic could still be found.
Alas, the Russian Revolution has no future, whereas historic Roman Catholicism does. Poor Comrade Karl is now weeping in his grave...
Methinks that perhaps it is our Comrade Sigismund who is become irrelevant, not the several thousand years of historic Roman Catholicism.
I am not suggesting that any part of Catholic tradition is irrelevant. I am suggesting the fact that some of our ancestors believed that race mixing was bad is irrelevant. Or, perhaps not irrelevant. It is a reminder that sin infects every generation, and that no one but Christ and Our Lady are free from its influence. To state that one personally does not wish to marry someone of another race is just that, a personal decision based on personal feelings. It is neither virtuous nor sinful in itself. What is heretical and contrary to Catholic tradition is the suggestion that it is somehow wrong to marry someone who is Catholic and of another race. I have yet to see anyone even try to demonstrate the contrary based on actual Catholic sources.
-
Just for clarification I wasn't including Clare in the "liberal rat" category. I would have to to disagree with telesophorus. An attack on Clare is not right.
Thank you.
-
And that proves what Sigismund? Nothing. Nor would the fact my father was robbed by gunpoint by blacks shipped out from the inner city into an adjacent neighborhood with section 8 housing. Nor would it prove anything that the moment blacks are moved out to rural towns by the government with subsidized housing - that suddenly crimes pick up, that suddenly children are chased off the playgrounds that used to be safe for the children of their small white town. Nor would it prove anything that our next door neighbor's child was roughed up by black kids moving through this neighborhood. Or that the woman on the other side, next door to us, went into her kitchen one night to find a negro rifling through her purse.
What does prove the danger, are the overall statistics.
And we live in neighborhood with a safe reputation. You might try growing up in a neighborhood that had turned black, like my best and oldest friend. His next door neighbor opened the door one day and was shot dead.
Sure, people live in black neighborhoods and sometimes nothing happens.
The fact remains anyone sending their child to an integrated school is likely to be sending their children to a group with many future criminals who listen to music that glorifies gangsters and pimps.
You're willfully blind, or maybe not. I really wonder about you Sigismund.
The people who call us racist for not wanting to be around those people are some pretty callous, self-righteous, frankly, disgusting people.
When my parents lived in England and before they married, they encountered blacks. They found the older West Indies people very law abiding and decent but at that point black youths were problematic.
My mother lived with her aunt and her husband and could never go out after dark because of black youths, who would gather. She never could take the lift/elevator to the flats and if she heard blacks on the stairs above she had to risk life and limb to go up one flight of stairs to get to the flat. This was London over 30 yrs ago.
It's far worse today.
How did they feel about the signs?
In 1960's England, and in London in particular, many landlords and owners of bed & breakfasts and boarding houses put signs in their windows stating "No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish". Other owners of property and rented accommodation put up signs stating "Vacancies available - Irish Need Not Apply". These signs became known as "INNA" signs, and the blatant anti-Irish prejudice and discrimination was apparent
Well,you know, people have a right to associate with people exactly like them at all times, avoiding the great mass of people for whom Christ died, and preserve their little slice of culture to the exclusion of all others. I don't see how John Grace could possible object to the English doing this given his posts about wanting to keep his own homeland ethnically pure.
-
Google up:
Irish apes in the US, anti Irish US, etc. and you will find millions of racist cartoons, books about it, etc.
The Irish were treated as Blacks are being treated on this thread, in the 1800's in America. They were considered sub human, ape-like, papists, of low intelligence and morals, prone to criminal behavior, breeding like rabbits, physically inferior.
:cheers:
How can anyone down thumb this? It is a simple statement of historical facts. Or perhaps you don't like historical facts. Look, you may be entitled to your own opinion. but no one is entitled to their own facts.
-
... races should desire to protect themselves and their culture, traditions. It is unbelievable how many of you here on the forum have lost all common sense, never mind Catholic sense.
Well, that "races should desire to protect themselves and their culture, traditions" is not in any catechism that I've seen.
Furthermore, some cultures and traditions should absolutely not be preserved! And to say that they do smacks of indifferentism and liberalism!
Just because it is not in the Catechism doesn't mean squat. Perhaps this issue should be taken to the Pope. Maybe it will then be put in the Catechism. We already know that Illegal Immigration should be prevented.
Yes, by all means. Let's submit the racist nonsense that purports to be the Catholic faith to the pope (as soon as we have one again, of course) and see what he says about it.
-
I'm sorry but I don't believe in turning over the best country on earth like that.
Do you really believe that the United States of America is the Best Country on earth? The United States of America has been anti-Catholic from the beginning. I don't think God would call the United States of America the best country on earth. Not that there are any good Catholic countries left in the world today.
I never knew that the USA was anti-Catholic and I live here. Our Constitution grants freedom of religion to everyone. I can't think of any country off-hand that is better economically than the United States. I think we probably have more liberty as well.
Do you really think a country that makes a sacrament out of abortion is not anti-Catholic? The naivete necessary for that statement is staggering.
-
I do see this judaic plot unfolding as we speak. I'm not convinced about how the Church in Rome is playing a role in that however. I would need to see more info behind why you are claiming that.
Benedict XVI has called for a world government, and in 2011, the Vatican called for a world bank. This is part of the Jєωs' plot.
I disagree with Pope Benedict on that one then. That is something that will only occur when the antichrist comes. Perhaps someone needs to show this man why it is a bad thing. Unless he is speeding up the inevitable.
-
I do see this judaic plot unfolding as we speak. I'm not convinced about how the Church in Rome is playing a role in that however. I would need to see more info behind why you are claiming that.
Benedict XVI has called for a world government, and in 2011, the Vatican called for a world bank. This is part of the Jєωs' plot.
I disagree with Pope Benedict on that one then. That is something that will only occur when the antichrist comes. Perhaps someone needs to show this man why it is a bad thing. Unless he is speeding up the inevitable.
The problem is, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is well protected inside the Vatican.
For instance, last year the Vatican made it mandatory for all of its clerics and employees to carry an ID card with an RFID chip (microchip) inside it. This is one step away from having the chip implanted in your hand. This chip, which is believed to be the "mark of the beast" spoken of in the Apocalypse, cannot be taken or that person will be damned.
Yet the Vatican promotes it! It's sad.
-
. . . As for the rest of what you are saying...I do see this judaic plot unfolding as we speak. I'm not convinced about how the Church in Rome is playing a role in that however. I would need to see more info behind why you are claiming that.
Up until the the Church becoming infested with modernists in the late 50s/early 60s, the Church was strict and clear in teachings of faith and morals, and was not a protestant/pagan/diverse cult appeasing institution. Modernists overtook the hierarchy and used Vatican II to make the Church more friendly to the agenda you speak of. Now the church is much softer on questions of faith and morals; teaching about the reality of hell is lacking; paganistic/hedonistic behavior is no longer a grave matter; race-mixing is much more accepted than previously; priests and their lesbian armies of EMHCs eagerly give communion to known practicing fαɢɢօts, liberal pro-abortion politicians, couples in illicit relationships, etc.; the "mass" has been watered down and made more agreeable to protestants and Jєωs (you know the NO "mass" was developed by a probable freemason in consultation with protestant ministers and at least one Jєω); even the traditional fast and abstinence practices were practically abolished; Latin was abrogated.
In short, it was all about blending in and erasing Catholic identity. The how ever many of millions strong Roman Catholic Church, the unwavering rock of stability in teaching morality and in Catholic identity, was an impasse for the agenda you speak of. Thus, the modernists narrowed the entrance to hell, stripped the Catholic identity, and silenced and passified the parishioners from within. That's a synopsis of the role of conciliarism.
-
. . . What is heretical . . . . . is the suggestion that it is somehow wrong to marry someone who is Catholic and of another race. . .
You have tossed this around quite extensively. What is your basis for saying this?
-
I never knew that the USA was anti-Catholic and I live here. Our Constitution grants freedom of religion to everyone. I can't think of any country off-hand that is better economically than the United States. I think we probably have more liberty as well.
Do you really think a country that makes a sacrament out of abortion is not anti-Catholic? The naivete necessary for that statement is staggering.
Excellent point!
-
. . . What is heretical . . . . . is the suggestion that it is somehow wrong to marry someone who is Catholic and of another race. . .
You have tossed this around quite extensively. What is your basis for saying this?
There is no basis in the Gospel of Christ or the teaching of His Church to suggest that mixed race marriages are wrong. It is heretical to make "racial purity some kind of idol. As I have said many times here, the Word became flesh, not white flesh. That's all I am saying.
-
I do see this judaic plot unfolding as we speak. I'm not convinced about how the Church in Rome is playing a role in that however. I would need to see more info behind why you are claiming that.
Benedict XVI has called for a world government, and in 2011, the Vatican called for a world bank. This is part of the Jєωs' plot.
I disagree with Pope Benedict on that one then. That is something that will only occur when the antichrist comes. Perhaps someone needs to show this man why it is a bad thing. Unless he is speeding up the inevitable.
"Perhaps someone needs to show this man why it is a bad thing."
Are you serious?!?!?!?! Can you possibly be this naive?!?!?! Have you ever heard the expression about somebody knowing just enough about something to be dangerous? That aptly fits your level of knowledge about things. I hope you're only talking about this stuff anonymously because you obviously don't have any awareness about distinguishing between friend and foe.
-
. . . As for the rest of what you are saying...I do see this judaic plot unfolding as we speak. I'm not convinced about how the Church in Rome is playing a role in that however. I would need to see more info behind why you are claiming that.
Up until the the Church becoming infested with modernists in the late 50s/early 60s, the Church was strict and clear in teachings of faith and morals, and was not a protestant/pagan/diverse cult appeasing institution. Modernists overtook the hierarchy and used Vatican II to make the Church more friendly to the agenda you speak of. Now the church is much softer on questions of faith and morals; teaching about the reality of hell is lacking; paganistic/hedonistic behavior is no longer a grave matter; race-mixing is much more accepted than previously; priests and their lesbian armies of EMHCs eagerly give communion to known practicing fαɢɢօts, liberal pro-abortion politicians, couples in illicit relationships, etc.; the "mass" has been watered down and made more agreeable to protestants and Jєωs (you know the NO "mass" was developed by a probable freemason in consultation with protestant ministers and at least one Jєω); even the traditional fast and abstinence practices were practically abolished; Latin was abrogated.
In short, it was all about blending in and erasing Catholic identity. The how ever many of millions strong Roman Catholic Church, the unwavering rock of stability in teaching morality and in Catholic identity, was an impasse for the agenda you speak of. Thus, the modernists narrowed the entrance to hell, stripped the Catholic identity, and silenced and passified the parishioners from within. That's a synopsis of the role of conciliarism.
How do you know the part about the NO mass being developed by a freemason, protestant ministers, and a Jєω?
The Official Teaching of the Roman Church is that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a mortal sin. There are cases where NO priests have denied "practicing fαɢɢօts" the Eucharist. It was all over in the news. It had something to do with Rainbow Sash or something. Anyways, there are some liberal areas where priests think that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is morally acceptable though. I know of a priest in my diocese right now and he told me that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is OK if it is genetic. What he said is not consistent with what the Church in Rome teaches. The problem is the area that I am in. I swear this place is one of the most liberal places in the United States. I have never seen a real hippy until I came here (Olympia, Wa). Thats why you have some priests running around preaching that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is genetic. Rome sent an auxiliary Bishop to do something about the matter. he has been here for over 10 years, and there is still obviously a problem.
There are obviously people who should not be priests who are. I think these sort of issues happen more in extremely liberal areas. Most NO priests will tell you that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a mortal sin under any circuмstance however.
-
How do you know the part about the NO mass being developed by a freemason, protestant ministers, and a Jєω?
It has been proven that Cardinal Bugnini was a Freemason.
Protestants did play a role in the creation of the New Mass. After the NO was promulgated, one Protestant minister said "We have finished the work that Martin Luther began".
-
No one here has made an idol of racial purity.
However, there is no doubt that an idol has been made of his politically correct values, so much so that he accuses those who do not hold to them of not accepting the Gospel or the Incarnation.
He says the common sense view of Catholics of the past is somehow against the Catholic Faith.
He is completely blind, pretending that those who held the Catholic Faith a couple generations before him were in grave error because they didn't hold to his sacred cow. A sacred cow of cultural marxism and liberalism.
I think some of you might have already figured out, that Sigismund is a lot more liberal than he usually makes himself out to be. He has defended the post-conciliar annulments. He's studying under the modern bishops to receive the diaconate.
Do you really think he's so dull as to not understand the beliefs of the modern hierarchy, that they are modernists? Why would he never talk about it?
Do you really think he doesn't understand the evil influence the Jєωs have? And yet he is on here as a philosemite.
Let's get real here: he makes a sacred cow of the idea that there are no differences between races that have to be taken into practical account, particularly in the very important consideration of the welfare of one's descendants, because he has the post Vatican II religion.
-
. . . What is heretical . . . . . is the suggestion that it is somehow wrong to marry someone who is Catholic and of another race. . .
You have tossed this around quite extensively. What is your basis for saying this?
There is no basis in the Gospel of Christ or the teaching of His Church to suggest that mixed race marriages are wrong. It is heretical to make "racial purity some kind of idol. As I have said many times here, the Word became flesh, not white flesh. That's all I am saying.
What's heretical about believing people should, as a general rule, stick to marrying someone their own race? When did the Church condemn this?
-
Yeah, there's no tribal myopia here. :rolleyes:
No, there really isn't. The only myopia is coming from you - the apologist for the tribe.
People do have a right to association. That you say people who wish to provide for the security of their homes and businesses and for the preservation of their families and values are somehow not being Christian is just pure left-wing pharisaism.
There are large tracts of urban USA that the productive people have fled to get away from the blacks.
-
There is nothing heretical about feeling this way personally. People are attracted as they are. What is heretical is suggesting that Catholics have to feel this way, or that mixed race marriages are sinful or morally wrong. If you believe in the Incarnation, that God became human (not a particular kind of human, and certainly not a white human) then you cannot believe logically that one human of one race marrying another human of another race is prohibited by the Faith.
I suppose you are right in suggesting that the Church has never explicitly said "Believing that race mixing is a sin is heretical. but the Bibles declaration that God has made of one blood all nations of men seems to me to clearly say so. Can you show me any official Church teaching that prohibits or even discourages people of different races from marrying?
-
. . . What is heretical . . . . . is the suggestion that it is somehow wrong to marry someone who is Catholic and of another race. . .
You have tossed this around quite extensively. What is your basis for saying this?
There is no basis in the Gospel of Christ or the teaching of His Church to suggest that mixed race marriages are wrong. It is heretical to make "racial purity some kind of idol. As I have said many times here, the Word became flesh, not white flesh. That's all I am saying.
What's heretical about believing people should, as a general rule, stick to marrying someone their own race? When did the Church condemn this?
The post from me above was responding to this post from SSS, not the one from Telesphorus immediately above it.
-
There is nothing heretical about feeling this way personally.
Why not? Why shouldn't it be sinful to prefer whites to blacks personally?
People are attracted as they are.
Not all such attractions are good.
What is heretical is suggesting that Catholics have to feel this way
No one ever said it was sinful to lack common sense. That doesn't mean they shouldn't try to have it. If someone does something that has the potential for causing hardships, he is responsible for it.
or that mixed race marriages are sinful or morally wrong.
There's only a couple posters who might have said that and they're new to the thread.
Do try to make distinctions about whose positions are being addressed.
-
Well, that "races should desire to protect themselves and their culture, traditions" is not in any catechism that I've seen.
The right of nations and peoples to exist doesn't have to be in the catechism to be something people with Catholic sense understand.
-
"Race relations" was one of the first topics back in the early 1960s where my dad first recognized a departure from previous church interests. The heretical modernist priest (incidentally who later married) was celebrating some event in which a bunch of minorities blocked a road or did something to purposefully inconvenience the citizenry and my dad took issue with him about his position.
Yes, it's a different religion. It's cultural marxism.
-
If people didn't want drunken Irish louts in their hotels, that's understandable.
I wouldn't be surprised if the general population of Southern Europe wishes they could keep the British swine from harrying their shores. And if they took steps to do so I would certainly approve.
-
I might add, one reason the Irish weren't liked was that they would riot against blacks, even hanging them.
Initially intended to express anger at the draft, the protests turned into an ugly race riot, with the white rioters, chiefly Irish immigrants,[6] attacking blacks wherever they could be found. At least 100 black people were estimated to have been killed. The conditions in the city were such that Major General John E. Wool, commander of the Department of the East, stated on July 16, "Martial law ought to be proclaimed, but I have not a sufficient force to enforce it."[7] The military did not reach the city until after the first day of rioting, when mobs had already ransacked or destroyed numerous public buildings, two Protestant churches, the homes of various abolitionists or sympathizers, many black homes, and the Colored Orphan Asylum at 44th Street and Fifth Avenue, which was burned to the ground.[8]
That is to say, the Irish were hated pretty much by the same sort of arrogant people who can't stand "racist Republicans" "gun nuts" "fundamentalist nutjobs" "antisemitic kooks" - and they still see no problem sending men to die in wars for no good reason.
Incidentally the hispanic gangs tend to drive the black gangs out of areas they move into today.
"Doing the jobs whites won't do."
-
No one here has made an idol of racial purity.
He says the common sense view of Catholics of the past is somehow against the Catholic Faith.
It is not the common sense view of Catholics. It is the view of a few racist heretics on one forum
This has stretched out for 105 pages. I am done with it. Surely something Catholic is being discussed on some other thread.
-
People are attracted as they are.
As Tele said, not all attractions are a good thing.
-
It is not the common sense view of Catholics.
You mean Catholics 60 years ago didn't think it was common sense that whites should marry whites?
It is the view of a few racist heretics on one forum
Wanting grandchildren to be of the same race as oneself is not "racist heresy."
This has stretched out for 105 pages. I am done with it. Surely something Catholic is being discussed on some other thread.
Are you really? These things wouldn't be dragged out the way they are if it weren't for the reality that liberals make this a dogmatic matter.
-
No one here has made an idol of racial purity.
He says the common sense view of Catholics of the past is somehow against the Catholic Faith.
It is not the common sense view of Catholics. It is the view of a few racist heretics on one forum
This has stretched out for 105 pages. I am done with it. Surely something Catholic is being discussed on some other thread.
Please explain how that is racist. Just because someone does not like race mixing does not mean they think their race is superior.
You make it seem so bad that people are against race-mixing. I find that hard to understand especially when there is strong evidence that Jєωs are using it as a tool to establish a one world government. What does that make you? Someone who does not want to see things for what they are and face the truth. You just want to be non-chalant about the matter, and let things just kinda dwindle down hill. You could care less about the future generations. You are only concerned with yourself.
-
The teaching of the Popes, Pius XI and Pius XII, on the unity of the human race, in the face of some widespread errors of the early 20th century. In the wake of the prominence of evolutionary eugenics and its mistaken concepts of a master race, Catholic teaching reaffirms some basic truths such as the equality of rational nature in all men, and while recognizing the differences that exist between them, points out the duties imposed on us by virtue of our nature which extends to all men without exception and the only possible grounds for a harmonious union between individuals of different cultures and peoples.
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.
...
None but superficial minds could stumble into concepts of a national God, of a national religion; or attempt to lock within the frontiers of a single people, within the narrow limits of a single race, God, the Creator of the universe, King and Legislator of all nations before whose immensity they are "as a drop of a bucket" (Isaiah xI, 15).
...
The first of these pernicious errors, widespread today, is the forgetfulness of that law of human solidarity and charity which is dictated and imposed by our common origin and by the equality of rational nature in all men, to whatever people they belong, and by the redeeming Sacrifice offered by Jesus Christ on the Altar of the Cross to His Heavenly Father on behalf of sinful mankind.
...
In the light of this unity of all mankind, which exists in law and in fact, individuals do not feel themselves isolated units, like grains of sand, but united by the very force of their nature and by their internal destiny, into an organic, harmonious mutual relationship which varies with the changing of times.
And the nations, despite a difference of development due to diverse conditions of life and of culture, are not destined to break the unity of the human race, but rather to enrich and embellish it by the sharing of their own peculiar gifts and by that reciprocal interchange of goods which can be possible and efficacious only when a mutual love and a lively sense of charity unite all the sons of the same Father and all those redeemed by the same Divine Blood.
The Church of Christ, the faithful depository of the teaching of Divine Wisdom, cannot and does not think of deprecating or disdaining the particular characteristics which each people, with jealous and intelligible pride, cherishes and retains as a precious heritage. Her aim is a supernatural union in all-embracing love, deeply felt and practiced, and not the unity which is exclusively external and superficial and by that very fact weak.
The Church hails with joy and follows with her maternal blessing every method of guidance and care which aims at a wise and orderly evolution of particular forces and tendencies having their origin in the individual character of each race, provided that they are not opposed to the duties incuмbent on men from their unity of origin and common destiny.
-
"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."
There's nothing here that rules out race having value. On the contrary, it's listed as one of a set of values that can have a "necessary and honorable" function in worldly things.
It has gotten to the point that any regard for race of any kind (except for "affirmative action" or "positive discrimination" for minorities) is regarded as "sinful" racism. A "sin" that just happens to correspond to the post-68 political correctness, that just happens to mean that borders must be opened indiscriminately and mass migration subsidized until the very integrity of the former nations of Christendom are threatened.
-
The teaching of the Popes, Pius XI and Pius XII, on the unity of the human race, in the face of some widespread errors of the early 20th century. In the wake of the prominence of evolutionary eugenics and its mistaken concepts of a master race, Catholic teaching reaffirms some basic truths such as the equality of rational nature in all men, and while recognizing the differences that exist between them, points out the duties imposed on us by virtue of our nature which extends to all men without exception and the only possible grounds for a harmonious union between individuals of different cultures and peoples.
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.
...
None but superficial minds could stumble into concepts of a national God, of a national religion; or attempt to lock within the frontiers of a single people, within the narrow limits of a single race, God, the Creator of the universe, King and Legislator of all nations before whose immensity they are "as a drop of a bucket" (Isaiah xI, 15).
...
The first of these pernicious errors, widespread today, is the forgetfulness of that law of human solidarity and charity which is dictated and imposed by our common origin and by the equality of rational nature in all men, to whatever people they belong, and by the redeeming Sacrifice offered by Jesus Christ on the Altar of the Cross to His Heavenly Father on behalf of sinful mankind.
...
In the light of this unity of all mankind, which exists in law and in fact, individuals do not feel themselves isolated units, like grains of sand, but united by the very force of their nature and by their internal destiny, into an organic, harmonious mutual relationship which varies with the changing of times.
And the nations, despite a difference of development due to diverse conditions of life and of culture, are not destined to break the unity of the human race, but rather to enrich and embellish it by the sharing of their own peculiar gifts and by that reciprocal interchange of goods which can be possible and efficacious only when a mutual love and a lively sense of charity unite all the sons of the same Father and all those redeemed by the same Divine Blood.
The Church of Christ, the faithful depository of the teaching of Divine Wisdom, cannot and does not think of deprecating or disdaining the particular characteristics which each people, with jealous and intelligible pride, cherishes and retains as a precious heritage. Her aim is a supernatural union in all-embracing love, deeply felt and practiced, and not the unity which is exclusively external and superficial and by that very fact weak.
The Church hails with joy and follows with her maternal blessing every method of guidance and care which aims at a wise and orderly evolution of particular forces and tendencies having their origin in the individual character of each race, provided that they are not opposed to the duties incuмbent on men from their unity of origin and common destiny.
Mainly what I gather from all of this is that we should never place the interests of our country before those of God. We should always place God's laws first in everything that we do. Otherwise, other things can become "idolatrous".
Yes I agree, that we are supposed to work towards getting along with each others regardless of race. This does not imply, however, that there should be complete assimilation amongst races. After all, there are different races for a reason. If you think otherwise, please share your thoughts and why.
-
There's nothing here that rules out race having value.
Absolutely. But not, as was said, to the the extent of denying the equality of rational nature in all men, nor of forgetfulness of their common origin in Adam, their intended end and destiny in the same God and Father, their creation in the divine image and their redemption by the blood of Christ.
It is when these latter are forgotten or minimized that race is exalted to an unacceptable and idolatrous level. This was the reality Pope Pius IX was addressing, a concept of a master race entirely bereft of a supernatural vision, that denied original sin, denied the common paternity of Adam and was based on evolution and eugenics.
Remember the parable of the Good Samaritan. The Jєωs looked down on Samaritans for similar reasons and believed their obligations extended no further than their own kith and kin. With this Our Lord was not pleased.
borders must be opened indiscriminately and mass migration subsidized until the very integrity of the former nations of Christendom are threatened
Of course, the Church does not support or require any such thing. Nations may form their immigration policies and decide its limitations on whatever they deem in the best interests of their citizens, so long however as the Papal statements above including "And the nations, despite a difference of development due to diverse conditions of life and of culture, are not destined to break the unity of the human race, but rather to enrich and embellish it by the sharing of their own peculiar gifts" are not disregarded nor the unity of mankind "which exists in law and in fact".
-
How do you know the part about the NO mass being developed by a freemason, protestant ministers, and a Jєω?
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Interview_With_Archbishop_Lefebvre.htm
About a third of the way into this interview, ABL talks about the protestant ministers. He says 5--I usually see 6 referenced. Google "Bugnini Protestant Ministers Mass" and you'll find more info. Bugnini was in charge of writing the NO. Google "Bugnini Freemason." I usually don't see the Jєω referenced regarding participating in writing the NO, but I have seen it mentioned a few times.
I don't think you're going to find much denial about the protestant ministers participating. Perhaps search CathInfo for other sources regarding this.
The Official Teaching of the Roman Church is that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a mortal sin. There are cases where NO priests have denied "practicing fαɢɢօts" the Eucharist. It was all over in the news. It had something to do with Rainbow Sash or something. Anyways, there are some liberal areas where priests think that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is morally acceptable though. I know of a priest in my diocese right now and he told me that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is OK if it is genetic. What he said is not consistent with what the Church in Rome teaches. The problem is the area that I am in. I swear this place is one of the most liberal places in the United States. I have never seen a real hippy until I came here (Olympia, Wa). Thats why you have some priests running around preaching that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is genetic. Rome sent an auxiliary Bishop to do something about the matter. he has been here for over 10 years, and there is still obviously a problem.
There are obviously people who should not be priests who are. I think these sort of issues happen more in extremely liberal areas. Most NO priests will tell you that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a mortal sin under any circuмstance however.
I wish it was only liberal/hippie areas. But it's even in rural conservative communities in the South. I know about the "official position." But it happens in practice. Also, what about the double-speak coming out of the Vatican recently opposing fag marriages but calling for some rights and benefits to be bestowed upon fag couples currently reserved for marriage? "The Church in Rome" is plagued with doublespeak these days, particularly about fαɢɢօtry.
-
How do you know the part about the NO mass being developed by a freemason, protestant ministers, and a Jєω?
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Interview_With_Archbishop_Lefebvre.htm
About a third of the way into this interview, ABL talks about the protestant ministers. He says 5--I usually see 6 referenced. Google "Bugnini Protestant Ministers Mass" and you'll find more info. Bugnini was in charge of writing the NO. Google "Bugnini Freemason." I usually don't see the Jєω referenced regarding participating in writing the NO, but I have seen it mentioned a few times.
I don't think you're going to find much denial about the protestant ministers participating. Perhaps search CathInfo for other sources regarding this.
The Official Teaching of the Roman Church is that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a mortal sin. There are cases where NO priests have denied "practicing fαɢɢօts" the Eucharist. It was all over in the news. It had something to do with Rainbow Sash or something. Anyways, there are some liberal areas where priests think that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is morally acceptable though. I know of a priest in my diocese right now and he told me that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is OK if it is genetic. What he said is not consistent with what the Church in Rome teaches. The problem is the area that I am in. I swear this place is one of the most liberal places in the United States. I have never seen a real hippy until I came here (Olympia, Wa). Thats why you have some priests running around preaching that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is genetic. Rome sent an auxiliary Bishop to do something about the matter. he has been here for over 10 years, and there is still obviously a problem.
There are obviously people who should not be priests who are. I think these sort of issues happen more in extremely liberal areas. Most NO priests will tell you that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a mortal sin under any circuмstance however.
I wish it was only liberal/hippie areas. But it's even in rural conservative communities in the South. I know about the "official position." But it happens in practice. Also, what about the double-speak coming out of the Vatican recently opposing fag marriages but calling for some rights and benefits to be bestowed upon fag couples currently reserved for marriage? "The Church in Rome" is plagued with doublespeak these days, particularly about fαɢɢօtry.
Please show me where Rome speaks about gαys having some marriage benefits? I do believe gαys should have some rights. People should not run around treating them poorly. It contributes to their ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ urges.
They can overcome their ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ feelings its just a matter of them changing the way they view themselves and meeting their emotional needs in non-sɛҳuąƖ ways by forming relationships with same sex peers. With same sex peers rejecting them and calling them "fag" it makes it very difficult for someone to overcome those feelings. Perhaps the word "fag" should only apply to those who don't want help, and try to advance ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ agenda.
-
There you go IF:
In his first Vatican press conference since his appointment as the Catholic Church’s “minister” for family, Paglia conceded that there are several kinds of “cohabitation forms that do not constitute a family,” and that their number is growing.
Paglia suggested that nations could find “private law solutions” to help individuals who live in non-matrimonial relations, “to prevent injustice and make their life easier.”
- See more at: http://www.religionnews.com/2013/02/04/vatican-signals-options-for-protecting-gαy-couples/#sthash.atvPsIza.dpuf
So it seems he wants to prohibit the state recognizing that such a thing is "marriage" - but actually wants the state to facilitate their behavior by allowing for some sort of recognized legal arrangement to govern such "couples."
-
There you go IF:
In his first Vatican press conference since his appointment as the Catholic Church’s “minister” for family, Paglia conceded that there are several kinds of “cohabitation forms that do not constitute a family,” and that their number is growing.
Paglia suggested that nations could find “private law solutions” to help individuals who live in non-matrimonial relations, “to prevent injustice and make their life easier.”
- See more at: http://www.religionnews.com/2013/02/04/vatican-signals-options-for-protecting-gαy-couples/#sthash.atvPsIza.dpuf
So it seems he wants to prohibit the state recognizing that such a thing is "marriage" - but actually wants the state to facilitate their behavior by allowing for some sort of recognized legal arrangement to govern such "couples."
The Church does not have authority over members who are not baptized. They can't stop gαys from leading the lifestyle. I agree with the Churches stance that gαys should not be treated poorly. I also recognize that the Church teaches that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ acts are a grave (mortal) sin.
I'm not really sure if that facilitates ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ behavior or not, but I think they would act on it anyways and the Church does not have the authority to stop them. We are all sinners, and for one of us to run around condemning and treating people badly is not a good thing. It makes us into a hypocrite plus we are not supposed to judge the conditions of other people's souls. We have to leave that up to God. I do think God is offended by ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity more so than most other mortal sins however. But I don't think He wants us to slander queers for it.
-
The Church does not have authority over members who are not baptized.
That sounds like something from Catholic Answers forum, but it's not really relevant to this issue.
This issue has to do with the state and the natural law. The authority of the state comes from God and so the state is required to follow the natural law. Not some libertarian ideology that says ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs have some sort of right to do the things they do and that laws should recognize what they do.
-
. . . I do believe gαys should have some rights. People should not run around treating them poorly. It contributes to their ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ urges.
I believe gαys have the right to not be victims of criminal conduct (not talking about special "crimes"); I believe gαys have the right to not be bothered/harassed as long as they are not "in-your-face" about their orientation; I believe gαys have the right to employment in probably most scenarios; the right to shop in stores, stay in hotels (individually--not as couples), eat in restaurants without making a spectacle of their queerness; etc. other going-about-their-day-to-day-business rights.
But I don't think they have the right to marriage nor any benefits reserved unto marriage (adopting children, being on insurance policies together that are normally designed for married couples); co-habitation; sodomy; public display of affection or otherwise publicly indicating their queerness; marching in parades so as to draw attention to, whether by dress, signage, or whatever manner, the possibility that they are gαy or are marching for anything having to do with ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity; acknowledge or discuss their personal ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, or that of another, nor even the general concept of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity in such manner as to legitimize it.
I agree that they should not be treated poorly as made obvious in my first paragraph. However, I fail to see how doing so "contributes to their ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ urges."
-
I can't believe I'm reading this garbage on a Catholic website. :facepalm:
I agree. This is utterly vile and completely uncatholic. This is the talk of protestants—as found in organisations like the KKK. Despicable. I have known many traditional Catholics in mixed-race marriages who are raising incredibly faithful children in the faith.
-
I agree. This is utterly vile and completely uncatholic.
No, it isn't. It's not politically correct, and neotrads have no shame about using the rhetoric of cultural marxists to smear Catholics for valuing their heritage.
This is the talk of protestants—
More BS. Catholics throughout history have recognized the value of race.
as found in organisations like the KKK.
Branding people who want their descendants to preserve their race as members of the KKK. More cultural marxist slander.
Despicable.
No, what's despicable is the arrogance of people who deny that race has value.
I have known many traditional Catholics in mixed-race marriages who are raising incredibly faithful children in the faith.
Faithful Catholics can be of all kinds, no one has ever denied that. Your statement is really irrelevant.
It has nothing to do with whether or not it's legitimate for people to value their racial heritage.
-
I can't believe I'm reading this garbage on a Catholic website. :facepalm:
I agree. This is utterly vile and completely uncatholic. This is the talk of protestants—as found in organisations like the KKK. Despicable. I have known many traditional Catholics in mixed-race marriages who are raising incredibly faithful children in the faith.
One afternoon a fox was walking through the forest and spotted a bunch of grapes hanging from over a lofty branch.
"Just the thing to quench my thirst," quoth he.
Taking a few steps back, the fox jumped and just missed the hanging grapes. Again the fox took a few paces back and tried to reach them but still failed.
Finally, giving up, the fox turned up his nose and said, "They're probably sour anyway," and proceeded to walk away.
"The Fox and the Grapes" is one of the traditional Aesop's fables and illustrates the concept of cognitive dissonance. In this view, the premise of the fox that covets inaccessible grapes is taken to stand for a person who attempts to hold incompatible ideas simultaneously. In that case, the disdain the fox expresses for the grapes at the conclusion to the fable serves at least to diminish the dissonance even if the behaviour in fact remains irrational
-
"The Fox and the Grapes" is one of the traditional Aesop's fables and illustrates the concept of cognitive dissonance. In this view, the premise of the fox that covets inaccessible grapes is taken to stand for a person who attempts to hold incompatible ideas simultaneously.
There isn't any incompatibility whatsoever in recognizing the value of race and in considering marriage to someone who is not pure white.
I've never said I'm against all interracial marriages of all kinds. I'm simply stated that race has value.
Only someone who is fundamentally dishonest will say things such as "Europeans are racially mixed" in order to make comparisons between marriage among Europeans and marriage of whites to blacks. Ultimately it is based on refusal to admit either the objective reality of race or the fact that races can carry different attributes.
In that case, the disdain the fox expresses for the grapes at the conclusion to the fable serves at least to diminish the dissonance even if the behaviour in fact remains irrational
My views of miscegenation have not changed at all from the time I've been a trad.
However, this is more trolling about the girl, since it's a clear reference.
You mentioned it before, and you said you wouldn't harass me about it.
But you were so eager to say I was inconsistent you didn't even read the article I posted.
Which proves your bad faith.
You're a bad faithed poster here.
-
We cannot reject people who are mixed race.
However, by no means must we accept the idea that any opposition to racial mixing is some sort of sinful "racism." That would be a form of liberal heresy.
No one I think, wants to see the land of their ancestors handed over to foreigners. Do we want to see a brown Europe and America, with only a small fraction of the population being purely white?
I will confess, I think I am certainly capable of loving and of marrying a woman of another race, and I do not think it would be a sin, although it might show a lack of consideration of the possible difficulties.
Yet I can also see that there is something unnatural about it, when I was a young boy the very idea would have seemed bizarre, this was purely instinctive. I can see that a reason for my own changed attitude is exposure to people of other races and undoubtedly I have been subconsciously affected by the pro-race-mixing propaganda.
I think one thing to consider when regarding the issue is that acts that in isolation are insignificant can become very significant in aggregate.
If a tiny percentage of people married outside their race, and mass migrations were not permitted, there would be no serious social problems with miscegenation. Individuals might suffer for it, but it not be an issue.
Another thing to consider is that miscegenation does not have the same effect in all places.
What might be tolerated in Brazil, should be discouraged in Japan.
Perhaps the degree of racial mixture also makes a difference?
Marrying someone with Amerind mixture seems to not be a big deal in the United States, if the person is mainly white.
I think it is a matter of degree. The complications of marrying someone from a starkly different racial group are less than those of marrying someone who is closer to one's own racial make-up.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Miscegenationracially-mixed-marriages
-
It embraces people of all races and cultures...yes. It didn't intend for those races and cultures to assimilate. We know this because God diversified mankind at the Tower of Babel as well as race. God did not intend for a diversified mankind to assimilate. Otherwise he would have never diversified us in the first place.
God separated people by language at the Tower of Babel, yet I see no one arguing against people who speak different languages associating with each other and marrying. I see no one denouncing the learning of foreign languages, as contravening God's manifest will at Babel.
A lot of Catholic marriages are between people of different nationalities, in flagrant defiance of Babel! All these poor confused bilingual children who don't know what they are...
-
I see no one denouncing the learning of foreign languages, as contravening God's manifest will at Babel.
Your analogy is bad. One doesn't give up one's own language in learning another. Of course many countries strive to preserve their own languages from corruption from foreign sources.
I've seen some sort of European union ad campaign which makes the strong suggestion that English will be a universal language.
The idea that all races should be mixed is very much connected to the idea there should be one Europe, one World.
"The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today's races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals."
Koudhove-Kalergi of Pan Europa
-
Wanting grandchildren to be of the same race as oneself is not "racist heresy."
Rejecting grandchildren who aren't is. I've said it before, but one's grandchildren are one's grandchildren no matter what they look like. It is God's image we are to see in others, not our own. It is vanity to be upset that one's descendents don't resemble oneself as much as one would like.
What would one feel about a grandchild with Down's Syndrome?
And what I am saying is not informed by cultural Marxism and liberalism. It is informed by Catholic sense, taking into account the following non-liberal, non-Marxist considerations:
Everyone is created in God's image.
We are to love our neighbour as ourselves for God's sake.
Our neighbour is everyone.
What we do to the least of Christ's brethren, we do to Him.
We have to render an account for every idle word.
We are to consider ourselves the worst sinners.
Who exalts himself will be humbled.
You know, perhaps Our Lord was a politically correct cultural Marxist for making a heretic of an unpopular mongrel race, into the hero of one of His parables.
-
Rejecting grandchildren who aren't is.
The Queen of Straw strikes again.
It doesn't matter how many times something is repeated to this dull, or rather more likely, dishonest woman.
-
I see no one denouncing the learning of foreign languages, as contravening God's manifest will at Babel.
Your analogy is bad. One doesn't give up one's own language in learning another.
But God didn't want foreigners to talk to each other! Why else confuse their tongues?
Fact is, that episode had nothing to do with God wanting people to be permanently separated, but everything to do with punishing them for the arrogance in building that Tower.
-
It is God's image we are to see in others, not our own.
So then what difference does it make if a man's children are his?
To say a man shouldn't have any concern for the heritage of his children, as though it we're a mere matter of appearance, as though it is against spiritual values to care about it shows disgusting arrogance.
It is vanity to be upset that one's descendents don't resemble oneself as much as one would like.
It's completely natural and to call wrong to want the best for one's grandchildren is sickening.
What would one feel about a grandchild with Down's Syndrome?
It would be vanity to pray one's children doesn't have Down's Syndrome?
I don't have to pretend Down Syndrome isn't an evil.
And it is insulting to insinuate that those who would want healthy children who share their heritage would reject their grandchildren because of disadvantages.
It is natural to be disgusted at Down Syndrome, just as it's natural to be disgusted by deformity and illegitimacy. Those are evil conditions, and it's natural to be disgusted by those evils.
That doesn't mean one rejects one's own offspring
Catholics aren't required to pretend that awful things are actually sweet and nice and good.
Brain dead Clare doesn't want to get it.
-
But God didn't want foreigners to talk to each other! Why else confuse their tongues?
Fact is, that episode had nothing to do with God wanting people to be permanently separated, but everything to do with punishing them for the arrogance in building that Tower.
There's nothing wrong with talking to eachother, there is something wrong when we allow foreigners into our nation.
-
But God didn't want foreigners to talk to each other! Why else confuse their tongues?
In that time and place, yes. And I think one can conclude from it that it is Divine Will that there not be one language for all peoples. That is to say, the rise of separate languages for separate nations is the will of God. And so when you compare an individual learning another language as though he would lose his identity in the same way someone who miscegenates loses the racial character of his ancestors in his descendants, it's a stupid, invalid analogy.
Fact is, that episode had nothing to do with God wanting people to be permanently separated,
It had everything to do with rejection of a universal state aspiring to put itself in the place of God.
but everything to do with punishing them for the arrogance in building that Tower.
It has to do with the arrogance of them setting themselves on the same level as God. Which exactly what globalists do - which is the very reason they take the Tower of Babel as a symbol.
-
Rejecting grandchildren who aren't is.
The Queen of Straw strikes again.
It doesn't matter how many times something is repeated to this dull, or rather more likely, dishonest woman.
Ah, that shining Christian and trad Catholic charity towards women strikes again!
-
Ah, that shining Christian and trad Catholic charity towards women strikes again!
Pandering to liberal women is false charity.
-
Ah, that shining Christian and trad Catholic charity towards women strikes again!
Respect for women means nothing if the respect is not reciprocal. I say the same for the elderly. Automatically giving respect for women and the elderly makes little sense to me.
-
Ah, that shining Christian and trad Catholic charity towards women strikes again!
Respect for women means nothing if the respect is not reciprocal. I say the same for the elderly. Automatically giving respect for women and the elderly makes little sense to me.
These people expect you to respect harpies who heap lying insults on you - for example - falsely attributing views to people, suggesting they hold positions that they don't hold, distorting their words, etc.
However, just watch when a woman sides with traditionalists, really side with them, and suddenly the cats have their claws out for her, if the men aren't berating her.
They are complete hypocrites on the issue of chivalry.
-
On the topic of language and foreigners-- how do you account for the Church having a universal laungauge (Latin)? Wouldn't the idea that peoples should be separate and tribal be at odds with the Church's obvious desire for unity (through language)?
-
This was the reality Pope Pius IX was addressing, a concept of a master race entirely bereft of a supernatural vision, that denied original sin, denied the common paternity of Adam and was based on evolution and eugenics.
Then why did you bring it up on this thread? Since no one here is professing the Aryanism it sought to combat, it appears to be a red herring. But it actually serves to bolster our views, since the good Pope affirmed the natural honour and value that race has - which is exactly what certain posters here are saying. But you avoided boldfacing that part...
-
On the topic of language and foreigners-- how do you account for the Church having a universal laungauge (Latin)? Wouldn't the idea that peoples should be separate and tribal be at odds with the Church's obvious desire for unity (through language)?
God has brought into being many nations and One Church.
Seriously, think before you post.
-
What would one feel about a grandchild with Down's Syndrome?
That's a bit different. That occurs through no fault of the parents.
No one is denying that children and grandchildren are a blessing. We're just saying that racial mixing isn't something that should be encouraged.
-
On the topic of language and foreigners-- how do you account for the Church having a universal laungauge (Latin)? Wouldn't the idea that peoples should be separate and tribal be at odds with the Church's obvious desire for unity (through language)?
God has brought into being many nations and One Church.
Seriously, think before you post.
Yes, but why must there be a division of nation and Church?
Not why is there a division, but why must there be a division?
The Church is the supreme authority of man, and it does not have borders. Nations should be under the Church, and not in a vague nebulous sense, but in a very real sense. And the Church (by law) has a universal language.
What is your opinion on the use of the vernacular in the liturgy?
-
On the topic of language and foreigners-- how do you account for the Church having a universal laungauge (Latin)? Wouldn't the idea that peoples should be separate and tribal be at odds with the Church's obvious desire for unity (through language)?
God has brought into being many nations and One Church.
Seriously, think before you post.
Yes, but why must there be a division of nation and Church?
Not why is there a division, but why must there be a division?
Because man is made of body and soul.
-
I think one can conclude from it that it is Divine Will that there not be one language for all peoples. That is to say, the rise of separate languages for separate nations is the will of God.
While I agree there are problems with this analogy, Pentecost, when holy Mother Church was born, is the divine answer to Babel. There the Apostles spoke by the Holy Ghost in tongues so their message was discernible to all who heard.
Coming back, in the Age of Mary, when the light of the true faith will illumine almost the whole world, there will be a true and supernatural union between all peoples and cultures based on the precepts of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching of His Church. Our Lord wills that all men be united to Him as members to a head and as the Apostle says, it is inadmissible for a limb to say to another that there is no need of that part. God has willed and loved and created all men and it is incuмbent on all to recognize the ties that bind us by virtue of our very nature, which grace only builds on and confirms.
-
Elaborate?
-
I think one can conclude from it that it is Divine Will that there not be one language for all peoples. That is to say, the rise of separate languages for separate nations is the will of God.
While I agree there are problems with this analogy, Pentecost, when holy Mother Church was born, is the divine answer to Babel. There the Apostles spoke by the Holy Ghost in tongues so their message was discernible to all who heard.
Coming back, in the Age of Mary, when the light of the true faith will illumine almost the whole world, there will be a true and supernatural union between all peoples and cultures based on the precepts of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching of His Church. Our Lord wills that all men be united to Him as members to a head and as the Apostle says, it is inadmissible for a limb to say to another that there is no need of that part. God has willed and loved and created all men and it is incuмbent on all to recognize the ties that bind us by virtue of our very nature, which grace only builds on and confirms.
Your argument doesn't justify racial mixing.
-
Yes, but why must there be a division of nation and Church?
What does that have to do with anything?
but why must there be a division?
If priests had a monopoly on power who would stand up to the powerful?
The Church is the supreme authority of man, and it does not have borders. Nations should be under the Church, and not in a vague nebulous sense, but in a very real sense. And the Church (by law) has a universal language.
The Church has a universal language, however, it has many different Rites. And it contains many different nations.
If the whole world became Catholic and a universal Catholic state would be set up, it would be one that respected autonomy and variety of the many Catholic peoples who belonged to it.
What is your opinion on the use of the vernacular in the liturgy?
It is completely irrelevant to this conversation.
-
I think one can conclude from it that it is Divine Will that there not be one language for all peoples. That is to say, the rise of separate languages for separate nations is the will of God.
While I agree there are problems with this analogy, Pentecost, when holy Mother Church was born, is the divine answer to Babel. There the Apostles spoke by the Holy Ghost in tongues so their message was discernible to all who heard.
Coming back, in the Age of Mary, when the light of the true faith will illumine almost the whole world, there will be a true and supernatural union between all peoples and cultures based on the precepts of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching of His Church. Our Lord wills that all men be united to Him as members to a head and as the Apostle says, it is inadmissible for a limb to say to another that there is no need of that part. God has willed and loved and created all men and it is incuмbent on all to recognize the ties that bind us by virtue of our very nature, which grace only builds on and confirms.
Certainly Nishant. The union, however, was supernatural. It wasn't that there was one language again, rather there was a miraculous way of speaking that all understood.
-
Meant to edit the post.
To Graham,
Then why did you bring it up on this thread?
Because the root philosophy of which the opposition of miscegenation was historically the fruit is a viciously evolutionistic ideology, which modern opponents of the same perhaps do not know. If you want to explain that your opposition of the same is based on a loftier or even a Catholic tenet, please go ahead.
But it actually serves to bolster our views, since the good Pope affirmed the natural honour and value that race has - which is exactly what certain posters here are saying.
If that is all that is being said, there is no problem. But is it? Repeating stereotypes and prejudices about people of other races goes beyond that for one. How do you justify this, do you deny the fundamental natural equality of all men that the Pope speaks of?
But you avoided boldfacing that part...
I think I presented a balanced summary of the Papal teaching on the subject and my boldfacing of the relevant portions was fairly even.
-
?
I don't have to pretend Down Syndrome isn't an evil
And it is insulting to insinuate that those who would want healthy children who share their heritage would reject their grandchildren because of disadvantages.
It is natural to be disgusted at Down Syndrome, just as it's natural to be disgusted by deformity and illegitimacy. Those are evil conditions, and it's natural to be disgusted by those evils.
That doesn't mean one rejects one's own offspring
Catholics aren't required to pretend that awful things are actually sweet and nice and good.
Brain dead Clare doesn't want to get it.
This has to be the most ignorant thing Ive ever read here. I cant believe anyone in the 21st entury would call DS and birth defects evil or be disgusted and revolted.
-
This has to be the most ignorant thing Ive ever read here. I cant believe anyone in the 21st entury would call DS and birth defects evil or be disgusted and revolted.
So would you wish those traits on a child? If there's nothing wrong with those problems, nothing evil about them, why would anyone think they're problems?
You're irrational. It requires virtue to accept deformities and disabilities, because those things are not ideal.
I have a cousin who had a brain tumor removed as an infant.
He was a normal child before the tumor. He was cross-eyed at first, didn't learn to walk for many many years, and has never learned to speak or grown to a normal height.
Now it must be natural to feel horror and disgust at a child being brought down to that condition. Not disgust at the child, but at the condition.
It has nothing to do with whether one loves the child or not.
-
?
I don't have to pretend Down Syndrome isn't an evil
And it is insulting to insinuate that those who would want healthy children who share their heritage would reject their grandchildren because of disadvantages.
It is natural to be disgusted at Down Syndrome, just as it's natural to be disgusted by deformity and illegitimacy. Those are evil conditions, and it's natural to be disgusted by those evils.
That doesn't mean one rejects one's own offspring
Catholics aren't required to pretend that awful things are actually sweet and nice and good.
Brain dead Clare doesn't want to get it.
This has to be the most ignorant thing Ive ever read here. I cant believe anyone in the 21st entury would call DS and birth defects evil or be disgusted and revolted.
Downs syndrome or any other disability/disease is a result of original sin, which is disgusting. We were never 'meant' to be anything other than perfect, but became so due to sin.
One can be disgusted with diseases or disabilities without being disgusted with the person who has them.
Being in the 21st century has nothing to do with whether or not these are evils. They are, always have been. Of course, one needn't treat someone with a disability or disease as being somehow more evil because of the disability. Not as such, anyways.
-
Is it natural to be disgusted at leprosy momofmany?
It really is shameful behavior to pretend other people are "ignorant" because they are honest.
-
One can be disgusted with diseases or disabilities without being disgusted with the person who has them.
I think that's what Tele meant. Disgust at the disease/disability but not the child who has it.
-
I think that's what Tele meant. Disgust at the disease/disability but not the child who has it.
It's very typical for women to attribute the worst possible meanings and motives to statements.
What's depressing is that it seems common among trads.
It reminds me of the comment by that dim-witted guy about "legitimate rape"
A politician tried to stand against abortion in the case of rape, and became the object of scorn and ridicule - even if he'd spoken more clearly though, he couldn't have won.
Liberals are pharisees and they look to trap people to destroy their reputations.
-
One can be disgusted with diseases or disabilities without being disgusted with the person who has them.
I think that's what Tele meant. Disgust at the disease/disability but not the child who has it.
Yes, I think that's what he meant, too.
I posted to help momofmany understand that.
Not that it stopped him from thumbing me down, lol.
-
Certainly Nishant. The union, however, was supernatural. It wasn't that there was one language again, rather there was a miraculous way of speaking that all understood.
Ok, Telesphorus. So what in your view is the proper Christian perspective that enables a harmonious interrelationship between peoples of different cultures without engendering racial strife? Because there is such a perspective, there is such a basis for such a union is what the Popes say.
The Church also has an exhaustive theological teaching on the sacrament of holy matrimony and never have her Saints, Doctors, theologians or Magisterium even remotely hinted that racial disparity of any sort constituted anything of an impediment, defect or such like in any manner whatsoever.
I'm trying to understand the opposite mindset here, I see no problem in people freely choosing to marry exclusively within their own race. But how much further exactly do you go?
Pope Pius XII again,
The Apostle of the Gentiles later on makes himself the herald of this truth which associates men as brothers in one great family, when he proclaims to the Greek world that God "hath made of one, all mankind, to dwell upon the whole face of the earth, determining appointed times, and the limits of their habitation, that they should seek God" (Acts xvii. 26, 27).
A marvelous vision, which makes us see the human race in the unity of one common origin in God "one God and Father of all, Who is above all, and through all, and in us all" (Ephesians iv. 6); in the unity of nature which in every man is equally composed of material body and spiritual, immortal soul; in the unity of the immediate end and mission in the world ...
Nor is there any fear lest the consciousness of universal brotherhood aroused by the teaching of Christianity, and the spirit which it inspires, be in contrast with love of traditions or the glories of one's fatherland, or impede the progress of prosperity or legitimate interests.
-
Ok, Telesphorus. So what in your view is the proper Christian perspective that enables a harmonious interrelationship between peoples of different cultures without engendering racial strife?
People should be able to live in their own lands among their own peoples, without being molested or imposed upon by outsiders.
On a micro level. They should be able to have their own neighborhoods. To associate freely with their own kind.
-
Nor is there any fear lest the consciousness of universal brotherhood aroused by the teaching of Christianity, and the spirit which it inspires, be in contrast with love of traditions or the glories of one's fatherland, or impede the progress of prosperity or legitimate interests.
Yes, which is why the Christian spirit of brotherhood is completely different from the secular humanist spirit that is behind the politically correct comments we're hearing from the liberals here.
The secular humanist spirit is about tearing down the nations that once comprised Christendom.
I'm convinced there's nothing I believe that is incompatible with universal brotherhood inspired by Christianity.
Why? Because 60 years ago before Vatican II what I believe was what ordinary Catholics believed, and they were confident that their religion did not mean that the abandoned the love of their own people.
-
Almost every Latin has mixed ancestry, somewhere up the line. Criollos, mestizos, etc.
How many ways can we spell "G-E-N-O-C-I-D-E"? If the White Latin race can be insulted, this is about as successful as such insults can get.
First we pretend a vast and ancient community simply doesn't exist and then we're free to massacre them because, well, after all, they never existed in the first place. Virgil? The Roman Empire? Just figments of the imagination. No, there are no white people in Italy, France, Spain, and so on and so forth. Argentina? All Negroes black as coal!
When Marxists want to eliminate some group, they always simply claim there's no such thing. The N.K.V.D. and K.G.B. have taught some of us well...
Perhaps too well!!!
I don't understand the hostility, and am certainly not a Marxist.
All I'm saying is that Europeans married indigenous people.
My own father was a "white" Mexican. He didn't look like George Lopez.
Then why parrot Marxist-speak and say that "almost every Latin" is racially mixed and therefore non-white? Some Europeans married indigenous people, but not all and not even most of them ever did so.
If you own father is white, then why be disrespectful towards him with the use of quotation marks for his race as if that were something negative to mention? As a Mexican mestizo it becomes your sacred filial duty to honor your own father's white European heritage and to strive to be as pure and true a white European man as you are able to be. Filial duty commands you! Your maternal mestizo heritage then is worthy to be a constructive contribution to your paternal heritage, not a battering ram to flatten it with a resentful negative view of your own white European heritage.
Hence my point is made: Being racially mixed is complicated and something of a pain. Much better if your father could have married within his own race and spared his children the moral and practical complications of being part-whites with all the heavy and vast moral obligations to the white Europeans that must entail. You have all the temporal obligations to white Catholic Europe without most of the temporal benefits! No, it is not fair! Hence miscegenation is best avoided whenever possible.
Obviously miscegenation has often been necessary or even occasionally unavoidable. Therefore this writer, perhaps contrary to some appearances, is not presuming your own familial circuмstances! But your grave duties of filial piety are very much more difficult than for single-race Catholics. You are duty-bound to accept that and never (never!!!) say or write anything disrespectful of your own paternal white European lineage and heritage.
As a racially mixed Catholic it is much more your burdensome personal duty to forever be a proper and morally-correct part-white mestizo Roman Catholic. Therefore you must know how you fit into the racial hierarchy of our cultural Spanish Empire and you must obediently at all times do so. Where do you stand in the racial hierarchy compassionately established for you by Imperial Spain? You know there are dozens, if not hundreds, of carefully planned racial levels set forth for you by your own Imperial Habsburg Emperors and Kings. Where do you fit into their Imperial Hapsburg and Royal Bourbon Majesties Roman Catholic racial establishment?
If you lack the respect for your paternal heritage and race to take the above seriously, then miscegenation has already devastated your proper Roman Catholic sense of Roman filial piety, a most incomparably serious matter. Being of Mexican heritage, your entire temporal duty is set forth for you by Imperial Spain and you are eternally duty-bound at every moment to live accordingly.
Roman Catholic morality commands that you in some way apologize for the racial insults you have dared to commit against the most sacred heritage of your own Roman Catholic white European father. Our Roman Catholic filial piety brooks no violations!
And in this tangled web of conflicting moral obligations every Roman Catholic should glimpse some awareness of the immense spiritual and temporal dangers contained within every instance of unnecessary racial miscegenation.
May God have mercy on us all...
-
People should be able to live in their own lands among their own peoples, without being molested or imposed upon by outsiders.
That does not seem to be the vision of the Magisterium at all, because it is speaking of a union of mankind that extends to all without exception and without the exclusion of any.
I think this gets into immigration, which the Church's social teaching also covers. Are you asserting that immigrants are per se harmful to a country and should be precluded from entering it, or treated in a derogatory and xenophobic way when they do? I do not see how you justify this.
One may believe a nation's policy on immigration should be based on reasonably drawn up norms of self and mutual interests between two countries and that immigrants should have reasonable job qualifications, no criminal record, other measures of financial stability etc but surely one cannot say all immigration is simply being "molested or imposed upon by outsiders".
If you were forced by necessity to migrate to a foreign land, would it be just for you to be regarded as an outsider in the same way? Of old Almighty God had commanded His people, Do not oppress strangers and aliens among you, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.
If the Holy Family migrated to the USA today instead of Egypt, would and should they be accepted?
The secular humanist spirit is about tearing down the nations that once comprised Christendom.
Sure, secularist "humanism" is all about that.
But in opposing one error, you must not go to another extreme, because the opposite of one error is not necessarily the truth but may be another error. There are many ways to err and only one truth, therefore it is necessary to base one's position solely on the teaching of the Church.
Why? Because 60 years ago before Vatican II what I believe was what ordinary Catholics believed, and they were confident that their religion did not mean that the abandoned the love of their own people.
Which nobody says it should.
Edit: BrotherFrancis75 said, "Roman Catholic morality commands that you in some way apologize for the racial insults you have dared to commit against the most sacred heritage of your own Roman Catholic white European father."
Roman Catholic teaching demands that you recant your false, Magisterially unsubstantiated and misguided ravings on the subject. If you continue to assert utter absurdities like miscegenation is a mortal sin which even your own otherwise likeminded colleagues condemn, you shame the Church and her teaching on holy matrimony.
-
....they were confident that their religion did not mean that the abandoned the love of their own people.
I see you can do straw men too, Tele!
-
But God didn't want foreigners to talk to each other! Why else confuse their tongues?
Fact is, that episode had nothing to do with God wanting people to be permanently separated, but everything to do with punishing them for the arrogance in building that Tower.
There's nothing wrong with talking to eachother, there is something wrong when we allow foreigners into our nation.
I daresay you are descended from foreigners who were once upon a time let into what is now your nation. I expect we all are.
-
It is vanity to be upset that one's descendents don't resemble oneself as much as one would like.
It's completely natural and to call wrong to want the best for one's grandchildren is sickening.
And how is resembling oneself "what is best" for one's grandchildren?? An ugly grandparent wants ugly grandchildren, and that is "what's best"?? Appearance has nothing to do with what's best.
Brain dead Clare doesn't want to get it.
At least you didn't call me a "fool". That would just be sinful!
-
Then why did you bring it up on this thread?
Because the root philosophy of which the opposition of miscegenation was historically the fruit is a viciously evolutionistic ideology, which modern opponents of the same perhaps do not know. If you want to explain that your opposition of the same is based on a loftier or even a Catholic tenet, please go ahead.
What? You just posted an encyclical in which Pius XII declared that race is a “fundamental value of the human community,” with a “necessary and honourable” function in worldly things. Now, if you want to explain that he was conceding to a viciously evolutionistic ideology, please go ahead!
But it actually serves to bolster our views, since the good Pope affirmed the natural honour and value that race has - which is exactly what certain posters here are saying.
If that is all that is being said, there is no problem. But is it? Repeating stereotypes and prejudices about people of other races goes beyond that for one. How do you justify this, do you deny the fundamental natural equality of all men that the Pope speaks of?
“Stereotypes and prejudices”. It would be helpful if you could cite examples from this thread, but it may come down to personal sensibilities in any case. Stereotype and prejudice, i.e. generalization, are often useful things without which thought and action would be impossible (we would be paralyzed by the need to weigh every particular). To say otherwise is internally contradictory, being a stereotype and prejudice regarding stereotypes and prejudices. Help me understand how holding a mere racial stereotype might of itself indicate that I deny the teaching of the church regarding human nature.
-
Help me understand how holding a mere racial stereotype might of itself indicate that I deny the teaching of the church regarding human nature.
I don't understand the thought process that leads you there. Someone who holds a racial stereotype is suspect of heresy? I mean, really?
It's as if 'anti-racism' must have become an idol itself before a thought process like that could arise.
-
Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii said:
"This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband’s every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love."
More Casti Connubii
"28. Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions of persons, place and time. In fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family. But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact."
No one said there aren't exceptions to the rule. But I think it's pretty liberal of you to ignore the quotes I provided and attempt to make it look like submission isn't necessary.
Exhibit A of how the FE crowd tends to be worldly.
I think its pretty liberal of YOU to ignore my Church teaching quotes! Haha! See, two can play at this game!
It also seems to me that you tend to forget women are more than just walking baby-makers. They have thoughts, desires, and even opinions as well! I know. It's insane, but they are people, not chattel.
Besides, I'm not a poster at FE.
-
I think its pretty liberal of YOU to ignore my Church teaching quotes! Haha! See, two can play at this game!
What Pope Pius XI is basically saying in your quotes is that there are exceptions to the rule. He never said anything about "mutual submission", for instance, which is what JPII taught. The SSPX also says that is liberal.
It seems to me, however, that you posted those quotes in an attempt to say it isn't necessary for the man to be the head of the household. Either that, or you were trying to show me there are exceptions to the rule, and I already know that.
It also seems to me that you tend to forget women are more than just walking baby-makers. They have thoughts, desires, and even opinions as well! I know. It's insane, but they are people, not chattel.
Sorry, but a mother who puts her desires ahead of the needs of her children is a selfish mother.
No mother should be working outside the home unless she has no other choice. That's specifically what Pope Pius XI said. He never said they could work just because they wanted to, only if they HAD to.
Besides, I'm not a poster at FE.
Yes, but you used to be, and your forum is very similar.
Even if the whole "Vetus thing" had never happened, I'd still think your forum is too similar, because the official position over there seems to be that the woman can and should work without necessity, that college universites aren't dangerous and women should attend them (and considering the condemnations of government shcools by Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XI, don't you think they would have had the same objections to universities, which are even more dangerous to people's souls?), and that the man doesn't have to be the head of the household.
That's the whole problem we have here. And I do not say this in an attempt to be rude, I say this because it's truth. You're allowing liberalism to be printed on your forum. The notion of "mutual submission" is LIBERAL. The notion that the woman can work outside the home without necessity is LIBERAL.
-
SSS, you really need to learn reading comprehension. I am not promoting a wife working outside the home to the detriment of her family. However, if she wants to and if it doesn't harm her family, what opposition can there be to her working?
Of course you are wrong in your accusation saying I don't think the man should be head of the household. Seriously, learn how to read.
because the official position over there seems to be that the woman can and should work without necessity, that college universites aren't dangerous and women should attend them (and considering the condemnations of government shcools by Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XI, don't you think they would have had the same objections to universities, which are even more dangerous to people's souls?), and that the man doesn't have to be the head of the household.
Literally all of these accusations towards me and my forum are false and wrong. I don't know what you read, or how you read, but any fair reading of my posts show you are wrong. I am the only one who speaks for Suscipe Domine and any official forum positions. And I don't harbor those opinions. Your mischaracterizations (dare I say lies?) Of me are offensive.
Write in caps all you want, it doesn't make you any more right. Where's the eye roll smiley here?
-
Fellas, one controversy at a time, please!
-
It embraces people of all races and cultures...yes. It didn't intend for those races and cultures to assimilate. We know this because God diversified mankind at the Tower of Babel as well as race. God did not intend for a diversified mankind to assimilate. Otherwise he would have never diversified us in the first place.
God separated people by language at the Tower of Babel, yet I see no one arguing against people who speak different languages associating with each other and marrying. I see no one denouncing the learning of foreign languages, as contravening God's manifest will at Babel.
A lot of Catholic marriages are between people of different nationalities, in flagrant defiance of Babel! All these poor confused bilingual children who don't know what they are...
Yes, God diversified people by language at the tower of Babel. He also diversified mankind by race (not necessarily at the tower of Babel). We know this because there are different races today. Why would He diversify man by creating separate races? Nobody knows for sure. But everything He does is for a reason. Because of that, we should probably try to preserve the different races.
-
SSS, you really need to learn reading comprehension.
Ad hominem.
I am not promoting a wife working outside the home to the detriment of her family. However, if she wants to and if it doesn't harm her family, what opposition can there be to her working?
That's your opinion. Working outside the home does indeed affect her family. The Church teaches that it must be a means of necessity, no Pope has ever said she may work based on her own desires.
Of course you are wrong in your accusation saying I don't think the man should be head of the household. Seriously, learn how to read.
I didn't say that, I said the fact that you posted that quote the way you did made me wonder. Sorry if I my suspicion was incorrect.
Literally all of these accusations towards me and my forum are false and wrong. I don't know what you read, or how you read, but any fair reading of my posts show you are wrong.
It's not about your posts, Kaesekopf. You have Erin is Nice over there promoting the liberal concept of "mutual submission" and I've never once seen you disagree with her. Someone said you were a fan of hers. Maybe that isn't true, but based on your previous comments in favor of women earning degrees, making fun of modestly dressed women, and of course, saying the woman can work outside the home if she wants, it seems you agree with her on a lot.
Your mischaracterizations (dare I say lies?) Of me are offensive.
I think it's offensive that a Protestant is allowed to insult Traditional Catholics over there.
Anyway, we're derailing the thread, so I think we should end this discussion.
-
You would be aware of what an ad hominem is, for you've definitely employed them in this thread, at least.
I made fun of "modestly dressed women" because they looked like rejects from an amateur production of Little House on the Prairie, not because they were modestly dressed. You can be modest and not look like you're coming out of rural 1800s america. Ive seen period photos of average rural families look semi stylish and fashionable even for modern times!
You have no problem with "Catholic men" insulting traditional Catholic women on this forum, but take visceral offense to a protestant insulting a Catholic at my forum.
Seriously, Matthew needs an eye roll smiley here. Oh, wait. I'm on my smartphone and just found it. Haha! :rolleyes:
-
?
I don't have to pretend Down Syndrome isn't an evil
And it is insulting to insinuate that those who would want healthy children who share their heritage would reject their grandchildren because of disadvantages.
It is natural to be disgusted at Down Syndrome, just as it's natural to be disgusted by deformity and illegitimacy. Those are evil conditions, and it's natural to be disgusted by those evils.
That doesn't mean one rejects one's own offspring
Catholics aren't required to pretend that awful things are actually sweet and nice and good.
Brain dead Clare doesn't want to get it.
This has to be the most ignorant thing Ive ever read here. I cant believe anyone in the 21st entury would call DS and birth defects evil or be disgusted and revolted.
Downs syndrome or any other disability/disease is a result of original sin, which is disgusting. We were never 'meant' to be anything other than perfect, but became so due to sin.
One can be disgusted with diseases or disabilities without being disgusted with the person who has them.
Being in the 21st century has nothing to do with whether or not these are evils. They are, always have been. Of course, one needn't treat someone with a disability or disease as being somehow more evil because of the disability. Not as such, anyways.
I figured someone would come out and say that is what he meant and maybe he did but the tone of it was not such to make me think so.
Tele, when it comes to you, yes I usually assume the worst intention. Why shouldn't I? Who else on this forum throws around words like stupid, moron, idiot, and a plethora of other insults against anyone, mainly women, who don't totally agree with you.
And no, I would hope that I would have such control over my emotions as to NOT be disgusted at a person with leprosy. As a Catholic and a Catholic woman especially I should strive to always love the person and care and nurture the person before me and see they are so much more than the disorder or disease. Or skin color or accident of birth for that matter.
My husband has asked why I keep coming to this board and suggested I could find a better use of my time. I agree.
-
You would be aware of what an ad hominem is, for you've definitely employed them in this thread, at least.
I haven't slung an ad hominem at anyone in this thread. If I have, I apologise.
I made fun of "modestly dressed women" because they looked like rejects from an amateur production of Little House on the Prairie, not because they were modestly dressed. You can be modest and not look like you're coming out of rural 1800s america. Ive seen period photos of average rural families look semi stylish and fashionable even for modern times!
Yes, you don't HAVE to wear something that looks like it's from the 1800s to necessarily look modest. However, modest is modest, no matter what decade, thus you shouldn't make fun of it.
You have no problem with "Catholic men" insulting traditional Catholic women on this forum, but take visceral offense to a protestant insulting a Catholic at my forum.
When did I say I have no problem with Catholic men insulting Catholic women?
I take it you're refering to Tele. Well, Tele can sometimes go too far in his criticisms towards other posters, but that doesn't change the fact that he's Catholic to the core, and he happens to be right on this matter.
-
Is it natural to be disgusted at leprosy momofmany?
It really is shameful behavior to pretend other people are "ignorant" because they are honest.
It doesn't have to be. Was St. Damien of Molokai disgusted? I've never cared for a person with leprosy, I wouldn't know personally. I've managed to care for, love and also befriend people with a variety of disorders and disfigurements without being repulsed or disgusted by them or their disorder or disease. Doesn't make me a saint by a long shot. I just try and have a heart.
I never understood how adults could turn a corner and see my friend, Kelly, and gasp. How parents didn't stop their children from pointing and laughing. How adults would stare unabashedly and grimace. She is a lovely woman who happens to be a dwarf.
I understand now.
As for the DS and other disabilities being the result of Original Sin. Of course, this is Catholic board, that is First Holy Communion theology, everyone understands that or at least so I really don't get the point of Tele's post then. Given his posting history his use of words like harpy, idiot, moron, fool and probably a dozen other insults he throws around and his disgust at mixed race children it didn't seem like much of a stretch that he was stating that he was repulsed by individuals not the results of Original Sin.
I'm not ashamed of my behavior. I call it as I see it. You are honest about how seeing something makes *you* feel. That doesn't mean it is Truth.
My husband has tired of me talking about posts that disturb me. He has asked for me to find a better way to spend my time and I think I shall, I'm not gaining anything from reading and occasionally posting and no one on this board gains anything from my presence.
-
I'm not ashamed of my behavior. I call it as I see it. You are honest about how seeing something makes *you* feel. That doesn't mean it is Truth.
You could say that about anything that's disgusting.
If leprosy wasn't disgusting or horrifying no one would ever have made a fuss about it.
Whether saints who worked with lepers were at all disturbed by leprosy is something I don't know.
What is absolutely certain, is that leprosy is disfiguring illness that causes natural revulsion.
-
I see you can do straw men too, Tele!
Did I attribute that to you? Or is that something more you made up, as a stupid or dishonest woman?
You never desist from such false statements - that's either stupidity or dishonesty.
But I will say this:
If you don't have a problem with poor whites being forced into integrated schools, then you will eagerly sacrifice the people of your background for political correctness. In which case you certainly show a singular lack of concern for the welfare of your own people. If you approve of mass immigration - you also show a singular lack of concern for the welfare of your own people.
-
That does not seem to be the vision of the Magisterium at all, because it is speaking of a union of mankind that extends to all without exception and without the exclusion of any.
Nowhere does it say people must indiscriminately associate with each other without boundaries or borders.
It says the opposite, that Christian unity does not break down national tradition.
Just as Mit Brennender Sorge does not say that race cannot have an honorable place.
You're taking a distorted meaning from those docuмents Nishant.
-
And how is resembling oneself "what is best" for one's grandchildren??
Because the racial type of one's ancestors has a great value. I know you're not that bright Clare, and that even if you understood you wouldn't admit it, but this isn't that hard to understand.
It also depends on who you are, of course. Anyone can tell you of the attraction of non-whites to whites. They wish to have whiter children because they consider such a quality to be favorable.
An ugly grandparent wants ugly grandchildren, and that is "what's best"??
I never said that. Saying a parent wants their child to look like them doesn't mean "exactly like them" or "as bad as they do." And I've never said it's just a matter of appearance. Only it is natural, for parents to want their descendants to be like them. To be of the same stock as them. Completely natural.
Appearance has nothing to do with what's best.
Then why does God cause people to be attracted to beauty? It's well known that physical attractiveness is correlated to health and intelligence.
To say appearance has nothing to do with what's best is another very dull thing to say. If that were the case nothing visually attractive could be judged to be more fine than something visually unattractive.
Brain dead Clare doesn't want to get it.
You really are unwilling or unable to have a decent conversation.
At least you didn't call me a "fool". That would just be sinful!
I didn't call you a fool Clare. You have no compunction, however, about going along stupidly with people who do resort to such grievous abuse. I've done you a favor by telling you of your complete lack of logical reasoning ability. Unfortunately you're unwilling or unable to take the hint.
-
Someone just posted this on facebook:
“Interrracial marriage is not common sense. It’s not a sin, it’s not an offense against god, necessarily, but it may often be an offense against common sense. Because there is too much difference between people of different races for their marriage to be able to last. You’re going to say that many interracial marriages do last. Fine. Undoubtedly. But it it is still not a good idea. It’s less bad than a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic, but it’s pretty deep, the differences between the races are pretty serious. Blacks should normally marry blacks, whites should normally marry whites. Chinese should marry Chinese…. If you’re upper class in society you should marry upper class, if you’re lower class you should marry lower class. It’s common sense.”
-
Race is not simply a matter of appearance. Race is determined by whom your ancestors are, and typically membership in a race is marked by appearance.
When parents want their children to look like them, it's because that is natural desire - and it is a natural desire because it signifies something deeper. It is not merely an external resemblance that is being expressed. It is a sign of the blood relation with all the great significance such a relation has.
When children are so different from a parent as to have the appearance of another race, to see his own traits and the traits of his ancestors dominated by traits of another racial group, it is very unlikely to be his natural preference.
What is worse, is if such children begin to identify almost exclusively with that group, something likely to happen as they search for identity and see that their dominant traits correspond to that identity. And when the social condition of that group is bad, the adhesion of the child to that identity is likely to have ill effects.
Of course, for those who are imbued with cultural marxism, actual concern for future generations is nearly invariably the last thing on their mind. What they're concerned about is proving that they are loyal, brainwashed liberals and that they are eager to brand anyone a racist who deviates in the slightest from the norms of political correctness that they have internalized.
-
SSS: yes, it is rather repugnant and hypocritical to see women be attacked here with nary a condemnation by anyone. For you to be so concerned with what a protestant says a. a forum you don't read anymore and yet completely seemingly unconcerned with what is said here (a place you do read) from a man to a woman is... Well, hypocritical, at the very least, or misguided at best. Besides, ought we not hold Catholic men more accountable than Protestants? The Catholics know what is what and have the Truth. Yet, the ports don't. So its somewhat understandable to hold them to a lower standard.
I aso don't seem to recall you denouncing these attacks on women, either yet you hold me to some "well, if he doesn't denounce liberal errors he therefore must be a liberal."
But that's just me. Maybe the traditional Catholic way is to insult an put down women for disagreeing with me and my worldview. From what I've seen, the men here seem to accept it.
Sad, really.
-
SSS: yes, it is rather repugnant and hypocritical to see women be attacked here with nary a condemnation by anyone. For you to be so concerned with what a protestant says a. a forum you don't read anymore and yet completely seemingly unconcerned with what is said here (a place you do read) from a man to a woman is... Well, hypocritical, at the very least, or misguided at best. Besides, ought we not hold Catholic men more accountable than Protestants? The Catholics know what is what and have the Truth. Yet, the ports don't. So its somewhat understandable to hold them to a lower standard.
I aso don't seem to recall you denouncing these attacks on women, either yet you hold me to some "well, if he doesn't denounce liberal errors he therefore must be a liberal."
But that's just me. Maybe the traditional Catholic way is to insult an put down women for disagreeing with me and my worldview. From what I've seen, the men here seem to accept it.
Sad, really.
Guys like Kaesekopf essentially give women a free pass to smear men with innuendo, misrepresent what men have said and done, give them a free pass to make flagrant errors in reasoning, to argue dishonestly, and the moment the women are called out for being stupid and vicious these types huff and puff as though it were some sort of crime.
Unless of course, the woman sides with a man who is targeted by these kinds of people. Then they start clawing at the girl like felines.
-
This same argument with Clare has been had for nearly 4 years now.
The reality is she has no interest in a reasoned discussion, and has never had an interest in any position other than 100% political correctness on anything pertaining to race.
She is clearly ideologically committed to her position yet has never once debated these issues with any sort of logic.
It's quite apparent her level of commitment to political correctness vis a vis the issue of race is far stronger than her commitment to Catholic teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. This woman has defended a woman cohabiting with a married man, getting a civil marriage, etc.
This woman shows what her real positions are. She isn't some helpless creature who doesn't know what she's saying and doing. She has her act down pat, but it's not what she is.
-
SSS: yes, it is rather repugnant and hypocritical to see women be attacked here with nary a condemnation by anyone.
You're only saying this to attempt to justify your refusal to do anything about Vetus' scandalous actions on your forum.
No matter how you slice it, he shouldn't have been allowed to insult other Traditional Catholics.
I aso don't seem to recall you denouncing these attacks on women, either yet you hold me to some "well, if he doesn't denounce liberal errors he therefore must be a liberal."
I didn't call you a liberal, but you do allow liberal ideas on your forum.
But that's just me. Maybe the traditional Catholic way is to insult an put down women for disagreeing with me and my worldview. From what I've seen, the men here seem to accept it.
Here we have someone who allows a Protestant to insult other Trads and doesn't think there's anything wrong with it, so he shifts the blame on someone else so he won't look bad. And what's more, what he accuses me of belieiving is simply untrue.
Makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:
-
I don't claw at women Tele. Its not very masculine.
Anyways, most of your latest post can be said about you too, so.... Whatevs.
-
LOL SSS.
Keep flappin' your words.
:rolleyes:
-
Still can't admit it's wrong to let Protestants insult other Trads.
This is frightening! But do keep it up, Kaesekopf. CAF would be proud.
-
But God didn't want foreigners to talk to each other! Why else confuse their tongues?
Fact is, that episode had nothing to do with God wanting people to be permanently separated, but everything to do with punishing them for the arrogance in building that Tower.
There's nothing wrong with talking to eachother, there is something wrong when we allow foreigners into our nation.
And your ancestors weren't foreigners when they came here?
-
I don't claw at women Tele. Its not very masculine.
You claw like them, if you are poster "College Catholic"
The women who go against the liberal crowd are typically subjected to lots of abuse from men and women for doing so, be it on this forum or IA.
Anyways, most of your latest post can be said about you too, so.... Whatevs.
My last post was about Clare's unwillingness to ever concede anything, because she is totally committed to the PC position.
Siding with falsehoods and errors from women isn't chivalry or charity- pretending they're right when in fact they're wrong isn't masculine. Encouraging them in their attempts to enforce ideas of political correctness and feminism is unmanly.
-
I wonder how many devout Catholics who happen to be ethnic minorities have stumbled upon this thread and will now never set foot in a traditional chapel. I wonder how many people inquiring about our Catholic faith will never see the truth in tradition due to this thread.
Tele, I'm glad I attend a traditionalist chapel where we are unified by faith and not divided by race. I'm glad I attend a chapel where people seek to worship God rather than insult and tear each other down. I'm glad I attend a chapel where the Catholic (Universal...) faith is not defined by who is white or not. And no, we aren't liberals. We aren't feminists. We aren't all the words you love to toss around at those who defile the magesterium of tele.
-
Someone just posted this on facebook:
“Interrracial marriage is not common sense. It’s not a sin, it’s not an offense against god, necessarily, but it may often be an offense against common sense. Because there is too much difference between people of different races for their marriage to be able to last. You’re going to say that many interracial marriages do last. Fine. Undoubtedly. But it it is still not a good idea. It’s less bad than a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic, but it’s pretty deep, the differences between the races are pretty serious. Blacks should normally marry blacks, whites should normally marry whites. Chinese should marry Chinese…. If you’re upper class in society you should marry upper class, if you’re lower class you should marry lower class. It’s common sense.”
Thank God for that guy. Seriously.
-
I wonder how many devout Catholics who happen to be ethnic minorities have stumbled upon this thread and will now never set foot in a traditional chapel.
People who carry a chip on their shoulder about "racial prejudice" are unlikely to be serious traditional Catholics.
I wonder how many people inquiring about our Catholic faith will never see the truth in tradition due to this thread.
If people think placing any value on race is immoral then they have a problem with common sense.
Tele, I'm glad I attend a traditionalist chapel where we are unified by faith and not divided by race.
Of course. Nothing about my position on this issue should be a cause to be disunited in the Faith.
I'm glad I attend a chapel where people seek to worship God rather than insult and tear each other down.
Then you're lucky because most trad chapels are pretty bad, although it usually has little to do with race that they are bad.
I'm glad I attend a chapel where the Catholic (Universal...) faith is not defined by who is white or not.
That's right. And no one here said otherwise.
So you might have a problem with reading and understanding in good faith.
And no, we aren't liberals. We aren't feminists.
I don't know about you. I know about the others.
We aren't all the words you love to toss around at those who defile the magesterium of tele.
You aren't interested in discussing this topic, but rather in making a moral pronouncement.
That's pretty much the common pattern here: there is no serious effort at refuting what I have to say.
Here's a quote attributed to Bishop Williamson.
“Interrracial marriage is not common sense. It’s not a sin, it’s not an offense against god, necessarily, but it may often be an offense against common sense. Because there is too much difference between people of different races for their marriage to be able to last. You’re going to say that many interracial marriages do last. Fine. Undoubtedly. But it it is still not a good idea. It’s less bad than a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic, but it’s pretty deep, the differences between the races are pretty serious. Blacks should normally marry blacks, whites should normally marry whites. Chinese should marry Chinese…. If you’re upper class in society you should marry upper class, if you’re lower class you should marry lower class. It’s common sense."
If that keeps people away from Tradition it's because of their own close-mindedness and hypersensitivity.
-
I wonder how many devout Catholics who happen to be ethnic minorities have stumbled upon this thread and will now never set foot in a traditional chapel. I wonder how many people inquiring about our Catholic faith will never see the truth in tradition due to this thread.
Tele, I'm glad I attend a traditionalist chapel where we are unified by faith and not divided by race. I'm glad I attend a chapel where people seek to worship God rather than insult and tear each other down. I'm glad I attend a chapel where the Catholic (Universal...) faith is not defined by who is white or not. And no, we aren't liberals. We aren't feminists. We aren't all the words you love to toss around at those who defile the magesterium of tele.
It would be silly for someone to leave the Faith over something like this. Nobody here is saying that a person of another race should not step foot into a Catholic Church. Nor are they suggesting that we can't get along and have good conversations with people of another race. We are just saying that people need to stay within their own race when marrying. If someone were to leave the Church over that then I would think they don't have a good enough understanding of what it means to be Catholic in the first place.
-
If someone were to leave the Church over that then I would think they don't have a good enough understanding of what it means to be Catholic in the first place.
Many of these people refuse to accept someone who doesn't adhere to post-68 "orthodoxy" on race as a decent person. These beliefs have become fundamental to their moral thinking. What we are saying is nothing that wouldn't have been said by most Catholics before Vatican II. So what we're seeing, is that these people are gradually taking as foundational concepts that are not coming from the tradition of the religion but from the wider culture and the modernist distortion of the religion.
In 30 years I suspect things will be much worse. Catholics will be cultural marxists in all but name. It's already quite bad.
-
When Bishop Williamson says racial mixing shouldn't happen, that's good enough for me.
The problem is, most people here in favor of it - with the exception of clare and Mithrandylan (and maybe Kaesekopf) - aren't that crazy about +Williamson.
Like him or not, though, he's absolutely right.
-
When Bishop Williamson says racial mixing shouldn't happen, that's good enough for me.
The problem is, most people here in favor of it - with the exception of clare and Mithrandylan (and maybe Kaesekopf) - aren't that crazy about +Williamson.
Like him or not, though, he's absolutely right.
I think it should be made clear for people who don't want to understand:
Nowhere does Bishop Williamson say that it should never happen. He is saying it's generally not the favorable choice to make.
People today are unable to speak in generalities - they've been trained liberal sophistry - to deliberately misrepresent a general statement as a universal.
The same thing is true about what he says about college.
The response to his arguments almost never addresses the substance of his position: that marriage and motherhood are more important than career and higher education for the overwhelming majority of women, and that the secular university is a bad environment.
No, the responses are typically non sequiturs
"Bishop Williamson thinks no girl should be highly educated!"
This how people have been trained over many long years of exposure to media and education to "think" about these issues.
-
Tele, I'm glad I attend a traditionalist chapel where we are unified by faith and not divided by race. I'm glad I attend a chapel where people seek to worship God rather than insult and tear each other down. I'm glad I attend a chapel where the Catholic (Universal...) faith is not defined by who is white or not.
Believing two people of different races generally shouldn't marry is being divided by race?
-
When Bishop Williamson says racial mixing shouldn't happen, that's good enough for me.
The problem is, most people here in favor of it - with the exception of clare and Mithrandylan (and maybe Kaesekopf) - aren't that crazy about +Williamson.
Like him or not, though, he's absolutely right.
I think it should be made clear for people who don't want to understand:
Nowhere does Bishop Williamson say that it should never happen. He is saying it's generally not the favorable choice to make.
People today are unable to speak in generalities - they've been trained liberal sophistry - to deliberately misrepresent a general statement as a universal.
The same thing is true about what he says about college.
The response to his arguments almost never addresses the substance of his position: that marriage and motherhood are more important than career and higher education for the overwhelming majority of women, and that the secular university is a bad environment.
No, the responses are typically non sequiturs
"Bishop Williamson thinks no girl should be highly educated!"
This how people have been trained over many long years of exposure to media and education to "think" about these issues.
Liberals always have fallacies. Ad hominems, straw mans, non sequiturs, red herrings, and ESPECIALLY double standards. These are all common among them.
If anyone wants to know what I mean, go on the Society's US District site and read Fr. Laisney's "rebuttal" of Bishop Williamson's "Eleison Comments" edition in December, where he speaks of the Visible Church.
-
The issue of race-mixing is part of eugenics (understood in a true Catholic sense). There is nothing wrong with improving racial qualities, especially by keeping to one's own race in marriage. No one, I hope, is saying a person of mixed race is inferior to those of pure race (since all races ultimately came from Adam and Eve, coming to Noe and his family), but the fact remains they have more obstacles to overcome, especially culture and defects in the genes resulting from the mix of 2 different races. Of course, there are exceptions, but they only prove the rule. It is much better, generally speaking, to marry one's one. Look at Abraham telling his servant to go back to his homeland and pick a wife for his son Isaac, instead of looking among the Canaanites, who lived with Abraham. Jacob, too, went back to his grandfather's homeland to marry Rachel. I know someone would probably mention Ruth and Booz, but as I said, that is the exception.
-
But God didn't want foreigners to talk to each other! Why else confuse their tongues?
Fact is, that episode had nothing to do with God wanting people to be permanently separated, but everything to do with punishing them for the arrogance in building that Tower.
There's nothing wrong with talking to eachother, there is something wrong when we allow foreigners into our nation.
And your ancestors weren't foreigners when they came here?
Everyone was granted citizenship back in 1983. There was an amnesty regardless of race, creed, and whether or not you arrived in this country legally or illegally. From that point on, everyone who came here illegally is not a citizen. There has to be a point in time where you crack down on illegal immigration. You can't just allow people to come here and settle as they please.
-
If someone were to leave the Church over that then I would think they don't have a good enough understanding of what it means to be Catholic in the first place.
Many of these people refuse to accept someone who doesn't adhere to post-68 "orthodoxy" on race as a decent person. These beliefs have become fundamental to their moral thinking. What we are saying is nothing that wouldn't have been said by most Catholics before Vatican II. So what we're seeing, is that these people are gradually taking as foundational concepts that are not coming from the tradition of the religion but from the wider culture and the modernist distortion of the religion.
In 30 years I suspect things will be much worse. Catholics will be cultural marxists in all but name. It's already quite bad.
I think I have to agree with you on that one.
-
What? You just posted an encyclical in which Pius XII declared that race is a “fundamental value of the human community,” with a “necessary and honourable” function in worldly things. Now, if you want to explain that he was conceding to a viciously evolutionistic ideology, please go ahead!
Um, Graham, what Pope Pius XI was specifically condemning in the cited Encyclical was the immoderate exaltation of race, which he called an idolatrous divinisation. In fact, Cardinal Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII) called this "the superstition of a race and blood cult". Those who opposed miscegenation based their opposition on said superstition, the neo-pagan evolutionistic ideology I mentioned.
So I ask again, if you oppose miscegenation on another basis, what is it?
Now, no one is denying that race, like the State and the other things mentioned, certainly has value, I specifically said it does in an earlier post. But by this is not meant that one race has value whereas another does not. Moreover, does it not seem that by making a racial difference an objective impediment or some sort of defect to contracting a marriage in the Church that one is elevating race to the level of religion? That does seem to be a rather immoderate exaltation of it.
The teaching of the Catholic Church as laid out in those Encyclicals strikes the right balance between one's own national identity and heritage and the duties incuмbent on us towards all.
Further, the Angelic Doctor says that in the matter of marriage, within the bounds laid out by the Church, every man enjoys full rights to choose whom he will for his wife. Not even a master can prohibit his servant nor a father his son from choosing his life partner, the mutual consent of the spouses is all that is required.
Finally, if there were a superior race, it would be that race, that noble lineage of illustrious Patriarchs, from Abraham through Israel through David to St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin from whom Our Lord was born. And yet what does the Apostle say, he who in his former life had valued this highly says it avails nothing, there is neither Jєω nor Greek in Christ Jesus and that genealogical descent from Abraham is not what counts. The Apostles too laid no such prohibition or hinted at anything of the sort on Jєωs and Gentiles in the early Church, and what is more it is utterly unknown like I said in 2000 years of Christian history to any Catholic theologian, Saint or Doctor.
-
But by this is not meant that one race has value whereas another does not.
If there is a value in race, there must be a value in maintaining it. If there were no value in maintaining a racial identity then there could be no value in being of a race.
The same thing can be said about nation. If nation has a value, then loyalty to that nation above other nations cannot be wrong. Preferring one's own nation is not to say other nations have no value.
Further, the Angelic Doctor says that in the matter of marriage, within the bounds laid out by the Church, every man enjoys full rights to choose whom he will for his wife. Not even a master can prohibit his servant nor a father his son from choosing his life partner, the mutual consent of the spouses is all that is required.
Who here has advocated denying such rights?
-
The same thing can be said about nation. If nation has a value, then loyalty to that nation above other nations cannot be wrong. Preferring one's own nation is not to say other nations have no value.
Sure. One can have a legitimate esteem for one's own race just as one can have a legitimate patriotism for one's own country. The problem is when you implicitly assert there is something somehow defective or inferior in an inter-racial marriage.
I ask again, I see no problem in people freely choosing to marry exclusively within their own race. But how much further exactly do you go? Specifically, are you saying it is your personal preference that you and your descendants marry within your race alone? Or, are you asserting that an inter-racial marriage is objectively inferior?
It is this latter that has no basis in Church teaching, and if such racial difference were objectively a factor, it is inconceivable that the Church, (and quite offensive to her to maintain,) which has an impressive body of teaching on the same would have failed or neglected to mention it in her theology.
-
I think it should be made clear for people who don't want to understand:
Nowhere does Bishop Williamson say that it should never happen. He is saying it's generally not the favorable choice to make.
People today are unable to speak in generalities - they've been trained liberal sophistry - to deliberately misrepresent a general statement as a universal.
The same thing is true about what he says about college.
The response to his arguments almost never addresses the substance of his position: that marriage and motherhood are more important than career and higher education for the overwhelming majority of women, and that the secular university is a bad environment.
No, the responses are typically non sequiturs
"Bishop Williamson thinks no girl should be highly educated!"
This how people have been trained over many long years of exposure to media and education to "think" about these issues.
For what it's worth, Tele, I can actually go along with that, pretty much.
(Not that I am conceding there is anything in principle wrong with miscegenation, but that the society one is in may make life difficult for mixed race families, people being what they are.)
-
Or, are you asserting that an inter-racial marriage is objectively inferior?
It is certainly is inferior if one's race has value.
Certainly the nobles of Catholic Europe considered genealogy an important consideration in marriage choice.
I doubt Church doctrine has much to say on this matter, since it's first and foremost a temporal concern.
Genetic compatibility is certainly a legitimate consideration in choice of spouse.
I would surmise that human nature is such that genetic compatibility plays a role in attraction. The geographical distribution of peoples, the acclimatization of peoples to various places, their compatibility with the cultures they inhabit - all these things are influenced the peoples genealogies and in turn their genealogy influences their character. So in history races developed because of their physical and national segregation. In turn this led to identification with and compatibility with people like themselves. To simply disregard these difference developed over many centuries, to say they don't matter, is nonsense.
-
There is nothing wrong with interracial marriage, but it's multiculturalism that is a great danger to a nation. Guess who pushes for multiculturalism in other (host) nations more than anybody, but forbids immigration to their own country unless the people are their own race/religion?
-
My last post was about Clare's unwillingness to ever concede anything, because she is totally committed to the PC position.
I don't have any commitment to the PC position. I am committed to Catholic principles, as I listed earlier.
As another poster hinted earlier in the thread, and you dismissed as irrelevent or nonsense or something, not everything PC is necessarily wrong. It is not PC to make fun of disabled people. I also happen to think it is wrong to make fun of disabled people, but not because I am committed to the PC position, but because it is simply a sin against charity!
It is simply gratuitously reactionary to base one's ideology on what is not PC, and just as unreasonable as it is to base them on what is PC! It is not objective.
-
not everything PC is necessarily wrong.
Branding others as racists for believing what most Catholic believed before Vatican II is wrong.
It doesn't come from the religion or from Catholic principles. It is something that has come from the Left.
-
What? You just posted an encyclical in which Pius XII declared that race is a “fundamental value of the human community,” with a “necessary and honourable” function in worldly things. Now, if you want to explain that he was conceding to a viciously evolutionistic ideology, please go ahead!
Um, Graham, what Pope Pius XI was specifically condemning in the cited Encyclical was the immoderate exaltation of race, which he called an idolatrous divinisation.
That's exactly what I pointed out to you in my original response! Now you're giving my own arguments back to me? Again, given he's condemning Aryanism and similar idolatry, and no one here is advocating that, you're tilting at windmills.
So I ask again, if you oppose miscegenation on another basis, what is it?
The basis that race is a fundamental value of the human community with a necessary and honourable function in worldly things! What on earth is going on here?
Now, no one is denying that race, like the State and the other things mentioned, certainly has value, I specifically said it does in an earlier post.
And aren't valuable things worth preserving?
But by this is not meant that one race has value whereas another does not.
Tilting at windmills!
Moreover, does it not seem that by making a racial difference an objective impediment or some sort of defect to contracting a marriage in the Church that one is elevating race to the level of religion? That does seem to be a rather immoderate exaltation of it.
WHO SAID IT SHOULD BE AN IMPEDIMENT TO MARRIAGE
-
I can understand resentment towards those who would mistakenly promote inter-racial marriage as in itself a higher ideal. Obviously, no one is obliged to accept that.
But the bottom line is, and this works both ways, beside the bounds laid up by the Church, there are no objective factors that render a marriage in some way defective or inferior.
It is certainly is inferior if one's race has value.
That's a simple non-sequitur. Try demonstrating it in a logical syllogism step by step. Try it with the other analogous things the Pope said has value. You'd have to show more than that. You'd have to show for instance there is a superior race, as some persons believed there was, in that case it would be objectively inferior so far as the members of that race are concerned.
If every race has its own value just as every nation does, then an interracial marriage is not objectively inferior anymore than an international marriage in itself would be, which latter is obviously absurd, so the former is not true as well.
But if members of one nation ignorant of Christian truth wrongly believed themselves superior, then they would consistently with that belief but wrongly oppose inter-marriage with those of another nation.
That's why it's not irrelevant that opposition to miscegenation was historically based on evolution and eugenics. A possible implication of such opposition does seem to be that one race is superior to another, which in turn denies Catholic truth laid out by Pope Pius XII.
To simply disregard these difference developed over many centuries, to say they don't matter, is nonsense.
Nobody is doing that. But this difference does not negate the unity of the human race, a unity that was wonderfully described by the Magisterium - again, Pope Pius XII, "And the nations, despite a difference of development due to diverse conditions of life and of culture, are not destined to break the unity of the human race, but rather to enrich and embellish it by the sharing of their own peculiar gifts".
Edit: The basis that race is a fundamental value of the human community with a necessary and honourable function in worldly things!
Does not follow. See above.
"WHO SAID IT SHOULD BE AN IMPEDIMENT TO MARRIAGE"
Telesphorus says an interracial marriage is inferior. Do you agree with this?
-
that's a simple non-sequitur.
How so?
Can race have value? If so,
Then it can be worse choice to marry outside one's race.
If it can't be a worse choice, then it must be that preserving race has no value.
Since race is admitted to have a temporal value, I do not see how preserving it cannot have value.
You'd have to show for instance there is a superior race
That isn't true.
An analogy could be made with animal husbandry. If a breeder wishes to keep an animal within its breed it cannot hybridize an individual of the breed without losing the distinctive characteristics of the breed in the offpsring. It doesn't then follow that one breed must be superior to another.
Different races do have different characteristics. To reliably have offspring that share the characteristics of one's race one chooses to marry within it.
That's why it's not irrelevant that opposition to miscegenation was historically based on evolution and eugenics.
People opposed miscegenation long before they believed in evolution.
As for "eugenics" - the ideal of having offspring with well-paired parents so as to optimize their health and well-being has nothing to do with the eugenicist ideology.
A possible implication of such opposition does seem to be that one race is superior to another, which in turn denies Catholic truth laid out by Pope Pius XII.
Certainly races differ in their characteristics. Certainly some characteristics of one race can be generally superior to those of another. For example, some races are taller than other races.
Height isn't superiority?
Better tell that to women!
-
An analogy could be made with animal husbandry.
But, Telesphorus, this is just the point. Those created in the image of God and redeemed by the blood of Christ cannot be reduced to a mere sum of their component parts and posessing worth only because of their "characeteristics" which in turn ought to be sustained or improved by selective breeding.
A society that accepts that erroneous idea, so far removed from the lofty precepts of Our Lord, will always be a society that denigrates the unborn, the disabled and the aged because it erroneously estimates their worth on a false basis.
To reliably have offspring that share the characteristics of one's race one chooses to marry within it.
And those to whom such a consideration is minor or unimportant choose otherwise.
Beside, no one marries an entire race. One marries a person whom one loves, if height is important, by all means marry someone tall! It would not matter that people of one race are generally shorter than another, would it?
No one said such considerations cannot enter in, obviously it is a personal preference. Some people may find persons of another race attractive . Some persons prefer those who resemble them. I see no problem at all with either as a personal preference, but you are implying your preference is something more.
-
“We Jєωs have spoiled the blood of all the races of Europe. Taken as a whole, everything is Jєωdified. Our ideas animate everything. Our spirit reigns over the world. We are the Lords.”
– Dr. Kurt Munzer, The Way to Zion.
Is this something you can agree on?:
'It is not 'racist' to love one's own, and to hold others in esteem.
It is not 'racist' to desire a future for one's children in which they can be fully immersed in the culture, traditions and living history of their forebears; whilst vehemently defending the rights of others to do so in their own sacred lands.
It is not 'racist' to keep the link from parent to child alive and vibrant, as a human and spiritual link, rather than as a purely mechanical device for creating fodder for the factory and battlefield.
True 'Racism' comes from тαℓмυd.'
Please Forgive me, but I never saw where the Pope condemned European and American Catholics engaging in Fraticide, ie killing tens of millions of each other TO:
1. Spread Communism
2. Create Israel
3. World Government
But the Pope did condemn Arian philosophy, which forbid race mixing with Non Whites, but he did not condemn the тαℓмυd or Jєωιѕн laws of Jєω ONLY Marriage. Slightly biased on his part.
It states here:
The white race is still after all the only stumbling block and threat to the total world Jєωιѕн dominance and the subjection of the Gentiles as servants of the Jєωs, as demanded by the prophets and god of the Holy тαℓмυd, a book who’s contents are never publicly discussed and which has never been fully translated, is a core demand of the Rothschilds, as much the leading family of тαℓмυdic Judaism as the Queen is of the Church of England.'
The Jєωιѕн Royal family
http://the-atrocities-perpetrated-against-th.blogspot.com/2012/12/a-future-Jєωιѕн-monarchy-in-great.html
This Blog has some interesting information on the abomination of racial mixing.
http://the-atrocities-perpetrated-against-th.blogspot.com/2012/12/miscegenation-morality-of-death.html
Children from the time they are toddlers, are naturally race conscious.
White children wish to play with White Dolls. This is Proven scientifically.
See Youtube Video.
-
JohnChrysostom/Saint Basil/Saint Aidan/Pope Innocence 3 returns, it appears.
-
But, Telesphorus, this is just the point.
I thought you would try to pull that, saying I'm comparing humans to animals in an unacceptable way. Nowhere do I say people are to be reduced to animals.
We are not required to ignore human genetics because animals also have genetics.
One doesn't have to believe in racial superiority to value race. That is the point of the analogy, and you didn't address the point I made.
It's very typical of the other side, that they will quickly seize upon anything that can be used to paint the other side in the worst light possible.
Pope Pius XII refers to "eugenic" reasons in his writings. Does one then conclude he's a eugenicist?
Did you concede that my example shows that it is not necessary to believe in a superior race, anymore than to believe in a superior breed, to believe in the value of a breed?
Those created in the image of God and redeemed by the blood of Christ cannot be reduced
No one has reduced human being to that. Our understanding of heritable traits applies not only to humans but to animals as well. There is a genuine analogy there, and it is invalid to say that one cannot consider human genetics because to do so is to reduce a human to a mere animal.
to a mere sum of their component parts and posessing worth only because of their "characeteristics" which in turn ought to be sustained or improved by selective breeding.
Except you cannot say people have no reason to take genetics into account.
You are committing a major fallacy.
A society that accepts that erroneous idea, so far removed from the lofty precepts of Our Lord, will always be a society that denigrates the unborn, the disabled and the aged because it erroneously estimates their worth on a false basis.
Again, a major leap of logic, based on a straw man.
And those to whom such a consideration is minor or unimportant choose otherwise.
Yes, but that is unwise.
Beside, no one marries an entire race.
In choosing a mate one is choosing half the ancestors of one's children.
For example: among nobles, they insisted on a certain ancestry. Did the Church condemn them for valuing that?
One marries a person whom one loves, if height is important, by all means marry someone tall! It would not matter that people of one race are generally shorter than another, would it?
That is just one example of one trait. Various traits are distributed differently among the races. Now, in choosing a mate, one is not bound to disregard the general traits of the population they belong to, and that are likely to show up in descendants.
No one said such considerations cannot enter in, obviously it is a personal preference.
This is a false distinction. Either it is wrong to make such considerations or it is not wrong. If it is racism to think whites should not (generally speaking) marry blacks then it is racism to be opposed to the selection of a mate of a different race for oneself.
These people who cannot accept opposition to race-mixing invariably will try to encourage it. Because they cannot truly allow personal opposition to race-mixing without accepting the reasons for it. Since opposition to race-mixing comes from left-wing ideology, radical egalitarianism and a desire to revolutionize society, it is inevitable that a constant drum-beat of race-mixing propaganda, guilt-tripping, forced integration, and affirmative action will be used to make the trend as wide-spread as possible.
Some people may find persons of another race attractive . Some persons prefer those who resemble them. I see no problem at all with either as a personal preference, but you are implying your preference is something more.
There are usually underlying reasons for attractions. Sometimes they are natural, sometimes they are perverse. And while usually such things are not rational, it is certainly possible to come up with rational reasons for choosing a mate as well. To have children of the same race as oneself, for example, is certainly a rational choice.
-
Or, are you asserting that an inter-racial marriage is objectively inferior?
It is certainly is inferior if one's race has value.
Certainly the nobles of Catholic Europe considered genealogy an important consideration in marriage choice.
I doubt Church doctrine has much to say on this matter, since it's first and foremost a temporal concern.
These are ends, some one of which, those who desire to contract marriage piously and religiously, as becomes the children of the Saints, should propose to themselves. If to these we add other causes which induce to contract marriage, and, in choosing a wife, to prefer one person to another, such as the desire of leaving an heir, wealth, beauty, illustrious descent, congeniality of disposition -- such motives, because not inconsistent with the holiness of marriage, are not to be condemned. We do not find that the Sacred Scriptures condemn the Patriarch Jacob for having chosen Rachel for her beauty, in preference to Lia.
So much should be explained regarding Matrimony as a natural contract.
-
Don't have anything better to do than keep signing up under different usernames, JohnCrysostom/ByeMoneyChangers?/IBPranaitis?
-
I think the greater evil out of all of this subject, even though I might be the first to mention it, is same-sex marriage and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. Now, that is a total abomination. I don't agree with mixed-race marriage or relationships, but I do get along with black people at work, and I do have black friends; even my black customers at work are the sweetest people in the world, and I enjoy talking to them.
-
Nowhere do I say people are to be reduced to animals.
When a person's worth is estimated on the basis of his "characteristics", it is said by implication, is it not? An unborn child, a disabled person, an aged and infirm soul possess the same worth in manner incomparably different from animals.
Did you concede that my example shows that it is not necessary to believe in a superior race, anymore than to believe in a superior breed, to believe in the value of a breed?
Your example shows that selective breeding of animals fosters desirable characteristics.
It neglects that each person chooses his life partner based on what he finds particularly attractive in his or her spouse, not whatever may be the general characteristics of her race.
Except you cannot say people have no reason to take genetics into account.
Is one race genetically superior to another?
Yes, but that is unwise.
In your opinion.
In choosing a mate one is choosing half the ancestors of one's children.
For example: among nobles, they insisted on a certain ancestry. Did the Church condemn them for valuing that?
Why should she? It was a personal preference. These motives are not to be condemned, as the Catechism of Trent says, but they do not become for that reason objective norms for all.
That is just one example of one trait. Various traits are distributed differently among the races. Now, in choosing a mate, one is not bound to disregard the general traits of the population they belong to, and that are likely to show up in descendants.
But if one chooses a tall spouse for example, it is that that will continue to be exhibited in one's descendants even if allegedly some races are significantly shorters than others. The same for all other traits. So it is hardly the general characteristics of the race that counts so much as the particular characteristics of the spouse, which often diverges from it.
This is a false distinction. Either it is wrong to make such considerations or it is not wrong. If it is racism to think whites should not (generally speaking) marry blacks then it is racism to be opposed to the selection of a mate of a different race for oneself.
Not at all. This is your mistake. The one exercises one's own legitimate freedom in what one deems desirable while the other imposes this as a generally necessary criterion on all.
These people who cannot accept opposition to race-mixing invariably will try to encourage it.
Not at all. They will only encourage informed choice in what boils down to a personal preference.
Because they cannot .... spread as possible.
What was that about casting the opposite position in the worst possible light again?
There are usually underlying reasons for attractions. Sometimes they are natural, sometimes they are perverse.
Give me an example of a "perverse" reason for choosing to commit to marrying someone of a different race?
And while usually such things are not rational, it is certainly possible to come up with rational reasons for choosing a mate as well. To have children of the same race as oneself, for example, is certainly a rational choice.
It is a matter of what consideration outweigh the other. Some persons would have race as their top priority, others would rank it as unimportant. You are yet to say what exactly it is that makes your preference objective. Is it genetic superiority? Desirable characteristics of one race? If so, is one race objectively more desirable than the other.
-
It neglects that each person chooses his life partner based on what he finds particularly attractive in his or her spouse
Sometimes attractions can be a bad thing.
-
Nishant, I'm not going to address the trash about how regarding a racial identity and ancestry as having a value somehow "reduces" people to the level of animals.
It doesn't, that is obvious, you should be able to admit that.
The one exercises one's own legitimate freedom in what one deems desirable while the other imposes this as a generally necessary criterion on all.
How can it be legitimate for the individual to exclude a potential spouse because of their race, if the reason for doing so does not have general application?
This is a major problem for the multiculturalists, and that is why they are always trying to ferret out racism in all sorts of contexts. That is, they are looking for racial thought crime. Sure, they can't force people to mate with members of other races, but they can to encourage it to the maximum degree they can, because they are trying to suppress racial consciousness, in particular for the purpose of undermining the identity of European Christian peoples.
-
Again, I ask: what's wrong with improving racial qualities without breaking Catholic morality, by choosing those of your own race in marriage? Each race has its own strengths and weaknesses. Mixed-race people, IMHO, show the worst weaknesses of each race and have to deal with it as another obstacle. No one here I think is making genetics and the such superior to morality and spirituality; nonetheless, it is important.
-
What was that about casting the opposite position in the worst possible light again?
Nishant, recognizing that race has a value - by itself - does not lead to the things you were talking about. It doesn't lead to reducing people to animals, or immoral eugenics, or any of those things.
However, believing it is immoral to give value to race does in practice lead to a situation where all signs of racial consciousness will draw the ire and the nonstop attention of the enforcers of political correctness.
So while it's true that they can't tell people that they have to mate with people of other races, they can and do attempt to promote the idea of multiracialism as being the normal situation for society in the future.
You say that people are allowed to have their personal preferences?
And what if they say it?
What if someone were to say:
"I prefer to marry within my race, I believe it unwise to marry outside of it, that is my personal choice."
What will be the response?
The response will be anger by those who believe it is immoral to value race.
Just as a declaration of religious belief will be met angrily by those who claim to believe in tolerance of personal beliefs - the point is - they insist it be personal not because they really believe it is acceptable to think that way, just as liberals don't truly approve of religious belief - in the same way, these enforcers of cultural marxism do not believe it is acceptable to personally value race.
-
It doesn't, that is obvious, you should be able to admit that.
They are fruits of a root philosophy, Telesphorus. I did not say you believed the root philosophy, but your argument uncannily resembles theirs at least in some respects. That was what I was surprised by.
How can it be legitimate for the individual to exclude a potential spouse because of their race, if the reason for doing so does not have general application?
Because it interferes with the God-given freedom of each person to choose his own spouse by freely proposing to himself and weighing in his own mind the different motives. People are different and different preferences are entirely legitimate.
If I arbitrarily introduced my own personal preference for a spouse as the general norm to which all Christians and all people in general ought to conform, I would do the same and it would be wrong.
-
Because it interferes with the God-given freedom of each person to choose his own spouse by freely proposing to himself and weighing in his own mind the different motives.
Having views of what is good and bad can't be said to unjustly interfere with the choices of other people, unless you insist it is immoral to value race.
People are different and different preferences are entirely legitimate.
No, they aren't always legitimate. It is notorious that women tend to be attracted to men that are not considered good potential husbands.
If I arbitrarily introduced my own personal preference for a spouse as the general norm to which all Christians and all people in general ought to conform, I would do the same and it would be wrong.
First of all, it is not arbitrary. Nor is it something that is strictly personal, as though there weren't general reasons for it.
Secondly, the general criteria for judging how people should choose their mates are things that people discuss all the time. You cannot claim that freedom is being impinged merely by people discussing what is good and bad.
-
They are fruits of a root philosophy, Telesphorus. I did not say you believed the root philosophy
Putting a value on race does not mean idolizing race.
You are committing a fallacy to suggest one leads to the other.
-
What if someone were to say:
"I prefer to marry within my race, I believe it unwise to marry outside of it, that is my personal choice."
What will be the response?
"Absolutely. Go ahead and live your life in peace and happiness. And let others do the same."
Why?
-
"Absolutely. Go ahead and live your life in peace and happiness. And let others do the same."
Nishant, either you take issue with the claim "I believe it is unwise to marry outside my race" or you don't.
Either you think that person must believe his race is superior to be against mixing his race, or you don't believe he must hold such an assumption.
One cannot simply say these are neutral personal values.
If they are not racist in the particular, they are not racist in the general.
If they are racist in the general, they are racist in the particular.
-
Sigh.
Is it your contention that there is no difference between a personal preference and an objective norm? If not, what you say does not follow.
I can think of a thousand things I would personally and reasonably prefer where other reasonable people would have different preferences.
-
Sigh.
Is it your contention that there is no difference between a personal preference and an objective norm? If not, what you say does not follow.
No, I don't say that, although I certainly think the claim that something merely a "personal preference" has to be scrutinized.
Such judgments invariably go beyond aesthetics.
You seem to be suggesting it's okay to choose against mates of another race so long as it's just an automatic preference into which the person has no insight into reasons for the preference.
Obviously when people are attracted to something it can be for good reasons, or bad reasons. When we try to analyse why they have such attractions then we go beyond mere impulses into principles.
Once someone adheres to the principle of a thing they are taking a more general view of it, one that certainly has application not only to their own decision but to the decisions of others.
I can think of a thousand things I would personally and reasonably prefer where other reasonable people would have different preferences.
And do you think those preferences are without reasons behind them?
-
You seem to be suggesting it's okay to against mates of another race so long as it's just an automatic preference into which the person has no insight into reasons for the preference.
I'm saying you have the freedom to marry whom you choose. Obviously you make your decision based on several factors and parameters including some of those mentioned in the Catechism each of which may individually be legitimate. You give greater weight to some and lesser to others. That's your choice.
Why should other people weigh these parameters and consider these factors important in exactly the same proportion and manner you do?
For example, some might consider it their top priority that their life partners share similar interests to them, everything else would be secondary. Are you going to fault them for that, in case you would choose differently yourself and a potential spouse being of the same race would be your personal top priority?
-
No, I don't say that, although I certainly think the claim that something merely a "personal preference" has to be scrutinized.
Right. Apple juice with breakfast is a personal preference. Interracial marriage is a problem of a different order. Pius XII calls race a fundamental value - with all that implies. Precisely what he meant by that should be a matter for careful interpretation, but we can straight away exclude this 'personal preference' business from the list of possible interpretations.
-
Who is "Leo the Khazar"? I've never heard this. This could be worth its own thread. Could you explain?
-
IBPranaitis, I guess you believe that all Jєωs who die unconverted are damned, right?
-
IBPranaitis, I guess you believe that all Jєωs who die unconverted are damned, right?
I belive Catholic Dogma.
Dogman says that yes, your beloved Jєωs who die unconverted and not baptized spend eternity In HELL.
Outside the Church there is NO Salvation.
Marxist much?
I was just curious. I agree with you.
-
Please do not reply to IBPranaitis' posts; Matthew will ban him soon enough. While he makes some good points he also makes a lot of bad ones and has many strange ideas. He has been banned multiple times from this forum under a variety of usernames (ByeMoneyChangers, JonahG, etc. ad nauseam).
-
JohnChrysostom/Saint Basil/Saint Aidan/Pope Innocence 3 returns, it appears.
Why do YOU defend Marxism?
Are you a Jєω or practioner of тαℓмυd? Paid Israeli Shill?
“Jєωιѕн people as a whole will be its own Messiah.
It will attain world domination by the dissolution of other races and by the establishment of a world republic in which everywhere the Jєωs will excercise the privilege of citizenship,” -Karl Marx in a letter to Baruch Levy:, quoted to Review de Paris, June 1, 1928, page 574.
“We Jєωs have Spoiled the blood of all the Races of Europe.
Taken as a whole, everything is Jєωdified. Our ideas animate everything. Our spirit reigns over the world. We are the Lords.”
– Dr. Kurt Munzer, The Way to Zion.
Um, right.
I own St. John Chrysostom's "Eight Homilies against the Jєωs", yet I am somehow a "defender or Marxism" and a "paid Israeli shill"?
Your problem isn't your dislike of Judaism. Your problem is your labeling of anyone who doesn't see everything your way as a crypto Jєω.
-
Europe was entirely WHITE and Homogenous at the time of Council Of Trent.
When it was said to Love Thy Neighbor, Your neighbor was just like you.
Your neighbor wasn't an African or an Asian.
Multiculturalism and miscegenation is a Marxist/ тαℓмυdic Construct.
It is inherently EVIL.
The key is it is a construction. You often hear of places being cited as good examples of integration. It lends weight to the view that it is an experiment, a planned construction. A few years ago there were signs in villages in Latvia saying don't go to Ireland. Bognor Regis and other places in England are full of Polish people.
And naturally I oppose the Irish taking the easy way out and emigrating. Emigrating plays in to the hands of the enemy, the treasonous political class. People need to look at who controls and the control of 'money'.
It makes it easier for them if people emigrate.Easier also if people are addicted to alcohol, drugs or controlled by "reality tv"
The immigrant is the cheap foreign labour for the Capitalist, who is always an enemy.
-
Europe was entirely WHITE and Homogenous at the time of Council Of Trent.
When it was said to Love Thy Neighbor, Your neighbor was just like you.
Your neighbor wasn't an African or an Asian.
Multiculturalism and miscegenation is a Marxist/ тαℓмυdic Construct.
It is inherently EVIL.
The key is it is a construction. You often hear of places being cited as good examples of integration. It lends weight to the view that it is an experiment, a planned construction. A few years ago there were signs in villages in Latvia saying don't go to Ireland. Bognor Regis and other places in England are full of Polish people.
And naturally I oppose the Irish taking the easy way out and emigrating. Emigrating plays in to the hands of the enemy, the treasonous political class. People need to look at who controls and the control of 'money'.
It makes it easier for them if people emigrate. The immigrant is the cheap foreign labour for the Capitalist, who is always an enemy.
What is funny is that JohnChrysostom apparently believes that one is under no obligation to love non-whites in any way. :roll-laugh1:
-
We can be neighborly and friendly to all.
Practice what you preach.
You've been banned at least five times, go back to your own forum.
-
Europe was entirely WHITE and Homogenous at the time of Council Of Trent.
When it was said to Love Thy Neighbor, Your neighbor was just like you.
Your neighbor wasn't an African or an Asian.
Multiculturalism and miscegenation is a Marxist/ тαℓмυdic Construct.
It is inherently EVIL.
The key is it is a construction. You often hear of places being cited as good examples of integration. It lends weight to the view that it is an experiment, a planned construction. A few years ago there were signs in villages in Latvia saying don't go to Ireland. Bognor Regis and other places in England are full of Polish people.
And naturally I oppose the Irish taking the easy way out and emigrating. Emigrating plays in to the hands of the enemy, the treasonous political class. People need to look at who controls and the control of 'money'.
It makes it easier for them if people emigrate. The immigrant is the cheap foreign labour for the Capitalist, who is always an enemy.
What is funny is that JohnChrysostom apparently believes that one is under no obligation to love non-whites in any way. :roll-laugh1:
We can be neighborly and friendly to all peoples, non whites alike.
But Mating with them is another matter. Huge distinction for us Goyim.
Please defend such тαℓмυdic teachings.
“Jєωιѕн people as a whole will be its own Messiah.
It will attain world domination by the dissolution of other races and by the establishment of a world republic in which everywhere the Jєωs will excercise the privilege of citizenship,” -Karl Marx in a letter to Baruch Levy:, quoted to Review de Paris, June 1, 1928, page 574.
“We Jєωs have Spoiled the blood of all the Races of Europe.
Taken as a whole, everything is Jєωdified. Our ideas animate everything. Our spirit reigns over the world. We are the Lords.”
– Dr. Kurt Munzer, The Way to Zion.
Not going to bother. You'll be banned soon anyway, just like all of the other times. Have fun discussing with yourself on your "Traditional Catholic ProBoard".
-
I've never defended Marxism or Zionism.
Karl Marx and Kurt Munzer were Jєωιѕн shills, I have never respected or defended them.
Nice of you to try to tell me what I believe, but you're incorrect.
-
Who is "Leo the Khazar"? I've never heard this. This could be worth its own thread. Could you explain?
Google is your friend.
Start your thread, Ive done my research, I dont have time to educate.
Not to be callous, I just dont have the time.
We are at war.
I understand there is indeed a war. Gott mit uns, und drang nach osten!
Sieg heil!
But wait a second, please, I do not believe Pope Leo XIII was a Khazar Jєω, unless it can be substantiated. Out of the Leo's, Leo XIII must be the one in question.
Leo XIII did not support Zionism, as far as I know. I thought that he met Herzl, or some Zionist delegation, more than once and told them that the Church could not support them.
Leo XIII was from an "Italian comital family". According to Wikipedia, which is run by scientific materialist and heliocentric Jєωs, "He is known for intellectualism, the development of social teachings with his encyclical Rerum Novarum and his attempts to define the position of the Church with regard to modern thinking. He influenced Roman Catholic Mariology and promoted both the rosary and the scapular. He issued a record eleven encyclicals on the rosary, approved two new Marian scapulars and was the first Pope to fully embrace the concept of Mary as mediatrix."
I've heard that Paul VI was Freemasonic marrano, and it could be true for all I can verify, and in view of the liberal chaos of Vatican II, but Leo XIII?
I thought he authored the St. Michael prayer?
Let me add one thing, since you mentioned that we are at war. "General Lee surrendered, but I didn't".
Stonewall Jackson was an austere and pious Christian man from "West" Virginia
--- what the Yankees did to "West" Virginia was unconstitutional and completely wrong --- but he grew up in a Presbyterian environment at that time. That was all he knew, even if he was a military genius. I believe "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" is true, but a fellow like General Jackson can be saved "mysteriously" within the Church, by miraculous intercession of the saints, etc.
-
Last time he was here, he slandered Pope St. Pius X by calling him a "Zionist". Now he's accusing Pope Leo XIII of being a Zionist!
This guy's beliefs are unbelievable.
-
There is obviously a troll on the thread but I don't think anybody ever questioned not being friendly to others. As for raising issues like abortion, a key word was mentioned a few times. Common sense. Most people wish to stay with their own kind.
It has to be remembered though that many marriages taking place are scams to obtain residency, a visa etc etc.
In Ireland women from Nigeria were arriving heavily pregnant to obtain citizenship.The law was changed.
Naturally Traditional Catholicism is active in Nigeria but it is a country known for scammers.
-
You know, I'm really starting to think that registrations approved by the moderator is the only way to keep people like JohnChrysostom and tomas from coming back after being banned. :rolleyes:
-
We're not here to listen to slanders of Pope St. Pius X just because he had an interview with the Zionist founder, Herzl.
-
Um, yeah, whatever.
Please go back to your forum and leave CatholicInfo alone. Take your despicable slander of Pope St. Pius X with you.
-
It is not slander if it is TRUE.
I simply stated that Pius X met with Israel founder Hertzl.
He never raised any alarm to put Catholics on the defense or sounded the alarm bells. Let alone Meeting WITH a ZIonist in his office.
I think this might be neglectful of a watchful, vigilant Shepherd guarding against wolves.
BTW- You Care to correct the record (YOURs as you were mistaken again) on Pope Leo The Khazar Now?
Neglect against wolves who only just popped up in the early 1900s. New movements generally aren't condemned till enough evidence is formed to condemn them. Sorry, but your argument holds no water. Zionism was practically unknown til after World War I.
-
EDIT: Sorry тαℓмυdisEVIL's post gone. Good riddance to him!
-
Prove that Pope St. Pius X was negligent. He specifically we cannot condone the movement of the Zionists to the Holy Land, but would be willing to baptize all of them if they converted.
-
Mr. тαℓмυd Is Evil:
I'm awake. This forum is taken care of. This is not some dead forum that no moderator ever monitors or looks at.
Notice how many of your posts from your last 2 accounts have survived? NONE.
You're wasting your time. You're just making me take a COUPLE minutes out of my day, to destroy HOURS of your own work.
You are really a loser with nothing better to do. Go marry outside your race and start a family or something...
-
I realize this thread is pretty much dead, but I'm gonna end here with a final comment. If the current administration grants amnesty to illegal immigrants, and nothing gets done about illegal immigration over the next few years...I'm going Asian!!! Actually I'm going anything but white women. They are the ones who got us into this mess by voting democrat thus ultimately serving the satanistic Jєωιѕн agenda.
-
So I was thinking about how to prevent this crisis that we are having in our country today. Here is my solution...
1) Move to an area with minimal minorities. This of course would lessen the chances of your children race mixing.
2) Don't allow your children to date (have girlfriends/boyfriends) until 16 or 18 years old. The goal here is not to stop them from dating. They will have their little girlfriends and boyfriends secretly no matter what. But the goal is to make it exciting for them. Yes, exciting. Kids frequently do things behind their parents' back because of the thrill. So if your kids get a kick out of simply just dating then you have pretty much eliminated the thrill of interracial dating. Your kids get that same thrill from dating period. A lot of times people interracially date because of the thrill they get out of it. They were raised in a way that did not allow them to interracially date, and they did anyways because of the thrill of getting away with it. So basically what we are doing here is we are replacing the thrill of interracial dating by creating another thrill...which is dating in general. That way, your kids get the same thrill out of dating someone of their own kind as they would from interracial dating.
3) Try to find ways to discourage interracial dating with your kids. Maybe by using positive and negative reinforcement. Also, keeping them away from certain media. And explaining to them why it is important for them to find someone of the same belief system. You might even throw in how important it is to preserve our culture and way of life. You can raise them to be proud of being white. You don't have to teach them to hate other races or anything.
Any other suggestions?
Are you insane or just a provocateur?
This is a Roman Catholic website, not a "white power" website. Clearly this not the place for you.
-
The best thing to do is to educate one's children about genetics and about racial characteristics.
Do that and they will likely prefer their own race, at least if they're white.
The last thing to do is to overdo it. Best thing to do is to live where minorities are not numerous.
There's not much hope for a compulsive negrophile.
Perhaps on rare occasions God gives a good black man a good white wife.
In such a case they will do their own will, and it is not a problem to accept the results.
I'm convinced such cases are probably rare.
I think most white women go black then white men don't want them anymore so they stay black.
This is the way it should be. Otherwise, there would be a case of jungle fever for a lot more white women, and us decent white men have to sleep with them after the fact. I'm sorry but I don't want that.
Are you for real? This is disgusting and frankly I am shocked that the owner of this site would allow garbage like this here. it is UN-CATHOLIC by definition!
-
So I was thinking about how to prevent this crisis that we are having in our country today. Here is my solution...
1) Move to an area with minimal minorities. This of course would lessen the chances of your children race mixing.
2) Don't allow your children to date (have girlfriends/boyfriends) until 16 or 18 years old. The goal here is not to stop them from dating. They will have their little girlfriends and boyfriends secretly no matter what. But the goal is to make it exciting for them. Yes, exciting. Kids frequently do things behind their parents' back because of the thrill. So if your kids get a kick out of simply just dating then you have pretty much eliminated the thrill of interracial dating. Your kids get that same thrill from dating period. A lot of times people interracially date because of the thrill they get out of it. They were raised in a way that did not allow them to interracially date, and they did anyways because of the thrill of getting away with it. So basically what we are doing here is we are replacing the thrill of interracial dating by creating another thrill...which is dating in general. That way, your kids get the same thrill out of dating someone of their own kind as they would from interracial dating.
3) Try to find ways to discourage interracial dating with your kids. Maybe by using positive and negative reinforcement. Also, keeping them away from certain media. And explaining to them why it is important for them to find someone of the same belief system. You might even throw in how important it is to preserve our culture and way of life. You can raise them to be proud of being white. You don't have to teach them to hate other races or anything.
Any other suggestions?
Are you insane or just a provocateur?
This is a Roman Catholic website, not a "white power" website. Clearly this not the place for you.
Neither. I only agree with white power in a sense that we should be in control of this country (since we are the ones that made it what it is). I don't agree with white power in a sense that we should treat people of other races poorly.
Earlier in this thread, it was mentioned how an SSPX Bishop spoke out against race-mixing. It is a relevant issue.
-
This is disgusting and frankly I am shocked that the owner of this site would allow garbage like this here.
Mattew allows a lot of talk about taboo subjects on this forum. I am sure that many people get offended by many conversations that go on here.
-
The best thing to do is to educate one's children about genetics and about racial characteristics.
Do that and they will likely prefer their own race, at least if they're white.
The last thing to do is to overdo it. Best thing to do is to live where minorities are not numerous.
There's not much hope for a compulsive negrophile.
Perhaps on rare occasions God gives a good black man a good white wife.
In such a case they will do their own will, and it is not a problem to accept the results.
I'm convinced such cases are probably rare.
I think most white women go black then white men don't want them anymore so they stay black.
This is the way it should be. Otherwise, there would be a case of jungle fever for a lot more white women, and us decent white men have to sleep with them after the fact. I'm sorry but I don't want that.
Are you for real? This is disgusting and frankly I am shocked that the owner of this site would allow garbage like this here. it is UN-CATHOLIC by definition!
How is it un-Catholic? If you want to start deeming people for being un-Catholic then please be fair about it, and deem all sinners as being un-Catholic.
-
This is disgusting and frankly I am shocked that the owner of this site would allow garbage like this here.
Mattew allows a lot of talk about taboo subjects on this forum. I am sure that many people get offended by many conversations that go on here.
I guess I don't get around the slimier parts of this forum. I find this "white power" nonsense deeply disturbing and profoundly un-Catholic. By definition.
-
This is disgusting and frankly I am shocked that the owner of this site would allow garbage like this here.
Mattew allows a lot of talk about taboo subjects on this forum. I am sure that many people get offended by many conversations that go on here.
I guess I don't get around the slimier parts of this forum. I find this "white power" nonsense deeply disturbing and profoundly un-Catholic. By definition.
Are you caucasian?
-
The best thing to do is to educate one's children about genetics and about racial characteristics.
Do that and they will likely prefer their own race, at least if they're white.
The last thing to do is to overdo it. Best thing to do is to live where minorities are not numerous.
There's not much hope for a compulsive negrophile.
Perhaps on rare occasions God gives a good black man a good white wife.
In such a case they will do their own will, and it is not a problem to accept the results.
I'm convinced such cases are probably rare.
I think most white women go black then white men don't want them anymore so they stay black.
This is the way it should be. Otherwise, there would be a case of jungle fever for a lot more white women, and us decent white men have to sleep with them after the fact. I'm sorry but I don't want that.
Are you for real? This is disgusting and frankly I am shocked that the owner of this site would allow garbage like this here. it is UN-CATHOLIC by definition!
How is it un-Catholic? If you want to start deeming people for being un-Catholic then please be fair about it, and deem all sinners as being un-Catholic.
I have no desire to engage the likes of you. Look up the word "Catholic" in a dictionary and you might get a clue.
-
I see: wanting to marry another of one's own race for the survival and improving of the race is "white power," is it? Liberal nonsense! I would say the same of each race: in general, it is far better to marry someone of one's own race!
-
I see: wanting to marry another of one's own race for the survival and improving of the race is "white power," is it? Liberal nonsense! I would say the same of each race: in general, it is far better to marry one's own!
That is not a Catholic position. It is a pagan position. Worship of race rather than of the Universal Church of our Lord Jesus Christ.
-
I see: wanting to marry another of one's own race for the survival and improving of the race is "white power," is it? Liberal nonsense! I would say the same of each race: in general, it is far better to marry one's own!
That is not a Catholic position. It is a pagan position. Worship of race rather than of the Universal Church of our Lord Jesus Christ.
You keep saying that but why? Also, how is that a pagan position? The Israelites were told by God to only marry other Jєωs. The Israelites were a RACE chosen by God. Does that make God a racist? That He would only reveal himself to a certain RACE up until Jesus Christ came?
The biggest issue I have is not with race-mixing in and of itself but with the rate at which it is occurring. Race-mixing is not morally wrong. We all pretty much agree with that.
-
That is not a Catholic position. It is a pagan position. Worship of race rather than of the Universal Church of our Lord Jesus Christ.
How is it? I'm not worshiping race by merely saying races should stick to their race when marrying in general. What about Abraham who asked his servant to pick a wife among his own kindred, not of the Canaanites?
Worshiping race is only when I say one race is superior to another. If you can't grasp that distinction, then I strongly suspect you're a liberal.
-
I see: wanting to marry another of one's own race for the survival and improving of the race is "white power," is it? Liberal nonsense! I would say the same of each race: in general, it is far better to marry one's own!
That is not a Catholic position. It is a pagan position. Worship of race rather than of the Universal Church of our Lord Jesus Christ.
You keep saying that but why? Also, how is that a pagan position? The Israelites were told by God to only marry other Jєωs. The Israelites were a RACE chosen by God. Does that make God a racist? That He would only reveal himself to a certain RACE up until Jesus Christ came?
The biggest issue I have is not with race-mixing in and of itself but with the rate at which it is occurring. Race-mixing is not morally wrong. We all pretty much agree with that.
Let me guess: you came here from Stormfront?
This garbage has nothing to do with traditional Catholicism and it has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. And it is a disgrace to see it here.
-
I see: so I'm a "storm fronter" when I say Asians should marry other Asians since it is much better to do so? Whatever! :rolleyes:
Begging the question is what you're doing right now!
-
I see: wanting to marry another of one's own race for the survival and improving of the race is "white power," is it? Liberal nonsense! I would say the same of each race: in general, it is far better to marry one's own!
That is not a Catholic position. It is a pagan position. Worship of race rather than of the Universal Church of our Lord Jesus Christ.
You keep saying that but why? Also, how is that a pagan position? The Israelites were told by God to only marry other Jєωs. The Israelites were a RACE chosen by God. Does that make God a racist? That He would only reveal himself to a certain RACE up until Jesus Christ came?
The biggest issue I have is not with race-mixing in and of itself but with the rate at which it is occurring. Race-mixing is not morally wrong. We all pretty much agree with that.
Let me guess: you came here from Stormfront?
This garbage has nothing to do with traditional Catholicism and it has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. And it is a disgrace to see it here.
I didn't come here from Stormfront. I have visited their website a handful of times, and do agree with a FEW things that they say. I tried to gain membership there but they banned me.
Alls I ask is that you provide reasoning as to why you say the things you say. People shouldn't sling accusations around like that without reason. Its kinda like convicting someone without a trial.
-
Indeed what is wrong with saying each race should stick to their own as a general rule, while at the same time respecting other races and those of mixed-race as neither inferior or superior to them, regarding all as children of the same God?
-
I see: so I'm a "storm fronter" when I say Asians should marry other Asians since it is much better to do so? Whatever! :rolleyes:
Yes, you are. Traditional Catholics are required to marry traditional Catholics. Full stop.
Race obsession is a pagan occupation and has no place among Catholics.
-
Indeed what is wrong with saying each race should stick to their own as a general rule, while at the same time respecting other races and those of mixed-race as neither inferior or superior to them, regarding all as children of the same God?
Do you think it is then wrong to believe that some races are superior to others?
-
I see: so I'm a "storm fronter" when I say Asians should marry other Asians since it is much better to do so? Whatever! :rolleyes:
Yes, you are. Traditional Catholics are required to marry traditional Catholics. Full stop.
Race obsession is a pagan occupation and has no place among Catholics.
Begging the question! How is it race obsession? Even pagans have a sense of the moral law, even when it is perverted to the extreme. I really strongly suspect you are a liberal, since you cannot even tell me where I worship race, especially ignoring my previous post.
I ask you this: was Abraham wrong in asking his servant to pick a wife for Isaac in his old homeland, not among the Canaanites? Before you say yes because they were of the same faith, I will definitely say no, since they were still pagan. No citation in Scripture that they believed as Abraham, but much evidence showing they worshiped false gods.
-
Indeed what is wrong with saying each race should stick to their own as a general rule, while at the same time respecting other races and those of mixed-race as neither inferior or superior to them, regarding all as children of the same God?
Do you think it is then wrong to believe that some races are superior to others?
I'll clarify this. I mean in the spiritual sense. Physically, we all admit each race has certain strengths and weaknesses. The problem with the worshipers of race (of which I am not) is that they exalt them to the spiritual. The problem with the liberals (like zviadist is apparently) is that they take no account of race at all, despite Abraham's admonition and Ezra's as well.
-
I'll clarify this. I mean in the spiritual sense. Physically, we all admit each race has certain strengths and weaknesses.
OK, thanks for answering my question.
-
I see: wanting to marry another of one's own race for the survival and improving of the race is "white power," is it? Liberal nonsense! I would say the same of each race: in general, it is far better to marry one's own!
That is not a Catholic position. It is a pagan position. Worship of race rather than of the Universal Church of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Bishop Williamson is againt racial mixing.
Are you saying he has a "pagan position"?
-
Yes, you are. Traditional Catholics are required to marry traditional Catholics. Full stop.
Race obsession is a pagan occupation and has no place among Catholics.
BTW, St. Monica, by your reckoning, would have failed miserably, since she married a pagan of her own race. Only God's grace saved him, converting him to the true Faith.
EDIT: simply marking me down won't make your acccusations of racism any more true.
-
Indeed what is wrong with saying each race should stick to their own as a general rule, while at the same time respecting other races and those of mixed-race as neither inferior or superior to them, regarding all as children of the same God?
Do you think it is then wrong to believe that some races are superior to others?
It is profoundly un-Catholic to hold such beliefs.
-
I'm waiting for you to answer my question, zviadist. Somehow, though, I think you're going to ignore it, because you believe that Bishop Williamson's position is "pagan" but just don't want to say it.
-
Yes, you are. Traditional Catholics are required to marry traditional Catholics. Full stop.
Race obsession is a pagan occupation and has no place among Catholics.
BTW, St. Monica, by your reckoning, would have failed miserably, since she married a pagan of her own race. Only God's grace saved him, converting him to the true Faith.
Well, she'd have failed by + Williamson's reckoning too, as he conceded in the quote posted many pages back that inter-racial marriage isn't as bad as inter-faith marriage.
-
It is profoundly un-Catholic to hold such beliefs.
Very liberal of you to ignore racial weaknesses, which can get worse in the case of race-mixing! Again, I ask where does keeping to one race equal race worship? Your problem is demeaning race, as if it is nothing. Certainly, it is nothing compared to the spiritual, but it is still important. Or do you think God didn't make races?
-
Well, she'd have failed by + Williamson's reckoning too, as he conceded in the quote posted many pages back that inter-racial marriage isn't as bad as inter-faith marriage.
Perhaps this is why we say it applies only generally, not the absolute norm! If I say that someone's blood is tainted to the detriment of the race, then I'm committing the sin zviadist is accusing me of. But I'm not! I just say it creates more obstacles, defects from genetics, culture clashes, etc.
Also, by zviadist's argument, I demean St. Martin de Porres, because he was born of two races. I do no such thing. I freely agree that he has outdone probably all of us in sanctity, overcoming the weaknesses of a mixed race.
-
It is profoundly un-Catholic to hold such beliefs.
I think it is dangerous to call any beliefs un-Catholic which do not deny the faith. You can be a racist without denying the faith. It doesn't make you right, but it also does not make you a heretic.
-
Indeed. Where have I denied the Faith, or any of the so-called "white supremacists"? We all acknowledge all men can be saved, that no one is superior to any other man in intrinsic dignity, since each is a human and demands our charity. Talking of material characteristics doesn't make us deny the supernatural is superior to the natural.
-
God uses weak individuals to achieve great things. Maybe we shouldn't fear the presence of some among our posterity.
Marie Stopes, the birth control pioneer, disowned her son when he married a woman who wore glasses, such was her solicitude for the future of her posterity and race.
-
God uses weak individuals to achieve great things. Maybe we shouldn't fear the presence of some among our posterity.
Marie Stopes, the birth control pioneer, disowned her son when he married a woman who wore glasses, such was her solicitude for the future of her posterity and race.
She erred on false worship of race, which is precisely what I condemn (at least).
-
I see: wanting to marry another of one's own race for the survival and improving of the race is "white power," is it? Liberal nonsense! I would say the same of each race: in general, it is far better to marry one's own!
That is not a Catholic position. It is a pagan position. Worship of race rather than of the Universal Church of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Bishop Williamson is againt racial mixing.
Are you saying he has a "pagan position"?
I would like to see a quote from Bishop Williamson to the effect that Catholics should only marry within their race and I would like to see an appropriate citation of 1917 Canon Law to that effect.
-
Yes, you are. Traditional Catholics are required to marry traditional Catholics. Full stop.
Race obsession is a pagan occupation and has no place among Catholics.
BTW, St. Monica, by your reckoning, would have failed miserably, since she married a pagan of her own race. Only God's grace saved him, converting him to the true Faith.
EDIT: simply marking me down won't make your acccusations of racism any more true.
I did not mark you down. And your argument is absurd and not at all relevant to the discussion.
-
And you have no argument except "You're demeaning those of mixed race and worshiping race like nαzιs do!" Wrong! I am simply saying race is important, but pales in comparison to morality. I do not hold that I am superior in dignity just because I am of pure race. Complete nonsense. Is it so wrong to want to preserve the race and even improve it, in line with Catholic morality? Tell me where I am forbidden to say this.
Or are you espousing multi-racial marriages are fine to be the norm as the Jєωιѕн masters of propaganda are saying?
-
I would like to see a quote from Bishop Williamson to the effect that Catholics should only marry within their race and I would like to see an appropriate citation of 1917 Canon Law to that effect.
And I would like to see your evidence that this is a matter of doctrine, that being against racial-mixing in general equals worshiping race and demeaning any of mixed race or "inferior" races.
-
I would like to see a quote from Bishop Williamson to the effect that Catholics should only marry within their race and I would like to see an appropriate citation of 1917 Canon Law to that effect.
And I would like to see your evidence that this is a matter of doctrine, that being against racial-mixing in general equals worshiping race and demeaning any of mixed race or "inferior" races.
You are changing the terms of the debate. If you are speaking, as it increasingly appears, of a matter of personal preference that one seek a spouse from the same ethnic group that is another matter entirely. There we are dealing with an entirely different matter. This thread started out with the preposterous notion that as Catholics we should strive to keep races pure. That is very different. One may for a number of reasons prefer to seek a spouse of one's own race or background or socio-economic category. That is quite different. But racism is un-Catholic.
-
So you're fine with mult-racialism, and believe that the races were created by God out of whim, that there are no racial barriers? It seems to me you suffer from a false sense of shame. Popes haven't condemned a healthy pride of one's race; what they have condemned is excesses, like discrimination, exalting one's race to godly stature, etc. I have yet to see one say it is wrong to keep one's race pure, to preserve it and in line with Catholic morality. I'm proud of my race, the defects and strengths, because it is the race God willed me to be born into.
Again, I have said there are exceptions, but IMHO, as Telesphorus pointed, they are few and far between. The majority of mixed-race marriages have ended in failure, non-Catholic at least (Catholic, I have no means of knowing, but at least in the Novus Ordo, I would say the same).
-
I would like to see a quote from Bishop Williamson to the effect that Catholics should only marry within their race and I would like to see an appropriate citation of 1917 Canon Law to that effect.
And I would like to see your evidence that this is a matter of doctrine, that being against racial-mixing in general equals worshiping race and demeaning any of mixed race or "inferior" races.
You are changing the terms of the debate. If you are speaking, as it increasingly appears, of a matter of personal preference that one seek a spouse from the same ethnic group that is another matter entirely. There we are dealing with an entirely different matter. This thread started out with the preposterous notion that as Catholics we should strive to keep races pure. That is very different. One may for a number of reasons prefer to seek a spouse of one's own race or background or socio-economic category. That is quite different. But racism is un-Catholic.
Deleted post.
-
I'm waiting for you to answer my question, zviadist. Somehow, though, I think you're going to ignore it, because you believe that Bishop Williamson's position is "pagan" but just don't want to say it.
I'll say it. I don't know that it is pagan. it is certainly not Catholic.
-
I'm waiting for you to answer my question, zviadist. Somehow, though, I think you're going to ignore it, because you believe that Bishop Williamson's position is "pagan" but just don't want to say it.
I'll say it. I don't know that it is pagan. it is certainly not Catholic.
Indeed. It is not Catholic. And I will not believe this is +Williamson's position until I see some proof.
-
So I was thinking about how to prevent this crisis that we are having in our country today. Here is my solution...
1) Move to an area with minimal minorities. This of course would lessen the chances of your children race mixing.
2) Don't allow your children to date (have girlfriends/boyfriends) until 16 or 18 years old. The goal here is not to stop them from dating. They will have their little girlfriends and boyfriends secretly no matter what. But the goal is to make it exciting for them. Yes, exciting. Kids frequently do things behind their parents' back because of the thrill. So if your kids get a kick out of simply just dating then you have pretty much eliminated the thrill of interracial dating. Your kids get that same thrill from dating period. A lot of times people interracially date because of the thrill they get out of it. They were raised in a way that did not allow them to interracially date, and they did anyways because of the thrill of getting away with it. So basically what we are doing here is we are replacing the thrill of interracial dating by creating another thrill...which is dating in general. That way, your kids get the same thrill out of dating someone of their own kind as they would from interracial dating.
3) Try to find ways to discourage interracial dating with your kids. Maybe by using positive and negative reinforcement. Also, keeping them away from certain media. And explaining to them why it is important for them to find someone of the same belief system. You might even throw in how important it is to preserve our culture and way of life. You can raise them to be proud of being white. You don't have to teach them to hate other races or anything.
Any other suggestions?
Just what in the hell did you think this thread was going to accomplish?!?! How earth shaking did you really think these suggestions were?? No. 1 is like telling us to stop on red and go on green; no. 2 is horse####; no. 3 is basic common sense. You added absolutely nothing worthwhile toward the objective; nobody contributed anything earth-shaking in furtherance of the goal; nobody on either side of the broad topic changed their minds; you just got the whole forum pissed off at each other for no good reason!!! You are an utter jackass for bringing up this topic!!!
No wonder race-mixing has been steadily increasing since the 1960s. Your beloved Vatican II set the tone to revolutionize and turn on its head everything about right from wrong and good from bad!!! This problem is just one more result of the chaos that ensued from Vatican II!!
There is enough of a problem with solidarity on this forum in how to best practice and keep the faith during this crisis. We are here, all without regard to race, to help each other through this crisis. Your thread has tremendously thwarted that purpose and accomplished nothing positive.
-
So I was thinking about how to prevent this crisis that we are having in our country today. Here is my solution...
1) Move to an area with minimal minorities. This of course would lessen the chances of your children race mixing.
2) Don't allow your children to date (have girlfriends/boyfriends) until 16 or 18 years old. The goal here is not to stop them from dating. They will have their little girlfriends and boyfriends secretly no matter what. But the goal is to make it exciting for them. Yes, exciting. Kids frequently do things behind their parents' back because of the thrill. So if your kids get a kick out of simply just dating then you have pretty much eliminated the thrill of interracial dating. Your kids get that same thrill from dating period. A lot of times people interracially date because of the thrill they get out of it. They were raised in a way that did not allow them to interracially date, and they did anyways because of the thrill of getting away with it. So basically what we are doing here is we are replacing the thrill of interracial dating by creating another thrill...which is dating in general. That way, your kids get the same thrill out of dating someone of their own kind as they would from interracial dating.
3) Try to find ways to discourage interracial dating with your kids. Maybe by using positive and negative reinforcement. Also, keeping them away from certain media. And explaining to them why it is important for them to find someone of the same belief system. You might even throw in how important it is to preserve our culture and way of life. You can raise them to be proud of being white. You don't have to teach them to hate other races or anything.
Any other suggestions?
Just what in the hell did you think this thread was going to accomplish?!?! How earth shaking did you really think these suggestions were?? No. 1 is like telling us to stop on red and go on green; no. 2 is horse####; no. 3 is basic common sense. You added absolutely nothing worthwhile toward the objective; nobody contributed anything earth-shaking in furtherance of the goal; nobody on either side of the broad topic changed their minds; you just got the whole forum pissed off at each other for no good reason!!! You are an utter jackass for bringing up this topic!!!
No wonder race-mixing has been steadily increasing since the 1960s. Your beloved Vatican II set the tone to revolutionize and turn on its head everything about right from wrong and good from bad!!! This problem is just one more result of the chaos that ensued from Vatican II!!
There is enough of a problem with solidarity on this forum in how to best practice and keep the faith during this crisis. We are here, all without regard to race, to help each other through this crisis. Your thread has tremendously thwarted that purpose and accomplished nothing positive.
I see your point. I was not trying to get people mad at each other. And yes, I can see how it might do that now that you mention it. The reason why I do these types of threads is because I really do think this is an issue. This is not the only place I go to have these types of discussions.
The only way anything is ever going to be done about this issue is if we are brought together by it. Plus the only way that anything will ever get done is if we talk about it. What not a better way to talk about it than on a discussion forum? If it is really too much of a problem I will stop. But I do think it needs attention. Thats just me.
-
It is a problem. But it, the same as a zillion other problems, stem in no small measure from the chaos in Rome--the watered down teaching of faith and morals everything goes mentality. When is the last time a NO priest seriously referred to any sort of banned books, movies, etc. Just one example. They have emasculated and fαɢɢօtized themselves such that they may likely be ignored if thy did so at this juncture. But at some point Rome has to pull in the show, admit the folly and failure of the "experiment" of conciliarism, and set things straight.
I feel bad to have so harshly rebuked you. But all of a sudden I realize we're approaching 150 pages of fighting and we on this forum need to work together.
-
It is a problem. But it, the same as a zillion other problems, stem in no small measure from the chaos in Rome--the watered down teaching of faith and morals everything goes mentality. When is the last time a NO priest seriously referred to any sort of banned books, movies, etc. Just one example. They have emasculated and fαɢɢօtized themselves such that they may likely be ignored if thy did so at this juncture. But at some point Rome has to pull in the show, admit the folly and failure of the "experiment" of conciliarism, and set things straight.
I feel bad to have so harshly rebuked you. But all of a sudden I realize we're approaching 150 pages of fighting and we on this forum need to work together.
This next Pope may very well be the one to do all of that. We will see.
-
It is a problem. But it, the same as a zillion other problems, stem in no small measure from the chaos in Rome--the watered down teaching of faith and morals everything goes mentality. When is the last time a NO priest seriously referred to any sort of banned books, movies, etc. Just one example. They have emasculated and fαɢɢօtized themselves such that they may likely be ignored if thy did so at this juncture. But at some point Rome has to pull in the show, admit the folly and failure of the "experiment" of conciliarism, and set things straight.
I feel bad to have so harshly rebuked you. But all of a sudden I realize we're approaching 150 pages of fighting and we on this forum need to work together.
This next Pope may very well be the one to do all of that. We will see.
I hope so.
-
Sigismund and zviadist, all I see from you are emotional responses. It seems to me that because you don't like it, it's not Catholic. Again, I defy you to show us definite doctrine saying that being against racial mixing in general is wrong and against Catholic morality. I won't hold my breath! I most likely expect more emotional responses instead.
-
So one of the opposition has marked me down, even though they haven't a refutation to begin with.
Well, let's start with the docuмent of April 13th, 1938, issued by the Sacred Congregation of studies to combat nαzι racial theories. Let's look at one error condemned to see if it applies to us:
2)The vigour of the race and blood-purity must be preserved and cultivated by every means. Anything that conduces to this end is by that very fact honorable and permissible.
The opposite of this error is the truth so let's put it so:
The vigour of the race and blood-purity must not be preserved and cultivated by every means. Anything that conduces to this end [vigour of the race and blood-purity] is not by that very fact honorable and permissible.
Again, I ask: since when I, Telesphorus, or any other so-called "white-supremacist" (or "Asian supremacist") denied this truth?
Or again, Pope Pius XI, in Mit Brennender Sorge:
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.
Again, how have we denied this?
-
Indeed. Where have I denied the Faith, or any of the so-called "white supremacists"? We all acknowledge all men can be saved, that no one is superior to any other man in intrinsic dignity, since each is a human and demands our charity. Talking of material characteristics doesn't make us deny the supernatural is superior to the natural.
Very well stated. In general, when our Catholic Bible and literature refer to "the nations" they are also referring to "race." It should be obvious that to be loyal to one's own nation usually implies marrying within that nation (and therefore race).
For example, nobody here is saying assimilated loyal white Jєωιѕн Europeans or Americans should be persecuted or destroyed. Simply that they should normally marry their own and remain patriotic Jєωιѕн citizens (and Catholics, as the case may be). Exceptions exist, but they only "prove the rule." This should be even easier to see regarding mestizos or mulattos, because those racial groups are usually culturally foreign to white European Romans like ourselves.
Peace is the harmony of order, and therefore peace between the nations also implies order in their marriages and reproducing with their own kinds. Simply doing like Noah did on the Ark!
"To each their own," so to speak. Peace is the order of hierarchy.
-
QVP, what is the objective basis, from reason or from the faith, on which you say , that an intra race marriage is preferable to an inter racial one?
I see one possible objective basis as the claim, albeit false, that one race is superior to another. After all, if one race is superior, then one could consistently claim a "higher race" should not inter marry with a "lower race". But I think you deny this idea, and in any case it is opposed to Pope Pius XII when he speaks of "the equality of rational nature in all men, to whatever people they belong"
I think you made a genetic argument on this thread or on another, but I didn't entirely understand it. Can you repeat it, please? Was it that an interracial marriage always worsens both partners? What is the scientific or religious basis for this claim?
If so, which I doubt, how do you reconcile it with the fact that the Apostles never issued anything on the subject though it would have certainly been an issue when Gentile Christians first began to be baptized alongside Christians of Hebraic descent. Rather the Apostles taught only, there is neither Jєω nor Greek in Christ Jesus. It is incredible that neither they nor the Church these many centuries would not have formally said something on the subject if this were the case.
-
Nishant, do you deny that racial barrier exists, to the extent that breaking it most likely leads to the child's inheritance of genetic defects from both spouses? How is it commonsense to allow interracial marriage as a norm, the goal of the Jєωιѕн supremacists so that the resulting descendants will be more amenable to their domination?
Again, I ask: did I ever say one race is superior to another in the dignity of the children of God? Nevertheless, one would be mad to ignore the strengths and weaknesses inherent in each race, which a few people here seem to do. One can say one race is superior in such and such a field, inferior in such and such a field, generally speaking, without saying there must be a master race to rule them all (which is condemned by Pope Pius XI and I agree).
Religion trascends race, but it is not opposed to it, as I seem to imply by your words.
-
Nishant, do you deny that racial barrier exists, to the extent that breaking it most likely leads to the child's inheritance of genetic defects from both spouses
I've really never heard of such a claim. Can you tell me who might've mentioned it and who've also explained in some detail what is meant by "Catholic eugenics" which you talked about.
It seems to me there is no objective norm here so far as race is concerned, so everyone is free in this matter to marry within the bounds laid out by the Church. Conversely, if this were the norm, it is inconceivable that the Church has not described it.
One can say one race is superior in such and such a field, inferior in such and such a field
But from that it would not follow that interracial marriage is to be generally avoided.
Religion trascends race, but it is not opposed to it, as I seem to imply by your words.
Certainly it is not. But the unity of mankind is not broken but rather embellished by the multitude of peoples the good God has willed and created and in their free intermingling within the Catholic Church no divine or Apostolic prohibition of any sort is known. Pope Pius XII,
In the light of this unity of all mankind, which exists in law and in fact, individuals do not feel themselves isolated units, like grains of sand, but united by the very force of their nature and by their internal destiny, into an organic, harmonious mutual relationship which varies with the changing of times.
And the nations, despite a difference of development due to diverse conditions of life and of culture, are not destined to break the unity of the human race, but rather to enrich and embellish it by the sharing of their own peculiar gifts and by that reciprocal interchange of goods which can be possible and efficacious only when a mutual love and a lively sense of charity unite all the sons of the same Father and all those redeemed by the same Divine Blood.
-
I've really never heard of such a claim. Can you tell me who might've mentioned it and who've also explained in some detail what is meant by "Catholic eugenics" which you talked about.
It seems to me there is no objective norm here so far as race is concerned, so everyone is free in this matter to marry within the bounds laid out by the Church. Conversely, if this were the norm, it is inconceivable that the Church has not described it.
Catholic "eugenics" just means the improving of a race using Catholic means, nothing else, via improving city conditions, sanitation, etc. I include sticking to one's race in marriage, in general (recognizing that there are exceptions).
No objective norm? It seems to me that you're just going against common sense. The Church says race has an important place in worldly things, and I agree.
As for genetic defects, I'll admit I am somewhat groping in the dark. But I will say that there are language, cultural, and racial barriers to an interracial marriage which have to be overcome if it is to be a good marriage.
Certainly it is not. But the unity of mankind is not broken but rather embellished by the multitude of peoples the good God has willed and created and in their free intermingling within the Catholic Church no divine or Apostolic prohibition of any sort is known.
Non-sequitur. By your reasoning interracial marriage should be the norm and intraracial marriage discouraged, unless that is not your position. For me it's the opposite, and you can't tell me it's opposed by the Church. By the very fact that Jєωιѕн supremacists encourage our mulattoing our races, I strongly discourage it, unless there are truly good reasons to do otherwise.
-
I'm waiting for you to answer my question, zviadist. Somehow, though, I think you're going to ignore it, because you believe that Bishop Williamson's position is "pagan" but just don't want to say it.
I'll say it. I don't know that it is pagan. it is certainly not Catholic.
Indeed. It is not Catholic. And I will not believe this is +Williamson's position until I see some proof.
“Interrracial marriage is not common sense. It’s not a sin, it’s not an offense against god, necessarily, but it may often be an offense against common sense. Because there is too much difference between people of different races for their marriage to be able to last. You’re going to say that many interracial marriages do last. Fine. Undoubtedly. But it it is still not a good idea. It’s less bad than a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic, but it’s pretty deep, the differences between the races are pretty serious. Blacks should normally marry blacks, whites should normally marry whites. Chinese should marry Chinese…. If you’re upper class in society you should marry upper class, if you’re lower class you should marry lower class. It’s common sense.”
-
Nishant, do you deny that racial barrier exists, to the extent that breaking it most likely leads to the child's inheritance of genetic defects from both spouses?
This shows a massive lack of knowledge regarding genetics. Genetic problems are more common as the more inbred a population becomes. I'll try to explain.
There are two "alleles" for each gene. For example, let us say that the gene for height has two alleles, T and t. T is a dominant trait, t a recessive trait (For convenience, let us also say that T is for tallness, and t for shortness).
When a dominant allele crosses with another dominant allele, you get the dominant trait in the offspring. When a dominant allele crosses with a recessive allele, you still get the dominant trait. Only when a recessive gene crosses with a recessive gene, do you get the recessive trait in the offspring. This is best described visually by a Punnett square.
Most genetic illnesses and defects are the result of recessive genes; colorblindness, hemacromatosis, Tay-Sachs, etc. Men are usually the victims of these problems, due to a shortened chromosome on the 23rd pair (the famous Y chromosome). Females have a full XX set, so even if they carry a recessive allele for, say, colorblindness, on one allele, there is usually a dominant allele that covers it. Men don't have this advantage, and so a bad recessive allele has a greater chance of expressing itself.
The more inbred a population becomes, the greater the chance of recessive genes being carried and being expressed. For example, let us say a family of African descent carries the recessive gene for sickle-cell anemia (fairly common). If one of them (a gene carrier, but not a disease sufferer, so with alleles Ss) marries a fellow African who also has the same recessive gene (also Ss), the chance of one of their offspring having anemia is 25%. If one of them has anemia (alleles ss), they have a 50% chance.
Now let us say that one of them (Ss) marries a white European. The recessive allele s is very rare in European populations, so most Europeans have the dominant alleles SS. If they get married, none of their children have the disease, and only two of them are carriers. If several generations of this continues, the recessive allele will effectively disappear.
Now there are exceptions (e.g. random mutations, damaged or out of sequence chromosomes, etc.), but those are comparatively rare and, to be honest, the same risk level no matter who you marry.
-
Catholic "eugenics" just means the improving of a race using Catholic means, nothing else, via improving city conditions, sanitation, etc. I include sticking to one's race in marriage, in general (recognizing that there are exceptions).
Sanitation contributes toward the improving of a race? I'm not following you here, can you be clearer on what you mean.
I see no problem in people choosing for themselves to marry within their race, that's their own legitimate freedom.
No objective norm? It seems to me that you're just going against common sense. The Church says race has an important place in worldly things, and I agree.
Certainly it does, and I agree with the Church that race, like the state, the people and the other things mentioned are not unimportant.
As for genetic defects, I'll admit I am somewhat groping in the dark. But I will say that there are language, cultural, and racial barriers to an interracial marriage which have to be overcome if it is to be a good marriage.
Yes, there are. The same thing could be said of marriages from different cultures that more or less resemble each other so far as race is concerned, even their marriage might present linguistic and cultural challenges. But surely none of these, while being worth considering as a decision that should not be entered into lightly and without recognition of difficulties that may arise, is sufficient to say inter racial marriages are to be generally avoided if the couple know and love each other despite it and have taken it into consideration.
And, does not presenting interracial marriage as less than preferable and looking down on it strike you as somewhat unjust toward those Catholics who, like Sigismund, have chosen to marry someone they've loved of a different race, and have successfully overcome those barriers in raising Catholic children for the glory of God?
Edit: Thank you for the genetic clarification, brainglitch.
-
And naturally, someone offers a downthumb to a mere scientific description of inherited traits. Pathetic.
-
While hybrid vigor can exist, outbreeding does not generally produce an advantage.
If it did, it would be normal to breed plants and animals out rather than in.
The seeds of hybrids do not breed true.
No one here is geneticist, but you don't have to be a geneticist to understand the difference between having white descendants and having racially mixed descendants.
People who deny the disadvantages of the former, deny common sense.
-
And naturally, someone offers a downthumb to a mere scientific description of inherited traits. Pathetic.
You shouldn't pretend to knowledge you don't have.
-
It's normal for white people to want descendants who are like their ancestors who built this country, not like negroes in the ghetto.
Different races have different attributes. People who deny this simply deny reality for the sake of ideology - and not a Catholic ideology. No, they deny it for a left-wing ideology that has taken root in the past 50 years.
No one (except for some radical outliers) fifty years ago got in a huff over general opposition to mixed race marriage.
-
While hybrid vigor can exist, outbreeding does not generally produce an advantage.
If it did, it would be normal to breed plants and animals out rather than in.
Plants and animals are generally inbred because a particular trait is highly desired. For example, the short flat snouts of bulldogs were selectively chosen for fighting purposes. This however has led to a litany of inherited health problems in these dogs, from hip dysplasia to respiratory ailments.
Inbreeding does NOT produce good results.
Now in a population as large as an entire race, you're unlikely to see extreme examples of health issues due to inbreeding. Usually you only see it in small populations, such as Tay-Sachs among αѕнкenαzι Jєωs, or Ellis-van Crevald Syndrome in the Amish population.
No one here is geneticist, but you don't have to be a geneticist to understand the difference between having white descendants and having racially mixed descendants.
People who deny the disadvantages of the former, deny common sense.
I think you meant "the latter", but whatever. What about about racially-mixed descendants makes them less morally worthy than whites? And what makes them lesser on a natural level?
-
If one wanted to make and defend the hypothesis that inter-racial marriages present barriers that prove too difficult, one would have to show at least, after controlling for other factors, that a statistically significant proportion more of interracial marriages end in separation. Such evidence if it existed could at least be grounds for the beginning of a case made toward the claim that cultural and racial barriers prove too difficult in the end.
-
And naturally, someone offers a downthumb to a mere scientific description of inherited traits. Pathetic.
You shouldn't pretend to knowledge you don't have.
And what was inaccurate about that statement? I do have that knowledge, btw. That's what you get with a college education ;)
-
Inbreeding does NOT produce good results.
Obviously the nobles of Catholic Europe thought differently.
No one here is disputing marriage within too close of a degree causes problems.
However, if someone can't see the advantage of being white over being black, on the natural level, I think they are liars or they are brainwashed.
-
Brainglitch, it's not possible to have a rational discussion with a PC ideologue, that is with someone who pretends the political correctness of the past 50 years determines what is acceptable scientific and moral truth.
Which is what dogmatic opponents of race-mixing invariably do.
-
Inbreeding does NOT produce good results.
Obviously the nobles of Catholic Europe thought differently.
No one here is disputing marriage within too close of a degree causes problems.
However, if someone can't see the advantage of being white over being black, on the natural level, I think they are liars or they are brainwashed.
If you're saying that whites are inherently more intelligent than blacks, that may be true, but then, Asians are more intelligent than whites. Maybe I should go find a nice Asian girl...LOL.
-
Brainglitch, it's not possible to have a rational discussion with a PC ideologue, that is with someone who pretends the political correctness of the past 50 years determines what is acceptable scientific and moral truth.
Which is what dogmatic opponents of race-mixing invariably do.
"Blah Blah Blah, I'm right and everyone else is wrong, and if you don't agree with me then you're stupid and evil and marxist and bad-willed and I won't talk to you anymore."
Please...you do not determine what is right or wrong, especially in matters on which the Church has never made a definitive statement.
-
If you're saying that whites are inherently more intelligent than blacks
Do you ever try to discuss rationally?
I want descendants who are like my ancestors, like the people of Christian Europe.
There is a whole constellation of traits there - it's not something that can be easily quantified, but there is certainly ample reason to value it.
The people who say we're not allowed to value it but must put our ancestors on par with people from other lands are simply ideologues.
that may be true, but then, Asians are more intelligent than whites. Maybe I should go find a nice Asian girl...LOL.
Asians may have higher average intelligence as measured by IQ tests but that is just one trait.
-
If this is only a revisionism of the past 50 years, Telesphorus, one should be able to point to several respected traditional Catholic writers especially from the past who've argued against inter racial marriage.
-
If this is only a revisionism of the past 50 years, Telesphorus, one should be able to point to several respected traditional Catholic writers especially from the past who've argued against inter racial marriage.
It's not a theological issue Nishant, except for people who say it's wrong to be opposed to it.
The burden of proof is on those who say it's immoral to be opposed to it.
-
Nishant, do you deny that racial barrier exists, to the extent that breaking it most likely leads to the child's inheritance of genetic defects from both spouses?
This shows a massive lack of knowledge regarding genetics. Genetic problems are more common as the more inbred a population becomes. I'll try to explain.
There are two "alleles" for each gene. For example, let us say that the gene for height has two alleles, T and t. T is a dominant trait, t a recessive trait (For convenience, let us also say that T is for tallness, and t for shortness).
When a dominant allele crosses with another dominant allele, you get the dominant trait in the offspring. When a dominant allele crosses with a recessive allele, you still get the dominant trait. Only when a recessive gene crosses with a recessive gene, do you get the recessive trait in the offspring. This is best described visually by a Punnett square.
Most genetic illnesses and defects are the result of recessive genes; colorblindness, hemacromatosis, Tay-Sachs, etc. Men are usually the victims of these problems, due to a shortened chromosome on the 23rd pair (the famous Y chromosome). Females have a full XX set, so even if they carry a recessive allele for, say, colorblindness, on one allele, there is usually a dominant allele that covers it. Men don't have this advantage, and so a bad recessive allele has a greater chance of expressing itself.
The more inbred a population becomes, the greater the chance of recessive genes being carried and being expressed. For example, let us say a family of African descent carries the recessive gene for sickle-cell anemia (fairly common). If one of them (a gene carrier, but not a disease sufferer, so with alleles Ss) marries a fellow African who also has the same recessive gene (also Ss), the chance of one of their offspring having anemia is 25%. If one of them has anemia (alleles ss), they have a 50% chance.
Now let us say that one of them (Ss) marries a white European. The recessive allele s is very rare in European populations, so most Europeans have the dominant alleles SS. If they get married, none of their children have the disease, and only two of them are carriers. If several generations of this continues, the recessive allele will effectively disappear.
Now there are exceptions (e.g. random mutations, damaged or out of sequence chromosomes, etc.), but those are comparatively rare and, to be honest, the same risk level no matter who you marry.
Since we're on the topic of genetics: It's not only bad to interbreed too narrowly. It's also bad to interbreed too broadly as well. For example, many animal species can interbreed, but it's very unhealthy (and freakish!) for them to do so and normally leads quickly to serious problems of sterility in the abnormal offspring. The human species is perhaps the most genetically variable of any species, so that the genetic differences between races resemble the genetic differences between some animal species. Different human sub-species (or races) are similar to separate species in genetic terms. Hence racially-mixed populations tend to die out over time due to their problems with genetic sterility that are typical of cross-breeding between species.
For example, the American Negroes are dying out as a group and are being replaced by Negroes from the West Indies and Africa. This has much to do with their often mulatto racial character. Those immoral randy barnyard white Prot Romeos of past centuries are now contributing to the biological extinction of the historic American Negro population! In a similar way, most of the mestizo Mexican population now in the U.S. won't survive for too many generations either. Their frequent suicidal behaviors should indicate this to us in no uncertain terms. Rates of infection with Aids are through the roof in most mixed-race populations and that too is leading them to inexorable genetic extinction.
For those with eyes to see, the facts of recorded human history clearly show that widespread race-mixing causes severe indications of sterility in subsequent generations. These typically appear as the suicidal behaviors of sterile genetics as well as through an eventual collapse in their rates of biological reproduction. For example, the vast mixed-race populations of Ancient Rome disappeared from Europe in the Early Middle Ages due to their extremely low rates of biological reproduction.
Sterility has truly serious consequences.
-
correction:
Brainglitch, it's not possible to have a rational discussion with a PC ideologue, that is with someone who pretends the political correctness of the past 50 years determines what is acceptable scientific and moral truth.
Which is what dogmatic proponents of unrestrained mixing of the races invariably do.
-
Nishant, do you deny that racial barrier exists, to the extent that breaking it most likely leads to the child's inheritance of genetic defects from both spouses?
Are you serious? Have you had even a basic education?
-
Catholic "eugenics" just means the improving of a race using Catholic means, nothing else, via improving city conditions, sanitation, etc. I include sticking to one's race in marriage, in general (recognizing that there are exceptions).
Sanitation contributes toward the improving of a race? I'm not following you here, can you be clearer on what you mean.
I see no problem in people choosing for themselves to marry within their race, that's their own legitimate freedom.
No objective norm? It seems to me that you're just going against common sense. The Church says race has an important place in worldly things, and I agree.
Certainly it does, and I agree with the Church that race, like the state, the people and the other things mentioned are not unimportant.
As for genetic defects, I'll admit I am somewhat groping in the dark. But I will say that there are language, cultural, and racial barriers to an interracial marriage which have to be overcome if it is to be a good marriage.
Yes, there are. The same thing could be said of marriages from different cultures that more or less resemble each other so far as race is concerned, even their marriage might present linguistic and cultural challenges. But surely none of these, while being worth considering as a decision that should not be entered into lightly and without recognition of difficulties that may arise, is sufficient to say inter racial marriages are to be generally avoided if the couple know and love each other despite it and have taken it into consideration.
And, does not presenting interracial marriage as less than preferable and looking down on it strike you as somewhat unjust toward those Catholics who, like Sigismund, have chosen to marry someone they've loved of a different race, and have successfully overcome those barriers in raising Catholic children for the glory of God?
Edit: Thank you for the genetic clarification, brainglitch.
Finally someone here making a little sense. Unbelievable!
-
And all you can do is question my education? I admit I groped in the dark there. But as Telesphorus said, the burden of proof lies in those who accuse people against racial mixing of going against Catholic doctrine. None of us have went against Pope Pius XI, who puts race as important, but paling into insignificance besides things as religion, etc.
Again, I ask: cite Catholic doctrine pertaining to the topic, instead of tangents, proving that we violate it.
-
I think you meant "the latter", but whatever. What about about racially-mixed descendants makes them less morally worthy than whites? And what makes them lesser on a natural level?
And, as is implied through this thread, what makes them lesser in the eyes of God?
-
Zviadist, how can you consider it unbelievable that people would prefer to maintain their own racial background in their descendants?
It's the most normal thing in the world.
You yourself say you believe high nobility should marry high nobility?
How is it that you can consider "unbelievable" that peoples wish to maintain their identities?
-
If this is only a revisionism of the past 50 years, Telesphorus, one should be able to point to several respected traditional Catholic writers especially from the past who've argued against inter racial marriage.
Please cite the opposite then, that Catholic writers encourage racial mixing!
-
And, as is implied through this thread, what makes them lesser in the eyes of God?
nonsense.
-
I think you meant "the latter", but whatever. What about about racially-mixed descendants makes them less morally worthy than whites? And what makes them lesser on a natural level?
And, as is implied through this thread, what makes them lesser in the eyes of God?
Do you have any idea of the line of argument that you're opposed? Has anyone ever implied that any one race or one of mixed race is leeser in the eyes of God? All this time, we're speaking in terms of human traits, not intrinsic dignity inherent in every human being, put there by God!
-
Zviadist, how can you consider it unbelievable that people would prefer to maintain their own racial background in their descendants?
It's the most normal thing in the world.
You yourself say you believe high nobility should marry high nobility?
How is it that you can consider "unbelievable" that peoples wish to maintain their identities?
There are a million considerations before one chooses to marry. First and foremost one cannot marry outside the Church. And one cannot divorce. But after that, there are many considerations. Is there compatibility, mutual respect, common or complimentary political philosophies, interests, etc. Some men are attracted to women with longer hair, blue eyes, etc. Some find that fairer skin is more attractive. Some are interested in a different culture and prefer to marry into that culture. As long as both are Catholic these are incidental and non essential factors. They are preferences, plain and simple. Pure subjectivity.
What the author of this thread is asserting is something far different: that somehow Catholics are to avoid the mixing of races. That is an incorrect and un-Catholic position to hold. It is far different from your point above, which is that many people prefer to marry someone like themselves. That is likely true but in fact undermines the position of the author of this thread. You all cannot have it both ways.
-
Do you have any idea of the line of argument that you're opposed? Has anyone ever implied that any one race or one of mixed race is leeser in the eyes of God? All this time, we're speaking in terms of human traits, not intrinsic dignity inherent in every human being, put there by God!
OK, let me understand you. If no race is lesser in the eyes of God and if mixed race marriages are not lesser in the eyes of God, on what basis do you make your assertions that races must not mix? You have decimated your own argument -- as well as that of the person who started this thread.
If you actually hold the position that you assert above, it boils down to you saying "I don't like other races and would not marry someone from another race, but according to God there is no problem either way." Well the latter is perfectly fine, but the former is a sin. That is plain and my case is made.
-
As long as both are Catholic these are incidental and non essential factors. They are preferences, plain and simple. Pure subjectivity.
I disagree that they are purely subjective.
What the author of this thread is asserting is something far different: that somehow Catholics are to avoid the mixing of races.
Did he say Catholics are (morally required that is) to avoid the mixing of the races?
It seems to me he's talking how to raise children to avoid it.
That is an incorrect and un-Catholic position to hold.
Only if it's taken to extremes. There's nothing un-Catholic about believing it's better for races to practice endogamy. Nothing at all un-Catholic about the idea.
It is far different from your point above, which is that many people prefer to marry someone like themselves.
Not just individuals themselves, but their families and communities prefer it too, and have good reason to prefer it.
That is likely true but in fact undermines the position of the author of this thread. You all cannot have it both ways.
I don't see what you're getting at.
-
OK, let me understand you. If no race is lesser in the eyes of God and if mixed race marriages are not lesser in the eyes of God, on what basis do you make your assertions that races must not mix? You have decimated your own argument -- as well as that of the person who started this thread.
If you actually hold the position that you assert above, it boils down to you saying "I don't like other races and would not marry someone from another race, but according to God there is no problem either way." Well the latter is perfectly fine, but the former is a sin. That is plain and my case is made.
Your case isn't made by any stretch of the imagination. It is based on common sense, since race is indeed an important consideration (unlike your denial of it). It seems to me that you espouse the conclusion of Jєωιѕн supremacists, that everyone should race mix (except in the case of the Jєωιѕн supremacists, their own race).
Again I ask: what it is that is so wrong to want to raise children to avoid race mixing, without impugning the dignity of other races?
-
Did he say Catholics are to avoid the mixing of the races?
It seems to me he's talking how to raise children to avoid it.
And you believe that that is a distinction with a difference?
Oh, and all you Catholics out there keep marking me down because you disagree with my arguments. Keep it up. You are all very holy. Cowards.
-
Oh, and all you Catholics out there keep marking me down because you disagree with my arguments. Keep it up. You are all very holy. Cowards.
So one is a coward if they disagree with you and down thumb your posts. Now you are the one calling people names.
-
And you believe that that is a distinction with a difference?
Oh, and all you Catholics out there keep marking me down because you disagree with my arguments. Keep it up. You are all very holy. Cowards.
Face it: you have no arguments. The so-called arguments you bring have no bearing on our position, even if you try to twist it so. And yes, I'm the one marking you down since you haven't cited any Catholic doctrine that is opposed to our position. I put forward errors condemned by the Church and proved we haven't held to them.
-
It is based on common sense,
Oh I see. Well I guess you win then.
Incredible. Catholics were once better educated.
-
It is based on common sense,
Oh I see. Well I guess you win then.
Incredible. Catholics were once better educated.
Ad hominem. +Williamson then wasn't well-educated by Archbishop Lefebvre. :rolleyes: Dogmatizing when the Church hasn't isn't going to win your argument.
-
Zviadist, how can you consider it unbelievable that people would prefer to maintain their own racial background in their descendants?
It's the most normal thing in the world.
You yourself say you believe high nobility should marry high nobility?
How is it that you can consider "unbelievable" that peoples wish to maintain their identities?
There are a million considerations before one chooses to marry. First and foremost one cannot marry outside the Church. And one cannot divorce. But after that, there are many considerations. Is there compatibility, mutual respect, common or complimentary political philosophies, interests, etc. Some men are attracted to women with longer hair, blue eyes, etc. Some find that fairer skin is more attractive. Some are interested in a different culture and prefer to marry into that culture. As long as both are Catholic these are incidental and non essential factors. They are preferences, plain and simple. Pure subjectivity.
What the author of this thread is asserting is something far different: that somehow Catholics are to avoid the mixing of races. That is an incorrect and un-Catholic position to hold. It is far different from your point above, which is that many people prefer to marry someone like themselves. That is likely true but in fact undermines the position of the author of this thread. You all cannot have it both ways.
Let me go over this again. I don't believe that mixed race marriages are morally wrong. However, I don't believe God intended for complete assimilation of Cultures and races. We are in a position right now where that will likely happen. So basically I am against mixed race marriages at high rates. 1 in 7 marriages are mixed race. This is not good. I think we need to take measures that will drastically slow the rate in which they are occurring. These measures do not include splitting people up who are currently in mixed race marriages/relationships. I hope you now fully understand my position.
-
Did he say Catholics are to avoid the mixing of the races?
It seems to me he's talking how to raise children to avoid it.
And you believe that that is a distinction with a difference?
Oh, and all you Catholics out there keep marking me down because you disagree with my arguments. Keep it up. You are all very holy. Cowards.
Zvi, I never imagined you had your point of view on this issue.
Is it a personal thing?
I know I got pretty perturbed when someone told me I'd be "breaking my line" - but really I shouldn't have been.
-
Again I ask: what it is that is so wrong to want to raise children to avoid race mixing, without impugning the dignity of other races?
How do you propose doing that?
I think people should, on the whole, marry within their own race. If you want to teach your children that, fine by me. But there is nothing sinful about marrying outside of your own race. Please explain, why this is sinful? When has the Church ever discouraged interracial marriage?
-
Infinite Faith has a tendency towards expressing his opinions in very crass terms, in typical fisheaters style - that should not be approved of here.
-
I put forward errors condemned by the Church and proved we haven't held to them.
If you do not believe that the white race is intrinsically superior to all other races, on what basis do you build your argument that it is wrong for whites to marry non-whites?
-
Again I ask: what it is that is so wrong to want to raise children to avoid race mixing, without impugning the dignity of other races?
How do you propose doing that?
I think people should, on the whole, marry within their own race. If you want to teach your children that, fine by me. But there is nothing sinful about marrying outside of your own race. Please explain, why this is sinful? When has the Church ever discouraged interracial marriage?
That was the whole purpose of this thread. To discuss how we might be able to stop race-mixing...which would focus on raising our children in a certain way.
-
Again: hasn't anyone even remotely suggested marrying outside one's own race is sinful? Some people ought to read more carefully before exploding in emotional responses!
EDIT: Mark me down all you want, but produce your evidence!
-
If you do not believe that the white race is intrinsically superior to all other races, on what basis do you build your argument that it is wrong for whites to marry non-whites?
On the basis of wishing to preserve one's own kind.
People are loyal to their families, their nations, etc, without necessarily believing that their families and their nations are superior to others.
It is a similar principle of identification.
It does not require a belief in intrinsic superiority.
-
If you do not believe that the white race is intrinsically superior to all other races, on what basis do you build your argument that it is wrong for whites to marry non-whites?
On non-doctrinal considerations; the moral considerations (like marrying inside the Church, etc.) are top priority, but race is in no way discounted. Again, I ask: is it wrong to discourage race mixing on human considerations (unless the moral ones outweigh them sufficiently)?
-
If you do not believe that the white race is intrinsically superior to all other races, on what basis do you build your argument that it is wrong for whites to marry non-whites?
On the basis of wishing to preserve one's own kind.
People are loyal to their families, their nations, etc, without necessarily believing that their families and their nations are superior to others.
It is a similar principle of identification.
It does not require a belief in intrinsic superiority.
Then on that basis, Irish should only marry Irish, English with English, French with French, etc.
Am I right?
-
Then on that basis, Irish should only marry Irish, English with English, French with French, etc.
Am I right?
All that is Caucasian race, more or less, so that example doesn't hold at all! St. Louis' mother was Spanish, but of the same race as his father!
-
Again, I ask: is it wrong to discourage race mixing on human considerations (unless the moral ones outweigh them sufficiently)?
No. But this is usually accompanied by comcomitant hatred/distrust/dislike of other races, which is an offense against the supernatural Charity that we must show to all, especially those of the household of the Faith. The little Stormfront troll that keeps registering here is one example of such a person (he said that only whites are our "neighbors" and so we are not required by God to love non-whites).
-
No. But this is usually accompanied by comcomitant hatred/distrust/dislike of other races, which is an offense against the supernatural Charity that we must show to all, especially those of the household of the Faith. The little Stormfront troll that keeps registering here is one example of such a person (he said that only whites are our "neighbors" and so we are not required by God to love non-whites).
Not necessarily connected at all. That is only when you don't have supernatural charity that you fall into excess. Has anyone suggested distrust/hatred of other races? I agree it is a sin to hate/dislike other races, but that isn't factoring into the topic, unless you can show me where it does.
-
I can't imagine having descendants that identify with the culture of US blacks.
It really is a very unpleasant thing to contemplate.
Look at how someone raised by whites like Obama went to Rev. Wright's "church."
If a white has offspring of a different race than himself, the child is likely to identify with the other race, the dominant features that tend to set the child apart from his white ancestors.
It's all fine and well for racial minorities when whites pretend race doesn't exist, but let's not pretend minorities ignore its existence. On the contrary, they are acutely conscious of it, idenfity with that race - and it tends to create a division between parent and child.
This is apart from the genetic considerations, which are a valid reason for general opposition to such matches, in and of themselves.
-
Then on that basis, Irish should only marry Irish, English with English, French with French, etc.
Am I right?
All that is Caucasian race, more or less, so that example doesn't hold at all! St. Louis' mother was Spanish, but of the same race as his father!
More or less....hmmmm....
The English were often scandalized when one of their children married an Irishman because the Irish were thought to be less intelligent and more prone to crime then Englishmen. Of course, anti-Catholic prejudice had a part in that too. And it is true that very few Irishmen progressed beyond a very basic level of education or were illiterate, and that they had a very high crime rate. So, would you have discouraged one of your children from marrying a "lesser race", such as the Irish, were the circuмstances still the same?
-
with the culture of US blacks.
The traditional Southern culture of US blacks (unusual nowadays but still) is a hell of a lot more pleasant to contemplate than the Satanic culture of American WASPs.
-
Has anyone suggested distrust/hatred of other races?
Umm....read some of IF's posts, dude?
-
Then on that basis, Irish should only marry Irish, English with English, French with French, etc.
Am I right?
All that is Caucasian race, more or less, so that example doesn't hold at all! St. Louis' mother was Spanish, but of the same race as his father!
More or less....hmmmm....
The English were often scandalized when one of their children married an Irishman because the Irish were thought to be less intelligent and more prone to crime then Englishmen. Of course, anti-Catholic prejudice had a part in that too. And it is true that very few Irishmen progressed beyond a very basic level of education or were illiterate, and that they had a very high crime rate. So, would you have discouraged one of your children from marrying a "lesser race", such as the Irish, were the circuмstances still the same?
Red herring. And in any case, there is still the cultural and language barrier.
-
I'm Irish and I'm not so sure I'm keen on having descendants more Irish than myself.
They are temperamental people.
That being said - virulent anti-Catholics wished to compare Irish with blacks because - it hardly means the Irish immigrants identified with blacks. Certainly they didn't when they rioted.
One of the good things about the Irish, is that they will stand up and fight.
-
Then on that basis, Irish should only marry Irish, English with English, French with French, etc.
Am I right?
All that is Caucasian race, more or less, so that example doesn't hold at all! St. Louis' mother was Spanish, but of the same race as his father!
More or less....hmmmm....
The English were often scandalized when one of their children married an Irishman because the Irish were thought to be less intelligent and more prone to crime then Englishmen. Of course, anti-Catholic prejudice had a part in that too. And it is true that very few Irishmen progressed beyond a very basic level of education or were illiterate, and that they had a very high crime rate. So, would you have discouraged one of your children from marrying a "lesser race", such as the Irish, were the circuмstances still the same?
Red herring. And in any case, there is still the cultural and language barrier.
Then people should only be encouraged to marry those of the same ethnicity, language, culture?
-
Again I ask: what it is that is so wrong to want to raise children to avoid race mixing, without impugning the dignity of other races?
If the intentions and opinions of the most active posters in this thread was as simple and innocent as you worded this thread would not have exceeded 150 pages in length within a few days.
The fact is that there are people who actually use this front to mask their feelings of racial/cultural superiority.
There's no point denying it. WASP and Americanist sentiments of white racial purity and superiority seem to permeate this forum. Anyone who speaks out against it is labelled as a lackey of the ѕуηαgσgυє, a self-hating white brainwashed by the media, or a self-conscious non-white that hates the whites, who he knows to be superior.
Let's stop beating around the bush.
-
I'm Irish and I'm not so sure I'm keen on having descendants more Irish than myself.
They are temperamental people.
That being said - virulent anti-Catholics wished to compare Irish with blacks because - it hardly means the Irish immigrants identified with blacks. Certainly they didn't when they rioted.
One of the good things about the Irish, is that they will stand up and fight.
They didn't identify with blacks, but they were generally on the same social level. Heck, Southern people generally preferred blacks to Irish for work and such, and would only hire Irish for jobs that were too dirty/dangerous to risk a valuable black slave!
-
Again I ask: what it is that is so wrong to want to raise children to avoid race mixing, without impugning the dignity of other races?
If the intentions and opinions of the most active posters in this thread was as simple and innocent as you worded this thread would not have exceeded 150 pages in length within a few days.
The fact is that there are people who actually use this front to mask their feelings of racial/cultural superiority.
There's no point denying it. WASP and Americanist sentiments of white racial purity and superiority seem to permeate this forum. Anyone who speaks out against it is labelled as a lackey of the ѕуηαgσgυє, a self-hating white brainwashed by the media, or a self-conscious non-white that hates the whites, who he knows to be superior.
Let's stop beating around the bush.
Bingo!
-
Here's another very Catholic reason to oppose frequent race-mixing: Widespread miscegenation causes widespread genetic defects and weaknesses in the descendants. The very fact the offspring of such unions do have an inherent human dignity is why Catholic opponents to miscegenation, like this writer, are so firmly opposed to miscegenation in the first place.
If the offspring were so terribly inferior, then we would have relatively little cause to be concerned. Are we so terribly concerned if animals from different species interbreed? Not a great deal. But precisely because racially-mixed human offspring do share the same inherent human dignity as the rest of us, we should be concerned with and against miscegenation. To subject large numbers of humans to needless genetic weaknesses and defects is surely most lacking in compassion and genuine empathy for others.
If we truly care about the human race, we should want to keep our species the way the Good Lord in His infinite wisdom has made it with His own hands. To have the itch to meddle with God's Creation is usually a sure sign of Deism, or worse. No human being can "improve" God's Creation. At best we are only called to tend Creation and protect her from meddlers and trouble-makers like those who advocate widespread race-mixing.
The Catholic truth that every race is equally human and shares the same inherent human dignity is precisely why miscegenation is normally a grave moral abomination and mortal sin against nature.
The good Creation that the Good Lord hath made should be good enough for us!
-
with the culture of US blacks.
The traditional Southern culture of US blacks (unusual nowadays but still) is a hell of a lot more pleasant to contemplate than the Satanic culture of American WASPs.
A very dull comment.
For one thing "wasps" can mean all sorts of things.
If you think "wasps" are worse than liberal Catholics at a place like Notre Dame, you're kidding yourself.
The Reconstruction South was a nightmare, an inverted social order, exploited by wicked interlopers for the purpose of subjecting Southerners to degradation.
While I don't doubt Southern blacks are generally better than the kind we have around here, it's ridiculous to idealize them.
In the popular film there's a character type called "the magic negro" - your views of Southern blacks are probably heavily influenced by that stereotype.
-
Very grave accusations, Vladimir, and I hope you can prove them, at least in the case of traditional Catholics as myself and Telesphorus. For the record, I have never entertained animosity against other races and even against those of mixed race. I don't know InfiniteFaith's intentions, but I give him/her the benefit of the doubt, unlike quite a few people.
-
with the culture of US blacks.
The traditional Southern culture of US blacks (unusual nowadays but still) is a hell of a lot more pleasant to contemplate than the Satanic culture of American WASPs.
A very dull comment.
For one thing "wasps" can mean all sorts of things.
If you think "wasps" are worse than liberal Catholics at a place like Notre Dame, you're kidding yourself.
The Reconstruction South was a nightmare, an inverted social order, exploited by wicked interlopers for the purpose of subjecting Southerners to degradation.
While I don't doubt Southern blacks are generally better than the kind we have around here, it's ridiculous to idealize them.
In the popular film there's a character type called "the magic negro" - your views of Southern blacks are probably heavily influenced by that stereotype.
Nice try. WASPs are responsible for most of the social and moral problems in this country. They are also completely, slavishly subservient to the Jєωs. That doesn't bother you?
No one is idealizing black people. One has only to look at crime statistics to be disillusioned. I would however prefer to be around Southern conservative blacks such as Alan Keyes, then to be around arrogant, self-righteous, racist New England WASPs.
-
The Catholic truth that every race is equally human and shares the same inherent human dignity is precisely why miscegenation is normally a grave moral abomination and mortal sin against nature.
I disagree with you here. I do not think it is a mortal sin.
-
Here's another very Catholic reason to oppose frequent race-mixing: Widespread miscegenation causes widespread genetic defects and weaknesses in the descendants. The very fact the offspring of such unions do have an inherent human dignity is why Catholic opponents to miscegenation, like this writer, are so firmly opposed to miscegenation in the first place.
If the offspring were so terribly inferior, then we would have relatively little cause to be concerned. Are we so terribly concerned if animals from different species interbreed? Not a great deal. But precisely because racially-mixed human offspring do share the same inherent human dignity as the rest of us, we should be concerned with and against miscegenation. To subject large numbers of humans to needless genetic weaknesses and defects is surely most lacking in compassion and genuine empathy for others.
If we truly care about the human race, we should want to keep our species the way the Good Lord in His infinite wisdom has made it with His own hands. To have the itch to meddle with God's Creation is usually a sure sign of Deism, or worse. No human being can "improve" God's Creation. At best we are only called to tend Creation and protect her from meddlers and trouble-makers like those who advocate widespread race-mixing.
The Catholic truth that every race is equally human and shares the same inherent human dignity is precisely why miscegenation is normally a grave moral abomination and mortal sin against nature.
The good Creation that the Good Lord hath made should be good enough for us!
Can you back up your claim that miscegenation leads to genetic defects?
And can you cite any source that states that miscegenation is a mortal sin?
You make a lot of claims, but never back them up.
-
The Catholic truth that every race is equally human and shares the same inherent human dignity is precisely why miscegenation is normally a grave moral abomination and mortal sin against nature.
Please cite an authority proving this. Please cite any moral theologian, saint, doctor, etc.
-
The Catholic truth that every race is equally human and shares the same inherent human dignity is precisely why miscegenation is normally a grave moral abomination and mortal sin against nature.
I disagree with you here. I do not think it is a mortal sin.
Hey, at least he takes your arguments to their logical conclusion!
-
Ok, I disavow brotherfrancis, and most definitely state racial mixing isn't even a venial sin in itself.
-
Hey, at least he takes your arguments to their logical conclusion!
Don't confuse the spiritual with the physical, like liberals are so fond of doing.
-
Ok, I disavow brotherfrancis, and most definitely state racial mixing isn't even a venial sin in itself.
Of course not. Anyone who thinks it's even venially sinful needs to leave Catholic forums and get on Storm Front. Such thinking is not Catholic.
-
I don't believe God intended for complete assimilation of Cultures and races.
Based on what? A hunch? This is what passes for facts based argument?
-
If the intentions and opinions of the most active posters in this thread was as simple and innocent as you worded this thread would not have exceeded 150 pages in length within a few days.
We're not the ones bumping the thread. The people bumping the thread are the ones who hold the PC position. To which we are responding.
The fact is that there are people who actually use this front to mask their feelings of racial/cultural superiority.
You are constantly posting about your East Asian cultural background and seem to prefer it.
There's no point denying it. WASP and Americanist sentiments
I do deny that there's anything particularly "WASP" or "Americanist" about it. If you think European peoples didn't have (and still do today - especially in countries that are substantially mixed race - as in Latin America) you're kidding yourself.
of white racial purity and superiority seem to permeate this forum. Anyone who speaks out against it is labelled as a lackey of the ѕуηαgσgυє, a self-hating white brainwashed by the media,
There is no doubt that the taboo against opposition to race-mixing is something that is closely related to the agenda of the ѕуηαgσgυє. And yes, people are brainwashed, absolutely.
or a self-conscious non-white that hates the whites, who he knows to be superior.
I ask you again, why do you think so many asian women marry white men in this country?
Is that in the interests of east asians?
Let's stop beating around the bush.
You want to equate pride in race to feelings of superiority.
Yet there is no doubt East Asians also feel pride in race. Are those feelings illegitimate?
Is it wrong to want descendants like oneself?
Why this insistence that it must be wrong?
It doesn't common from logic or reason.
Another point:
there are qualitative differences that can be judged.
If people feel insulted by being compared unfavorably to whites, well, they might as well feel insulted for not being tall, or not being good looking, or not being highly intelligent. That is to say, the qualitative difference doesn't disappear by pretending it doesn't exist or is immoral to notice or take into account.
It is undoubtedly true that many people who wish for there to be no opposition to miscegenation to be legitimate are the very people who wish to have the unhindered opportunity to mate with whites. Not suggesting that you have that pov.
If I recall correctly Vladimir you once had a different view of this topic?
-
Based on what? A hunch? This is what passes for facts based argument?
Do you believe God intended all races to be assimilated into one? It seems to me that you imply this!
-
Based on what? A hunch? This is what passes for facts based argument?
The idea of all people being joined together without racial and national distinctions is an idea redolent of a One World masonic state.
The break-down of nationalities and the deliberate policy of mass migration of darker races into Europe and America didn't start in earnest until Vatican II.
That should tell you something about the agenda in play. It's certainly not a Christian agenda.
-
Based on what? A hunch? This is what passes for facts based argument?
The idea of all people being joined together without racial and national distinctions is an idea redolent of a One World masonic state.
The break-down of nationalities and the deliberate policy of mass migration of darker races into Europe and America didn't start in earnest until Vatican II.
That should tell you something about the agenda in play. It's certainly not a Christian agenda.
No one is advocating this. No one is saying that all races must or should be assimilated, and that all cultures have to be destroyed in the US masonic melting pot.
The point is that two Catholics who love each other, barring canonical impediments, should be free to marry if they wish, regardless of race.
-
The point is that two Catholics who love each other, barring canonical impediments, should be free to marry if they wish, regardless of race.
Who has disputed that on this thread?
-
Zvi, I never imagined you had your point of view on this issue.
Is it a personal thing?
No, it is a Catholic. The Church has never taught that mixed-race marriages were forbidden. In fact, it was the Catholic Church in the United States that was out in front of defending mixed-race marriages when the protestants were lynching people for so engaging.
Has no one ever heard of the martyrdom of Fr. James Coyle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Coyle), who was murdered by a protestant minister for performing a Catholic wedding between two different races?
Why do you all suppose the KKK hated Catholics so much? They believed in the universality of the Church rather than the false holiness of the race.
-
No, it is a Catholic. The Church has never taught that mixed-race marriages were forbidden.
Why are you pretending that we are saying otherwise?
-
Has Telesphorus or I ever said mixed-race marriages were forbidden by the Church? The enormity of things unrelated to what we say abounds!
-
The point is that two Catholics who love each other, barring canonical impediments, should be free to marry if they wish, regardless of race.
Who has disputed that on this thread?
People have brought up ideas on racial "purity," the so called sinfulness of miscegenation, etc. It's as if saying what I said necessarily means that I support a forced mixing of all races and a politically correct destruction of culture in favor of diversity. I don't.
-
If you do not believe that the white race is intrinsically superior to all other races, on what basis do you build your argument that it is wrong for whites to marry non-whites?
Indeed. That is the crux of the matter. But they are simply to embarrassed to admit it.
-
If you do not believe that the white race is intrinsically superior to all other races, on what basis do you build your argument that it is wrong for whites to marry non-whites?
Indeed. That is the crux of the matter. But they are simply to embarrassed to admit it.
I'm an Asian, and believe races should stick to each other in general, barring the very unlikely extinction of all races. What does that make me: "white supremacist," "Asian supremacist," "African supremacist"? The absurdity of such arguments. Only proves to me how conditioned you are into accepting mixed-race marriage as the norm or at least influenced in that direction.
-
Someone on this forum said he was "unsure" if he would disown his daughter if she dated a man of different race. Not a protestant, a Jєω, an atheist, etc. of a different race, but a trad of a different race.
It looks like everything has gone full circle. :detective:
-
Again I ask: what it is that is so wrong to want to raise children to avoid race mixing, without impugning the dignity of other races?
If the intentions and opinions of the most active posters in this thread was as simple and innocent as you worded this thread would not have exceeded 150 pages in length within a few days.
The fact is that there are people who actually use this front to mask their feelings of racial/cultural superiority.
There's no point denying it. WASP and Americanist sentiments of white racial purity and superiority seem to permeate this forum. Anyone who speaks out against it is labelled as a lackey of the ѕуηαgσgυє, a self-hating white brainwashed by the media, or a self-conscious non-white that hates the whites, who he knows to be superior.
Let's stop beating around the bush.
Bingo.
-
Again I ask: what it is that is so wrong to want to raise children to avoid race mixing, without impugning the dignity of other races?
If the intentions and opinions of the most active posters in this thread was as simple and innocent as you worded this thread would not have exceeded 150 pages in length within a few days.
The fact is that there are people who actually use this front to mask their feelings of racial/cultural superiority.
There's no point denying it. WASP and Americanist sentiments of white racial purity and superiority seem to permeate this forum. Anyone who speaks out against it is labelled as a lackey of the ѕуηαgσgυє, a self-hating white brainwashed by the media, or a self-conscious non-white that hates the whites, who he knows to be superior.
Let's stop beating around the bush.
Bingo!
Ha ha we are thinking exactly alike!!!
-
Here's another very Catholic reason to oppose frequent race-mixing: Widespread miscegenation causes widespread genetic defects and weaknesses in the descendants. The very fact the offspring of such unions do have an inherent human dignity is why Catholic opponents to miscegenation, like this writer, are so firmly opposed to miscegenation in the first place.
Utter nonsense. Vulgar, uneducated, backwoods, un-Catholic nonsense.
-
Accusations abound, but no substance. I'm not quite sure of InfiniteFaith and vehemently disagree with brotherfrancis, but I know of Telesphorus' posts to know that the "racial superiority" of the whites is far from his mind when he states he has a pride in his race. Does pride equal false worship of race?
-
Indeed. That is the crux of the matter.
Except logically speaking it isn't the crux of the matter. No one has been able to refute the claim that it isn't wrong to prefer (in certain contexts) people closer to one's own type. Any more than it's wrong to prefer one's own family or nation.
It's only around the issue of race that this taboo is created against favoring those closer to oneself in certain respects.
But they are simply to embarrassed to admit it.
I'm not embarrassed to admit I believe that the white race is superior in certain ways to other races.
Why on earth should I be ashamed to think that?
I wouldn't claim that as a spiritual or metaphysical superiority.
I don't see any reason why members of other races shouldn't take pride in their race, and they might have reason to value the qualities of their own race higher than the qualities of others. (which they typically do in practice).
I can't see anything wrong with that.
-
Ok, I disavow brotherfrancis, and most definitely state racial mixing isn't even a venial sin in itself.
Of course not. Anyone who thinks it's even venially sinful needs to leave Catholic forums and get on Storm Front. Such thinking is not Catholic.
Thank you, and thank the Lord for bringing some common sense here!
-
My sentiments, exactly, Telesphorus. One race is extremely talented in such a field but horrible in others; one race has other talents and defects. Is it so wrong to acknowledge that?
-
Thank you, and thank the Lord for bringing some common sense here!
Don't lump myself and Telesphorus with brotherfrancis!
-
We're not the ones bumping the thread. The people bumping the thread are the ones who hold the PC position.
That is a dishonest and profoundly uncharitable mischaracterization of the counter-arguments of your opponents. You should be ashamed of yourself.
-
I wait to see where the OP, InfiniteFaith said racial-mixing was morally wrong. In fact, s/he clarified several times that it isn't morally wrong.
-
That is a dishonest and profoundly uncharitable mischaracterization of the counter-arguments of your opponents. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I disagree Zviadist.
I think belief that any sort of opposition to race-mixing is unacceptably racist is a post-68 pov - something that you would only have found in very exceptional circuмstances among European peoples before Vatican II.
I really do believe the view that one must view race-mixing with perfect equanimity is a left-wing view, one that ignores the value of race.
-
(http://i49.tinypic.com/14644p.jpg)
-
I'm an Asian, and believe races should stick to each other in general, barring the very unlikely extinction of all races. What does that make me: "white supremacist," "Asian supremacist," "African supremacist"? The absurdity of such arguments. Only proves to me how conditioned you are into accepting mixed-race marriage as the norm or at least influenced in that direction.
No it makes you a very confused Catholic. It is very sad. Catholics uneducated in their Faith is yet another of the bitter fruits of Vatican II. Let me guess, your religious education was conducted in the Novus Ordo establishment. I don't mean to be uncharitable here, but the intolerable subjectivity of your argument cries out for the question to be asked.
-
No it makes you a very confused Catholic. It is very sad. Catholics uneducated in their Faith is yet another of the bitter fruits of Vatican II. Let me guess, your religious education was conducted in the Novus Ordo establishment. I don't mean to be uncharitable here, but the intolerable subjectivity of your argument cries out for the question to be asked.
It's you who can't see your argument is subjective and based on emotion. Especially you can't seem to cite Catholic doctrine condemning my position or even use common sense to say why keeping to one's race in marriage in general is wrong. I guess the Jєωιѕн supremacists are smarter than you, since they see racial mixing as the norm to be beneficial to the "Chosen People's" domination of the world.
-
(http://i49.tinypic.com/14644p.jpg)
A great Catholic man of courage!
He would be viciously attacked on this "Catholic" discussion thread.
-
No it makes you a very confused Catholic. It is very sad. Catholics uneducated in their Faith is yet another of the bitter fruits of Vatican II. Let me guess, your religious education was conducted in the Novus Ordo establishment. I don't mean to be uncharitable here, but the intolerable subjectivity of your argument cries out for the question to be asked.
It's you who can't see your argument is subjective and based on emotion. Especially you can't seem to cite Catholic doctrine condemning my position.
I would be curious as to your response to my supposition.
-
"On August 11, 1921, Father Coyle was shot in the head on the porch of St. Paul's Rectory by E. R. Stephenson, a Southern Methodist Episcopal minister and a member of the Ku Klux Klan. There were many witnesses. The murder occurred just hours after Coyle had performed a secret wedding between Stephenson's daughter, Ruth, and Pedro Gussman, a Puerto Rican she had met while he was working on Stephenson's house five years earlier. Gussman had also been a customer of Stephenson's barber shop. Several months before the wedding, Ruth had converted to Roman Catholicism."
-
No it makes you a very confused Catholic. It is very sad. Catholics uneducated in their Faith is yet another of the bitter fruits of Vatican II. Let me guess, your religious education was conducted in the Novus Ordo establishment. I don't mean to be uncharitable here, but the intolerable subjectivity of your argument cries out for the question to be asked.
It's you who can't see your argument is subjective and based on emotion. Especially you can't seem to cite Catholic doctrine condemning my position.
I would be curious as to your response to my supposition.
Irrelevant, since I then steeped myself in pre-Vatican II doctrine/theology after becoming a trad, and found nothing that condemns wanting to stick to one's race in marriage (in general). Unless you can show me it! I asked so many times and all I get are fallacious arguments not even touching my position. I admit I made a few errors, such as genetics, but my main point remains untouched.
-
"On August 11, 1921, Father Coyle was shot in the head on the porch of St. Paul's Rectory by E. R. Stephenson, a Southern Methodist Episcopal minister and a member of the Ku Klux Klan. There were many witnesses. The murder occurred just hours after Coyle had performed a secret wedding between Stephenson's daughter, Ruth, and Pedro Gussman, a Puerto Rican she had met while he was working on Stephenson's house five years earlier. Gussman had also been a customer of Stephenson's barber shop. Several months before the wedding, Ruth had converted to Roman Catholicism."
I've always supported the Catholic position that priests are required to marry two people who wish to be married despite parental opposition.
However, this has nothing to do with the topic of whether or not one cannot argue against the advisability of mixed race marriages.
-
found nothing that condemns wanting to stick to one's race in marriage (in general).
Keep watering down your argument. Each time you restate it you water it down. Now you are arguing that the Church does not prohibit a Catholic from marrying within his own race. Well, as they say, "duh"! Who ever said that? That was never the issue. Go back to the beginning and re-read if necessary. This is getting quite funny.
-
Keep watering down your argument. Each time you restate it you water it down. Now you are arguing that the Church does not prohibit a Catholic from marrying within his own race. Well, as they say, "duh"! Who ever said that? That was never the issue. Go back to the beginning and re-read if necessary. This is getting quite funny.
What's getting funny is your apparent inability to comprehend what I said, and always said. I've always said I'm for sticking to one's own race in marriage (in general) and discourage race mixing as the norm, and that the Church hasn't condemned that. Enlighten me where I watered down my argument, since I'm dull as you say.
I absolutely stand by this (with clarifications for those who can't get my implications):
I'm an Asian, and believe races should stick to each other in marriage (in general), barring the very unlikely extinction of all races. What does that make me: "white supremacist," "Asian supremacist," "African supremacist"? The absurdity of such arguments. Only proves to me how conditioned you are into accepting mixed-race marriage as the norm or at least influenced in that direction.
Again, I ask where do I err in Catholic doctrine?
-
I found this on another Trad Catholic Forum:
.
Good grief there are more of you know-nothings here?
-
Very unjust of you to keep lumping true supremacists with those holding Catholic positions or at least not anti-Catholic, if that's what you're doing. The poster above is a Storm Fronter troll who has always come here to trouble this forum, IMO; he always changes his name and comes back.
-
What the author of this thread is asserting is something far different: that somehow Catholics are to avoid the mixing of races. That is an incorrect and un-Catholic position to hold.
You keep stating this, but when has the Church ever condemned the notion that racial mixing is wrong?
And I quoted Bishop Williamson stating specifically that it should generally be avoided. Do you think he holds an unCatholic position?
-
What the author of this thread is asserting is something far different: that somehow Catholics are to avoid the mixing of races. That is an incorrect and un-Catholic position to hold.
You keep stating this, but when has the Church ever condemned the notion that racial mixing is wrong?
And I quoted Bishop Williamson stating specifically that it's wrong. Do you think he holds an unCatholic position?
Better to clarify that it goes against commonsense, but not a sin because +Williamson specifically says this.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casta
-
And I quoted Bishop Williamson stating specifically that it's wrong. Do you think he holds an unCatholic position?
I don't think he said "it's wrong" in a categorical way like that.
-
What the author of this thread is asserting is something far different: that somehow Catholics are to avoid the mixing of races. That is an incorrect and un-Catholic position to hold.
You keep stating this, but when has the Church ever condemned the notion that racial mixing is wrong?
And I quoted Bishop Williamson stating specifically that it's wrong. Do you think he holds an unCatholic position?
Better to clarify that it goes against commonsense, but not a sin because +Williamson specifically says this.
Yes, precisely.
Not sinful, but something that should generally be avoided.
-
What the author of this thread is asserting is something far different: that somehow Catholics are to avoid the mixing of races. That is an incorrect and un-Catholic position to hold.
You keep stating this, but when has the Church ever condemned the notion that racial mixing is wrong?
And I quoted Bishop Williamson stating specifically that it's wrong. Do you think he holds an unCatholic position?
Bishop Williamson was simply stating his opinion, as he did on the matter of the h0Ɩ0cαųst. He is as far as I am aware not able to make infallible pronouncements, nor did he in fact suggest that his opinion on the matter was a point of Church doctrine.
-
And I quoted Bishop Williamson stating specifically that it's wrong. Do you think he holds an unCatholic position?
I don't think he said "it's wrong" in a categorical way like that.
Yes we finally agree on something here!
-
And I quoted Bishop Williamson stating specifically that it's wrong. Do you think he holds an unCatholic position?
I don't think he said "it's wrong" in a categorical way like that.
Yes, I went back and edited the post.
-
zviadist, you yourself admit it is not a matter of Catholic doctrine. Neither have I or Telesphorus stated otherwise. We stated our position firmly, but without making it into Catholic doctrine (while not opposing it).
-
You yourself admit it is not a matter of Catholic doctrine. Neither have I or Telesphorus stated otherwise.
This is getting tiring and I apologize if this sounds rude but it seems to me you may be a woman. This is the manner in which women generally argue and it is tiring.
I "admit" that it is not a matter of Church doctrine to prohibit or condemn mixed race marriage. No more and no less.
-
You yourself admit it is not a matter of Catholic doctrine. Neither have I or Telesphorus stated otherwise.
This is getting tiring and I apologize if this sounds rude but it seems to me you may be a woman. This is the manner in which women generally argue and it is tiring.
I "admit" that it is not a matter of Church doctrine to prohibit or condemn mixed race marriage. No more and no less.
Again, have I stated otherwise? But I said my position was only on reason and commonsense, not on Catholic dogma. It is ridiculous to ignore differences in race, even if they pale in significance to the moral/spiritual issues, which you seem to be doing. Nonetheless, I have never stated racial mixing was a sin.
-
Limpieza de Sangre was a concept developed under a Catholic state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limpieza_de_sangre
-
You yourself admit it is not a matter of Catholic doctrine. Neither have I or Telesphorus stated otherwise.
This is getting tiring and I apologize if this sounds rude but it seems to me you may be a woman. This is the manner in which women generally argue and it is tiring.
I "admit" that it is not a matter of Church doctrine to prohibit or condemn mixed race marriage. No more and no less.
Again, have I stated otherwise? But I said my position was only on reason and commonsense, not on Catholic dogma. It is ridiculous to ignore differences in race, even if they pale in significance to the moral/spiritual issues.
You are a female, aren't you?
-
You are a female, aren't you?
:rolleyes: And you can't do anything else but state your opposition to my position, without showing where I deviate from Catholic doctrine! I'm led myself to suspect you're a female!
-
Limpieza de Sangre was a concept developed under a Catholic state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limpieza_de_sangre
Yes but this was an entirely different issue -- it was not related to the actual content of the blood but rather a threat to the doctrine of the Church from the false conversos.
After the end of the Reconquista and the expulsion or conversion of Muslim Mudéjars (Moors) and Sephardic Jєωs, the population of Portugal and Spain was all nominally European Christian. However, the ruling class and much of the populace distrusted the recently-converted "New Christians", referring to them as conversos or marranos if they were baptized Jєωs or descended from them, or Moriscos if they were baptized Muslims or descended from them. A commonly-leveled accusation was that the New Christians were false converts, secretly practicing their former religion as Crypto-Jєωs or Crypto-Muslims. Nevertheless, the concept of cleanliness of blood came to be more focused on ancestry than of personal religion.
-
You yourself admit it is not a matter of Catholic doctrine. Neither have I or Telesphorus stated otherwise.
This is getting tiring and I apologize if this sounds rude but it seems to me you may be a woman. This is the manner in which women generally argue and it is tiring.
I "admit" that it is not a matter of Church doctrine to prohibit or condemn mixed race marriage. No more and no less.
Again, have I stated otherwise? But I said my position was only on reason and commonsense, not on Catholic dogma. It is ridiculous to ignore differences in race, even if they pale in significance to the moral/spiritual issues.
You are a female, aren't you?
You said the position that people of different races generally should not marry isn't Catholic, but I don't think it's Catholic of you to attempt to discredit QVP based on his/her sex.
-
A woman, in our club?
:laugh1:
-
Don't pretend it isn't related to this issue. Because it is very much is, and racial mixing as the norm has been the goal of the тαℓмυdists and Zionists.
-
It applied to more than Jєωs and Moors though.
It's important to understand that just because the New World was a multi-racial society, it didn't mean that race wasn't taken into account. The idea that concern about race is "protestant" is just wrong.
-
You are a female, aren't you?
:rolleyes: And you can't do anything else but state your opposition to my position, without showing where I deviate from Catholic doctrine! I'm led myself to suspect you're a female!
Honestly I am not trying to offend but I am actually curious about it.
-
You and I are in this position because you fail to cite Catholic doctrine that states a person being against racial mixing (in general) outside spiritual/moral principles is wrong!
-
You yourself admit it is not a matter of Catholic doctrine. Neither have I or Telesphorus stated otherwise.
This is getting tiring and I apologize if this sounds rude but it seems to me you may be a woman. This is the manner in which women generally argue and it is tiring.
I "admit" that it is not a matter of Church doctrine to prohibit or condemn mixed race marriage. No more and no less.
Again, have I stated otherwise? But I said my position was only on reason and commonsense, not on Catholic dogma. It is ridiculous to ignore differences in race, even if they pale in significance to the moral/spiritual issues.
You are a female, aren't you?
You said the position that people of different races generally should not marry isn't Catholic, but I don't think it's Catholic of you to attempt to discredit QVP based on his/her sex.
You misinterpret me. I am just curious as to whether I have correctly pegged a gender based on style of argumentation. Perhaps I have just had too many arguments with women...being the disagreeable sort that I am.
-
Well, you haven't correctly pegged me. Besides, a mere side issue not bearing on the topic flowing from the main one, which was: "Is it un-Catholic to be against race mixing based on non-spiritual principles (keeping in mind race mixing is not morally wrong)?"
-
Well, you haven't correctly pegged me. Besides, a mere side issue not bearing on the topic flowing from the main one, which was: "Is it un-Catholic to be against race mixing based on non-spiritual principles (keeping in mind race mixing is not morally wrong)?"
Sorry about that. But it is true in my experience when arguing with a woman that they change their position rather often, probably in attempt to disorient the opponent. I am tempted to go back to your earlier posts in this thread to demonstrate how your position has changed... You will probably sneak back and start furiously editing.
-
How can I furiously edit? The time allowed to edit a post is about 5 minutes or less! Then no more!
I await your results, if you intend to go back. If I did indeed change my position unconsciously, I apologize. But I don't think so; I went back and haven't seen anything indicating of a change in my position!
-
I find several of these ideas sickening and absolutely repugnant.
why?
Because this idea that "miscegenation" is "evil" is stupid, and non-Catholic. Judging a person entirely on the color of their skin, regardless of anything else, is a moron move.
Here on this Catholic forum, during the Holy Season of Lent, I am absolutely sickened that people would seriously entertain such ideas.
I know white trads, black trads, filipino trads, mexican trads, and vietnamese trads, and so on. It reflects quite well on our holy Faith, which is, being Catholic, a universal one.
I really find this quite laughable, and wonder if all these keyboard warriors have actually even dated a trad girl. If some white dude wants to tell me that if he liked a brown eyed, brown skinned devout trad but wouldn't even give her time of day just because it's "miscegenation," that's a joke, and you really need to examine your logic.
This sounds more like Klansman logic than anything remotely close to Catholicism.
Just take a looksie here: http://www.kkk.bz/a_core_belief_of_the_knights_is_.htm
This is a beautiful post, Pius IX. I am sorry I missed it the first time around. Particularly your point about the heightened unsuitability of such a topic during the Holy time of Lent. It is sickening, you are correct.
And like you I know so many beautiful traditional Catholic families of mixed race and the idea that they are somehow less than the "pure race" families is literally vomit-inducing. In fact as you also mention, the Catholicity that permeates such a marriage only serves to underscore the universality of our Faith. It is a beautiful thing and it should be a reassuring occurrence in our troubled times.
I share your suspicion that the keyboard warriors here have nary cast a glance upon a real traditional Catholic woman. It is all pie in the sky vulgar anti-Catholic racism. It sickens me.
-
Your post, zviadist, does injustice to me, Telesphorus, InfiniteFaith and others not espousing brotherfrancis' venom (frankly speaking).
And like you I know so many beautiful traditional Catholic families of mixed race and the idea that they are somehow less than the "pure race" families is literally vomit-inducing.
Again, have I or Telesphorus stated this?
-
Catholic "eugenics" just means the improving of a race using Catholic means, ...
See, this idea of improving the race is meaningless to me. Improving healthcare and sanitation is not the same as improving the race. Anyway it just means people live longer and have more opportunity to sin! Or practise virtue. But more likely sin.
It also seems rather a progressive notion. Improving the race?? Our race today is better than it was a hundred years ago, and if we choose our spouses wisely will be even better in the future?
How can we improve on the Holy Family?
It just does not compute.
"Vanity of vanities" springs to mind.
-
See, this idea of improving the race is meaningless to me. Improving healthcare and sanitation is not the same as improving the race. Anyway it just means people live longer and have more opportunity to sin! Or practise virtue. But more likely sin.
It also seems rather a progressive notion. Improving the race?? Our race today is better than it was a hundred years ago, and if we choose our spouses wisely will be even better in the future?
How can we improve on the Holy Family?
It just does not compute.
"Vanity of vanities" springs to mind.
You just rate race as irrelevant, is that it? Then you're quite wrong! Sure, it doesn't transcend religion, but religion is built on race. With a mixed race, you have an uncertain foundation; the French intermingling with natives of Palestine during the Crusades is a prime example of descendants showing more weaknesses of both races they came from. You speak as if we don't hold the traditional Catholic position on morality or elevate race above religion.
Lots of non-sequiturs and other fallacies. Tell us where we even remotely suggest approaching to the Holy Family by picking our partners in marriage of our own race. Also, you may think it vanity and the such, but then why has God made the various races, then, with all their strengths and weaknesses? Mere whim? Do you want to see your whole race amalgamated with all the other races into a sort of uncertain race, if you believe mixed-racial marriage should be the norm?
-
BTW, what's wrong with wanting not to add to weaknesses of one's race to the weaknesses of another race, unless spiritual/moral considerations trump it? What's wrong with wanting a child to deal with only one race's weaknesses and strengths?
-
See, this idea of improving the race is meaningless to me. Improving healthcare and sanitation is not the same as improving the race. Anyway it just means people live longer and have more opportunity to sin! Or practise virtue. But more likely sin.
It also seems rather a progressive notion. Improving the race?? Our race today is better than it was a hundred years ago, and if we choose our spouses wisely will be even better in the future?
How can we improve on the Holy Family?
It just does not compute.
"Vanity of vanities" springs to mind.
You just rate race as irrelevant, is that it? Then you're quite wrong! Sure, it doesn't transcend religion, but religion is built on race. With a mixed race, you have an uncertain foundation; the French intermingling with natives of Palestine during the Crusades is a prime example of descendants showing more weaknesses of both races they came from. You speak as if we don't hold the traditional Catholic position on morality or elevate race above religion.
Lots of non-sequiturs and other fallacies. Tell us where we even remotely suggest approaching to the Holy Family by picking our partners in marriage of our own race. Also, you may think it vanity and the such, but then why has God made the various races, then, with all their strengths and weaknesses? Mere whim? Do you want to see your whole race amalgamated with all the other races into a sort of uncertain race, if you believe mixed-racial marriage should be the norm?
Well, I wasn't actually talking about race mixing as such, but this idea that we can "improve" the race. It's ludicrous. It's the sort of thing that God would punish (and maybe He is) if anyone in the Old Testament had the idea that they could "improve" the race!
And that applies to the idea that we can improve the human race in general, not just the distinct races.
That is what I was referring to as vanity. I mean, who do we think we are??!
How do you make God laugh?
Tell Him your plans!
And He must be laughing at the Jєωs etc if they think they can destroy nations by encouraging race mixing.
And He is probably also laughing at the racial purists who think they can save the world by maintaining racial purity!
-
Well, I wasn't actually talking about race mixing as such, but this idea that we can "improve" the race. It's ludicrous. It's the sort of thing that God would punish (and maybe He is) if anyone in the Old Testament had the idea that they could "improve" the race!
And that applies to the idea that we can improve the human race in general, not just the distinct races.
That is what I was referring to as vanity. I mean, who do we think we are??!
How do you make God laugh?
Tell Him your plans!
And He must be laughing at the Jєωs etc if they think they can destroy nations by encouraging race mixing.
And He is probably also laughing at the racial purists who think they can save the world by maintaining racial purity!
Anyone saying any of these things is wrong. However, I haven't and neither has Telesphorus and InfiniteFaith as far as I can tell. Therefore, non-sequitur and irrelevant.
There is nothing wrong in wanting to improve one's race (i.e., racial qualities), especially by conversion to the Faith and keeping to one's race in marriage at the same time!
It rather seems to me those advocating mixed-raced marriages (accepting them as the norm, etc.) are the ones who seem that the race can be improved in that, whereas experience has shown it does the opposite, showing worst traits in both races (barring morality).
-
Based on what? A hunch? This is what passes for facts based argument?
The idea of all people being joined together without racial and national distinctions is an idea redolent of a One World masonic state.
The break-down of nationalities and the deliberate policy of mass migration of darker races into Europe and America didn't start in earnest until Vatican II.
That should tell you something about the agenda in play. It's certainly not a Christian agenda.
No one is advocating this. No one is saying that all races must or should be assimilated, and that all cultures have to be destroyed in the US masonic melting pot.
The point is that two Catholics who love each other, barring canonical impediments, should be free to marry if they wish, regardless of race.
Here we approach the core of this matter. Catholics do not share the views on marriage of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Marriage is not primarily for the subjective emotional gooey good-feelings of the spouses. According to our religion such is never the case. Absolutely never.
Always, always, always, the primary and supreme purpose of Catholic marriage is the children. Hence if my thesis that normally miscegenation does result in genetic damages to the children, and therefore moral harm as well, were true, then my conclusion follows. Then the spouses have married for the morally-forbidden purpose of selfish self-satisfaction and are automatically in sin.
To be so selfish as to marry for self-satisfaction at the expense of the genetic and moral welfare and well-being of the one all-important purpose of any virtuous marriage, namely, the children, is necessarily most immoral.
Yet how can distinct biological sub-species interbreed without causing genetic damages, above all through the very well-known effects of the sterility of hybrids? Hybrids are normally increasingly sterile the more distinct genetic populations interbreed. As educated Catholics we should know that our own holy priest Fr. Gregor Mendel teaches us the true Catholic science of biology, against the foolish un-Catholic superstitions of Darwin and Lamarck. Rousseau's false idea of the primacy of the pleasure of the spouses as the purpose of marriage assumes the truth of the irrational absurdities of Lamarck in which the parents mould the offspring into whatever they please, rather than receive their children as true miracles from the hands of God that were predestined from before the time of Creation.
Catholic children are not Lamarckian clay to be formed by the parents into whatever amusing toys they might feel like for their own selfish delectation. Instead they are Mendelian gifts from God to be treasured and protected to become what God intends for them in the Divine Liberty of the Roman Catholic Children of God.
Enough for now. We should accept that subjecting Roman Catholic children to needless hybridism and the resulting sterility and associated damages is most sinful indeed, except in exceptional circuмstances. Most often, other factors being what they usually are, miscegenation is a mortal sin, scientifically, theologically, historically and obviously.
With only rare exceptions, willfully and maliciously damaging the genetics of one's own children through miscegenation is mortal sin! Except under rare circuмstances, any such needless malice against one's own flesh and blood is truly evil.
-
I find several of these ideas sickening and absolutely repugnant.
why?
Because this idea that "miscegenation" is "evil" is stupid, and non-Catholic. Judging a person entirely on the color of their skin, regardless of anything else, is a moron move.
Here on this Catholic forum, during the Holy Season of Lent, I am absolutely sickened that people would seriously entertain such ideas.
I know white trads, black trads, filipino trads, mexican trads, and vietnamese trads, and so on. It reflects quite well on our holy Faith, which is, being Catholic, a universal one.
I really find this quite laughable, and wonder if all these keyboard warriors have actually even dated a trad girl. If some white dude wants to tell me that if he liked a brown eyed, brown skinned devout trad but wouldn't even give her time of day just because it's "miscegenation," that's a joke, and you really need to examine your logic.
This sounds more like Klansman logic than anything remotely close to Catholicism.
Just take a looksie here: http://www.kkk.bz/a_core_belief_of_the_knights_is_.htm
This is a beautiful post, Pius IX. I am sorry I missed it the first time around. Particularly your point about the heightened unsuitability of such a topic during the Holy time of Lent. It is sickening, you are correct.
And like you I know so many beautiful traditional Catholic families of mixed race and the idea that they are somehow less than the "pure race" families is literally vomit-inducing. In fact as you also mention, the Catholicity that permeates such a marriage only serves to underscore the universality of our Faith. It is a beautiful thing and it should be a reassuring occurrence in our troubled times.
I share your suspicion that the keyboard warriors here have nary cast a glance upon a real traditional Catholic woman. It is all pie in the sky vulgar anti-Catholic racism. It sickens me.
Zviadist,
You think you have an "argument" but you don't. You surely dish it out but never provide any reasoning behind it. The only thing you do is deem things a certain way. Try providing reasoning behind what you say. Maybe I will consider it more.
-
Sigismund and zviadist, all I see from you are emotional responses. It seems to me that because you don't like it, it's not Catholic. Again, I defy you to show us definite doctrine saying that being against racial mixing in general is wrong and against Catholic morality. I won't hold my breath! I most likely expect more emotional responses instead.
Show me a definite doctrine that race mixing is to any degree condemned by the Church. I have already offered the ultimate argument, that in the Incarnation God became human, not a white human.
-
Based on what? A hunch? This is what passes for facts based argument?
The idea of all people being joined together without racial and national distinctions is an idea redolent of a One World masonic state.
The break-down of nationalities and the deliberate policy of mass migration of darker races into Europe and America didn't start in earnest until Vatican II.
That should tell you something about the agenda in play. It's certainly not a Christian agenda.
No one is advocating this. No one is saying that all races must or should be assimilated, and that all cultures have to be destroyed in the US masonic melting pot.
The point is that two Catholics who love each other, barring canonical impediments, should be free to marry if they wish, regardless of race.
Here we approach the core of this matter. Catholics do not share the views on marriage of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Marriage is not primarily for the subjective emotional gooey good-feelings of the spouses. According to our religion such is never the case. Absolutely never.
Always, always, always, the primary and supreme purpose of Catholic marriage is the children. Hence if my thesis that normally miscegenation does result in genetic damages to the children, and therefore moral harm as well, were true, then my conclusion follows. Then the spouses have married for the morally-forbidden purpose of selfish self-satisfaction and are automatically in sin.
To be so selfish as to marry for self-satisfaction at the expense of the genetic and moral welfare and well-being of the one all-important purpose of any virtuous marriage, namely, the children, is necessarily most immoral.
Yet how can distinct biological sub-species interbreed without causing genetic damages, above all through the very well-known effects of the sterility of hybrids? Hybrids are normally increasingly sterile the more distinct genetic populations interbreed. As educated Catholics we should know that our own holy priest Fr. Gregor Mendel teaches us the true Catholic science of biology, against the foolish un-Catholic superstitions of Darwin and Lamarck. Rousseau's false idea of the primacy of the pleasure of the spouses as the purpose of marriage assumes the truth of the irrational absurdities of Lamarck in which the parents mould the offspring into whatever they please, rather than receive their children as true miracles from the hands of God that were predestined from before the time of Creation.
Catholic children are not Lamarckian clay to be formed by the parents into whatever amusing toys they might feel like for their own selfish delectation. Instead they are Mendelian gifts from God to be treasured and protected to become what God intends for them in the Divine Liberty of the Roman Catholic Children of God.
Enough for now. We should accept that subjecting Roman Catholic children to needless hybridism and the resulting sterility and associated damages is most sinful indeed, except in exceptional circuмstances. Most often, other factors being what they usually are, miscegenation is a mortal sin, scientifically, theologically, historically and obviously.
With only rare exceptions, willfully and maliciously damaging the genetics of one's own children through miscegenation is mortal sin! Except under rare circuмstances, any such needless malice against one's own flesh and blood is truly evil.
Human races are not biological sub-species. There is absolutely no foundation for that claim.
You have provided zero proof that mixed-race children have genetic defects, above and beyond "pure" children.
You have provided zero proof that mixed-race people are sterile.
Last, but not least, you have not presented any Church docuмent or statement that backs up your claim that miscegenation is a mortal sin, or a sin of any kind.
You are nothing but hot air.
-
I'm waiting for you to answer my question, zviadist. Somehow, though, I think you're going to ignore it, because you believe that Bishop Williamson's position is "pagan" but just don't want to say it.
I'll say it. I don't know that it is pagan. it is certainly not Catholic.
Indeed. It is not Catholic. And I will not believe this is +Williamson's position until I see some proof.
“Interrracial marriage is not common sense. It’s not a sin, it’s not an offense against god, necessarily, but it may often be an offense against common sense. Because there is too much difference between people of different races for their marriage to be able to last. You’re going to say that many interracial marriages do last. Fine. Undoubtedly. But it it is still not a good idea. It’s less bad than a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic, but it’s pretty deep, the differences between the races are pretty serious. Blacks should normally marry blacks, whites should normally marry whites. Chinese should marry Chinese…. If you’re upper class in society you should marry upper class, if you’re lower class you should marry lower class. It’s common sense.”
Well, clearly Bishop Williamson does think this.
-
And naturally, someone offers a downthumb to a mere scientific description of inherited traits. Pathetic.
Facts must bend to fit the agenda, never the other way around.
-
No proofs that any of us, either myself, Telesphorus, or InfiniteFaith, said racial mixing is morally wrong. No Catholic doctrine cited, just pure emotion! Is that all there is to the opposition?
-
If this is only a revisionism of the past 50 years, Telesphorus, one should be able to point to several respected traditional Catholic writers especially from the past who've argued against inter racial marriage.
Yes, Telesphorus, by all means lets see a list.
-
Show me a definite doctrine that race mixing is to any degree condemned by the Church. I have already offered the ultimate argument, that in the Incarnation God became human, not a white human.
Prove that I, +Williamson, Telesphorus, or InfiniteFaith ever said that.
-
If this is only a revisionism of the past 50 years, Telesphorus, one should be able to point to several respected traditional Catholic writers especially from the past who've argued against inter racial marriage.
It's not a theological issue Nishant, except for people who say it's wrong to be opposed to it.
The burden of proof is on those who say it's immoral to be opposed to it.
Why?
I would say that the burden is on those who suggest something is true when it has never been proclaimed as Catholic doctrine.
-
If this is only a revisionism of the past 50 years, Telesphorus, one should be able to point to several respected traditional Catholic writers especially from the past who've argued against inter racial marriage.
Yes, Telesphorus, by all means lets see a list.
Funny the accusers should ask the defense for the opposite. I would ask from you the same: Catholic writers condemning the views of people against racial mixing for non-religious reasons (and while not condemning racial mixing as morally wrong). Again, mischaracterizing some of your opponents' arguments!
-
Zviadist, how can you consider it unbelievable that people would prefer to maintain their own racial background in their descendants?
It's the most normal thing in the world.
You yourself say you believe high nobility should marry high nobility?
How is it that you can consider "unbelievable" that peoples wish to maintain their identities?
Since the fall, sin is the most natural thing in the world too. So what?
-
Why?
I would say that the burden is on those who suggest something is true when it has never been proclaimed as Catholic doctrine.
Again, I ask: have we said it is Catholic doctrine? It is you and others who say it is against Catholic doctrine to be against racial mixing in general for practical reasons, barring grave and substantial reasons. Where have we made our position into Catholic dogma? Mere invention, except for brotherfrancis, which you seem to use as the basis that we agree with him. It seems to me that the opposition has clearly lost any sense of comprehension to say Telesphorus, I, InfiniteFaith, and some others (barring brotherfrancis) make our position into Catholic doctrine; in fact, I would say you're twisting our argument.
One can't be justly proud of one's race, because of its achievements, and shamed and wanting to improve oneself because of its debits?
-
Again I ask: what it is that is so wrong to want to raise children to avoid race mixing, without impugning the dignity of other races?
If the intentions and opinions of the most active posters in this thread was as simple and innocent as you worded this thread would not have exceeded 150 pages in length within a few days.
The fact is that there are people who actually use this front to mask their feelings of racial/cultural superiority.
There's no point denying it. WASP and Americanist sentiments of white racial purity and superiority seem to permeate this forum. Anyone who speaks out against it is labelled as a lackey of the ѕуηαgσgυє, a self-hating white brainwashed by the media, or a self-conscious non-white that hates the whites, who he knows to be superior.
Let's stop beating around the bush.
Bingo!
Indeed.
-
Apparently, the opposition has lost any sense of comprehending mine, Telesphorus' and others' argument. Let's state it briefly, shall we?
Racial mixing is to be discouraged as the norm, due to practical reasons (observing that it is not morally wrong) unless spiritual/moral considerations trump those. And it isn't Catholic doctrine, but simply common sense.
Now tell me, where have we said our position is Catholic doctrine? And better yet, show us where we err in Catholic doctrine!
-
What the author of this thread is asserting is something far different: that somehow Catholics are to avoid the mixing of races. That is an incorrect and un-Catholic position to hold.
You keep stating this, but when has the Church ever condemned the notion that racial mixing is wrong?
And I quoted Bishop Williamson stating specifically that it should generally be avoided. Do you think he holds an unCatholic position?
Speaking for myself, not Zviadist, yes, I do. The notion that one should only marry within one's class, which Bishop Williamson also supports, is equally un-Catholic.
-
Cite your proof that being opposed to racial mixing in general (with the proviso that it isn't a sin) is un-Catholic. It seems none of the opposition can do so! Arguments just based on emotion!
Also cite proof that keeping to one's class in general is un-Catholic! Notice +Williamson doesn't say it's a sin!
-
Again I ask: what it is that is so wrong to want to raise children to avoid race mixing, without impugning the dignity of other races?
If the intentions and opinions of the most active posters in this thread was as simple and innocent as you worded this thread would not have exceeded 150 pages in length within a few days.
The fact is that there are people who actually use this front to mask their feelings of racial/cultural superiority.
There's no point denying it. WASP and Americanist sentiments of white racial purity and superiority seem to permeate this forum. Anyone who speaks out against it is labelled as a lackey of the ѕуηαgσgυє, a self-hating white brainwashed by the media, or a self-conscious non-white that hates the whites, who he knows to be superior.
Let's stop beating around the bush.
Bingo!
Indeed.
Vlad nailed it. There's just no arguing with these wackos. You must be doing spiritual exercises in patience, huh Sig?
-
Show me a definite doctrine that race mixing is to any degree condemned by the Church. I have already offered the ultimate argument, that in the Incarnation God became human, not a white human.
Prove that I, +Williamson, Telesphorus, or InfiniteFaith ever said that.
You have not. I happily concede this. What I am asking is simply this: If the CHurch has not seen fit to condemn it, where in the world do you get off doing so?
-
Vlad nailed it. There's just no arguing with these wackos. You must be doing spiritual exercises in patience, huh Sig?
You just called me a "white supremacist," even though I'm Asian. :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:
"Wackos," is it for wanting to keep to one's race in marriage and discouraging racial mixing as the norm? Then you tell me where I am wrong in Catholic doctrine, and I'll be sure to correct myself. Until then, the opposition is just hot air.
-
Again I ask: what it is that is so wrong to want to raise children to avoid race mixing, without impugning the dignity of other races?
If the intentions and opinions of the most active posters in this thread was as simple and innocent as you worded this thread would not have exceeded 150 pages in length within a few days.
The fact is that there are people who actually use this front to mask their feelings of racial/cultural superiority.
There's no point denying it. WASP and Americanist sentiments of white racial purity and superiority seem to permeate this forum. Anyone who speaks out against it is labelled as a lackey of the ѕуηαgσgυє, a self-hating white brainwashed by the media, or a self-conscious non-white that hates the whites, who he knows to be superior.
Let's stop beating around the bush.
Bingo!
Indeed.
Vlad nailed it. There's just no arguing with these wackos. You must be doing spiritual exercises in patience, huh Sig?
Well, I am not sure i have been very patient on this thread. Which may be a very good reason to stay off of it. I don't seem to be able to keep this resolution very well, however.
-
You have not. I happily concede this. What I am asking is simply this: If the CHurch has not seen fit to condemn it, where in the world do you get off doing so?
On reasonable arguments. And no I haven't condemned racial mixing as absolutely forbidden, but discourage it as the norm. Show me where I (or Telesphorus or InfiniteFaith) said racial mixing is to be absolutely forbidden. I absolutely repudiate brotherfrancis' arguments! I thought I made that quite clear in the instances when he posted venom! I would advise you to read my posts very carefully before making such accusations of me absolutely condemning racial mixing.
-
Again I ask: what it is that is so wrong to want to raise children to avoid race mixing, without impugning the dignity of other races?
If the intentions and opinions of the most active posters in this thread was as simple and innocent as you worded this thread would not have exceeded 150 pages in length within a few days.
The fact is that there are people who actually use this front to mask their feelings of racial/cultural superiority.
There's no point denying it. WASP and Americanist sentiments of white racial purity and superiority seem to permeate this forum. Anyone who speaks out against it is labelled as a lackey of the ѕуηαgσgυє, a self-hating white brainwashed by the media, or a self-conscious non-white that hates the whites, who he knows to be superior.
Let's stop beating around the bush.
Bingo!
Indeed.
Vlad nailed it. There's just no arguing with these wackos. You must be doing spiritual exercises in patience, huh Sig?
Thats just an accusation. I don't believe caucasians are superior to anybody. If you contest my belief...well its pretty much pointless. There is no way I could ever prove to you 100% that I don't believe caucasians are superior. I can only tell you that.
-
I'm curious if any nonwhites or mixed race people agree with Telesphorus about race.
I see Vladimir (Chinese), CatholicSamurai (mixed), s2rsea (mixed) and PiusIX (mixed) are not in agreement with him. Also Sigismund is the father of mixed race children.
Quo Vadis is Asian. Is he the only one? Any other nonwhites/mixed race people agree with the points Telesphorus has been making in this thread?
-
I'm curious if any nonwhites or mixed race people agree with Telesphorus about race.
I see Vladimir (Chinese), CatholicSamurai (mixed), s2rsea (mixed) and PiusIX (mixed) are not in agreement with him. Also Sigismund is the father of mixed race children.
Quo Vadis is Asian. Is he the only one? Any other nonwhites/mixed race people agree with the points Telesphorus has been making in this thread?
Maybe I should clarify: Vietnamese ethnicity. Parents were refugees from South Vietnam (one already in the US when Saigon fell, and the other fleeing to Hong Kong, then to Illinois).
-
Could it be said that by disagreeing with Telesphorus you are actually promoting your racial interests?
-
You have not. I happily concede this. What I am asking is simply this: If the CHurch has not seen fit to condemn it, where in the world do you get off doing so?
On reasonable arguments. And no I haven't condemned racial mixing as absolutely forbidden, but discourage it as the norm. Show me where I (or Telesphorus or InfiniteFaith) said racial mixing is to be absolutely forbidden. I absolutely repudiate brotherfrancis' arguments! I thought I made that quite clear in the instances when he posted venom! I would advise you to read my posts very carefully before making such accusations of me absolutely condemning racial mixing.
I accept as fact that you have not said that interracial marriage is absolutely forbidden. And I do recognize and applaud the fact that you do not share brotherfrancis's nonsense. I am arguing with your basic contention that interracial marriage is something that there is any imperative at all to avoid.
-
I'm curious if any nonwhites or mixed race people agree with Telesphorus about race.
I see Vladimir (Chinese), CatholicSamurai (mixed), s2rsea (mixed) and PiusIX (mixed) are not in agreement with him. Also Sigismund is the father of mixed race children.
Quo Vadis is Asian. Is he the only one? Any other nonwhites/mixed race people agree with the points Telesphorus has been making in this thread?
Maybe I should clarify: Vietnamese Asian.
Thanks! Do you live in Vietnam?
-
I'm curious if any nonwhites or mixed race people agree with Telesphorus about race.
I see Vladimir (Chinese), CatholicSamurai (mixed), s2rsea (mixed) and PiusIX (mixed) are not in agreement with him. Also Sigismund is the father of mixed race children.
Quo Vadis is Asian. Is he the only one? Any other nonwhites/mixed race people agree with the points Telesphorus has been making in this thread?
That is an interesting observation.
-
Thanks! Do you live in Vietnam?
Sorry, I edited my post while you answered. The finished post is up now.
-
Could it be said that by disagreeing with Telesphorus you are actually promoting your racial interests?
If so, how could the posters on this thread why have assertively promoted their white racial interests could hardly take issue with that.
-
I accept as fact that you have not said that interracial marriage is absolutely forbidden. And I do recognize and applaud the fact that you do not share brotherfrancis's nonsense. I am arguing with your basic contention that interracial marriage is something that there is any imperative at all to avoid.
Do you see any normal reason to have interracial marriages as the norm? Because I don't. Barring grave and weighty reasons, I see interracial marriage to be somewhat of a burden on the offspring, on many grounds (though the obstacles can be overcome with hard work).
BTW, I like that we're now veering away from saying it is against (or for) Catholic doctrine, and just talking about the merits of the viewpoints. Just as long as we don't err against doctrine.
-
Could it be said that by disagreeing with Telesphorus you are actually promoting your racial interests?
If so, how could the posters on this thread why have assertively promoted their white racial interests could hardly take issue with that.
Exactly! But then you should not have a problem with Telesphorus and QuoVadis either. They are just promoting their own racial interests.
-
I'm curious if any nonwhites or mixed race people agree with Telesphorus about race.
I see Vladimir (Chinese), CatholicSamurai (mixed), s2rsea (mixed) and PiusIX (mixed) are not in agreement with him. Also Sigismund is the father of mixed race children.
Quo Vadis is Asian. Is he the only one? Any other nonwhites/mixed race people agree with the points Telesphorus has been making in this thread?
Maybe I should clarify: Vietnamese ethnicity. Parents were refugees from South Vietnam (one already in the US when Saigon fell, and the other fleeing to Hong Kong, then to Illinois).
I was curious where you live, because I find that nonwhites who live in nations that have a white majority are much more likely to align their interests with Jєωs, at least on racial issues, than nonwhites who live in their mother countries.
-
I was curious where you live, because I find that nonwhites who live in nations that have a white majority are much more likely to align their interests with Jєωs, at least on racial issues, than nonwhites who live in their mother countries.
Well, I haven't aligned with Jєωιѕн interests after reading up on their subversive activities and anti-Catholic actions via good trad Catholic books, like those of Fr. Denis Fahey and Fr. Edward Cahill. Vietnamese Catholics, even the Novus Ordo, are usually keen on keeping their identity, even in exile.
-
Vlad nailed it. There's just no arguing with these wackos. You must be doing spiritual exercises in patience, huh Sig?
You just called me a "white supremacist," even though I'm Asian. :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:
"Wackos," is it for wanting to keep to one's race in marriage and discouraging racial mixing as the norm? Then you tell me where I am wrong in Catholic doctrine, and I'll be sure to correct myself. Until then, the opposition is just hot air.
I did?? Pretty sure I said 'wacko'. :cheers:
-
I'm curious if any nonwhites or mixed race people agree with Telesphorus about race.
I see Vladimir (Chinese), CatholicSamurai (mixed), s2rsea (mixed) and PiusIX (mixed) are not in agreement with him. Also Sigismund is the father of mixed race children.
Quo Vadis is Asian. Is he the only one? Any other nonwhites/mixed race people agree with the points Telesphorus has been making in this thread?
How did you know I was mixed? You're so new here, right?
-
I did?? Pretty sure I said 'wacko'. :cheers:
Well, you implied that you agreed that I promoted "white racial purity" to the total exclusion of other races as faith! If you didn't, I apologize. But it would be well to see the arguments before actually chiming on the issue. The main posters I am concerned with here are Telesphorus, myself, and InfiniteFaith, who are taking a beating just because they discourage racial mixing as the norm and encouraging members of their own race to marry their own as the norm.
-
I was curious where you live, because I find that nonwhites who live in nations that have a white majority are much more likely to align their interests with Jєωs, at least on racial issues, than nonwhites who live in their mother countries.
Well, I haven't aligned with Jєωιѕн interests after reading up on their subversive activities and anti-Catholic actions via good trad Catholic books, like those of Fr. Denis Fahey and Fr. Edward Cahill. Vietnamese Catholics, even the Novus Ordo, are usually keen on keeping their identity, even in exile.
That's refreshing, I must say!
-
Indeed. That is the crux of the matter.
Except logically speaking it isn't the crux of the matter. No one has been able to refute the claim that it isn't wrong to prefer (in certain contexts) people closer to one's own type. Any more than it's wrong to prefer one's own family or nation.
It's only around the issue of race that this taboo is created against favoring those closer to oneself in certain respects.
But they are simply to embarrassed to admit it.
I'm not embarrassed to admit I believe that the white race is superior in certain ways to other races.
Why on earth should I be ashamed to think that?
I wouldn't claim that as a spiritual or metaphysical superiority.
I don't see any reason why members of other races shouldn't take pride in their race, and they might have reason to value the qualities of their own race higher than the qualities of others. (which they typically do in practice).
I can't see anything wrong with that.
In my opinion the above is very well said. In truth each race is superior in it's own way and in what most concerns it. Since we're grossly generalizing here, we could say that very broadly the white race is superior in the military virtues, the Oriental race is superior in the domestic virtues (something essentially equal to the military virtues in importance) and the Negro race is superior in its capacity for moral innocence and resistance against decadence. By this quite poetic symbolism the white Hebrew race would probably be racially superior in combatting demonic evils and overcoming decadence.
Nevertheless Roman Catholicism is itself essentially focussed on military virtues and concerns. We Roman Catholics are God's own predestined rulers over and liberators of mankind. Hence the white race, especially the white Europeans and European Hebrews, are especially responsible for Catholicism and Roman civilization. So white racial characteristics are important to Catholicism and Romanity, always presupposing such white folk are truly Roman Catholic. Of course, if not, then not!
And therefore every race has an important role to play within Catholicism. Especially the East Asian Orientals with their unique natural capacity for the domestic virtues. The Hebrew race tends to go to extremes and be either very very good or very very bad. In any case, they are capable of doing much good and are not excused merely for having been born as Pharisees, if such should be the unfortunate circuмstance. The white Hebrews do enjoy a certain racial superiority in their natural special relationship with our Roman priesthood.
Hence we should not disrespect any Catholics for their racial heritage. But we should encourage each race to realize its own special potentials and not mindlessly ape the other races in a perverse mania for miscegenation. That can only harm every race equally and at the same time. In that respect racial equality is literally true.
Therefore true racial inequalities are not a matter of spiritual or metaphysical superiorities. That is the central dogma of the Pharisee Jєωs (our worst enemies!) who teach that Jєωs are born metaphysically superior and entitled merely by birth alone. No race has any monopoly on virtue or worthiness. All are equally born imperfect sinners equally in need of the perfection of salvation and, when Catholic, equal in the moral equality of the baptized. Each have very important work to do and contributions to make. Each is the best at being itself.
Nevertheless Our Lord and Our Lady are white Roman citizens. Incarnation must occur within space and time and has historic qualities within space and time. Incarnation is not Docetist or Gnostic and human nature will never become literally angelic and immaterial. The white Europeans (including white Hebrews) play the central natural role within historic Roman Catholicism. Every race is needed, but the white race also has its own great dignity and honor too. We shouldn't disrespect the unique natural racial superiorities of white Europeans either!
Sometimes for various reasons the races have to mix together for a limited time before the natural sterility of hybridism takes its toll. But normally they should each enjoy their own healthy racial pride and be content to be who they already are, in Creation and from the compassionate Hands of God Himself.
-
I'm curious if any nonwhites or mixed race people agree with Telesphorus about race.
I see Vladimir (Chinese), CatholicSamurai (mixed), s2rsea (mixed) and PiusIX (mixed) are not in agreement with him. Also Sigismund is the father of mixed race children.
Quo Vadis is Asian. Is he the only one? Any other nonwhites/mixed race people agree with the points Telesphorus has been making in this thread?
How did you know I was mixed? You're so new here, right?
I haven't seen Telesphorus make any bad arguments on this thread I've read the whole thing.
Is there anything in particular that he has said that is false?
Otherwise I will have to assume that there is a lot of hypocrisy coming from your side.
-
If this is only a revisionism of the past 50 years, Telesphorus, one should be able to point to several respected traditional Catholic writers especially from the past who've argued against inter racial marriage.
Yes, Telesphorus, by all means lets see a list.
Race-mixing on the scale we see today is a product of the modern era. Thus, inability to cite traditional Catholic writers is meaningless.
-
In the past I've seen Vladimir refer to whites as stinky, in so many words. Which actually made me lol. He may be right! :laugh1:
It just seems that if a white on this forum said something similarly negative about a nonwhite group they would be accused of racism. And yet I didn't see any whites accuse Vladmir of racism for that comment.
I think that racial tension is to be expected. It's normal.
Can anyone point to any nation in history that was multiracial that wasn't on its last legs?
-
I accept as fact that you have not said that interracial marriage is absolutely forbidden. And I do recognize and applaud the fact that you do not share brotherfrancis's nonsense. I am arguing with your basic contention that interracial marriage is something that there is any imperative at all to avoid.
Do you see any normal reason to have interracial marriages as the norm? Because I don't. Barring grave and weighty reasons, I see interracial marriage to be somewhat of a burden on the offspring, on many grounds (though the obstacles can be overcome with hard work).
BTW, I like that we're now veering away from saying it is against (or for) Catholic doctrine, and just talking about the merits of the viewpoints. Just as long as we don't err against doctrine.
Well no, I would not suggest that it should be the norm. I would also suggest that there is no Catholic or philosphical reason to suggest that it should not become the norm if that is the way things go.
People should decide whom to mare based first of all on religion. We agree here.
I am content to pretty much stop there. If there is a union of souls on faith, nothing else matters much.
-
Could it be said that by disagreeing with Telesphorus you are actually promoting your racial interests?
If so, how could the posters on this thread why have assertively promoted their white racial interests could hardly take issue with that.
Exactly! But then you should not have a problem with Telesphorus and QuoVadis either. They are just promoting their own racial interests.
I did not say that promoting racial interests is a good thing. I am interested in promoting Catholic interests, and perhaps human interest. Racial interest doesn't really make my radar. I am just suggesting that if it is okay for whites to do so, they have no cause to complain when others do so as well.
-
Vlad nailed it. There's just no arguing with these wackos. You must be doing spiritual exercises in patience, huh Sig?
You just called me a "white supremacist," even though I'm Asian. :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:
"Wackos," is it for wanting to keep to one's race in marriage and discouraging racial mixing as the norm? Then you tell me where I am wrong in Catholic doctrine, and I'll be sure to correct myself. Until then, the opposition is just hot air.
I did?? Pretty sure I said 'wacko'. :cheers:
Oh yes, that's much better. :wink:
-
If this is only a revisionism of the past 50 years, Telesphorus, one should be able to point to several respected traditional Catholic writers especially from the past who've argued against inter racial marriage.
Yes, Telesphorus, by all means lets see a list.
Race-mixing on the scale we see today is a product of the modern era. Thus, inability to cite traditional Catholic writers is meaningless.
I suppose that is true, but that cuts both ways.
-
In the past I've seen Vladimir refer to whites as stinky, in so many words. Which actually made me lol. He may be right! :laugh1:
It just seems that if a white on this forum said something similarly negative about a nonwhite group they would be accused of racism. And yet I didn't see any whites accuse Vladmir of racism for that comment.
I think that racial tension is to be expected. It's normal.
I hardly think that a comment on strong body odor (which was made in reply to a highly romanticized portrayal of the perfection of the white race by brotherfrancis75) is on the same level as comments of white posters regarding not only American negroes, but Africans as well, essentially calling the entire race mentally deficient and barely human.
Much of what is said on here regarding Africans and Negroes goes very far past the boundary of a little good humored bantering on cultural differences, stereotypes, etc. In the past I've posted about how cheap Chinese people are, and even have a thread show-casing some brilliant "Engrish" translations of restaurant menus, etc from various parts of the Orient. What you white posters say about Negroes, etc crosses this line...by a long shot.
Can anyone point to any nation in history that was multiracial that wasn't on its last legs?
China.
-
Could it be said that by disagreeing with Telesphorus you are actually promoting your racial interests?
If so, how could the posters on this thread why have assertively promoted their white racial interests could hardly take issue with that.
Exactly! But then you should not have a problem with Telesphorus and QuoVadis either. They are just promoting their own racial interests.
I did not say that promoting racial interests is a good thing. I am interested in promoting Catholic interests, and perhaps human interest. Racial interest doesn't really make my radar. I am just suggesting that if it is okay for whites to do so, they have no cause to complain when others do so as well.
I don't think it's possible to not promote one's racial interests. Even liberal whites promote their own racial interests by choosing to live where they do. The whiter the area the more they will desire to live there.
Whites certainly can't complain about nonwhites and mixed race people promoting htere own racial interests.
But they can complain about the double standard, which says that only whites will be persecuted and called racists for doing so.
-
If this is only a revisionism of the past 50 years, Telesphorus, one should be able to point to several respected traditional Catholic writers especially from the past who've argued against inter racial marriage.
Yes, Telesphorus, by all means lets see a list.
Race-mixing on the scale we see today is a product of the modern era. Thus, inability to cite traditional Catholic writers is meaningless.
I suppose that is true, but that cuts both ways.
I agree.
-
I hardly think that a comment on strong body odor (which was made in reply to a highly romanticized portrayal of the perfection of the white race by brotherfrancis75) is on the same level as comments of white posters regarding not only American negroes, but Africans as well, essentially calling the entire race mentally deficient and barely human.
Much of what is said on here regarding Africans and Negroes goes very far past the boundary of a little good humored bantering on cultural differences, stereotypes, etc. In the past I've posted about how cheap Chinese people are, and even have a thread show-casing some brilliant "Engrish" translations of restaurant menus, etc from various parts of the Orient. What you white posters say about Negroes, etc crosses this line...by a long shot.
Well I would have to see specific examples of things that cross the line. brotherfrancis says some strange things.
I do know that there is a lot of bad blood between blacks and whites in this country. Whites don't appreciate how black-on-white violence is covered up by the media, among other reasons
China.
Really?
I was thinking of people of very different racial ancestry. Not like Italians and Irish sharing the same neighborhood. But I don't know much about China so perhaps you could tell me a thing or two.
-
Sigismund and zviadist, all I see from you are emotional responses. It seems to me that because you don't like it, it's not Catholic. Again, I defy you to show us definite doctrine saying that being against racial mixing in general is wrong and against Catholic morality. I won't hold my breath! I most likely expect more emotional responses instead.
Show me a definite doctrine that race mixing is to any degree condemned by the Church. I have already offered the ultimate argument, that in the Incarnation God became human, not a white human.
Indeed. Don't hold your breath for an intelligent response from the mouth-breathers.
-
Sigismund and zviadist, all I see from you are emotional responses. It seems to me that because you don't like it, it's not Catholic. Again, I defy you to show us definite doctrine saying that being against racial mixing in general is wrong and against Catholic morality. I won't hold my breath! I most likely expect more emotional responses instead.
Show me a definite doctrine that race mixing is to any degree condemned by the Church. I have already offered the ultimate argument, that in the Incarnation God became human, not a white human.
Indeed. Don't hold your breath for an intelligent response from the mouth-breathers.
More hot air. Prove I, Telesphorus, IF, or Hatchc ever said race mixing is absolutely condemned by the Church. Not holding my breath! Using strawmen isn't a good way of winning arguments.
-
Again I ask: what it is that is so wrong to want to raise children to avoid race mixing, without impugning the dignity of other races?
If the intentions and opinions of the most active posters in this thread was as simple and innocent as you worded this thread would not have exceeded 150 pages in length within a few days.
The fact is that there are people who actually use this front to mask their feelings of racial/cultural superiority.
There's no point denying it. WASP and Americanist sentiments of white racial purity and superiority seem to permeate this forum. Anyone who speaks out against it is labelled as a lackey of the ѕуηαgσgυє, a self-hating white brainwashed by the media, or a self-conscious non-white that hates the whites, who he knows to be superior.
Let's stop beating around the bush.
Bingo!
Indeed.
Vlad nailed it. There's just no arguing with these wackos.
That's an ad hominem, s2s.
-
If the CHurch has not seen fit to condemn it, where in the world do you get off doing so?
This should be the final word on the subject. Unfortunately it will not be.
-
This should be the final word on the subject. Unfortunately it will not be.
Again, strawman argument. Since when have I, Telesphorus, SSS, +Willamson, and InfiniteFaith absolutely condemn race-mixing? Everyone of us agrees it isn't a sin.
-
Orestes Brownson: "We cannot alter the fact of Negro inferiority."
It was his opinion, merely quoting it.
World Zionism runs the USA and the Western world today anyway. That is the elephant or the gorilla in the living room and on the TV. World communism calls the shots now even from the Federal Reserve and Wall Street ... besides the NBA and the NFL and celebrity entertainment.
What do intelligent people think was going on in the 20th century anyway?
Traditional Christian nations were steamrolled for no reason at all?
How to prevent the proletariat and lowest common denominator from flooding into the streets?
Liberalism will not be conquered by the bitter ironies of ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic democracy any time soon. Bottom rail on top!
-
If the CHurch has not seen fit to condemn it, where in the world do you get off doing so?
This should be the final word on the subject. Unfortunately it will not be.
Just because the Church hasn't condemned something doesn't necessarily mean that something is good.
-
I did not say that promoting racial interests is a good thing. I am interested in promoting Catholic interests
Indeed. Unless I am mistaken there are already websites for promoting "racial interests" and they are most certainly not Catholic.
-
Indeed. It is outside the Church's purview. All She can state is that worshiping one's race to the detriment of others is morally wrong and that not all means of preserving the race are good, among other things. She can't rule on the advisability of race mixing, since it is not concerning morality per se.
-
Vlad nailed it. There's just no arguing with these wackos.
That's an ad hominem, s2s.
The "ad hominem" objection to argumentation doesn't apply against liberalism/modernism.
-
Indeed. Unless I am mistaken there are already websites for promoting "racial interests" and they are most certainly not Catholic.
So race is unimportant to you, unlike Pope XI, who admits its importance in worldly things? :rolleyes:
-
Again, strawman argument. Since when have I, Telesphorus, SSS, +Willamson, and InfiniteFaith absolutely condemn race-mixing? Everyone of us agrees it isn't a sin.
You lie. +Williamson does not condemn it nor is he in your camp. He suggests it could be a problem.
-
You lie. +Williamson does not condemn it nor is he in your camp. He suggests it could be a problem.
May I suggest that you're the one twisting facts? I haven't absolutely condemned race mixing! Never!!! Again, I challenge you to produce evidence! Until then, your argumentation is so much hot air.
-
St. Paul writes that Christians are one in the Lord. Racial difference means nothing in the Catholic Faith.
-
Again, strawman argument. Since when have I, Telesphorus, SSS, +Willamson, and InfiniteFaith absolutely condemn race-mixing? Everyone of us agrees it isn't a sin.
You lie. +Williamson does not condemn it nor is he in your camp. He suggests it could be a problem.
Where exactly do you say he lied? I don't see it.
-
St. Paul writes that Christians are one in the Lord. Racial difference means nothing in the Catholic Faith.
Using St. Paul to suit your argument, as if we don't hold that! More hot air. I have never declared otherwise; did I not mention St. Martin de Porres as shaming most of us, if not all? :rolleyes:
-
Again, strawman argument. Since when have I, Telesphorus, SSS, +Willamson, and InfiniteFaith absolutely condemn race-mixing? Everyone of us agrees it isn't a sin.
You lie. +Williamson does not condemn it nor is he in your camp. He suggests it could be a problem.
We're saying the same thing that +Williamson is saying.
-
Indeed. It is outside the Church's purview. All She can state is that worshiping one's race to the detriment of others is morally wrong and that not all means of preserving the race are good.
A proper system should do no harm to natural order. Communism does a lot of criminal harm, and one of those harms clearly has been racial and national destruction of those who are antagonistic to it. That destruction has not yet been complete, but it has been evident, bloody, and even somewhat extensive at times.
Christianity teaches the faithful to worship God, not nature or mankind anyway. If there were racial worship, without some form of heresy, it would be only as falling in after the Incarnation.
In contrast to the devils and communists, the Holy Angels do worship the humanity and excellence of Jesus Christ.
-
St. Paul writes that Christians are one in the Lord. Racial difference means nothing in the Catholic Faith.
"There is neither Jєω nor Greek."
This doesn't mean that blind men are not blind, or stupid men are not stupid, or short people are not short.
He meant that the Christian communion is a New Covenant superior to the old one, and that the supremacy of Jesus Christ seals it. He wasn't making an egalitarian argument for liberals.
He doesn't mean that all Christians are "equal". It was a theological statement, not Marxist identity politics.
Christian charity has a bitter battle with Marxism, and it is not a work of charity to foster confusion of terms.
-
Could it be said that by disagreeing with Telesphorus you are actually promoting your racial interests?
If so, how could the posters on this thread why have assertively promoted their white racial interests could hardly take issue with that.
Exactly! But then you should not have a problem with Telesphorus and QuoVadis either. They are just promoting their own racial interests.
I did not say that promoting racial interests is a good thing. I am interested in promoting Catholic interests, and perhaps human interest. Racial interest doesn't really make my radar. I am just suggesting that if it is okay for whites to do so, they have no cause to complain when others do so as well.
I don't think it's possible to not promote one's racial interests. Even liberal whites promote their own racial interests by choosing to live where they do. The whiter the area the more they will desire to live there.
Whites certainly can't complain about nonwhites and mixed race people promoting their own racial interests.
But they can complain about the double standard, which says that only whites will be persecuted and called racists for doing so.
I suppose that is true as far as it goes. And I must admit that the area I live in now is pretty white. There is one black family, no Hispanics and a few Asians. Interestingly the blacks are not African Americans. They are Africans. Nigerians to be exact. Both the man and the woman are college professors (Engineering and nursing, respectively.) They went to a Methodist mission school in Nigeria and attend a Methodist church. I don't know them well, but they were very welcoming when I built my house here.
-
If this is only a revisionism of the past 50 years, Telesphorus, one should be able to point to several respected traditional Catholic writers especially from the past who've argued against inter racial marriage.
Yes, Telesphorus, by all means lets see a list.
Race-mixing on the scale we see today is a product of the modern era. Thus, inability to cite traditional Catholic writers is meaningless.
I suppose that is true, but that cuts both ways.
I agree.
Suddenly, we are all agreeing quite a bit. Could it be that peace has broken out?
-
Again, strawman argument. Since when have I, Telesphorus, SSS, +Willamson, and InfiniteFaith absolutely condemn race-mixing? Everyone of us agrees it isn't a sin.
You lie. +Williamson does not condemn it nor is he in your camp. He suggests it could be a problem.
Okay, that is cutting a pretty fine line. Based on the Bishop Williamson quote above, I think if you asked His Excellency "Do you condemn race mixing? A simple yer or no please, My Lord' he would easily be able to answer yes.
-
Again, strawman argument. Since when have I, Telesphorus, SSS, +Willamson, and InfiniteFaith absolutely condemn race-mixing? Everyone of us agrees it isn't a sin.
You lie. +Williamson does not condemn it nor is he in your camp. He suggests it could be a problem.
We're saying the same thing that +Williamson is saying.
Yes you are. You and he are wrong together. :smirk:
-
Tell us how we're wrong, then, and leave Catholic doctrine out, since that is not disputed.
-
Okay, that is cutting a pretty fine line. Based on the Bishop Williamson quote above, I think if you asked His Excellency "Do you condemn race mixing? A simple yer or no please, My Lord' he would easily be able to answer yes.
He would say "not a sin, but strongly discouraged!" He wouldn't condemn it on Catholic doctrine!
-
Again, strawman argument. Since when have I, Telesphorus, SSS, +Willamson, and InfiniteFaith absolutely condemn race-mixing? Everyone of us agrees it isn't a sin.
You lie. +Williamson does not condemn it nor is he in your camp. He suggests it could be a problem.
Okay, that is cutting a pretty fine line. Based on the Bishop Williamson quote above, I think if you asked His Excellency "Do you condemn race mixing? A simple yer or no please, My Lord' he would easily be able to answer yes.
Well I will ask him next time I see him.
-
Am still awaiting the evidence that I absolutely condemn race mixing! Is it so much to ask this?
-
St. Paul writes that Christians are one in the Lord. Racial difference means nothing in the Catholic Faith.
I remember singing from Glory and Praise "woman or man, no more."
Oh, but it would be hard to use that verse of St. Paul's to justify feminism, given the other things St. Paul said, wouldn't it?
-
I did not say that promoting racial interests is a good thing. I am interested in promoting Catholic interests
Indeed. Unless I am mistaken there are already websites for promoting "racial interests" and they are most certainly not Catholic.
There is a lot of annual smoke and confusion from the fire of the Cremation of Care, at the Bohemian Grove, that settles over the land. There is a continuning national deformation afoot, and some anti-communists may lack depth and theological insight.
There may even be a total lack of morals in some cases, but peccability does goes many ways.
Yet "scientific" materialism and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ are on the loose and run counter to peace and prosperity in the natural order and increase violence and scams like bad seeds. They must be stopped!
Besides being a "racist", Orestes Brownson was wisely antagonistic to Darwinism.
About Darwin he said, "we should refuse even to bid him good-day".
What does one think he would say about Obama's felony fraud birth certificate and record of identity theft?
-
Okay, that is cutting a pretty fine line. Based on the Bishop Williamson quote above, I think if you asked His Excellency "Do you condemn race mixing? A simple yer or no please, My Lord' he would easily be able to answer yes.
He would say "not a sin, but strongly discouraged!" He wouldn't condemn it on Catholic doctrine!
I expect you are right there, but he would condemn it nontheless. and in doing so, he would be wrong.
-
Again, strawman argument. Since when have I, Telesphorus, SSS, +Willamson, and InfiniteFaith absolutely condemn race-mixing? Everyone of us agrees it isn't a sin.
You lie. +Williamson does not condemn it nor is he in your camp. He suggests it could be a problem.
We're saying the same thing that +Williamson is saying.
Yes you are. You and he are wrong together. :smirk:
Your opinion.
-
Again, strawman argument. Since when have I, Telesphorus, SSS, +Willamson, and InfiniteFaith absolutely condemn race-mixing? Everyone of us agrees it isn't a sin.
You lie. +Williamson does not condemn it nor is he in your camp. He suggests it could be a problem.
Okay, that is cutting a pretty fine line. Based on the Bishop Williamson quote above, I think if you asked His Excellency "Do you condemn race mixing? A simple yer or no please, My Lord' he would easily be able to answer yes.
Well I will ask him next time I see him.
If you are actually able to do that, I am sure everyone here would be very interested in His Excellency's reply. I certainly would be.
-
Am still awaiting the evidence that I absolutely condemn race mixing! Is it so much to ask this?
I have conceded that you did not.
-
Again, strawman argument. Since when have I, Telesphorus, SSS, +Willamson, and InfiniteFaith absolutely condemn race-mixing? Everyone of us agrees it isn't a sin.
You lie. +Williamson does not condemn it nor is he in your camp. He suggests it could be a problem.
We're saying the same thing that +Williamson is saying.
Yes you are. You and he are wrong together. :smirk:
Your opinion.
Yes, certainly.
-
Well, then let's focus on why you (and others) believe it is wrong to be against racial mixing in general (without condemning it as a sin).
-
The rest of you who insist we absolutely condemn racial mixing by Church doctrine, we are waiting for the evidence that we ever asserted such a thing!
-
I think that race mixing confuses people and I don't think that's good for them.
-
I think that race mixing confuses people and I don't think that's good for them.
Thats post deserves an award. Post of the Year!!!
-
I'd just like to say that Telesphorus, QuoVadis, and others have done a valiant job on this thread.
I am particularly impressed with Telesphorus. He never seems to suffer fatigue from dealing with people who play him every type of trick in the book. I would pull my hair out if I had to deal with Clare on a daily basis.
He is incredibly patient.
It is good that Telesphorus is here. He is doing his part to restore Christendom, by keeping the truth alight!
-
There is nothing wrong in wanting to improve one's race (i.e., racial qualities), especially by conversion to the Faith and keeping to one's race in marriage at the same time!
The faith is not a racial quality. Anyone can convert to it without needing surgery or hormone replacement therapy! But you know that. I'm just trying to make sense of this idea you refer to of "improv[ing] one's race (i.e., racial qualities) by conversion to the faith".
And, I don't think one can "improve" a race. Transhumanism anyone?
It rather seems to me those advocating mixed-raced marriages (accepting them as the norm, etc.) are the ones who seem that the race can be improved in that, whereas experience has shown it does the opposite, showing worst traits in both races (barring morality).
I'm not interested in improving any races, as I think it is vain and impossible.
I can understand people wanting to maintain a standard, but improvement is just not something I think one can achieve by marrying a particular type of person. God blesses people with all sorts of problems, especially if they're trying to have an easier life!!
Mixed race marriages are not something I would encourage or discourage. I just object to Catholics implying that not having any objection to them is liberal, Marxist, unCatholic, and unnatural, and to the idea that we should feel revulsion at the practice.
-
I just object to Catholics implying that not having any objection to them
No, you do more than that. You imply that opposition to them (especially on genetic grounds) is immoral. You always have.
is liberal, Marxist, unCatholic, and unnatural,
The popularity of the idea that one can't have any objection to it has definitely arisen in correspondence with modern political correctness.
and to the idea that we should feel revulsion at the practice.
People feel revulsion at bad unions. For example, very large age gaps. A poor sap marrying a loose woman. That is natural.
It's completely natural to feel revulsion at the thought of one's grandchildren identifying with ghetto culture.
But i suppose when rich trad brats listen to hip hop music, this battle is pretty much lost.
It's obvious to me that among neotrads, it's more important to be PC than to be Catholic.
That's why they approve of articles on Hanukkah in "traditional Catholic" newspapers.
We know what you value first. You put political correctness first.
Those Catholics who want grandchildren like themselves, raised in families in the same way they were raised, and not belonging to this society in which unwed motherhood and a dysfunctional lower class without families is treated as normal, is not the same society you want.
You will claim to be against that sort of society, but positions you take show your real symapthies.
You defended a woman civilly marrying a married man, because you are a liberal subverter.
-
I'm not interested in improving any races, as I think it is vain and impossible.
I can understand people wanting to maintain a standard, but improvement is just not something I think one can achieve by marrying a particular type of person.
I question whether or not Clare really believes that.
That is to say, would she really have any objection to Latin or East Asian women showing a preference for tall, strong, blond men who are intelligent?
The idea that people don't take into account how their children will turn out when marrying, both consciously and subconsciously, the idea that they don't try to optimize their selection of mate, is just ridiculous!
-
I for my part care nothing for political correctness but only say this because you are being unjust to mixed race couples. To be politically incorrect is one thing, to simply be factually incorrect is another.
Telesphorus, let me frame this in a more personal way, if you don't mind, to show you how your view does in fact impinge on the legitimate freedom of others.
You've said in the past, I think, that you would not rule out the possibility of marrying a girl of a different race. Now, supposing such were about to happen, and if both of you were attracted to each other and had taken it into account and were ok with it, how would you like for your intended marriage to fall apart simply because someone on her side of the family didn't like her marrying someone of your race and for that reason opposed your marriage?
Would you not protest at that and feel this was an injustice? Whether they were opposed to inter racial marriage "in general" or it just so happened in your particular case would mean little to you. Are you telling me that you would defend and support and praise as good and necessary this family's dislike of mixed race marriage in this hypothetical case when it would actually affect you adversely and indeed be an injustice toward you?
-
The faith is not a racial quality. Anyone can convert to it without needing surgery or hormone replacement therapy! But you know that. I'm just trying to make sense of this idea you refer to of "improv[ing] one's race (i.e., racial qualities) by conversion to the faith".
And, I don't think one can "improve" a race. Transhumanism anyone?
Does not supernature build on nature? That's exactly what I mean!
I'm not interested in improving any races, as I think it is vain and impossible.
I can understand people wanting to maintain a standard, but improvement is just not something I think one can achieve by marrying a particular type of person. God blesses people with all sorts of problems, especially if they're trying to have an easier life!!
Mixed race marriages are not something I would encourage or discourage. I just object to Catholics implying that not having any objection to them is liberal, Marxist, unCatholic, and unnatural, and to the idea that we should feel revulsion at the practice.
Seems you don't know social ethics, IMHO. Fr. Johannes Messner said it is a "grave responsibility" to contract a mixed race marriage; he also says it isn't wrong to improve the physical and intellectual qualities of a race, bearing in mind that supernatural qualities are independent of natural ones! Also, he asserted that environment and hereditary qualities play about equal roles in the development of human beings, so it is folly to ignore this when considering marriage outside one's race.
-
BTW, it seems the opposition is fond of using strawmen. Have I ever said the Faith is a racial quality?
-
And, I don't think one can "improve" a race. Transhumanism anyone?
I'm not interested in improving any races, as I think it is vain and impossible.
I can understand people wanting to maintain a standard, but improvement is just not something I think one can achieve by marrying a particular type of person. God blesses people with all sorts of problems, especially if they're trying to have an easier life!!
Mixed race marriages are not something I would encourage or discourage. I just object to Catholics implying that not having any objection to them is liberal, Marxist, unCatholic, and unnatural, and to the idea that we should feel revulsion at the practice.
Transhumanism is of the Satanic Darwinian root. Satan and the devils won't help anybody improve, unless they evaluate things from the perverse inversions of the lowerarchy.
However, Christian charity and wise farmers need not be embarrassed by the facts, and people can definitely "marry up" or "marry down". They can marry badly and into sore trouble, or they can marry gracefully and well.
For example, Nicole Brown Simpson, for one white lady, married down and into serious racial trouble. Who would deny it?
Most of this issue, honestly, is not about marriage anyway. It is about "free love" and the culture of infidelity and fornication and social decay... and 2 & 2 are 5.
A strong and proper Christian communion is one way to prevent diabolical interference in the culture of marriage and family, and this is not saying anything against Ethiopians or Coptics, etc., or even the English, or what is left of them in the third world of London.
The Jєωs run these banks in the West, and they run the liberal culture and the wars as well. Who would deny that? There has been no big Jєω money behind all the liberalism and social chaos? There most certainly has.
How much is any Catholic who is following an argumentative "interracial agenda" actually following a ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic NWO agenda? It's something to consider.
-
However, Christian charity and wise farmers need not be embarrassed by the facts, and people can definitely "marry up" or "marry down".
And in order for someone to "marry up", the other half has to be willing to "marry down"!
-
BTW, it seems the opposition is fond of using strawmen. Have I ever said the Faith is a racial quality?
Well, you said:
There is nothing wrong in wanting to improve one's race (i.e., racial qualities), especially by conversion to the Faith...
which seems to imply that converting to the faith improves one's racial qualities. And I can't see how it is relevant to a position against inter-racial marriage.
-
... he also says it isn't wrong to improve the physical and intellectual qualities of a race...
And I don't see how it is impossible to improve the physical and intellectual qualities of an entire race without some totalitarian program of social engineering! Or some other evil means.
A couple may improve the qualities of a family line, but not of a race.
-
I for my part care nothing for political correctness but only say this because you are being unjust to mixed race couples. To be politically incorrect is one thing, to simply be factually incorrect is another.
Telesphorus, let me frame this in a more personal way, if you don't mind, to show you how your view does in fact impinge on the legitimate freedom of others.
You've said in the past, I think, that you would not rule out the possibility of marrying a girl of a different race. Now, supposing such were about to happen, and if both of you were attracted to each other and had taken it into account and were ok with it, how would you like for your intended marriage to fall apart simply because someone on her side of the family didn't like her marrying someone of your race and for that reason opposed your marriage?
Would you not protest at that and feel this was an injustice? Whether they were opposed to inter racial marriage "in general" or it just so happened in your particular case would mean little to you. Are you telling me that you would defend and support and praise as good and necessary this family's dislike of mixed race marriage in this hypothetical case when it would actually affect you adversely and indeed be an injustice toward you?
I agree that would hurt, but that doesn't make it wrong.
-
People don't integrate on their own; people left alone by big government and big business will segregate on their own, along racial, ethnic, religious and gender lines.
-
However, Christian charity and wise farmers need not be embarrassed by the facts, and people can definitely "marry up" or "marry down".
And in order for someone to "marry up", the other half has to be willing to "marry down"!
This is what family and Church authorities should be interested in, to test the wisdom of the case. People of weaker minds and weaker wills can be led astray. The Lord admonished St. Peter to "feed his sheep", not otherwise.
It is interesting to see interracial advocates (not ad hominem here, not you, but only as regarding the "USA" populace in general) on an exclusively higher moral plane, as regards Christian and Catholic marriage. I'd have to research my old Latin books to find the little Latin tale about the medieval French Bishop who offered a free ham to the married couple of one year or more, who had not at all regretted their decision to marry. The ham was in the smokehouse forever. No one could honestly claim it.
-
It is strange that on this Catholic forum, we do not care about Catholicism as much as we care about race, judging by the number of responses per thread.
-
St. Paul writes that Christians are one in the Lord. Racial difference means nothing in the Catholic Faith.
I don't really think the Catholic Church specifically touches on that.
-
I'm not interested in improving any races, as I think it is vain and impossible.
I can understand people wanting to maintain a standard, but improvement is just not something I think one can achieve by marrying a particular type of person.
I question whether or not Clare really believes that.
That is to say, would she really have any objection to Latin or East Asian women showing a preference for tall, strong, blond men who are intelligent?
The idea that people don't take into account how their children will turn out when marrying, both consciously and subconsciously, the idea that they don't try to optimize their selection of mate, is just ridiculous!
I really want to be "crass" about this one but I will hold back. Clare probably would not care if a white man dated an asian or latin woman. Otherwise, she would have been agreeing with most of the things we have been saying.
-
I'm not interested in improving any races, as I think it is vain and impossible.
I can understand people wanting to maintain a standard, but improvement is just not something I think one can achieve by marrying a particular type of person.
I question whether or not Clare really believes that.
That is to say, would she really have any objection to Latin or East Asian women showing a preference for tall, strong, blond men who are intelligent?
I have no objection to people showing preferences. I do object to people saying that other people should share their preferences.
The idea that people don't take into account how their children will turn out when marrying, both consciously and subconsciously, the idea that they don't try to optimize their selection of mate, is just ridiculous!
This has nothing to do with "improving the race", but (for want of a better phrase) planning one's family.
Of course one should consider how one's children might turn out. One cannot know how they will turn out. And I doubt many couples imagine that their choice contributes to "improving the race". If they do, they're delusional!
My parents (both white) could not have foreseen that their first (blonde) child would be autistic.
Neither was it foreseen that I (also blonde) would get MS within a year of marriage!
It's not so much a case of bell-curves, as curve-balls!
-
And I don't see how it is impossible to improve the physical and intellectual qualities of an entire race without some totalitarian program of social engineering! Or some other evil means.
A couple may improve the qualities of a family line, but not of a race.
Another non sequitur! It doesn't necessarily follow that you have to employ evil means to improve intellectual and physical qualities of a race, like nαzιs do!
-
I'm not interested in improving any races, as I think it is vain and impossible.
I can understand people wanting to maintain a standard, but improvement is just not something I think one can achieve by marrying a particular type of person.
I question whether or not Clare really believes that.
That is to say, would she really have any objection to Latin or East Asian women showing a preference for tall, strong, blond men who are intelligent?
I have no objection to people showing preferences. I do object to people saying that other people should share their preferences.
The idea that people don't take into account how their children will turn out when marrying, both consciously and subconsciously, the idea that they don't try to optimize their selection of mate, is just ridiculous!
This has nothing to do with "improving the race", but (for want of a better phrase) planning one's family.
Of course one should consider how one's children might turn out. One cannot know how they will turn out. And I doubt many couples imagine that their choice contributes to "improving the race". If they do, they're delusional!
My parents (both white) could not have foreseen that their first (blonde) child would be autistic.
Neither was it foreseen that I (also blonde) would get MS within a year of marriage!
It's not so much a case of bell-curves, as curve-balls!
So in other words, you say that race doesn't matter then you turn around and support people who think that race matters. Race obviously matters to some as you admitted yourself in this post. Thats why people have these "preferences" as you would call them. Some people prefer black guys, mestizos, asians, etc. Race certainly matters to them!
Thats one reason why I wouldn't want a white women who has been there and done that with someone of another race. Once they do that they have eaten from the tree of knowledge. And eating from the tree of knowledge changes us. If I had a girlfriend who had eaten from the tree of knowledge then she may decide she prefers men of a different race in the middle of our relationship. I don't want that to ever happen so I reject women who have done that. I have before, and I will continue to do so.
If everyone has a non-chalant attitude about this CRISIS then fine. Don't come barking up my tree though after you have eaten from the tree of knowledge. I am going to marry who I think is best for me. Not damaged goods.
-
It is strange that on this Catholic forum, we do not care about Catholicism as much as we care about race, judging by the number of responses per thread.
It seems all the racists and crypto-Jєωs here have demonstrated sound priorities in faith and morals.
This is about the NWO agenda as much as anything. Have you been to Londonistan or looked at the economic news?
In France, i heard, they no longer call mother and father, mother and father, in legal docuмents but only parent #1 and parent #2. That's racist and sexist for sure.
White men are being impacted daily by the NWO agenda in racial ways, and I am one of them.
-
... he also says it isn't wrong to improve the physical and intellectual qualities of a race...
And I don't see how it is impossible to improve the physical and intellectual qualities of an entire race without some totalitarian program of social engineering! Or some other evil means.
A couple may improve the qualities of a family line, but not of a race.
If i were a teenager, i'd say, "like dude, you said, 'totalitarian program of social engineering' ... 'or some other evil means'. That's heavy. Are you for real"?
And like, you know why you, and everybody else, have the right to vote, anyway? Because you turned eighteen and rolled out of bed and can chew gum and walk. That's the same reason everybody else in this country and Donald Trump have the right to vote.
It's like, dude, you have the right to vote because you turned 18, and I don't, because I'm only 17 and a half.
That sounds like "some totalitarian program of social engineering" or something. It could be kind of evil ... universal suffrage ... like a page from the "Learned Protocols of the Stuffed Up Elders of Zion" ... if people have the right to vote only because they turned 18, and because the NWO regards them as some sort of "citizen" of the "USA", or gave them illegal amnesty.
It has nothing to do with your moral or intellectual qualities. It's like totally equal!
Henry Kissinger and the Rothschilds and Rockefellers and Time Magazine might really be up to no good in America for all i know.
-
... he also says it isn't wrong to improve the physical and intellectual qualities of a race...
And I don't see how it is impossible to improve the physical and intellectual qualities of an entire race ...
Slip of the keyboard. Obviously I meant "possible".
-
Fr. Messner outlines principles in his book Social Ethics when implementing programs of positive and negative eugenics, in line with Catholic morality, as opposed to Darwinists, nαzιs, etc.
At the same time, he doesn't deny suffering and disease still take place even in "pure" races, and that it's always beneficial to one suffering in Catholic patience, but he adds that the average person must not be given immense obstacles to overcome in the development of his intellect, skills, etc.
-
And I don't see how it is impossible to improve the physical and intellectual qualities of an entire race without some totalitarian program of social engineering! Or some other evil means.
A couple may improve the qualities of a family line, but not of a race.
Another non sequitur! It doesn't necessarily follow that you have to employ evil means to improve intellectual and physical qualities of a race, like nαzιs do!
Then I don't see how you can achieve it. We're talking about improving the qualities of a race. How do you do that without imposing laws (which would contravene Casti Connubii) forbidding marriages of "unfit" people? Or without sterilising the "unfit"? Or without screening out the unfit? Or without manufacturing people in labs?
You can't do it without violating an awful lot of people's legitimate freedoms.
-
So in other words, you say that race doesn't matter then you turn around and support people who think that race matters. Race obviously matters to some as you admitted yourself in this post. Thats why people have these "preferences" as you would call them. Some people prefer black guys, mestizos, asians, etc. Race certainly matters to them!
Does hair colour matter? Gentlemen, apparently, prefer blondes.
I'm still glad that some are willing to marry brunettes and redheads though!
-
See my previous post. I can't go into all the details because it is quite extensive, but Fr. Messner shows what is in line and what opposes Catholic morality. He shows it can be done, without infringing unjustly on anyone's legitimate freedoms!
-
Ok, so we have an attempt at a theory of "Catholic eugenics". I'm curious as to how it would apply to inter racial marriages unless one race is by itself regarded as an "improvement" on another, as some (non-Catholic) eugenicists held.
-
So in other words, you say that race doesn't matter then you turn around and support people who think that race matters. Race obviously matters to some as you admitted yourself in this post. Thats why people have these "preferences" as you would call them. Some people prefer black guys, mestizos, asians, etc. Race certainly matters to them!
Does hair colour matter? Gentlemen, apparently, prefer blondes.
I'm still glad that some are willing to marry brunettes and redheads though!
That doesn't answer my question. Plus anyone can dye their hair blonde.
I personally don't prefer blondes. The women I have had loving type feelings for have all been brunette.
-
Ok, so we have an attempt at a theory of "Catholic eugenics". I'm curious as to how it would apply to inter racial marriages unless one race is by itself regarded as an "improvement" on another, as some (non-Catholic) eugenicists held.
Fr. Messner says experience is the key, and there can be no general principles except that people entering into such marriages should know the grave responsibility of it before God. That's all. In addition, it is my opinion that racial mixing should not be the norm as I said time and again.
-
Fr. Messner says experience is the key, and there can be no general principles except that people entering into such marriages should know the grave responsibility of it before God.
No problem. I'm sure Sigismund and other Catholic couples who make this decision do not enter into it lightly.
That's all. In addition, it is my opinion that racial mixing should not be the norm as I said time and again.
Nobody ever said it should be. This is a false dichotomy. You don't have to say that either should be the norm nor does it follow that those are the only two alternatives. The whole point is that a personal preference either way should not be made into a general norm.
If you think it should be, provide some objective basis for saying so. Genetic facts and an inference based on them would be, for example, an objective basis. Otherwise what you say is a purely subjective preference in which case it simply cannot apply as a general norm, no matter how strenuously those who think it should be assert themselves, nor how ardently they downthumb those who disagree.
-
The French crusaders intermingling with the native population of Palestine is a prime example of racial mixing gone bad. Many of the progeny coming from the mixing had more undesirable traits of the two races in question, and thus were hardly able to hold the fort against Muslim efforts to recapture the Holy Land. Example of genetics where racial mixing was more trouble than help! I posted this previously, but no one of the opposition apparently paid attention.
If nobody ever said racial mixing should be the norm, how is it when we say it, we are blasted for doing so? And can you say we violate Catholic doctrine when we say it is the norm to marry someone of one's own race? You'd have a point if at least half of the race in question married someone else of a different race, but I don't think you do. Racial mixing, even if locally substantial, is rare compared to marrying of one's own race. Perhaps you can tell me the ratio of mixed race marriages to single race marriages.
-
QuoVadisPetre,
You seem to talk a lot about "improving" one's race. First of all, assuming this is even possible - since mankind is descended from greatness and not evolving towards it - it doesn't seem that marriage within one's culture necessarily guarantees this "improvement".
Look at yourself. You come from a "pure" ethnic background, yet you seem to engage largely in study and debate about topics that are totally foreign to your people and ancestry. For example, debating about Jєωs and the тαℓмυd, reading Chesterton and Tolkien, etc. Not that any of these things is bad in itself, but it isn't your fight. If "racially pure" marriages really guaranteed promoting the interests of one's race in all cases, why aren't you studying Vietnamese and Chinese history and culture instead of European culture? Why Western philosophy and not Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism? Instead of studying Western history and government, why not study the roots of the various revolutions and schools of thought in early 20th century Vietnam and trace the influences of Catholicism therein? In theory this is what you should be doing, but instead you choose to engage in the affairs of Westerners - affairs the study of which will not be of an conceivable benefit to your countrymen in the event of a future re-evangelization of the Orient, unless your vision for conversion is having your countrymen dressed in Western suits, sipping tea, discussing Chesterton and the merits of Western chivalry, all the while being meticulous to abide by Victorian social etiquette.
And you aren't alone either. This is why the overseas Vietnamese, pretty much the most pathetic of all East Asian immigrant populations (which is why the rest of East Asia always sneers at Vietnam and doesn't even include it in the definition of "East Asia") are quickly assimilating into Western culture, even if they are not inter-marrying at large rates yet. Ignorant of their own history and culture, overseas Vietnamese either go completely Western or pay lip service to their "heritage" with disgusting and pathetic claims to identify with "Azn" "culture" - i.e., kung-fu movies, chopsticks, and Korean soap operas. If you look at a lot of the Vietnamese youth in places such as Southern California, a lot of them can't even speak Vietnamese despite the fact that they are fully Vietnamese (genetically speaking) and they live in a largely homogeneous Vietnamese area.
So there - a "racially pure" marriage does not guarantee anything beyond a dubious degree of "genetic purity" (if such a thing even exists - again take the Vietnamese for example. Though all grouped under one ethnicity today people in Vietnam can range from being genetically identical to certain ethnic groups in Southern China to being descended from more typically Southeast Asian groups). The result is that while the outward appearance is maintained, what really matters (the culture) is not guaranteed to be transmitted. As for me, I would rather see racially mixed Oriental children that can engage in serious discussion of the Confucian classics and affairs concerning the well-being of the Far East than a group of genetically "pure" Orientals, complete with black hair, yellow skin, and squinty eyes, that sit around and talk about "white people stuff".
And ironically, the obsession with the flesh and genetic purity in regards to it bears uncanny resemblance to the тαℓмυdic perversity that you are so fond of exposing.
-
Bravo Vladimir!!!
-
QuoVadisPetre,
You seem to talk a lot about "improving" one's race. First of all, assuming this is even possible - since mankind is descended from greatness and not evolving towards it - it doesn't seem that marriage within one's culture necessarily guarantees this "improvement".
Look at yourself. You come from a "pure" ethnic background, yet you seem to engage largely in study and debate about topics that are totally foreign to your people and ancestry. For example, debating about Jєωs and the тαℓмυd, reading Chesterton and Tolkien, etc. Not that any of these things is bad in itself, but it isn't your fight. If "racially pure" marriages really guaranteed promoting the interests of one's race in all cases, why aren't you studying Vietnamese and Chinese history and culture instead of European culture? Why Western philosophy and not Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism? Instead of studying Western history and government, why not study the roots of the various revolutions and schools of thought in early 20th century Vietnam and trace the influences of Catholicism therein? In theory this is what you should be doing, but instead you choose to engage in the affairs of Westerners - affairs the study of which will not be of an conceivable benefit to your countrymen in the event of a future re-evangelization of the Orient, unless your vision for conversion is having your countrymen dressed in Western suits, sipping tea, discussing Chesterton and the merits of Western chivalry, all the while being meticulous to abide by Victorian social etiquette.
And you aren't alone either. This is why the overseas Vietnamese, pretty much the most pathetic of all East Asian immigrant populations (which is why the rest of East Asia always sneers at Vietnam and doesn't even include it in the definition of "East Asia") are quickly assimilating into Western culture, even if they are not inter-marrying at large rates yet. Ignorant of their own history and culture, overseas Vietnamese either go completely Western or pay lip service to their "heritage" with disgusting and pathetic claims to identify with "Azn" "culture" - i.e., kung-fu movies, chopsticks, and Korean soap operas. If you look at a lot of the Vietnamese youth in places such as Southern California, a lot of them can't even speak Vietnamese despite the fact that they are fully Vietnamese (genetically speaking) and they live in a largely homogeneous Vietnamese area.
So there - a "racially pure" marriage does not guarantee anything beyond a dubious degree of "genetic purity" (if such a thing even exists - again take the Vietnamese for example. Though all grouped under one ethnicity today people in Vietnam can range from being genetically identical to certain ethnic groups in Southern China to being descended from more typically Southeast Asian groups). The result is that while the outward appearance is maintained, what really matters (the culture) is not guaranteed to be transmitted. As for me, I would rather see racially mixed Oriental children that can engage in serious discussion of the Confucian classics and affairs concerning the well-being of the Far East than a group of genetically "pure" Orientals, complete with black hair, yellow skin, and squinty eyes, that sit around and talk about "white people stuff".
And ironically, the obsession with the flesh and genetic purity in regards to it bears uncanny resemblance to the тαℓмυdic perversity that you are so fond of exposing.
All your posting here is just to show your confusing excess worship of race versus healthy. Fr. Messner completely destroys your idea that somehow wanting to have pure race outside of religious consideration somehow equates to being like a nαzι.
Western thought has been more conducive to spreading Christianity than any other system of philosophy, and it is the Popes' recommendation, too. I am not equipped enough to learn about Taoism, and the such to refute, and frankly speaking, I don't want to be infected with the false ideas. I leave that to those more qualified than me.
Going against the Jєωs and тαℓмυdism isn't my fight? My goodness! Have we become milquetoast Catholics, to accept our coming destruction at the hands of the NWO? It is Catholic Action, and the obligation of every Catholic to resist these insidious errors, which infects Asian as well as European cultures. Don't pretend otherwise!
As for Vietnamese culture, I admit I'm losing it in a quite a few points, and lament its loss, but that is the unfortunate effect of the modern world. And I admittedly know a little of Vietnamese history, but the little I know is that Catholics have been persecuted for so long until the arrival of the French, when it slightly died down. And I know all about the Vietnam War, how it forced my parents out, etc. Nonetheless, it doesn't negate any of what I said, in a Catholic world!
How is it тαℓмυdic perversity to want to keep to one's race in marriage, in general (all other things being equal)? This "obsession" is only the need to ask where am I wrong, opposing Catholic doctrine? Neither you nor anyone here opposing me can tell me, it seems!
-
As I frequently say, race is usually an issue only insofar as it tends to represent a given culture.
Culture is the main issue.
Mixing cultures should not be done lightly. Think about what culture IS. It is, simply put, that which forms one's views on just about EVERY ASPECT of day-to-day life.
How can two people have different views on "everything in day-to-day life" (culture) and not have more potential for conflict?
Race is a material consideration. That is why it is subordinate to the Faith. But because it has to do with material things, it is also a very real consideration.
I also think some members in this thread need to TRY to extract some of their emotions from this discussion. We're not talking about individuals here. We're talking about abstract things -- trends, concepts, what is best, etc.
Some people take EVERYTHING personally.
I'll refrain from mentioning which gender that is normally typical of.
-
You're not alone QuoVadis. Most whites in this country know very little about their own ethnic groups. I often will see Italians, for example, try to make up for this by speaking Italianisms that some Jєωιѕн screenwriter came up with.
Hardly any Irish know Gaelic.
-
One of the most unfortunate effects of being in a post-Christian modern world, where even basic morality is flouted.
BTW, thanks Matthew for saying that.
-
It isn't surprising that a conquered people, uprooted from their culture and "re-planted" someplace else and pressured to assimilate would reject their own ethnic identity and try to adopt the identity of their conquerors.
Lots of empires have been constructed from different ethnic groups, who usually go their own way, when the empire dissolves. Trying to survive that process and preserve one's ethnic identity is a challenge and those who do it should be proud of their efforts, not ashamed of them, even if they do at times seem corny.
-
QuoVadisPetre,
You seem to talk a lot about "improving" one's race. First of all, assuming this is even possible - since mankind is descended from greatness and not evolving towards it - it doesn't seem that marriage within one's culture necessarily guarantees this "improvement".
Look at yourself. You come from a "pure" ethnic background, yet you seem to engage largely in study and debate about topics that are totally foreign to your people and ancestry. For example, debating about Jєωs and the тαℓмυd, reading Chesterton and Tolkien, etc. Not that any of these things is bad in itself, but it isn't your fight. If "racially pure" marriages really guaranteed promoting the interests of one's race in all cases, why aren't you studying Vietnamese and Chinese history and culture instead of European culture? Why Western philosophy and not Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism? Instead of studying Western history and government, why not study the roots of the various revolutions and schools of thought in early 20th century Vietnam and trace the influences of Catholicism therein? In theory this is what you should be doing, but instead you choose to engage in the affairs of Westerners - affairs the study of which will not be of an conceivable benefit to your countrymen in the event of a future re-evangelization of the Orient, unless your vision for conversion is having your countrymen dressed in Western suits, sipping tea, discussing Chesterton and the merits of Western chivalry, all the while being meticulous to abide by Victorian social etiquette.
And you aren't alone either. This is why the overseas Vietnamese, pretty much the most pathetic of all East Asian immigrant populations (which is why the rest of East Asia always sneers at Vietnam and doesn't even include it in the definition of "East Asia") are quickly assimilating into Western culture, even if they are not inter-marrying at large rates yet. Ignorant of their own history and culture, overseas Vietnamese either go completely Western or pay lip service to their "heritage" with disgusting and pathetic claims to identify with "Azn" "culture" - i.e., kung-fu movies, chopsticks, and Korean soap operas. If you look at a lot of the Vietnamese youth in places such as Southern California, a lot of them can't even speak Vietnamese despite the fact that they are fully Vietnamese (genetically speaking) and they live in a largely homogeneous Vietnamese area.
So there - a "racially pure" marriage does not guarantee anything beyond a dubious degree of "genetic purity" (if such a thing even exists - again take the Vietnamese for example. Though all grouped under one ethnicity today people in Vietnam can range from being genetically identical to certain ethnic groups in Southern China to being descended from more typically Southeast Asian groups). The result is that while the outward appearance is maintained, what really matters (the culture) is not guaranteed to be transmitted. As for me, I would rather see racially mixed Oriental children that can engage in serious discussion of the Confucian classics and affairs concerning the well-being of the Far East than a group of genetically "pure" Orientals, complete with black hair, yellow skin, and squinty eyes, that sit around and talk about "white people stuff".
And ironically, the obsession with the flesh and genetic purity in regards to it bears uncanny resemblance to the тαℓмυdic perversity that you are so fond of exposing.
All your posting here is just to show your confusing excess worship of race versus healthy. Fr. Messner completely destroys your idea that somehow wanting to have pure race outside of religious consideration somehow equate to being like a nαzι.
Western thought has been more conducive to spreading Christianity than any other system of philosophy, and it is the Popes' recommendation, too. I am not equipped enough to learn about Taoism, and the such to refute, and frankly speaking, I don't want to be infected with the false ideas. I leave that to those more qualified than.
Going against the Jєωs and тαℓмυdism isn't my fight? My goodness! Have we become milquetoast Catholics, to accept our coming destruction at the hands of the NWO? It is Catholic Action, and the obligation of every Catholic to resist these insidious errors.
As for Vietnamese culture, I admit I'm losing it in a quite a few points, and lament its loss, but that is the unfortunate effect of the modern world. And I admittedly know a little of Vietnamese history, but the little I know is that Catholics have been persecuted for so long until the arrival of the French, when it slightly died down. And I know all about the Vietnam War, how it forced my parents out, etc. Nonetheless, it doesn't negate any of what I said, in a Catholic world!
I never mentioned the word "nαzι".
Western philosophy is what gave birth to innumerable idiotic and depraved cults in the pre-Christian world, innumerable heresies in the Christian world, and the philosophies that have launched us into this post-Christian world. Insistence on Western philosophy is what retarded the missionary efforts in the Orient until holy men like Matteo Ricci were able to comprehend the ancient wisdom of Oriental philosophy and its superiority to Western thought in aiding the conversion of the Orient. Insistence on the superiority of Western ways is what totally destroyed the work of holy men like Ricci in China and much of the Orient with scandalous affairs like the Rites Controversy.
And yes, I would argue that extensive research on Jєωs and the тαℓмυd isn't your fight, unless you were to somehow incorporate that into an wider understanding of the spread of Communism from China into Vietnam. Even then, it would be more fruitful just to engage in study of the Orient.
And...you don't want to get infected with false ideas yet you study the тαℓмυd and Judaism? Why not the wholesome and noble doctrines of Confucius which have guided the Orient for centuries until the modern age, sans the supernatural reinforcement of Christ's Divine teachings?
I don't mean to sound condescending of Western philosophy, but the focus of Western philosophy on hard science, strict logic, etc is not always conducive towards instilling the Faith among unlearned people. You see, even holy men like Garrigou-Lagrange seem to say that after obtaining a lifetime of erudition in logic, theology, etc one must to a certain extent, let go of that knowledge and become simple again like a child. Fr. Faber says similar things about advancement in the spiritual life, which consists in reducing one's practices and devotions and not in their increase. How similar is this to Lao-tzu's profound observation that the practice of learning consists in daily accuмulating, but the practice of virtue,religion, etc consists in daily diminishing. The Eastern focus on man's spiritual side instead of his physical side is a great strength and of endless help in instilling the spirit of humility and simplicity in the faithful.
You see, your "go-get-'em" attitude is inherently Western. What a far cry from the teachings of non-action of Lao-tzu, and the warning of the Confucians to "study martial arts in times of peace, but retire from the world and read the Classics in times of disorder". Isn't your time better spent studying your culture and history and finding ways to harmonize traditional teachings with the Catholic Faith and therefore be an instrument of evangelization to your countrymen? (That is if the time ever comes that you could put your knowledge to use)
Also Catholics in Vietnam did better prior to the political and military presence of the French and the ignorant refusal to allow Catholics to practice the ancient and venerable ancestral rites that Pope Pius XII would later allow. I would argue that an unbiased history of Catholicism in Vietnam would actually show that the French did not do much for Catholicism in Vietnam aside from making it seem more foreign than it is to the native culture and generating animosity and suspicion towards Catholicism from non-Catholics, who otherwise would have been un-opinionated or relatively benign towards Catholicism. Which is why in the early 20th century many Catholic priests with the support of the faithful were directly involved in anti-French revolutionary movements.
To other readers who many be curious with the content my two most recent posts - while I realize the content of these posts are not directly related to the OP of this thread, this thread has gone on to the point where there is little sense in demanding a strict adherence to "on topic" posts that relate to the original question posed by InfiniteFaith. Therefore, I've found it appropriate to address some of the arguments raised by QuoVadisPetre that a racially "pure" marriage somehow intrinsically strengthens and "improves" one's race.
To QuoVadisPetre, I apologize if I am putting you on the spot, but I hope you'll entertain further discussion regarding these points. I, for one, am posting in good humuor, with no intent to belittle you or most of those members that you think share your view.
As Matthew as pointed out - the issue is an inter-cultural marriage, not so much an inter-racial marriage. I myself stressed this point with great emphasis on another thread, though which one I cannot recall.
As I've said before, the population of America shares a common culture - to at least some extent. This greatly complicates objections to marriage between people of different ancestral ethnic backgrounds that share a common culture between themselves due to geographic location and socio-political affiliations.
-
I can't see how intermarrying would make it easier to maintain one's racial/ethnic/ancestral identity and background.
-
Vladimir,
your points are interesting and very condescending at the same time - a condescension of the either 1)pure westerner, white master to some Asian wanna-be white.
I do not see any love of neighbor in your indoctrinations of what your opponent should have studied and be involved in.
or this condescension could be 2) other group of people which might be infected by this obsessive stay-in-your-ghetto-and-don't-even ever-try to-get-off mantra, which is even worst - typical marxist anti-colonial agenda
-
I'm not sure I agree with all that, Vladimir. There was still intense persecution of Catholics in Vietnam before the French came; the hundreds and even thousands of Vietnamese martyrs beatified should testify to that. Also, I admit quite a few problems imposing Western things on Eastern, but that doesn't null the more great achievements of the West, IMHO, such as Aristotle (despite his paganism and sometimes wrong ideas), the medieval cathedrals, and the Summa Theologica. And I also I think a bit of your reading of history is colored by propaganda against the French, however bad they may have been (since the French Revolution), just as I believe there was propaganda (unfortunately effective) against the Catholic president of South Vietnam, before his assassination. And I can't help my mind, since I already studied Western logic, theology, and the such. Would you want me to take that out of myself now? My mind has been thoroughly Westernized, and I really thank God for that, since despite its numerous falls, the West had remained more or less faithful until Protestantism and the French Revolution.
And no, I don't study the тαℓмυd and Judaism per se. I study specifically the errors, such as everyone except Jєωs are animals, to refute them and to warn of how these teachings are used against both East and West. And I don't look at the тαℓмυd and Judaism by itself, but safely countered in writings of Fr. Denis Fahey and others.
And I've always been talking on a theoretical side, in a world where Catholics are in the majority and not worrying about external or internal threats. Practically speaking, I am in a situation where the US policies' and the such affect me, rendering such things as Eastern philosophy and the such of little importance to me. All I'm simply doing is trying to keep the Faith, and also to give it breathing space and eventually the promotion of the Social Reign of Christ; I see the Zionist and тαℓмυdist plans as a formidable obstacle, humanly speaking. Until then, all my preferences are theoretical. I can't reverse the thousands of Southerners in the past who eloped with their black slaves and yet never admitted to being the progenitors of the resulting offspring. But I can still say that in an ideal world, all things being equal, keeping to one's race in marriage should be the norm.
-
Jester,
I would like to respond to your post, but I cannot decipher what exactly you want to say. I'll refrain from responding, lest I misread your post and make an irrelevant reply. I'm particularly confused by your second point. Please clarify.
QuoVadisPetre,
If you are interested I recommend the book "Catholic Vietnam" by Charles Keith regarding the influence of the French. The French missionaries, who boasted such glorious saints like Theophane Venard, certainly helped a great deal - the French as a whole, who in the later history of their colonization of Vietnam were influenced by secular principles like those of de Gaulle, were a bane rather than a boon to Catholicism in Vietnam.
Saint Thomas is beyond my criticism. I still prefer Confucius to Aristotle and what have you. And I will take Eastern architecture any day over that of the West.
But don't you see? If racial "purity" was such a great influence on strengthening one's race, then why is it that we too can't even come to agreement on the issue when the same "pure" Oriental blood runs through our veins?
Why is it that intellectuals in 20th century Vietnam did not oppose getting married to French women?
-
QuoVadisPetre,
If you are interested I recommend the book "Catholic Vietnam" by Charles Keith regarding the influence of the French. The French missionaries, who boasted such glorious saints like Theophane Venard, certainly helped a great deal - the French as a whole, who in the later history of their colonization of Vietnam were influenced by secular principles like those of de Gaulle, were a bane rather than a boon to Catholicism in Vietnam.
Saint Thomas is beyond my criticism. I still prefer Confucius to Aristotle and what have you. And I will take Eastern architecture any day over that of the West.
But don't you see? If racial "purity" was such a great influence on strengthening one's race, then why is it that we too can't even come to agreement on the issue when the same "pure" Oriental blood runs through our veins?
Why is it that intellectuals in 20th century Vietnam did not oppose getting married to French women?
I don't disagree that the French were later a bane to Vietnam, but they did finally stop persecution of Catholics in the 1800s, and which St. Therese of the Child Jesus and the Holy Face wanted to go to.
As for architecture, I can't help it if I was raised with learning European and American Catholic history; I still mark the medieval cathedrals and the great Roman basilicas as some of the greatest achievements in all the world.
Again, as I said, I am speaking only in theoretical terms, all things being equal, as my belief in a Catholic world. But for the moment, I know it is quite unattainable!
-
QuoVadisPetre,
If you are interested I recommend the book "Catholic Vietnam" by Charles Keith regarding the influence of the French. The French missionaries, who boasted such glorious saints like Theophane Venard, certainly helped a great deal - the French as a whole, who in the later history of their colonization of Vietnam were influenced by secular principles like those of de Gaulle, were a bane rather than a boon to Catholicism in Vietnam.
Saint Thomas is beyond my criticism. I still prefer Confucius to Aristotle and what have you. And I will take Eastern architecture any day over that of the West.
But don't you see? If racial "purity" was such a great influence on strengthening one's race, then why is it that we too can't even come to agreement on the issue when the same "pure" Oriental blood runs through our veins?
Why is it that intellectuals in 20th century Vietnam did not oppose getting married to French women?
Whatever may be said of the French their empire actually helped the Third World people under them. Besides Ho Chi Minh and the rest of his Communist ilk were murdering state terrorists. Also Western culture is superior to that of the East.
-
As I frequently say, race is usually an issue only insofar as it tends to represent a given culture.
Culture is the main issue.
This is what's called a merely logical distinction. That is, in reality, it's impossible cleanly to distinguish blood from culture. Culture is not causa sui - there's a close reciprocal influence between the two, such that blood plays a role beyond 'representation' of a given culture.
-
Jester,
I would like to respond to your post, but I cannot decipher what exactly you want to say. I'll refrain from responding, lest I misread your post and make an irrelevant reply. I'm particularly confused by your second point. Please clarify.
Vladimir,
your suggestions to QuoVadisPetre what he should have been interested in or studied is a typical mantra of i know better what you should do type extremely common through the second group I've described ( marxist anticolonialists). If life spared you from encountering these types it does not mean that you obviously did not encounter that type of ideology, though it is usually called a bit differently in the US
-
added to previous:
QuoVadisPetre is quite capable of choosing himself what to be interested in and what his passion should be. His race has no bearing and nobody should suggest he should be interested in anything because of his race and/or ethnic background.
-
Well, then let's focus on why you (and others) believe it is wrong to be against racial mixing in general (without condemning it as a sin).
Very well. It is wrong because we really all share one race, human. Skin color is literally skin deep, and irrelevant in any way that matters. Differences in culture can be significant. I can see where serious differences in culture could be a challenge for a marriage. My wife, who was Filipino and raised by Chaldean rite Arabs in a Ruthenian Byzantine Church, certainly had cultural differences. We were both raised (mostly on her part, entirely on mine) in Midwestern America. That was our culture, much more than being Filipino or Arab or Irish. The differences we had enriched our marriage and our children much more than they created any problems.
Most fundamentally, we shared our faith. That was all that really mattered.
-
And, I don't think one can "improve" a race. Transhumanism anyone?
I'm not interested in improving any races, as I think it is vain and impossible.
I can understand people wanting to maintain a standard, but improvement is just not something I think one can achieve by marrying a particular type of person. God blesses people with all sorts of problems, especially if they're trying to have an easier life!!
Mixed race marriages are not something I would encourage or discourage. I just object to Catholics implying that not having any objection to them is liberal, Marxist, unCatholic, and unnatural, and to the idea that we should feel revulsion at the practice.
Transhumanism is of the Satanic Darwinian root. Satan and the devils won't help anybody improve, unless they evaluate things from the perverse inversions of the lowerarchy.
However, Christian charity and wise farmers need not be embarrassed by the facts, and people can definitely "marry up" or "marry down". They can marry badly and into sore trouble, or they can marry gracefully and well.
For example, Nicole Brown Simpson, for one white lady, married down and into serious racial trouble. Who would deny it?
Most of this issue, honestly, is not about marriage anyway. It is about "free love" and the culture of infidelity and fornication and social decay... and 2 & 2 are 5.
A strong and proper Christian communion is one way to prevent diabolical interference in the culture of marriage and family, and this is not saying anything against Ethiopians or Coptics, etc., or even the English, or what is left of them in the third world of London.
The Jєωs run these banks in the West, and they run the liberal culture and the wars as well. Who would deny that? There has been no big Jєω money behind all the liberalism and social chaos? There most certainly has.
How much is any Catholic who is following an argumentative "interracial agenda" actually following a ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic NWO agenda? It's something to consider.
She married down because the man she married was a violent sociopath. Not becasue he was black.
-
I'm not interested in improving any races, as I think it is vain and impossible.
I can understand people wanting to maintain a standard, but improvement is just not something I think one can achieve by marrying a particular type of person.
I question whether or not Clare really believes that.
That is to say, would she really have any objection to Latin or East Asian women showing a preference for tall, strong, blond men who are intelligent?
I have no objection to people showing preferences. I do object to people saying that other people should share their preferences.
The idea that people don't take into account how their children will turn out when marrying, both consciously and subconsciously, the idea that they don't try to optimize their selection of mate, is just ridiculous!
This has nothing to do with "improving the race", but (for want of a better phrase) planning one's family.
Of course one should consider how one's children might turn out. One cannot know how they will turn out. And I doubt many couples imagine that their choice contributes to "improving the race". If they do, they're delusional!
My parents (both white) could not have foreseen that their first (blonde) child would be autistic.
Neither was it foreseen that I (also blonde) would get MS within a year of marriage!
It's not so much a case of bell-curves, as curve-balls!
The bolded sentence here expresses my position perfectly. I could have just said that rather than the paragraph above.
-
Ok, so we have an attempt at a theory of "Catholic eugenics". I'm curious as to how it would apply to inter racial marriages unless one race is by itself regarded as an "improvement" on another, as some (non-Catholic) eugenicists held.
I am curious as well.
-
Fr. Messner says experience is the key, and there can be no general principles except that people entering into such marriages should know the grave responsibility of it before God.
No problem. [b]I'm sure Sigismund and other Catholic couples who make this decision do not enter into it lightly.
[/b]
That's all. In addition, it is my opinion that racial mixing should not be the norm as I said time and again.
Nobody ever said it should be. This is a false dichotomy. You don't have to say that either should be the norm nor does it follow that those are the only two alternatives. The whole point is that a personal preference either way should not be made into a general norm.
If you think it should be, provide some objective basis for saying so. Genetic facts and an inference based on them would be, for example, an objective basis. Otherwise what you say is a purely subjective preference in which case it simply cannot apply as a general norm, no matter how strenuously those who think it should be assert themselves, nor how ardently they downthumb those who disagree.
I did not enter into marriage lightly, to be sure. The fact that our races were different did not concern either of us at all, and I would say our experience as spouses and parents confirmed that there was no reason it should have.
-
I am terribly sorry about that huge font. I didn't do it on purpose, and don't seem to be able to alter without making it worse. I really didn't mean to shout. :facepalm:
-
Whatever may be said of the French their empire actually helped the Third World people under them. Besides Ho Chi Minh and the rest of his Communist ilk were murdering state terrorists. Also Western culture is superior to that of the East.
Ah, but you betray your ignorance by automatically assuming that the only alternative to the French rule was the oppression of the Communist state. This is undoubtedly due to general ignorance about Vietnam's history since it is an insignificant country to the rest of the world's history. You see, the nationalistic anti-French movement did not originate as a Communist revolution (if it was, why would so many Catholics support it?), but was later effectively hijacked by Communists. The French were also terrorists, and had no qualms about imprisoning Catholic priests that spoke out for their country. If it's worth anything, the Japanese were far more brutal during their occupation, and the treatment of the Chinese towards the Vietnamese throughout history does not need any further comment.
"WESTERN CULTURE IS SUPERIOR TO THAT OF THE EAST"
Behold, CathInfo, the true face of these posters. When it boils down to it, it is not the purity of their race for the sake of the mutual benefit of all races that concerns them, but the idea that they will taint their "pure" blood and culture with that coming from an "inferior" culture. I wonder what you, QuoVadisPetre, have to say about this? After all, it isn't a respect for your culture that prompts these men to appear to agree with you - it is a disdain for your culture, and utter disgust for your people. If they could, you would all be Westernized, or better yet, gone from their lives.
Jester,
QuoVadisPetre has argued that purity of blood strengthens the race and it's interests - yet he is of pure blood and has adopted almost exclusively Western interests that his people have seldom had any interest or entanglement. If his purity of blood is supposed to strengthen his race, why is he not bearing the fruits of this "improvement"?
You say that his race should have no bearing on his interests and goals in life. If that's the case why the big fuss over inter-racial marriage?
-
In my country, you probably know it is dominated by Buddhists; perhaps that's why most Vietnamese Catholic refugees disdain Vietnamese culture concerning religion, since the emperors persecuted them so and the Commies kicked them out, to boot. I don't deny the French wrongs, but the emperors, influenced by Confucianism and Buddhism, were worse, since Catholicism condemned worship of one's own ancestors!
BTW, Vladimir, I haven't argued the such; you twisted my argument. I argue that race and culture are equally important (which I didn't make clear), and wanting to strengthen racial (intellectual and physical) qualities of the race isn't wrong, and should be encouraged, provided it is in line with Catholic morality. One such thing is in my opinion, discouraging interracial mixing as normal!
-
In my country, you probably know it is dominated by Buddhists; perhaps that's why most Vietnamese Catholic refugees disdain Vietnamese culture concerning religion, since the emperors persecuted them so and the Commies kicked them out, to boot. I don't deny the French wrongs, but the emperors, influenced by Confucianism and Buddhism, were worse, since Catholicism condemned worship of one's own ancestors!
BTW, Vladimir, I haven't argued the such; you twisted my argument. I argue that race and culture are equally important (which I didn't make clear), and wanting to strengthen racial (intellectual and physical) qualities of the race isn't wrong, and should be encouraged, provided it is in line with Catholic morality. One such thing is in my opinion, discouraging interracial mixing as normal!
First of all, there is no inherent conflict or contradiction between adhering to orthodox Confucian teaching and those of the Holy Gospel. Please reference the life and work of Matteo Ricci, John C.H. Wu, Truong Vinh Ky, Nguyen Truong To, and other illustrious characters to illustrate this point.
Second of all, the persecution of Catholics under the Nguyen dynasty was done under the guise of purging Vietnamese society from perverse teachings that conflicted with Confucian orthodoxy which the Nguyen rulers wanted to re-affirm as the foundation of Vietnamese society. Buddhism had very little to do with the Nguyen court. And to a certain extent, the rulers of Vietnam did see through the error of the Holy See in forbidding ancestral rites - you can't argue this point because the Holy See itself retracted its condemnation several centuries too late for Catholics in China and Vietnam. "Ancestor worship" when properly understood without the influence of non-Confucian folk superstition does not constitute an act of religion and is perfectly fine when practiced within due bounds of propriety and without any superstitious attachments. Buddhism on the other hand was primarily a folk religion and had fallen far from the official protection and benediction of the emperor which it had enjoyed in previous dynasties. That being said, I have found it to be true that Vietnamese Catholics are often "puritanical" when it comes to their own culture and seem to think that Catholicism necessitates becoming Western. Of course this attitude earns them the disdain of other non-Catholic Vietnamese, and deservedly so. So in this regard, you do have a point - I just consider the premises on which Vietnamese Catholics base it to be invalid arguments.
How can I twist your argument if you didn't even make it clear?
How have your intellectual and physical attributes been strengthened? What exactly do you mean by that anyways? I suppose the Orientals can keep their squinty eyes and their uncanny ability to calculate the cost of items at the supermarket so that they can pay in exact change at the register. The Vietnamese can also keep their enamel-poor teeth which causes their teeth to yellow prematurely.
I also want to you know what you think about the above comment that Western culture is superior to that of the East.
-
...I have found it to be true that Vietnamese Catholics are often "puritanical" when it comes to their own culture and seem to think that Catholicism necessitates becoming Western. Of course this attitude earns them the disdain of other non-Catholic Vietnamese, and deservedly so. So in this regard, you do have a point - I just consider the premises on which Vietnamese Catholics base it to be invalid arguments.
How can I twist your argument if you didn't even make it clear?
How have your intellectual and physical attributes been strengthened? What exactly do you mean by that anyways? I suppose the Orientals can keep their squinty eyes and their uncanny ability to calculate the cost of items at the supermarket so that they can pay in exact change at the register. The Vietnamese can also keep their enamel-poor teeth which causes their teeth to yellow prematurely.
I also want to know what you think about the above comment that Western culture is superior to that of the East.
Which things in Vietnamese culture are worth keeping? Having a dragon outside the Vietnamese churches? Tet (which we do celebrate)? Having the ancient Chinese rites revived for the Vietnamese? Also, even if orthodox Confucianism is in line with the Gospel, at the point my parents were born, Buddhism was in the ascendancy, at least making an enormous impact in showing their prejudices against Catholics in the area they lived!
I thought I made it clear in the earlier posts concerning my position, but maybe you missed it so I repeated it. As for those defects, enamel-poor teeth is due mainly to malnutrition, and can be properly fixed! Squinty eyes aren't so bad, although I myself don't have them pronounced.
As for your last question, I take it for granted that he was referring to European Catholic culture. He may be wrong, but IMHO, I agree that they had the best culture, from the High Middle Ages until the rise of Protestantism. Every culture that is permeated with Catholicism is superior where it matters most: spirituality and the such, despite heresies and other troubles. I have no doubt that other cultures, especially Eastern, are more sophisticated and superior in many things to the West, but very deficient spiritually (barring those cultures also permeated with Catholicism). There, I said it. Nevertheless, I note also every culture's spiritual decline following the rise of secret societies, liberalism, and finally Vatican II.
-
Fine job IF! Now your thread even has Asian fighting Asian! And it will soon be rivaling the "Introduce Yourself" thread in number of pages!
-
Perhaps this thread should be moved to the WWIII sub-forum.
-
BTW, I have no objection to marrying outside one's nation per se (i.e., Chinese and Vietnamese, Koreans and Thai, etc.). That is, in my opinion, normal, if the cultural aspects are able to be reconciled, and it is IMHO still properly speaking one's race (in this case, Oriental).
-
I want to take a look at your supposition that race and culture are equally important.
First of all, I'm not even sure that the two can be validly compared. Race is a physical property, whereas culture is not.
On it's own, I don't think race is that important. It is the culture that is more important. Why else would you have Southern Chinese and Northern Vietnamese, many of whom are genetically very, very similar, not intermarrying with each other? The culture gap discourages it.
The culture is what gives race any meaning that it has. Racial "purity" (if such is attainable) is utterly meaningless if there is no deeper culture behind it. Example: Racially "pure" Asian-Americans that have been entirely assimilated into American culture.
I'd like to know what physical and intellectual attributes you have in mind. Mankind is generally on a gradually downward spiral from the Fall and the only good that I see in marrying one's race *purely* for the sake of preserving physical and intellectual attributes is transmitting the physical features of one's ancestors and also their tendencies to certain virtues and vices. The same types of attributes would be passed through an interracial marriage. So this isn't even really a "plus" for your argument.
Interestingly, Confucius dealt with a similar problem with his disciples being somewhat scandalized that he would dare to abandon the Han Chinese and go live among the non-Han barbarians to transmit his teachings, which were not being applied among the Chinese, to other people who would. This illustrates the superiority of culture over race. As does the arrogance of the Pharisees, whose pride in having Abraham for their ancestor was rebuked by Christ, who effectively told them not to take pride in their racial purity.
What point is it for you to keep the outer appearance without a deeper meaning behind it? To this, I would also quote Confucius speaking to someone about the sacrificial lamb in the court ritual "You love the sheep! I love the ritual!" (You love the outer observance! I love the deeper meaning!)
Honestly, seeing that you just admitted the inferiority of your own culture to that of the West, I see no reason why you are trying to perpetuate the state of inferiority of your miserable race - why don't you just marrying into a Western family, and maybe ten generations later your descendants won't be ostracized and can hope to partake in Western society and enjoy Western culture without standing out like sore thumbs. Your poor, backwards, non-European ethnicity can only be improved by mixing in some of that pure white blood you know - but of course, you wouldn't want to taint their blood with yours.
-
I guess you underrate European Catholic culture, then, since you admit you like any architecture of the Oriental over that of the Occidental! :rolleyes: Also, Vietnamese Catholics never want to Westernize, at least my parents! They still keep their traditions that they've learned, though other than Tet or other such traditions, I can't seem to see what is so special in Vietnamese culture, since it wasn't particularly permeated with Catholicism and seems very similar to the Chinese, whose Catholic culture is I think higher than those of the Vietnamese (usually being the conquered people).
As for downs of racial mixing, I already noted the mixing of French with the natives of Palestine during the Crusades but that seems to be ignored.
And now I seem to feel you talking down on me just because I don't seem to think much of Vietnamese culture (admiittedly never been exposed, since my parents were working for the government, and I attended Western schools), thanks to my parents being exiles from a Commie country (which still is and still persecutes Catholics).
As for your last accusation, I would probably change my mind if I find someone as you say, and I weighed the pros and cons of that particular interracial marriage. But I doubt it in the near future, since as I said previously, this is all theoretical and ideal. I know I don't live in an ideal world. I also already mentioned St. Martin de Porres as shaming most of us, including myself!
-
I want to take a look at your supposition that race and culture are equally important.
First of all, I'm not even sure that the two can be validly compared. Race is a physical property, whereas culture is not.
On it's own, I don't think race is that important. It is the culture that is more important. Why else would you have Southern Chinese and Northern Vietnamese, many of whom are genetically very, very similar, not intermarrying with each other? The culture gap discourages it.
The culture is what gives race any meaning that it has. Racial "purity" (if such is attainable) is utterly meaningless if there is no deeper culture behind it. Example: Racially "pure" Asian-Americans that have been entirely assimilated into American culture.
I'd like to know what physical and intellectual attributes you have in mind. Mankind is generally on a gradually downward spiral from the Fall and the only good that I see in marrying one's race *purely* for the sake of preserving physical and intellectual attributes is transmitting the physical features of one's ancestors and also their tendencies to certain virtues and vices. The same types of attributes would be passed through an interracial marriage. So this isn't even really a "plus" for your argument.
Interestingly, Confucius dealt with a similar problem with his disciples being somewhat scandalized that he would dare to abandon the Han Chinese and go live among the non-Han barbarians to transmit his teachings, which were not being applied among the Chinese, to other people who would. This illustrates the superiority of culture over race. As does the arrogance of the Pharisees, whose pride in having Abraham for their ancestor was rebuked by Christ, who effectively told them not to take pride in their racial purity.
What point is it for you to keep the outer appearance without a deeper meaning behind it? To this, I would also quote Confucius speaking to someone about the sacrificial lamb in the court ritual "You love the sheep! I love the ritual!" (You love the outer observance! I love the deeper meaning!)
Honestly, seeing that you just admitted the inferiority of your own culture to that of the West, I see no reason why you are trying to perpetuate the state of inferiority of your miserable race - why don't you just marrying into a Western family, and maybe ten generations later your descendants won't be ostracized and can hope to partake in Western society and enjoy Western culture without standing out like sore thumbs. Your poor, backwards, non-European ethnicity can only be improved by mixing in some of that pure white blood you know - but of course, you wouldn't want to taint their blood with yours.
You also have to consider that it would be nearly impossible for people of another race/culture to fully assimilate into another culture. Some of them might be able to but the vast majority could not.
-
"(admiittedly never been exposed, since my parents were working for the government, and I attended Western schools)"
Oops, that should be "barely exposed, other than Tet and the cuisine, and actually speaking a bit of Vietnamese before going to school."
-
I guess you underrate European Catholic culture, then, since you admit you like any architecture of the Oriental over that of the Occidental! :rolleyes: Also, Vietnamese Catholics never want to Westernize, at least my parents! They still keep their traditions that they've learned, though other than Tet or other such traditions, I can't seem to see what is so special in Vietnamese culture, since it wasn't particularly permeated with Catholicism and seems very similar to the Chinese, whose Catholic culture is I think higher than those of the Vietnamese (usually being the conquered people).
As for downs of racial mixing, I already noted the mixing of French with the natives of Palestine during the Crusades but that seems to be ignored.
And now I seem to feel you talking down on me just because I don't seem to think much of Vietnamese culture (admiittedly never been exposed, since my parents were working for the government, and I attended Western schools), thanks to my parents being exiles from a Commie country (which still is and still persecutes Catholics).
As for your last accusation, I would probably change my mind if I find someone as you say, and I weighed the pros and cons of that particular interracial marriage. But I doubt it in the near future.
The arguments of "your side" in your thread would be worthy of a bit more consideration if they didn't come from:
Telephorus: A member who desired to seek an inter-racial marriage himself, who has fawned over the supposed virtues of Muslim women, and who has convinced himself that minorities conspire against whites out of a feeling of inferiority (which ironically you have shown yourself) and that Asian women just can't get enough of American men (the same men who the same women describe as smelling like goats in their own language).
You: A fully Vietnamese man who is arguing that the intellectual and physical properties of a race are intrinsically strengthened by marrying within the race, yet cannot see anything special in his own culture, believes Western culture to be superior to his own culture, cannot boast bettering the interests of his race in any way, and would be rather indistinguishable from a child coming from a mixed race family of an American man and Vietnamese woman since he identifies more with Western culture.
InfiniteFaith: A member who's obtuse questions and comments always seem to inflame controversy and discord between other members.
Hatchc: A sycophantic cheerleader who appeared out of nowhere, yet has been observant enough to track down the racial background of all the members who have disagreed with Telephorus on issues regarding race
TraditionalCatholicGuy20: Someone who's ideal Catholic male is a knuckle dragging simian.
Who else did I miss?
Quite frankly QuoVadisPetre, my feelings toward you at this moment are a mixture of disappointment and disbelief. If you honestly don't see anything remarkable about your culture, which has a recorded history longer than that of Japan and boasts magnificent achievements in such fields like traditional medicine and literature, I'm not sure what do aside from shake my head and let you run aimlessly down your self-made path of cultural oblivion for the sake of racial purity, real or imagined.
-
Take it up with orthodox priests, like Fr. Messner, who state interracial mixing is a grave obligation, meaning it should not be entered upon lightly! I may have added to the interpretation by imposing my opinion but there it is.
I admit I am very ignorant about Vietnamese history and it's a grave loss. But what can a person do, being raised Novus Ordo, and going to Western schools, some unfortunately liberalized, my family just thinking of living a comfortable life, before finally discovering Tradition and now trying to just live a life of Catholic sanctity and action? You really think I can overcome that gap, especially since my parents unfortunately didn't have time for that? YOU DON'T KNOW MY SITUATION, FRANKLY SPEAKING!!!!!!!!! Also frankly speaking, I'd take more pride in the Vietnamese martyrs, no matter well we did in natural medicine and agriculture!
Personal attacks like this make me wonder if you really want me to realize my supposed errors? And you just cannot seem to admit that Catholicism raises a culture far above any material considerations. The only superior cultures I see are those ones permeated with Catholicism, admittedly on the decline now!
-
And BTW I have no feelings of "inferiority" at all, despite your presumption. I just acknowledge the fact that culture permeated with Catholicism is superior spiritually, where it counts, as opposed to material superiority, which one can take a pride in but at the same time, not elevate above the spiritual. God chose Europe to be the carrier of Catholicism, despite its many defects. That's all I'm acknowledging.
And if Vietnam had just such advances in agriculture and the such, hooray for that! However, I would rather it were Catholic and thus its culture elevated with it.
-
BTW, Vladimir, I guess your prejudices came to the fore, at a person born of exiles, admittedly barely exposed to the culture of his ethnicity and learning in Western schools, since there were none of his ethnicity, and was following the Novus Ordo more or less till around 2003, barely 10 years ago and having other problems I would rather keep quiet about, since they are painful. Let's just say I had a very painful childhood, and deprived of many things of my culture, since other than advances in agriculture and medicine, my parents thought little of Vietnamese culture, including theater, music, or the such, since they weren't permeated with Catholicism.
Despite all this, I will remain Catholic and will fight to the end, if it comes to it, God willing!
That said, I'm bowing out of this thread. Talking of race and such has now brought back pretty unpleasant memories in my childhood. Think whatever you want of me: I just ask you to pray for me and I will do the same!
-
Fr. Messner says experience is the key, and there can be no general principles except that people entering into such marriages should know the grave responsibility of it before God.
No problem. [b]I'm sure Sigismund and other Catholic couples who make this decision do not enter into it lightly.
[/b]
That's all. In addition, it is my opinion that racial mixing should not be the norm as I said time and again.
Nobody ever said it should be. This is a false dichotomy. You don't have to say that either should be the norm nor does it follow that those are the only two alternatives. The whole point is that a personal preference either way should not be made into a general norm.
If you think it should be, provide some objective basis for saying so. Genetic facts and an inference based on them would be, for example, an objective basis. Otherwise what you say is a purely subjective preference in which case it simply cannot apply as a general norm, no matter how strenuously those who think it should be assert themselves, nor how ardently they downthumb those who disagree.
I did not enter into marriage lightly, to be sure. The fact that our races were different did not concern either of us at all, and I would say our experience as spouses and parents confirmed that there was no reason it should have.
Sigimund,
Thats great that you have a successful marriage. But you can really only speak for yourself. Not on behalf of all interracial relationships.
-
Hatchc: A sycophantic cheerleader who appeared out of nowhere, yet has been observant enough to track down the racial background of all the members who have disagreed with Telephorus on issues regarding race
:laugh1:
I'm a long time observer of this forum. I do agree that InfiniteFaith has a strange way about him. Not trying to throw him under the bus or anything.
Telesphorus, however, has one of the 3 or 4 most solid Catholic minds of anyone here.
I will admit: I am a fan. If that's interpreted as sycophancy then so be it.
I'm also a fan of you and PereJoseph and some others who disagree with Telesphorus on racial issues.
-
Hatchc: A sycophantic cheerleader who appeared out of nowhere, yet has been observant enough to track down the racial background of all the members who have disagreed with Telephorus on issues regarding race
:laugh1:
I'm a long time observer of this forum. I do agree that InfiniteFaith has a strange way about him. Not trying to throw him under the bus or anything.
Telesphorus, however, has one of the 3 or 4 most solid Catholic minds of anyone here.
I will admit: I am a fan. If that's interpreted as sycophancy then so be it.
I'm also a fan of you and PereJoseph and some others who disagree with Telesphorus on racial issues.
Why do you say a "strange way about him"?
-
There have been times I thought you were a troll. I remember the thread about your concern with officials at your university spying on you. You also have a strange way of putting things. Can't quite put my finger on it.
It's probably the case that you're merely eccentric in your ways.
-
As I frequently say, race is usually an issue only insofar as it tends to represent a given culture.
Culture is the main issue.
Mixing cultures should not be done lightly. Think about what culture IS. It is, simply put, that which forms one's views on just about EVERY ASPECT of day-to-day life.
How can two people have different views on "everything in day-to-day life" (culture) and not have more potential for conflict?
Race is a material consideration. That is why it is subordinate to the Faith. But because it has to do with material things, it is also a very real consideration.
I also think some members in this thread need to TRY to extract some of their emotions from this discussion. We're not talking about individuals here. We're talking about abstract things -- trends, concepts, what is best, etc.
Some people take EVERYTHING personally.
I'll refrain from mentioning which gender that is normally typical of.
The truth that the importance of race is essentially a question of civilization should be helpful in the complicated conversation we're having here. It isn't a matter of spiritual or metaphysical inequalities but of natural inequalities that are relevant in very different ways in very different times and places. Probably most mixed-race people usually ought to identify the naturally superior racial ancestry within themselves and personally support that particular racial group, but for the sake of helping our Roman civilization, not as a matter of specific religious doctrine or faith. Lay people who belong to one specific race probably should only rarely concern themselves too much with people of other races. If Catholics are very compassionate towards strangers and foreigners they should probably join the clergy who are called to such exceptional high standards of moral sensitivity.
Speaking of civilization, it may help to clarify that Rome herself is not "Western" or "Eastern." She is in Europe and the fount of a European civilization that is therefore Roman, but also therefore in essence not "Western." So when this writer may describe himself as "Euro-centric," that is only true according to my own notion that our Roman civilization is in various ways European, but not Western.
In short, our true historic white European civilization is Catholic or Universal, not Western. The Protestants may well be Western, but we Catholics are not and never have been. This leads to the very subtle point that our white European Catholic civilization could flourish in non-white countries like China or Viet Nam and be extensions of our historic white European/Roman civilization, yet be racially non-white and non-Western. This is something like the position of Arabs within Islam, which is often described as an Arab civilization that consists of mostly non-Arab people.
So our Roman civilization is from white Europe and will always have a foundation that is historically and culturally white European, yet because Rome has never been Western she is not restricted to the white race and naturally includes the best from every race. Something a little like how Islam has an Arab cultural foundation, yet is often expressed through very non-Arab races and peoples.
To translate this elevated language into more practical terms, wherever we may live white European Catholics have a special responsibility within our Roman civilization to be the most central natural element within Catholicism. We Catholics may not be only white, but we must be careful never to be anti-white. The unity of our civilization is hierarchic, not egalitarian, and a hierarchy is unified by its highest elements. On the natural level, which is the level that most concerns lay people as their own primary responsibility, that highest element can only be the white European Roman Catholics. But spiritually that higher level consists of our celibate clergy and priesthood, not specifically made up of white Europeans in particular. Such is how the Incarnation of God among human beings works for us as the one and only divine and universal civilization of our fallen human race.
In terms of civilization miscegenation is therefore sometimes allowed for exceptional reasons, and sometimes even on a large scale, but normally miscegenation must injure civilization and also be a mortal sin of willful egalitarianism against the true interests of our universal hierarchic Roman and non-Western civilization.
The Divinity of Christ has no skin-color, but the Humanity of Christ is most modestly and compassionately of the white Indo-European race, the naturally most universal among the human races. And the Romans, His divine and human Chosen People on earth, are humbly and meekly likewise.
For Catholics, and even on the natural level, nobility obligates and Rudyard Kipling was right: There is such a thing as the European Roman White Man's Burden.
@Clare,
It is very well if you don't share my male sternness against miscegenation. I'm a Catholic Solitary, you're a Catholic lady and our attitudes towards public matters should be very different. We men are hopelessly inferior to the ladies when it comes to the Catholic virtues of kindness and gentleness.
-
I agree with a lot of the posts in this thread (including matthew's post) and i appreciate the contributions of those whom i disagree with, providing they were civil and seemed to encourage or at least not undermine, a sense of catholic fraternity. The thing that i come away from this thinking is that as men we need to take on the burden of our fathers and carry on the line. I think that is our duty. If we do not do it, then I'm inclined to think we should be helping others do it, most probably through a holy order, but if not, then somehow.
-
Now, if somebody wants to tell me not to be proud of my ancestors and that my father's line does not represent a biologically meaningful group, then I'm inclined to think they want to exterminate/erase my people or at least suppress us. I'd say, that's asking for a fight. Of course, if they are too strong, then I may pretend to submit, while biding my time.
Would I betray our faith, to save my race? I should not. My fidelity to our faith should supersede all other duties and obligations. Would I fight and even die for my race? Give the lives of my sons for my race? I think I should be willing to, if I am called to. That, is in essence, what I believe patriotism is.
-
This is disgusting and frankly I am shocked that the owner of this site would allow garbage like this here.
Mattew allows a lot of talk about taboo subjects on this forum. I am sure that many people get offended by many conversations that go on here.
I guess I don't get around the slimier parts of this forum. I find this "white power" nonsense deeply disturbing and profoundly un-Catholic. By definition.
It isn't just some "slimy" little corner...
This is now the longest and most active thread I've seen (200+ pages)! Having just surveyed all other topics, I saw that threads on "prayer" and "prayer requests" only had about 3 or 4 pages, threads on Catholic art or music have more, but often seem semi-abandoned? It is definitely attracting the most attention, and that really makes me sick at heart. If we all have "liberty in doubtful matters," then I don't know why people are condemned for saying this thread is "repulsive."
I find it much more "repulsive" than leprosy, birth defects, or actual blood and gore. Jesus died in a way many thought "repulsive," but I wouldn't hear people attack His Glorious Death, nor do I appreciate dear people with Downs Syndrome (who are often very sweet) described as "repulsive" in any way. Can anyone really say that is charitable, when the mother of such a child might see it?! There is already a great trend to abort all D.S. babies!
Matthew's rule, I thought, had been against the spirit of all this, as I quote:
The rules of CathInfo can be reduced to:
In necessary things, unity.
In doubtful things, liberty.
In all things, charity.
(from St. Augustine)
This thread is full to bursting with vicious attacks about a very "doubtful" matter. If this forum supports "Charity, charity, and again charity"---how can people stand this? :facepalm:
You may ban me, if you wish. If anyone else feels this way, I would like to know if there is still real interest in topics about Christianity.
-
Why do you say a "strange way about him"?
Take this thread for example--back to your original post. You don't know what concerns you should discuss privately with good counsel or PM somebody vs. publicly posting a question that, to many, is tantamount to screaming ##g###!!! And then you're shocked when some read it like that and it sets off a firestorm! Your naïveté bewilders me!
In my opinion, the coincidence of time and place is not currently appropriate for having this divisive discussion here. Does divisive discussion occur here all the time? Yes. But it is a) usually much more germane to the crisis in the church; or b) not nearly so divisive as this topic.
-
It's probably the case that you're merely eccentric in your ways.
Understatement.
-
Telephorus: A member who desired to seek an inter-racial marriage himself, who has fawned over the supposed virtues of Muslim women, and who has convinced himself that minorities conspire against whites out of a feeling of inferiority (which ironically you have shown yourself) and that Asian women just can't get enough of American men (the same men who the same women describe as smelling like goats in their own language).
Vladimir, while I've always been very impressed by your intellect (and Daegus' intellect too), your reaction to this discussion tells us a lot more about you than about me.
A fellow here can go to teach English in South Korea, and he'll be followed around by a gaggle of teenage girls.
You let me know when that happens to a male teacher of Chinese coming over here.
What's ironic is that my position actually has your best interests at heart.
Homogeneous societies are far more likely to be monogamous.
It's when different racial groups mix that you see polygamy or this monstrous system developing today developes.
-
I have no objection to people showing preferences.
Clare, you just said you didn't believe people couldn't improve their race. Now when darker women want lighter children, that's about (in their minds) improving their race. You claim to distinguish the personal from general values, but the reality is liberal PC society, of which you are an enthusiastic supporter (on this issue) promotes and praises miscegenation while it would condemn a woman who said she wishes to marry within her race. I'm convinced that you are not telling the truth about your real attitude towards a white woman who would categorically refuse to mate outside of her race.
I do object to people saying that other people should share their preferences.
You mean about race. Obviously you think that certain kind of preferences are normal and others are abnormal. However, around race you create a PC force-field where "normal" preferences are not allowed to exist.
You said before it was vain for people to try to improve their race or to want their descendants to look like them. When I pointed out the absurdity of such a statement, you then said it was just a matter of personal taste.
We know very well Clare that you are just like other liberals who would eagerly approve of interracial marriage while at the same time you would scorn someone who refused to marry outside their race in order to preserve their race.
How do we know this? Because you condemn holding race as a value.
This has nothing to do with "improving the race", but (for want of a better phrase) planning one's family.
It has everything to do with the racial genetics of one's descendants.
So don't lie and say it doesn't have to do with "improving one's race"
When darker skinned women pursue lighter skinned men, that's exactly what it's about.
Of course one should consider how one's children might turn out. One cannot know how they will turn out. And I doubt many couples imagine that their choice contributes to "improving the race".
Yes, of course they believe it contributes to the improvement of their people. Of their society. That's a reason why Catholics have large families. To contribute to a Catholic society. And to do so they consider many factors.
If they do, they're delusional!
Stupid statement. By definition when people have good families they are furthering the race. By definition.
My parents (both white) could not have foreseen that their first (blonde) child would be autistic.
That is irrelevant to the question of whether or not people choose mates to benefit their posterity.
Neither was it foreseen that I (also blonde) would get MS within a year of marriage!
Again Clare, that's irrelevant.
It's not so much a case of bell-curves, as curve-balls!
You have tried to change the subject. You said before it was vanity for people to try to "improve their race" - (meaning, improving the lines of their descendants), when in fact that's exactly what women who pursue after light-skinned men are trying to do - trying to have lighter descendants because they regard it as an improvement.
You say you have no problem with it as a personal preference - again - you weren't making the distinction before, you were talking about people wanting their descendants looking like themselves and having the same race as themselves.
What's very obvious to me, is that Clare cares more about people believing the race-mixing should be normalized than she does about Catholic teaching on divorce and remarriage.
She will sit here all day defending political correctness but made apologies for Vox.
-
Skin color is literally skin deep, and irrelevant in any way that matters.
Sigismund, why do you pretend that the characteristics inherited by many, many generations are simply a matter of "skin color."?
Can't you see the absurdity of equating race to skin color?
-
I for my part care nothing for political correctness but only say this because you are being unjust to mixed race couples.
That is nonsense.
To be politically incorrect is one thing, to simply be factually incorrect is another.
You are factually incorrect to believe that race has no valuable significance.
Telesphorus, let me frame this in a more personal way, if you don't mind, to show you how your view does in fact impinge on the legitimate freedom of others.
You've said in the past, I think, that you would not rule out the possibility of marrying a girl of a different race.
Yes, but I do rule out certain races and mixtures completely.
Now, supposing such were about to happen, and if both of you were attracted to each other and had taken it into account and were ok with it, how would you like for your intended marriage to fall apart simply because someone on her side of the family didn't like her marrying someone of your race and for that reason opposed your marriage?
It would depend on the steps they took to thwart things.
Would you not protest at that and feel this was an injustice?
It could be an injustice, maybe not. Since I would generally rule out those who are not at least 50 percent white, it seems unlikely there would be an objection against a marriage on their side.
Whether they were opposed to inter racial marriage "in general" or it just so happened in your particular case would mean little to you. Are you telling me that you would defend and support and praise as good and necessary this family's dislike of mixed race marriage in this hypothetical case when it would actually affect you adversely and indeed be an injustice toward you?
I respect a family's right to hold such opinions.
In holding to a general opposition to race-mixing, it does not then follow that one wishes to interfere in the business of others.
What we see here, is that pro-race mixing liberals are strongly against white families holding race as a value. Ultimately, it's those kinds of people who are responsible for Catholic family life being threatened by the social welfare services of the culturally marxist state.
I have absolutely no confidence that the liberal and PC Catholics would stand up for the rights of their fellow Catholics. I'm quite convinced they have a knife for our backs, just as Opus Fellay and the conciliarists have knives waiting for the backs of real traditionalists.
-
There are many people here saying they don't have a problem with "personal preferences."
As a thought experiment, how do you think they would react to the following two statements?
(both by hypothetical women)
1) I'm a white European and I would only ever consider a mate of the same racial background. I'm proud of being white and I don't like the thought of my children being so different from myself and my ancestors.
2) I'm a Latina/East Asian woman. I think men who are tall, light-skinned, light-haired are very attractive. I think mixed race children would be beautiful!
It's pretty obvious that these people who claim to have no problem with personal preferences would react unfavorably to the first and favorably to the second.
As for these attitudes of these darker women, in fact it's actually a lot worse than that, just looking at the kind of movies and films these people watch. It is common for surgeries and skin-lightening to be done, especially in the media, to make people seem more European. And in mixed countries, where there are more European or caucasian looking people, typically the actors and actresses in popular film look like that, not like the common people. It's also common for contempt towards the men of their own country to be expressed.
Although, to give props to Vladimir's people, a Vietnamese girl who bugs me on skype from time to time says she prefers her own countrymen to Americans because she thinks American men are not kind.
-
I find it much more "repulsive" than leprosy
So you think the typical attitudes of Catholics of the 1950s, who would have not been happy about their children miscegenating, is worse than leprosy.
That doesn't come from Catholicism.
You also wish to mischaracterize and blacken the reputations of the rest of us.
Again, that doesn't come from Catholicism.
It comes from leftism, and leftism invariably persecutes those who don't conform to it.
-
So in other words, you say that race doesn't matter then you turn around and support people who think that race matters. Race obviously matters to some as you admitted yourself in this post. Thats why people have these "preferences" as you would call them. Some people prefer black guys, mestizos, asians, etc. Race certainly matters to them!
Does hair colour matter? Gentlemen, apparently, prefer blondes.
I'm still glad that some are willing to marry brunettes and redheads though!
I believe the sequel to "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes" is
"But...Gentlemen Marry Brunettes"
Rather, you should be glad that some are willing to marry blondes...
-
Matto,
It is strange that on this Catholic forum, we do not care about Catholicism as much as we care about race, judging by the number of responses per thread.
Can you cite examples of those who "do not care about Catholicism"? It's quite an allegation to make. Do you reckon they are infiltrating?
We often get this total rubbish about people like Michele Renouf. I heard it myself when in London that some SSPX folk stated certain people only turn up to events in the hope to hear Jєω bashing and not for any spiritual enrichment. Events that they advertised as "all are welcome" and took up money at.
So again Matto, who are these people who "do note care about Catholicism"?
-
As for the thread itself it was answered several pages ago and a key word is common sense. I am not that interested in engaging with liberals and in particular those using the term 'racism' invented by Trotsky/Bronstein.
There is more to be done than engaging with these liberals.
-
Hatchc,
Thank you for taking my comment with a bit of humour, as my hyperbolic verbiage suggested was appropriate.
QuoVadisPetre,
My comments, harsh though they may have been in reprimanding you, were intended to call attention to your own failure to live up to the standards that you claim "pure race" marriages encourage. If anything, please take this opportunity to change your direction for the good of your countrymen, and refrain from adding to your worries the affairs of Westerners. You made a point that traditional culture would be of little use to you here in America, and indeed even in the East -where traditional culture no longer thriving or paid much attention to. Indeed this is far too true. But, I have hope that even if I can transmit a bit of our ancient and venerable culture to even just one person, that one day when the time is right our glorious Confucian culture will once again rise, this time enriched and adorned with the illuminating doctrines of the Holy Catholic Church. And to this end, I find men like PereJoseph to be of more like mind to me than racially pure Asians that could care less for their culture and run after the ways of Westerners, whether out of a fondness for novelty or contempt for their own culture. Your lack of self-respect for your ancestry is undoubtedly due to your ignorance, and whatever your past, you can no longer hide behind excuses to remain in woeful ignorance of your own people. Take a moment and consider that it was because of their ancient and venerable culture that all the glorious Vietnamese martyrs were strengthened and lived and died as honourable men and women and holy Catholics.
Telephorus,
An American-born Asian can also go to Asia to teach English and have a "gaggle of teen-age girls" following him around. It has much more to do with the novelty of a foreigner and, in some cases, the prospect of potential marriage in order to go to America than the inherent "superiority" of Western men.
And I'm not quite sure what my posting in this thread is revealing about me since I have stated nothing new that I have not posted before, albeit with varying degrees of detail and extent.
Also, (this is not directed at Telephorus), I do not recall ever using the words "nαzι" or "racism" in this thread, and I would be hard pressed to remember when I last used those words as a derogatory adjectives when posting on related subjects.
-
I just read your answer, Vladimir, and as my last post on this thread (since I have somewhat recovered from last night), frankly I'll tell what I think of Vietnamese culture: it is thoroughly pagan, at least as of right now, with the main religion a mixture of Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism, and yet Buddhism being the most popular both in the home country and in the US. Theater, music are all thoroughly permeated with material and pagan things. If there is anything I like in the Vietnamese culture, it is those things which were influenced by Catholicism or neutral, such as art, architecture (which is actually very nice when the pagan elements are gotten rid of), traditional clothing, and even sacred music composed by good Vietnamese Catholic composers (though I've yet to hear of any). I'll definitely embrace Vietnamese culture once it becomes permeated with Catholicism; until then, I only embrace the Catholicized and neutral elements, while at the same time repudiating any of those permeated through and through with paganism. And also still acknowledging any culture thoroughly permeated with Catholicism is superior where it counts, as I've said time and again, spirituality; I said I already acknowledge the material accomplishments in my culture, such as agriculture (who could forget the rice fields), pottery, and medicine, and in as much as it retained Confucius' teachings without blemish, that too is admirable, though far below Catholicism.
-
Egalitarianism does seem like a slippery slope.
They say race/ethnicity/ancestry/blood is only "skin deep." They also say, gender is only a matter of "plumbing." So, the idea seems to be, if you cut up cadavers of dead whites, blacks, orientals, indians, male or female, the only differences you find are either superficial or inconsequential. Apparently, our ancestors were supposed to have been too "superstitious" to allow human dissection, thus they never realized how similar we all are, but with the advent of the enlightenment and the flowering of science, we were (or most of us anyway) "illuminated" to the truths that had once been hidden from us by a "repressive" culture, steeped in roman catholicism. I suppose there's a grain of truth in that, but then again they say, iirc, the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are only around 4%. So, just because a difference is slight, doesn't mean it isn't profound.
On the other hand they tell us, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are "born that way." Yet, I'm told, if you cut one open, they look just like anyone else. Ah, but then they'll say, maybe the difference occurs because of a complex "soup" or mixture of genetic and pre-birth environmental causes. So, i couldn't see it without a microscope/a "time machine" and even if i had one, i wouldn't know what i was looking at, because i'm not an expert in that kind of genetics and fetal development. In fact, even those folks seem somewhat baffled by it all.
"Scientific and medical understanding is that sɛҳuąƖ orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biological and environmental factors,[1][3] especially with regard to early uterine environment.[4] While there are those who still hold the view that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activity is "unnatural" or "dysfunctional",[5][6] research has shown that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is an example of a normal and natural variation in human sɛҳuąƖity and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects.[1][7] Prejudice and discrimination against ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ and bisɛҳuąƖ people, however, have been shown to cause significant psychological harm, and is especially damaging to gαy children.[7][8]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity
Statements like the one above, prove to me that terms like "science" and "research" have become meaningless terms, due to so much dishonesty, driven by a desire for "wrong equality," rooted in, i think, a desire for "wrong liberty."
-
I just read your answer, Vladimir, and as my last post on this thread (since I have somewhat recovered from last night), frankly I'll tell what I think of Vietnamese culture: it is thoroughly pagan, at least as of right now, with the main religion a mixture of Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism, and yet Buddhism being the most popular both in the home country and in the US. Theater, music are all thoroughly permeated with material and pagan things. If there is anything I like in the Vietnamese culture, it is those things which were influenced by Catholicism or neutral, such as art, architecture (which is actually very nice when the pagan elements are gotten rid of), traditional clothing, and even sacred music composed by good Vietnamese Catholic composers (though I've yet to hear of any). I'll definitely embrace Vietnamese culture once it becomes permeated with Catholicism; until then, I only embrace the Catholicized and neutral elements, while at the same time repudiating any of those permeated through and through with paganism. And also still acknowledging any culture thoroughly permeated with Catholicism is superior where it counts, as I've said time and again, spirituality; I said I already acknowledge the material accomplishments in my culture, such as agriculture (who could forget the rice fields), pottery, and medicine, and in as much as it retained Confucius' teachings without blemish, that too is admirable, though far below Catholicism.
Behold the temerity of a man who, showing nothing but contempt for his culture, dares to say that he is strengthening his race through his "purity". No QuoVadisPetre, much better that you were of mixed blood or did not have an ounce of our ancient Oriental blood running through your veins, for if such self-hatred and sniveling subservience to the West is the product of your pedigree, I wish to have nothing to do with it. Please, refrain from daring to refer to yourself as Vietnamese if you hold our culture in such disdain.
Indeed, in the event of a future re-evangelization of the Orient, it is men precisely like you that will hinder, thwart, and ultimately destroy the good fruits that the Orient would otherwise bear for the Church through your blind and ignorant insistence on the superiority of the West.
I echo the words of our great sage, Mencius: "I have heard of men using the doctrines of our great land to change barbarians, but I have never yet heard of any being changed by barbarians...I have heard of birds leaving dark valleys to remove to lofty trees, but I have not heard of their descending from lofty trees to enter into dark valleys."
By making Catholicism, by definition a UNIVERSAL religion, into a Western religion, you fall into the same errors perpetuated by enemies of the Church in the Orient. Men with this mindset have been stumbling blocks to conversion in the past, and such is their stubborn nature that they will unfortunately be so in the future as well.
How true, the words of the ancients - "Therefore, those who love not their parents, but love those of others are mockeries of virtue. Those who respect not their parents, but respect those of others are mockeries of propriety."
-
I'll definitely embrace Vietnamese culture once it becomes permeated with Catholicism; until then, I only embrace the Catholicized and neutral elements, while at the same time repudiating any of those permeated through and through with paganism.
I feel the same way about American culture.
That doesn't mean I don't value my American/European heritage.
While culture is typically an expression of race, race exists independently and has a value independent to culture.
-
I just have to comment on that remark, Vladimir, about the Catholic Church, since that is an unjust accusation, before leaving. I am not making the Church a Western religion; I am acknowledging Her as Roman. From Rome all the cultures of the pagans were uplifted and beautified, and objectively speaking, the countries of Europe, both Eastern and Western, were the most influenced and thus spiritually superior in artwork, architecture, music, laws, etc.; I want the same for my culture, but I know I can't do it for the moment, and frankly speaking, I don't believe I'll survive the turmoil in this era. I'll pray that others less affected than me by Westernization can uplift Vietnamese culture, the way missionaries did for the European pagan barbarians. there is a difference between acknowledging spiritual superiority of a culture and disdaining one's own culture, which I do not (barring its pagan and reprehensible elements).
For me, the pressing concerns are the advances into the Catholic Church that the enemies of God have done and the concern of keeping my faith in a Socialist society (for such is the US).
-
Tele, QVP, and Bernadette have won this debate, I think. :smile:
-
By making Catholicism, by definition a UNIVERSAL religion, into a Western religion, you fall into the same errors perpetuated by enemies of the Church in the Orient. Men with this mindset have been stumbling blocks to conversion in the past, and such is their stubborn nature that they will unfortunately be so in the future as well.
Just because it's a universal religion doesn't mean Catholics should marry just any Catholic, Vladimir.
No one on this thread is saying racial mixing is sinful, we're just saying it creates unnecessary differences in marriage, and people should generally stick to marrying someone their own race. There's nothing "stubborn" about holding such a belief, nor does it resemble the beliefs of the enemies of the Church.
-
By making Catholicism, by definition a UNIVERSAL religion, into a Western religion, you fall into the same errors perpetuated by enemies of the Church in the Orient. Men with this mindset have been stumbling blocks to conversion in the past, and such is their stubborn nature that they will unfortunately be so in the future as well.
Just because it's a universal religion doesn't mean Catholics should marry just any Catholic, Vladimir.
No one on this thread is saying racial mixing is sinful, we're just saying it creates unnecessary differences in marriage, and people should generally stick to marrying someone their own race. There's nothing "stubborn" about holding such a belief, nor does it resemble the beliefs of the enemies of the Church.
Perfectly stated, SSS..
-
By making Catholicism, by definition a UNIVERSAL religion, into a Western religion, you fall into the same errors perpetuated by enemies of the Church in the Orient. Men with this mindset have been stumbling blocks to conversion in the past, and such is their stubborn nature that they will unfortunately be so in the future as well.
Just because it's a universal religion doesn't mean Catholics should marry just any Catholic, Vladimir.
No one on this thread is saying racial mixing is sinful, we're just saying it creates unnecessary differences in marriage, and people should generally stick to marrying someone their own race. There's nothing "stubborn" about holding such a belief, nor does it resemble the beliefs of the enemies of the Church.
Perfectly stated, SSS..
Thank you. :)
-
Truly, a gentleman that converses with mean men first corrupts his own tongue.
-
Truly, a gentleman that converses with mean men first corrupts his own tongue.
I was charitable in my response to you, Vlad. And I think others have been as well. Not sure where you're getting "mean" from.
Actually, I dont think you've been much of a gentleman in this thread. You've taken a few swipes at several posters.
-
Ah, but you betray your ignorance by automatically assuming that the only alternative to the French rule was the oppression of the Communist state. This is undoubtedly due to general ignorance about Vietnam's history since it is an insignificant country to the rest of the world's history. You see, the nationalistic anti-French movement did not originate as a Communist revolution (if it was, why would so many Catholics support it?), but was later effectively hijacked by Communists. The French were also terrorists, and had no qualms about imprisoning Catholic priests that spoke out for their country. If it's worth anything, the Japanese were far more brutal during their occupation, and the treatment of the Chinese towards the Vietnamese throughout history does not need any further comment.
"WESTERN CULTURE IS SUPERIOR TO THAT OF THE EAST"
Behold, CathInfo, the true face of these posters. When it boils down to it, it is not the purity of their race for the sake of the mutual benefit of all races that concerns them, but the idea that they will taint their "pure" blood and culture with that coming from an "inferior" culture. I wonder what you, QuoVadisPetre, have to say about this? After all, it isn't a respect for your culture that prompts these men to appear to agree with you - it is a disdain for your culture, and utter disgust for your people. If they could, you would all be Westernized, or better yet, gone from their lives.
Jester,
QuoVadisPetre has argued that purity of blood strengthens the race and it's interests - yet he is of pure blood and has adopted almost exclusively Western interests that his people have seldom had any interest or entanglement. If his purity of blood is supposed to strengthen his race, why is he not bearing the fruits of this "improvement"?
You say that his race should have no bearing on his interests and goals in life. If that's the case why the big fuss over inter-racial marriage?
Yep I am very bigoted and ignorant. I'm a racist. I'm an αnтι-ѕємιтє. I'm whatever you think I am. :wink:
Now before you start saying anything I never supported the Vietnam War, since LBJ brought American troops into Vietnam over the lie about the North Vietnemese "attack" over the Gulf of Tonkin. I just mentioned that Ho Chi Minh was a Communist state terrorist. That being said I would have never supported the liberal hippie counterculture either.
As for the French they show more culture than any Asian country. The French have for example the Chartes Cathedral, they have classical music, they have writers like De Maistre, etc. And when the French were in Vietnam they helped the Vietnemese out by building dams, bridges, buildings, etc. Were there atrocities the French committed? Of course every empire has atrocities, especially the Japenese Empire but that didn't give America the right to drop atomic bombs and firebomb Tokyo, killing innocent civilians.
I'd like to add also a key tenet of Marxism was the destruction of the old European empires and the liberation of Third World peoples. By the way I'm a nationalist myself which is why I oppose Asian immigration into my country. :wink:
-
Ah, but you betray your ignorance by automatically assuming that the only alternative to the French rule was the oppression of the Communist state. This is undoubtedly due to general ignorance about Vietnam's history since it is an insignificant country to the rest of the world's history. You see, the nationalistic anti-French movement did not originate as a Communist revolution (if it was, why would so many Catholics support it?), but was later effectively hijacked by Communists. The French were also terrorists, and had no qualms about imprisoning Catholic priests that spoke out for their country. If it's worth anything, the Japanese were far more brutal during their occupation, and the treatment of the Chinese towards the Vietnamese throughout history does not need any further comment.
"WESTERN CULTURE IS SUPERIOR TO THAT OF THE EAST"
Behold, CathInfo, the true face of these posters. When it boils down to it, it is not the purity of their race for the sake of the mutual benefit of all races that concerns them, but the idea that they will taint their "pure" blood and culture with that coming from an "inferior" culture. I wonder what you, QuoVadisPetre, have to say about this? After all, it isn't a respect for your culture that prompts these men to appear to agree with you - it is a disdain for your culture, and utter disgust for your people. If they could, you would all be Westernized, or better yet, gone from their lives.
Jester,
QuoVadisPetre has argued that purity of blood strengthens the race and it's interests - yet he is of pure blood and has adopted almost exclusively Western interests that his people have seldom had any interest or entanglement. If his purity of blood is supposed to strengthen his race, why is he not bearing the fruits of this "improvement"?
You say that his race should have no bearing on his interests and goals in life. If that's the case why the big fuss over inter-racial marriage?
Yep I am very bigoted and ignorant. I'm a racist. I'm an αnтι-ѕємιтє. I'm whatever you think I am. :wink:
Now before you start saying anything I never supported the Vietnam War, since LBJ brought American troops into Vietnam over the lie about the North Vietnemese "attack" over the Gulf of Tonkin. I just mentioned that Ho Chi Minh was a Communist state terrorist. That being said I would have never supported the liberal hippie counterculture either.
As for the French they show more culture than any Asian country. The French have for example the Chartes Cathedral, they have classical music, they have writers like De Maistre, etc. And when the French were in Vietnam they helped the Vietnemese out by building dams, bridges, buildings, etc. Were there atrocities the French committed? Of course every empire has atrocities, especially the Japenese Empire but that didn't give America the right to drop atomic bombs and firebomb Tokyo, killing innocent civilians.
I'd like to add also a key tenet of Marxism was the destruction of the old European empires and the liberation of Third World peoples. By the way I'm a nationalist myself which is why I oppose Asian immigration into my country. :wink:
70% of illegal immigrants are from mexico. While I agree with taking a stand against Asian ILLEGAL immigration into the US...the biggest problem is from mexico. Just thought I would point that out.
-
70% of illegal immigrants are from mexico. While I agree with taking a stand against Asian ILLEGAL immigration into the US...the biggest problem is from mexico. Just thought I would point that out.
I understand that of course (you're talking to one of the strongest opponents of immigration on this site) but I am talking about LEGAL immigration as well from Asian nations, which is also destroying this country.
-
By the way Vladimir I'd like to add that something that I agree with Asian countries is their strong stance against immigration and foreign influence. Indeed Japan and Korea have not sufferered from not taking in immigrants, something the West could learn from and immitate.
-
Ah, but you betray your ignorance by automatically assuming that the only alternative to the French rule was the oppression of the Communist state. This is undoubtedly due to general ignorance about Vietnam's history since it is an insignificant country to the rest of the world's history. You see, the nationalistic anti-French movement did not originate as a Communist revolution (if it was, why would so many Catholics support it?), but was later effectively hijacked by Communists. The French were also terrorists, and had no qualms about imprisoning Catholic priests that spoke out for their country. If it's worth anything, the Japanese were far more brutal during their occupation, and the treatment of the Chinese towards the Vietnamese throughout history does not need any further comment.
"WESTERN CULTURE IS SUPERIOR TO THAT OF THE EAST"
Behold, CathInfo, the true face of these posters. When it boils down to it, it is not the purity of their race for the sake of the mutual benefit of all races that concerns them, but the idea that they will taint their "pure" blood and culture with that coming from an "inferior" culture. I wonder what you, QuoVadisPetre, have to say about this? After all, it isn't a respect for your culture that prompts these men to appear to agree with you - it is a disdain for your culture, and utter disgust for your people. If they could, you would all be Westernized, or better yet, gone from their lives.
Jester,
QuoVadisPetre has argued that purity of blood strengthens the race and it's interests - yet he is of pure blood and has adopted almost exclusively Western interests that his people have seldom had any interest or entanglement. If his purity of blood is supposed to strengthen his race, why is he not bearing the fruits of this "improvement"?
You say that his race should have no bearing on his interests and goals in life. If that's the case why the big fuss over inter-racial marriage?
Yep I am very bigoted and ignorant. I'm a racist. I'm an αnтι-ѕємιтє. I'm whatever you think I am. :wink:
Now before you start saying anything I never supported the Vietnam War, since LBJ brought American troops into Vietnam over the lie about the North Vietnemese "attack" over the Gulf of Tonkin. I just mentioned that Ho Chi Minh was a Communist state terrorist. That being said I would have never supported the liberal hippie counterculture either.
As for the French they show more culture than any Asian country. The French have for example the Chartes Cathedral, they have classical music, they have writers like De Maistre, etc. And when the French were in Vietnam they helped the Vietnemese out by building dams, bridges, buildings, etc. Were there atrocities the French committed? Of course every empire has atrocities, especially the Japenese Empire but that didn't give America the right to drop atomic bombs and firebomb Tokyo, killing innocent civilians.
I'd like to add also a key tenet of Marxism was the destruction of the old European empires and the liberation of Third World peoples. By the way I'm a nationalist myself which is why I oppose Asian immigration into my country. :wink:
Count on you for jingoistic Americanism....
-
Count on you for jingoistic Americanism....
Nonsense, I despise American values and I opposed the Iraq War and Afghanistan Wars but I do support what is best for me and for my children and that is saying no to immigration. To give an example Black Americans have been here for decades but compared to German and Irish Americans they are outside the mainstream of society.
-
Count on you for jingoistic Americanism....
Hmm not calling me a nαzι and fascist? That's a first...
-
"The traditional Southern culture of US blacks (unusual nowadays but still) is a hell of a lot more pleasant to contemplate than the Satanic culture of American WASPs."
Comrade litch how are you!? For Mother Russia comrade! :wink:
I wonder what you find traditional about a culture that leads to violence. Don't you think that having a genetic predisposition to lower intelligence has to do with it? For example Blacks show violent behavior when it comes to dealing with other races, and not just whites either, because the blacks in Los Angeles went wild over the Rodney King fiasco and looted Koreatown. And let's not even mention inter-racial hatred when it comes to blacks dealing with whites.
-
"The traditional Southern culture of US blacks (unusual nowadays but still) is a hell of a lot more pleasant to contemplate than the Satanic culture of American WASPs."
Comrade litch how are you!? For Mother Russia comrade! :wink:
I wonder what you find traditional about a culture that leads to violence. Don't you think that having a genetic predisposition to lower intelligence has to do with it? For example Blacks show violent behavior when it comes to dealing with other races, and not just whites either, because the blacks in Los Angeles went wild over the Rodney King fiasco and looted Koreatown. And let's not even mention inter-racial hatred when it comes to blacks dealing with whites.
I obviously was not referring to urban ghetto culture. I was referring to the traditional rural agrarian culture of blacks in the South. I have met people from that culture and although they are unusUal now, they are deeply honorable people with a considerable amount of natural virtue.
If I had a child, I would much rather have them marry one of them than a Marxist class-warfare advocate with a grudge against the rich, if those were my only choices... :wink:
Do you think that there are no intelligent, good black people?
-
I obviously was not referring to urban ghetto culture. I was referring to the traditional rural agrarian culture of blacks in the South. I have met people from that culture and although they are unusUal now, they are deeply honorable people with a considerable amount of natural virtue.
If I had a child, I would much rather have them marry one of them than a Marxist class-warfare advocate with a grudge against the rich, if those were my only choices... :wink:
Do you think that there are no intelligent, good black people?
I respect more traditional-minded blacks like Walter Williams. Ha you think I'm a Marxist?! That's rich. Having a "grudge against the rich," which I do not by the way, as you say does not make one a Marxist. A Marxist is someone who supports an international workers' movement. I support the nation and class harmony. And as for me I'm going to support my daughter marrying someone within my own race.
-
Oh yes I forgot the most important aspect. Marxism considers nation and race bourgeoise prejudices. :wink:
-
That is nonsense.
In your opinion.
I stand by my assertion that your position is ultimately unjust to couples of different races by imposing your own personal preference upon them, which they are in no way bound to consider, share or accept.
You are factually incorrect to believe that race has no valuable significance.
Actually, that is factually incorrect on two counts and a strawman to boot - first to attribute such a belief to me and second, the implicit assertion that that justifies opposition to interracial marriage "in general".
Yes, but I do rule out certain races and mixtures completely.
That's your preference. I've never tried telling you whom you should or shouldn't be attracted to precisely since that is subjective and of course reasonably varies from person to person.
It would depend on the steps they took to thwart things.
Ok, so just to be clear, it is not by itself unjust, for a girl's family to exclude you from consideration as a potential groom for their daughter solely on the basis of your race. That is your position?
In holding to a general opposition to race-mixing, it does not then follow that one wishes to interfere in the business of others.
I do not see how it does not do precisely that. You seem to think one can forge a "general" opposition to the same the abstract without ever applying it in the concrete to a particular case.
That's my only problem with what you're saying, it's like me telling you what girls you ought to be attracted to, even if you simply are not, or whom you should not be attracted to, even if you are.
That does in fact unduly "interfere in the business of others" and their legitimate freedom .
By the way, I'm Indian, the girl I intend to marry is Indian. A minority of my friends have married persons of another race, I see no problem at all with it, nor feel some sort of religious or moral obligation to show my protest, neither in their particular case nor "in general". If you think otherwise, by all means tell me why.
-
Nishant,
Aren't Indians from India technically caucasian?
-
I stand by my assertion that your position is ultimately unjust
On what basis? There is no injustice in believing people are better suited to marry members of their own race than others.
to couples of different races by imposing your own personal preference
It's not a personal preference. It's a value judgment, it's not merely a "preference."
upon them, which they are in no way bound to consider, share or accept.
My position imposes nothing on them. But they are bound to consider reality, and what's best. And pretending race doesn't matter isn't factual. It's fantasy.
Actually, that is factually incorrect on two counts and a strawman to boot - first to attribute such a belief to me
So you concede it has significance that should be considered when judging who is best to marry?
and second, the implicit assertion that that justifies opposition to interracial marriage "in general".
If race matters then the race of who you marry matters. That is pretty straightforward. How could race matter if the race of one's offspring doesn't matter?
That's your preference.
It's a judgment, not just a preference.
I've never tried telling you whom you should or shouldn't be attracted to precisely since that is subjective and of course reasonably varies from person to person.
What is attractive and unattractive, what is normal to be attracted to, is not subjective.
Ok, so just to be clear, it is not by itself unjust, for a girl's family to exclude you from consideration as a potential groom for their daughter solely on the basis of your race. That is your position?
Parents can only do what is in their rightful power to do.
I do not see how it does not do precisely that.
You can't see that it doesn't prevent anyone from marrying outside their race, it just means that people don't think highly of it. Why are they required to think highly of it? The reality is that your position is the one that seeks to impose on others. People have good reasons to oppose miscegenation but you wish to deny them that right to be opposed to it. The implication is that there can be no just reason to be opposed to it, and that is nonsense.
You seem to think one can forge a "general" opposition to the same the abstract without ever applying it in the concrete to a particular case.
You seem to think people can have "preferences" in a vacuum, as though there aren't valid reasons for their preferences that have more general application.
That's my only problem with what you're saying, it's like me telling you what girls you ought to be attracted to,
I would hope girls of a certain race would be attracted to members of their own race. It would hardly be natural for people not to be attracted to their own kind.
even if you simply are not, or whom you should not be attracted to, even if you are.
If you can't see that some people have abnormal attractions or at the very least somewhat warped, I can't help you.
That does in fact unduly "interfere in the business of others" and their legitimate freedom.
That's simply ridiculous. I don't interfere with anyone in saying I think people should generally marry with their own kind.
By the way, I'm Indian, the girl I intend to marry is Indian. A minority of my friends have married persons of another race, I see no problem at all with it,
Fine - don't have a problem with it. People will do what they do. That being said, it's perfectly reasonable to debate whether or not such a choice is good, and to argue that it is not good.
nor feel some sort of religious or moral obligation to show my protest,
Who suggested you should?
neither in their particular case nor "in general". If you think otherwise, by all means tell me why.
I recall two white women in the math department who picked up indian accents from their boyfriends. I thought it rather odd. One was quite plain, the other moderately attractive. It seemed to me, there was something not quite right in those situations. Why would a woman living in the US pick up an accent? It seemed to me there's a lot of alienation in the US, this could account for the desire to join another culture.
As for your ridiculous question - no - I don't see why you should argue otherwise, but certainly going by the popular culture of India it appears there is a strong preference for lighter looking individuals there.
http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2011/12/bollywood-indians-vs-ordinary-indians.html
There were many indian girls at my university and I found many charming. In retrospect, I was fortunate to be in miserable shape or I might have become inveigled with one.
I am convinced most indian women would not make suitable wives, at least in the USA, for trad men.
-
Nishant,
Aren't Indians from India technically caucasian?
Some are. You don't have to go far to see people who are clearly Caucasian.
Certainly many Persians look very similar to Europeans:
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/303094_248977201819323_1254677394_n.jpg)
-
Perhaps this thread should be moved to the WWIII sub-forum.
:smile:
-
Fr. Messner says experience is the key, and there can be no general principles except that people entering into such marriages should know the grave responsibility of it before God.
No problem. [b]I'm sure Sigismund and other Catholic couples who make this decision do not enter into it lightly.
[/b]
That's all. In addition, it is my opinion that racial mixing should not be the norm as I said time and again.
Nobody ever said it should be. This is a false dichotomy. You don't have to say that either should be the norm nor does it follow that those are the only two alternatives. The whole point is that a personal preference either way should not be made into a general norm.
If you think it should be, provide some objective basis for saying so. Genetic facts and an inference based on them would be, for example, an objective basis. Otherwise what you say is a purely subjective preference in which case it simply cannot apply as a general norm, no matter how strenuously those who think it should be assert themselves, nor how ardently they downthumb those who disagree.
I did not enter into marriage lightly, to be sure. The fact that our races were different did not concern either of us at all, and I would say our experience as spouses and parents confirmed that there was no reason it should have.
Sigimund,
Thats great that you have a successful marriage. But you can really only speak for yourself. Not on behalf of all interracial relationships.
An interesting comment, given that you and your companions on this thread seem to feel very qualified to do just that, despite never having been in such a marriage.
-
The Divinity of Christ has no skin-color, but the Humanity of Christ is most modestly and compassionately of the white Indo-European race, the naturally most universal among the human races. And the Romans, His divine and human Chosen People on earth, are humbly and meekly likewise.
No. Christ's humanity was that of a middle eastern Jєω whom you would defiantly not regard as white if He knocked on your door today. Have you suffered a head injury lately?
-
I agree with a lot of the posts in this thread (including matthew's post) and i appreciate the contributions of those whom i disagree with, providing they were civil and seemed to encourage or at least not undermine, a sense of catholic fraternity. The thing that i come away from this thinking is that as men we need to take on the burden of our fathers and carry on the line. I think that is our duty. If we do not do it, then I'm inclined to think we should be helping others do it, most probably through a holy order, but if not, then somehow.
The burden we carry and the line we should seek to continue is the Catholic faith. Nothing else really matters.
-
Why do you say a "strange way about him"?
Take this thread for example--back to your original post. You don't know what concerns you should discuss privately with good counsel or PM somebody vs. publicly posting a question that, to many, is tantamount to screaming ##g###!!! And then you're shocked when some read it like that and it sets off a firestorm! Your naïveté bewilders me!
In my opinion, the coincidence of time and place is not currently appropriate for having this divisive discussion here. Does divisive discussion occur here all the time? Yes. But it is a) usually much more germane to the crisis in the church; or b) not nearly so divisive as this topic.
It is not so bewildering if it is provocation, not naivete.
-
The burden we carry and the line we should seek to continue is the Catholic faith. Nothing else really matters.
Relatively speaking, nothing else matters, but it hardly means that race doesn't matter.
You cannot justly tell people to ignore such things, any more than you can tell them to ignore any other practical matter of the world that has importance.
-
Skin color is literally skin deep, and irrelevant in any way that matters.
Sigismund, why do you pretend that the characteristics inherited by many, many generations are simply a matter of "skin color."?
Can't you see the absurdity of equating race to skin color?
Culture is developed over many centuries. Raise an African baby among Swedish Lutherans, and you will get someone who is culturally a Swedish Lutheran,not an African.
-
Culture is developed over many centuries. Raise an African baby among Swedish Lutherans, and you will get someone who is culturally a Swedish Lutheran,not an African.
You will have someone who is genetically an African.
Human beings are not a blank slate.
-
Egalitarianism does seem like a slippery slope.
They say race/ethnicity/ancestry/blood is only "skin deep." They also say, gender is only a matter of "plumbing." So, the idea seems to be, if you cut up cadavers of dead whites, blacks, orientals, indians, male or female, the only differences you find are either superficial or inconsequential. Apparently, our ancestors were supposed to have been too "superstitious" to allow human dissection, thus they never realized how similar we all are, but with the advent of the enlightenment and the flowering of science, we were (or most of us anyway) "illuminated" to the truths that had once been hidden from us by a "repressive" culture, steeped in roman catholicism. I suppose there's a grain of truth in that, but then again they say, iirc, the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are only around 4%. So, just because a difference is slight, doesn't mean it isn't profound.
On the other hand they tell us, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are "born that way." Yet, I'm told, if you cut one open, they look just like anyone else. Ah, but then they'll say, maybe the difference occurs because of a complex "soup" or mixture of genetic and pre-birth environmental causes. So, i couldn't see it without a microscope/a "time machine" and even if i had one, i wouldn't know what i was looking at, because i'm not an expert in that kind of genetics and fetal development. In fact, even those folks seem somewhat baffled by it all.
"Scientific and medical understanding is that sɛҳuąƖ orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biological and environmental factors,[1][3] especially with regard to early uterine environment.[4] While there are those who still hold the view that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activity is "unnatural" or "dysfunctional",[5][6] research has shown that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is an example of a normal and natural variation in human sɛҳuąƖity and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects.[1][7] Prejudice and discrimination against ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ and bisɛҳuąƖ people, however, have been shown to cause significant psychological harm, and is especially damaging to gαy children.[7][8]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity
Statements like the one above, prove to me that terms like "science" and "research" have become meaningless terms, due to so much dishonesty, driven by a desire for "wrong equality," rooted in, i think, a desire for "wrong liberty."
Who are "they"? I certainly have not said this, nor has anyone else I can recall on this forum. There are people who hold such opinions, but I don't think you will find any of them here.
-
Count on you for jingoistic Americanism....
Hmm not calling me a nαzι and fascist? That's a first...
:smile:
As I have said on other subforums, when we don't talk about race, I am amazed at how much I agree with you.
-
Culture is developed over many centuries. Raise an African baby among Swedish Lutherans, and you will get someone who is culturally a Swedish Lutheran,not an African.
You will have someone who is genetically an African.
Human beings are not a blank slate.
You will, and that will mean exactly nothing.
-
You will, and that will mean exactly nothing.
No, it will mean a great deal.
People inherit traits from their parents. That child may be raised like a Swedish Lutheran but that doesn't mean he has a similar nature, a truly similar way of thinking, feeling, acting, etc.
You want to pretend that there's no problem, that people are interchangeable, but it's just not true.
-
Fr. Messner says experience is the key, and there can be no general principles except that people entering into such marriages should know the grave responsibility of it before God.
No problem. [b]I'm sure Sigismund and other Catholic couples who make this decision do not enter into it lightly.
[/b]
That's all. In addition, it is my opinion that racial mixing should not be the norm as I said time and again.
Nobody ever said it should be. This is a false dichotomy. You don't have to say that either should be the norm nor does it follow that those are the only two alternatives. The whole point is that a personal preference either way should not be made into a general norm.
If you think it should be, provide some objective basis for saying so. Genetic facts and an inference based on them would be, for example, an objective basis. Otherwise what you say is a purely subjective preference in which case it simply cannot apply as a general norm, no matter how strenuously those who think it should be assert themselves, nor how ardently they downthumb those who disagree.
I did not enter into marriage lightly, to be sure. The fact that our races were different did not concern either of us at all, and I would say our experience as spouses and parents confirmed that there was no reason it should have.
Sigimund,
Thats great that you have a successful marriage. But you can really only speak for yourself. Not on behalf of all interracial relationships.
An interesting comment, given that you and your companions on this thread seem to feel very qualified to do just that, despite never having been in such a marriage.
How many marriages have you been in?
-
Um, one. My point is I have been in an interracial marriage.
-
Skin color is literally skin deep, and irrelevant in any way that matters.
Sigismund, why do you pretend that the characteristics inherited by many, many generations are simply a matter of "skin color."?
Can't you see the absurdity of equating race to skin color?
Culture is developed over many centuries. Raise an African baby among Swedish Lutherans, and you will get someone who is culturally a Swedish Lutheran,not an African.
That's a matter of degrees. It isn't culture or nothing at all.
-
That's a matter of degrees. It isn't culture or nothing at all.
The idea seems to be, that if Swedes adopted African babies instead of having their own, that when they grew up and took over that you would still have Sweden, people with a Swedish culture, who think and act like Swedes, etc.
It's a very naive belief in a kind of blank slate egalitarianism.
-
You will, and that will mean exactly nothing.
No, it will mean a great deal.
People inherit traits from their parents. That child may be raised like a Swedish Lutheran but that doesn't mean he has a similar nature, a truly similar way of thinking, feeling, acting, etc.
You want to pretend that there's no problem, that people are interchangeable, but it's just not true.
Listen to Telesphorus. Suggesting people are a blank slate is cruel. We should truly respect our diversity. It's like telling blacks they can be anything they want to be, when we know very well most of them don't have the brains. That's just an excuse to not give them what they need. It's cruel.
-
I agree with a lot of the posts in this thread (including matthew's post) and i appreciate the contributions of those whom i disagree with, providing they were civil and seemed to encourage or at least not undermine, a sense of catholic fraternity. The thing that i come away from this thinking is that as men we need to take on the burden of our fathers and carry on the line. I think that is our duty. If we do not do it, then I'm inclined to think we should be helping others do it, most probably through a holy order, but if not, then somehow.
The burden we carry and the line we should seek to continue is the Catholic faith. Nothing else really matters.
I'm sorry Sigismund, but I think that our identity is and should be, tied up in our blood/ancestry/ethnicity/race. I don't blame you for doing what you did, because we were all taught to do things like that, but I don't think it is right, because I don't think that's the way God made us. I do think you're robbing your children of something fundamental to who they are, by teaching them it doesn't matter and I think you're failing your wife, not to mention yourself. I don't feel sorry for you because of what you've done, but I do because of how you fight so hard to defend it. Please don't think I'm trying to put you down (i respect you, because of what you have accomplished), but it seems like "denial" to me.
-
You will, and that will mean exactly nothing.
No, it will mean a great deal.
People inherit traits from their parents. That child may be raised like a Swedish Lutheran but that doesn't mean he has a similar nature, a truly similar way of thinking, feeling, acting, etc.
You want to pretend that there's no problem, that people are interchangeable, but it's just not true.
Listen to Telesphorus. Suggesting people are a blank slate is cruel. We should truly respect our diversity. It's like telling blacks they can be anything they want to be, when we know very well most of them don't have the brains. That's just an excuse to not give them what they need. It's cruel.
Well there was nothing bigoted about THAT at all. Please stop lying and just say that you hate and look down on Africans and other non-whites.
While you're at it, you may want to look these people up. They are a thousand times more intelligent then you are, and they actually did something worthwhile with their lives:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_Carver
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Hale_Williams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams
I am not arguing that their genetic differences in IQ and other things, but to say something that basically implies that all non-whites are simple, stupid children, is wrong.
-
I agree with a lot of the posts in this thread (including matthew's post) and i appreciate the contributions of those whom i disagree with, providing they were civil and seemed to encourage or at least not undermine, a sense of catholic fraternity. The thing that i come away from this thinking is that as men we need to take on the burden of our fathers and carry on the line. I think that is our duty. If we do not do it, then I'm inclined to think we should be helping others do it, most probably through a holy order, but if not, then somehow.
The burden we carry and the line we should seek to continue is the Catholic faith. Nothing else really matters.
I'm sorry Sigismund, but I think that our identity is and should be, tied up in our blood/ancestry/ethnicity/race. I don't blame you for doing what you did, because we were all taught to do things like that, but I don't think it is right, because I don't think that's the way God made us. I do think you're robbing your children of something fundamental to who they are, by teaching them it doesn't matter and I think you're failing your wife, not to mention yourself. I don't feel sorry for you because of what you've done, but I do because of how you fight so hard to defend it. Please don't think I'm trying to put you down (i respect you, because of what you have accomplished), but it seems like "denial" to me.
He is raising his children to be good Catholics. If you have a problem with that, take it to the man upstairs.
-
You will, and that will mean exactly nothing.
No, it will mean a great deal.
People inherit traits from their parents. That child may be raised like a Swedish Lutheran but that doesn't mean he has a similar nature, a truly similar way of thinking, feeling, acting, etc.
You want to pretend that there's no problem, that people are interchangeable, but it's just not true.
Listen to Telesphorus. Suggesting people are a blank slate is cruel. We should truly respect our diversity. It's like telling blacks they can be anything they want to be, when we know very well most of them don't have the brains. That's just an excuse to not give them what they need. It's cruel.
Well there was nothing bigoted about THAT at all. Please stop lying and just say that you hate and look down on Africans and other non-whites.
While you're at it, you may want to look these people up. They are a thousand times more intelligent then you are, and they actually did something worthwhile with their lives:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_Carver
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Hale_Williams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams
I am not arguing that their genetic differences in IQ and other things, but to say something that basically implies that all non-whites are simple, stupid children, is wrong.
You aren't being fair; I said most, not all.
-
You will, and that will mean exactly nothing.
No, it will mean a great deal.
People inherit traits from their parents. That child may be raised like a Swedish Lutheran but that doesn't mean he has a similar nature, a truly similar way of thinking, feeling, acting, etc.
You want to pretend that there's no problem, that people are interchangeable, but it's just not true.
Listen to Telesphorus. Suggesting people are a blank slate is cruel. We should truly respect our diversity. It's like telling blacks they can be anything they want to be, when we know very well most of them don't have the brains. That's just an excuse to not give them what they need. It's cruel.
Well there was nothing bigoted about THAT at all. Please stop lying and just say that you hate and look down on Africans and other non-whites.
While you're at it, you may want to look these people up. They are a thousand times more intelligent then you are, and they actually did something worthwhile with their lives:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_Carver
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Hale_Williams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams
I am not arguing that their genetic differences in IQ and other things, but to say something that basically implies that all non-whites are simple, stupid children, is wrong.
You aren't being fair; I said most, not all.
That's your get out of jail free card?
Even if I assume you are sincere, lower average IQ does not give you the right to treat people as though they were less human than you.
-
You will, and that will mean exactly nothing.
No, it will mean a great deal.
People inherit traits from their parents. That child may be raised like a Swedish Lutheran but that doesn't mean he has a similar nature, a truly similar way of thinking, feeling, acting, etc.
You want to pretend that there's no problem, that people are interchangeable, but it's just not true.
Listen to Telesphorus. Suggesting people are a blank slate is cruel. We should truly respect our diversity. It's like telling blacks they can be anything they want to be, when we know very well most of them don't have the brains. That's just an excuse to not give them what they need. It's cruel.
Well there was nothing bigoted about THAT at all. Please stop lying and just say that you hate and look down on Africans and other non-whites.
While you're at it, you may want to look these people up. They are a thousand times more intelligent then you are, and they actually did something worthwhile with their lives:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_Carver
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Hale_Williams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams
I am not arguing that their genetic differences in IQ and other things, but to say something that basically implies that all non-whites are simple, stupid children, is wrong.
You aren't being fair; I said most, not all.
That's your get out of jail free card?
Even if I assume you are sincere, lower average IQ does not give you the right to treat people as though they were less human than you.
Again, you aren't being fair; I never did what you are accusing me of.
-
You will, and that will mean exactly nothing.
No, it will mean a great deal.
People inherit traits from their parents. That child may be raised like a Swedish Lutheran but that doesn't mean he has a similar nature, a truly similar way of thinking, feeling, acting, etc.
You want to pretend that there's no problem, that people are interchangeable, but it's just not true.
Listen to Telesphorus. Suggesting people are a blank slate is cruel. We should truly respect our diversity. It's like telling blacks they can be anything they want to be, when we know very well most of them don't have the brains. That's just an excuse to not give them what they need. It's cruel.
Well there was nothing bigoted about THAT at all. Please stop lying and just say that you hate and look down on Africans and other non-whites.
While you're at it, you may want to look these people up. They are a thousand times more intelligent then you are, and they actually did something worthwhile with their lives:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_Carver
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Hale_Williams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams
I am not arguing that their genetic differences in IQ and other things, but to say something that basically implies that all non-whites are simple, stupid children, is wrong.
You aren't being fair; I said most, not all.
That's your get out of jail free card?
Even if I assume you are sincere, lower average IQ does not give you the right to treat people as though they were less human than you.
Again, you aren't being fair; I never did what you are accusing me of.
Then why do you talk about non-whites as though they are simple and stupid?
"It's like telling blacks they can be anything they want to be, when we know very well most of them don't have the brains. That's just an excuse to not give them what they need. It's cruel."
Most whites, hell most humans, don't have the brains to be "anything they want". Do you have the intelligence and discipline to be a neurosurgeon? Or an astrophysicist? You pretend however that black people need to be given "what they need", that they are intrinsically inferior to whites. Why don't you go join Stormfront, if you're not already a member? I'm sure they would love to have you.
-
You will, and that will mean exactly nothing.
No, it will mean a great deal.
People inherit traits from their parents. That child may be raised like a Swedish Lutheran but that doesn't mean he has a similar nature, a truly similar way of thinking, feeling, acting, etc.
You want to pretend that there's no problem, that people are interchangeable, but it's just not true.
Listen to Telesphorus. Suggesting people are a blank slate is cruel. We should truly respect our diversity. It's like telling blacks they can be anything they want to be, when we know very well most of them don't have the brains. That's just an excuse to not give them what they need. It's cruel.
Well there was nothing bigoted about THAT at all. Please stop lying and just say that you hate and look down on Africans and other non-whites.
While you're at it, you may want to look these people up. They are a thousand times more intelligent then you are, and they actually did something worthwhile with their lives:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_Carver
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Hale_Williams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams
I am not arguing that their genetic differences in IQ and other things, but to say something that basically implies that all non-whites are simple, stupid children, is wrong.
You aren't being fair; I said most, not all.
That's your get out of jail free card?
Even if I assume you are sincere, lower average IQ does not give you the right to treat people as though they were less human than you.
Again, you aren't being fair; I never did what you are accusing me of.
Then why do you talk about non-whites as though they are simple and stupid?
"It's like telling blacks they can be anything they want to be, when we know very well most of them don't have the brains. That's just an excuse to not give them what they need. It's cruel."
Most whites, hell most humans, don't have the brains to be "anything they want". Do you have the intelligence and discipline to be a neurosurgeon? Or an astrophysicist? You pretend however that black people need to be given "what they need", that they are intrinsically inferior to whites. Why don't you go join Stormfront, if you're not already a member? I'm sure they would love to have you.
The average IQ of blacks in Africa qualifies as borderline retarded in most western countries. The average iq in Jamaica is under 60, while in Italy for example, it is well over 100. If someone is that "simple minded," then I think they need to be protected, not lied to. That will only set them up for future dissapointments and deny them the protection they need; it is cruel. In a way it does seem like neglecting a child, while pretending they're "all grown up." Sounds like the sort of thing someone who wanted to take advantage of a child might tell them.
It seems to me, a true feeling of catholic charity compels one to protect the weak, not take advantage of their weakness/shame in being weak.
-
You will, and that will mean exactly nothing.
No, it will mean a great deal.
People inherit traits from their parents. That child may be raised like a Swedish Lutheran but that doesn't mean he has a similar nature, a truly similar way of thinking, feeling, acting, etc.
You want to pretend that there's no problem, that people are interchangeable, but it's just not true.
Listen to Telesphorus. Suggesting people are a blank slate is cruel. We should truly respect our diversity. It's like telling blacks they can be anything they want to be, when we know very well most of them don't have the brains. That's just an excuse to not give them what they need. It's cruel.
Well there was nothing bigoted about THAT at all. Please stop lying and just say that you hate and look down on Africans and other non-whites.
While you're at it, you may want to look these people up. They are a thousand times more intelligent then you are, and they actually did something worthwhile with their lives:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_Carver
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Hale_Williams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams
I am not arguing that their genetic differences in IQ and other things, but to say something that basically implies that all non-whites are simple, stupid children, is wrong.
You aren't being fair; I said most, not all.
That's your get out of jail free card?
Even if I assume you are sincere, lower average IQ does not give you the right to treat people as though they were less human than you.
Again, you aren't being fair; I never did what you are accusing me of.
Then why do you talk about non-whites as though they are simple and stupid?
"It's like telling blacks they can be anything they want to be, when we know very well most of them don't have the brains. That's just an excuse to not give them what they need. It's cruel."
Most whites, hell most humans, don't have the brains to be "anything they want". Do you have the intelligence and discipline to be a neurosurgeon? Or an astrophysicist? You pretend however that black people need to be given "what they need", that they are intrinsically inferior to whites. Why don't you go join Stormfront, if you're not already a member? I'm sure they would love to have you.
The average IQ of blacks in Africa qualifies as borderline retarded in most western countries. The average iq in Jamaica is under 60, while in Italy for example, it is well over 100. If someone is that "simple minded," then I think they need to be protected, not lied to. That will only set them up for future dissapointments and deny them the protection they need; it is cruel. In a way it does seem like neglecting a child, while pretending they're "all grown up." Sounds like the sort of thing someone who wanted to take advantage of a child might tell them.
It seems to me, a true feeling of catholic charity compels one to protect the weak, not take advantage of their weakness/shame in being weak.
From a genetic standpoint, I do believe there is a difference between caucasians and congoids. I imagine that difference being proportionate to whatever the physical size difference is between caucasians and congoids. If congoids are 10% larger than caucasians then caucasians are probably about 10% more intelligent. This same concept would apply to all the races. Asians are probably like 10% more intelligent than caucasians on the average. Which is not really that much of a difference if you think about it. No matter what race you are you should be intelligent enough to do most jobs out there. With the exception of a few occupations like doctor, lawyer, dentist, etc. You should still be able to do most other jobs that pay $60k-$80k/year. Its not like we are comparing humanoids to apes here.
-
If you look at SAT scores by race you will see that whites generally score about 15-20% higher than blacks in every category.
If you consider muscle mass, height, strength, etc. blacks are probably 15-20% larger than whites.
-
If you look at SAT scores by race you will see that whites generally score about 15-20% higher than blacks in every category.
If you consider muscle mass, height, strength, etc. blacks are probably 15-20% larger than whites.
I should probably expand on this...
I can't see there being a 20% size difference between blacks and whites. Its probably closer to like 10%. Blacks are probably about 20% larger than asians though.
-
That's a matter of degrees. It isn't culture or nothing at all.
The idea seems to be, that if Swedes adopted African babies instead of having their own, that when they grew up and took over that you would still have Sweden, people with a Swedish culture, who think and act like Swedes, etc.
It's a very naive belief in a kind of blank slate egalitarianism.
I have nowhere suggested that Swedes or anyone else should stop having their won babies. You didn't really state that I did, but I just want to make that clear.
-
I agree with a lot of the posts in this thread (including matthew's post) and i appreciate the contributions of those whom i disagree with, providing they were civil and seemed to encourage or at least not undermine, a sense of catholic fraternity. The thing that i come away from this thinking is that as men we need to take on the burden of our fathers and carry on the line. I think that is our duty. If we do not do it, then I'm inclined to think we should be helping others do it, most probably through a holy order, but if not, then somehow.
The burden we carry and the line we should seek to continue is the Catholic faith. Nothing else really matters.
I'm sorry Sigismund, but I think that our identity is and should be, tied up in our blood/ancestry/ethnicity/race. I don't blame you for doing what you did, because we were all taught to do things like that, but I don't think it is right, because I don't think that's the way God made us. I do think you're robbing your children of something fundamental to who they are, by teaching them it doesn't matter and I think you're failing your wife, not to mention yourself. I don't feel sorry for you because of what you've done, but I do because of how you fight so hard to defend it. Please don't think I'm trying to put you down (i respect you, because of what you have accomplished), but it seems like "denial" to me.
Well, I think you are equally mired in denying reality, so I guess we sort of agree on something.
I will take you at your word when you say that you do not mean to be offensive. However, you are essentially saying that my children should not exist. There is no way I cannot be offended by that.
-
I agree with a lot of the posts in this thread (including matthew's post) and i appreciate the contributions of those whom i disagree with, providing they were civil and seemed to encourage or at least not undermine, a sense of catholic fraternity. The thing that i come away from this thinking is that as men we need to take on the burden of our fathers and carry on the line. I think that is our duty. If we do not do it, then I'm inclined to think we should be helping others do it, most probably through a holy order, but if not, then somehow.
The burden we carry and the line we should seek to continue is the Catholic faith. Nothing else really matters.
I'm sorry Sigismund, but I think that our identity is and should be, tied up in our blood/ancestry/ethnicity/race. I don't blame you for doing what you did, because we were all taught to do things like that, but I don't think it is right, because I don't think that's the way God made us. I do think you're robbing your children of something fundamental to who they are, by teaching them it doesn't matter and I think you're failing your wife, not to mention yourself. I don't feel sorry for you because of what you've done, but I do because of how you fight so hard to defend it. Please don't think I'm trying to put you down (i respect you, because of what you have accomplished), but it seems like "denial" to me.
He is raising his children to be good Catholics. If you have a problem with that, take it to the man upstairs.
Thank you. However, I am actually pretty much done raising my children and am now watching them raise my grandchildren. Except for my son the priest of course.
-
You will, and that will mean exactly nothing.
No, it will mean a great deal.
People inherit traits from their parents. That child may be raised like a Swedish Lutheran but that doesn't mean he has a similar nature, a truly similar way of thinking, feeling, acting, etc.
You want to pretend that there's no problem, that people are interchangeable, but it's just not true.
Listen to Telesphorus. Suggesting people are a blank slate is cruel. We should truly respect our diversity. It's like telling blacks they can be anything they want to be, when we know very well most of them don't have the brains. That's just an excuse to not give them what they need. It's cruel.
Well there was nothing bigoted about THAT at all. Please stop lying and just say that you hate and look down on Africans and other non-whites.
While you're at it, you may want to look these people up. They are a thousand times more intelligent then you are, and they actually did something worthwhile with their lives:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_Carver
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Hale_Williams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams
I am not arguing that their genetic differences in IQ and other things, but to say something that basically implies that all non-whites are simple, stupid children, is wrong.
You aren't being fair; I said most, not all.
That's your get out of jail free card?
Even if I assume you are sincere, lower average IQ does not give you the right to treat people as though they were less human than you.
Again, you aren't being fair; I never did what you are accusing me of.
Then why do you talk about non-whites as though they are simple and stupid?
"It's like telling blacks they can be anything they want to be, when we know very well most of them don't have the brains. That's just an excuse to not give them what they need. It's cruel."
Most whites, hell most humans, don't have the brains to be "anything they want". Do you have the intelligence and discipline to be a neurosurgeon? Or an astrophysicist? You pretend however that black people need to be given "what they need", that they are intrinsically inferior to whites. Why don't you go join Stormfront, if you're not already a member? I'm sure they would love to have you.
I would up thumb this, but Matthew's stingy computer program won't let me. :smile:
-
Behold the temerity of a man who, showing nothing but contempt for his culture, dares to say that he is strengthening his race through his "purity". No QuoVadisPetre, much better that you were of mixed blood or did not have an ounce of our ancient Oriental blood running through your veins, for if such self-hatred and sniveling subservience to the West is the product of your pedigree, I wish to have nothing to do with it. Please, refrain from daring to refer to yourself as Vietnamese if you hold our culture in such disdain.
What would the liberals say if we replaced certain words so it looked like this:
Behold the temerity of a man who, showing nothing but contempt for his Aryan culture, dares to say that he is strengthening his Aryan race through his "purity". No QuoVadisPetre, much better that you were of mixed blood or did not have an ounce of our ancient Aryan blood running through your veins, for if such self-hatred and sniveling subservience to the Jєωs is the product of your pedigree, I wish to have nothing to do with it. Please, refrain from daring to refer to yourself as Aryan if you hold our culture in such disdain.
I have a feeling all the liberals here would condemn that as "racist".
Perhaps liberals would.
Would you?
-
Culture is developed over many centuries. Raise an African baby among Swedish Lutherans, and you will get someone who is culturally a Swedish Lutheran,not an African.
You don't watch Swedish news very often do you?
Well no, I don't. I mean, not living in Sweden or speaking Swedish.
-
I just have to make another comment here, not to argue concerning the main topic (which I'm done with), but to correct a very wrong idea (directly not related to the thread, yet relevant): quite a bit earlier Vladimir told me the Vietnamese martyrs remained strong and died because of their culture. What?!! Isn't the gift of the Faith and the Holy Ghost's presence in one's soul the reason why all martyrs remain strong, regardless of culture, race, sex etc.?! Natural gifts do not make a martyr out of you; they give different responses on defying the persecutors and executioners when enriched by the Faith! Even a total dolt bereft of all culture when enriched by the Faith and staying strong can become a martyr!
-
Friends of ours told us last night they can't send their children to the local school because there are far too many immigrants. The nuns were confronted about it before but are not willing to do anything.What can we do they said but in reality they benefit from the scam. This is a rural school so I can imagine what the city schools are like. The children prefer to be among their own. The immigrant families will naturally want their children educated but already Irish children are being pushed out. Sad really.
What do the liberals on the forum think of Irish children having to go miles to another school because the local school is full with immigrants?
If it were happening in Africa, we would be calling it genocide.
-
The Irish tax payer is paying for the language support teachers in the schools. These are teachers assigned for immigrant children. The situation is dire in England.
-
On the point of schools, when I was at school, there were few immigrants. Of the 770 boys in the school there was one Indian and two from Pakistan. The rest were Irish.
Now the secondary school I went to has many immigrants. How things change in just over a decade.There are more non Irish in that photo than there was in the school when I was there. As I said there was three non Irish boys. That was it. How immigration and multi culturalism "enriches" us is beyond me.
-
On the point of schools, when I was at school, there were few immigrants. Of the 770 boys in the school there was one Indian and two from Pakistan. The rest were Irish.
Now the secondary school I went to has many immigrants. How things change in just over a decade.There are more non Irish in that photo than there was in the school when I was there. As I said there was three non Irish boys. That was it. How immigration and multi culturalism "enriches" us is beyond me.
That makes me angry. Your country needs to tighten up its immigration policy. They should never let the irish population drop below 95%.
If there is a problem with people surviving in other countries then there needs to be a program that irish people can donate to. You don't solve other people's problems by letting them migrate to your country.
-
The Divinity of Christ has no skin-color, but the Humanity of Christ is most modestly and compassionately of the white Indo-European race, the naturally most universal among the human races. And the Romans, His divine and human Chosen People on earth, are humbly and meekly likewise.
No. Christ's humanity was that of a middle eastern Jєω whom you would defiantly not regard as white if He knocked on your door today. Have you suffered a head injury lately?
Although it isn't always easy to avoid personal mudslinging, we should always try.
This topic may well be key to the entire argument on this very long thread. Is Our Lord a Jєω and some kind of low-born non-white mongrel?
So then what exactly is a mongrel Jєω? Well, let us first quote what our Highest Authority has to say about exactly what a Jєω is:
"You are of your father the Devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof."
(John 8:44, Authorized Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible)
Should we identify Our Lord as a son of the Devil? Perhaps not. Therefore how is the Son of God a son of the Devil? Something in the popular thesis of a non-white "Jesus the Jєω" appears to be most horribly amiss!
What is going on here?
To make a long story short, we are witnessing here the false histories written by German and Russian Bolsheviks being cleverly slipped in to falsify the very well-docuмented histories of real-life historical Roman Catholicism. We are seeing the sly subterfuges of the Novus Ordo at work.
In the real world of objective Catholic history the truth is that Ancient Israel was a white nation with the Indo-European aristocracy that has always been usual in that part of the world since time immemorial. The same as with the aristocrats of present-day Syria and Palestine. Therefore Our Lord could only be a white Indo-European like every other royal in the Near East of those days. Royals are notoriously opposed to race-mixing their own royal dynasties and in ancient times they were even more opposed than they are at present. The Royal House of David was most assuredly never casual about its own dynastic marriages. They never just married any low-born mixed-race scuм that might happen to come their way! And exactly who were the most disreputable and universally despised riff-raff dregs of the ancient Middle East anyway?
The good reader has guessed correctly. Those were the source of our contemporary Jєωs and their Judaism, none other than the most notorious and loathed mixed race bastards in the entire Ancient World, namely, the Ancient Edomite Jєωs. In brief, the people of King Herod and his singularly evil Herodian Royal Dynasty, the incomparably traitorous mixed-race Deicide People of the New Testament.
Our Lord remains eternally both a Roman citizen and the Davidid King of Ancient Israel and her white Ancient Hebrew race. Whereas, apart from the miracles of Roman Catholic baptism, the Jєωs must forever remain what Our Lord so infallibly declared them to be: The Pharisee demonic spawn of Herod's Satanic Edomite Kingdom, that eternally accursed and damned mixed-race collection of incomparable blood-drenched bastards we now know all too well as "the sons of the Devil," namely, the Jєωs.
Prominent among the innumerable heresies of the Novus Ordo we can identify the heresy of Docetism. That heresy subtly denies the Incarnation of Our Lord who thereby has every characteristic of our human nature except only for sin. Our Lord is then thought to be much too "elevated" to have any mere racial characteristics of mere human royalty. He is seen as far too "good" to have any mere human biology. Hence He must have no true human racial identity whatsoever and be somehow quintessentially mixed and ignoble, exactly like an oh-so-beyond-perfect Pharisee hypocrite always knows himself to be. In brief, He must be an utterly typical Jєω!
And hence miscegenation (together with incest) becomes gradually evermore mandatory because the original uncensored тαℓмυd and Satanic Judaism so command. Our God then ceases to be the incarnate real-life historic Davidid King of Old Israel with His real-life royal human racial characteristics of a real-life human Indo-European king of the historic Ancient World and becomes instead the Anti-Christ, a savagely mixed-race and hideously in-bred vampire-like bloodless bastard Jєω.
Such is the true underlying purpose of contemporary government-sponsored forced miscegenation. The usual claims of "free choice" and "feelings of love" are bogus. Instead contemporary miscegenation is in reality occurring through the unrestrained violence of Jєω-controlled Marxist tyrannies and at the behest of the diabolical unleashed monolithic malice of Global Judaism.
Therefore Roman Catholics need to recognize that contemporary miscegenation is in truth and in practice usually virtually a sharing in the apostate Jєω crime of Anti-Christ Deicide, a most grave mortal sin against the Holy Ghost.
And if that blinding insight cannot dissuade Roman Catholics from the sin of unnecessary miscegenation, then we would be right to wonder whatever can do so...
-
I obviously was not referring to urban ghetto culture. I was referring to the traditional rural agrarian culture of blacks in the South. I have met people from that culture and although they are unusUal now, they are deeply honorable people with a considerable amount of natural virtue.
If I had a child, I would much rather have them marry one of them than a Marxist class-warfare advocate with a grudge against the rich, if those were my only choices... :wink:
Do you think that there are no intelligent, good black people?
I hate to bring up an old topic but you know what I find funny about braininglitch? He's the first liberal to label me as far-left. :wink:
No one has ever called me a Marxist before since usually I'm called a bunch of far-right names. Usually they just call me racist, anti-Semetic, nαzι, fascist, etc.
-
The Divinity of Christ has no skin-color, but the Humanity of Christ is most modestly and compassionately of the white Indo-European race, the naturally most universal among the human races. And the Romans, His divine and human Chosen People on earth, are humbly and meekly likewise.
No. Christ's humanity was that of a middle eastern Jєω whom you would defiantly not regard as white if He knocked on your door today. Have you suffered a head injury lately?
Although it isn't always easy to avoid personal mudslinging, we should always try.
This topic may well be key to the entire argument on this very long thread. Is Our Lord a Jєω and some kind of low-born non-white mongrel?
So then what exactly is a mongrel Jєω? Well, let us first quote what our Highest Authority has to say about exactly what a Jєω is:
"You are of your father the Devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof."
(John 8:44, Authorized Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible)
Should we identify Our Lord as a son of the Devil? Perhaps not. Therefore how is the Son of God a son of the Devil? Something in the popular thesis of a non-white "Jesus the Jєω" appears to be most horribly amiss!
What is going on here?
To make a long story short, we are witnessing here the false histories written by German and Russian Bolsheviks being cleverly slipped in to falsify the very well-docuмented histories of real-life historical Roman Catholicism. We are seeing the sly subterfuges of the Novus Ordo at work.
In the real world of objective Catholic history the truth is that Ancient Israel was a white nation with the Indo-European aristocracy that has always been usual in that part of the world since time immemorial. The same as with the aristocrats of present-day Syria and Palestine. Therefore Our Lord could only be a white Indo-European like every other royal in the Near East of those days. Royals are notoriously opposed to race-mixing their own royal dynasties and in ancient times they were even more opposed than they are at present. The Royal House of David was most assuredly never casual about its own dynastic marriages. They never just married any low-born mixed-race scuм that might happen to come their way! And exactly who were the most disreputable and universally despised riff-raff dregs of the ancient Middle East anyway?
The good reader has guessed correctly. Those were the source of our contemporary Jєωs and their Judaism, none other than the most notorious and loathed mixed race bastards in the entire Ancient World, namely, the Ancient Edomite Jєωs. In brief, the people of King Herod and his singularly evil Herodian Royal Dynasty, the incomparably traitorous mixed-race Deicide People of the New Testament.
Our Lord remains eternally both a Roman citizen and the Davidid King of Ancient Israel and her white Ancient Hebrew race. Whereas, apart from the miracles of Roman Catholic baptism, the Jєωs must forever remain what Our Lord so infallibly declared them to be: The Pharisee demonic spawn of Herod's Satanic Edomite Kingdom, that eternally accursed and damned mixed-race collection of incomparable blood-drenched bastards we now know all too well as "the sons of the Devil," namely, the Jєωs.
Prominent among the innumerable heresies of the Novus Ordo we can identify the heresy of Docetism. That heresy subtly denies the Incarnation of Our Lord who thereby has every characteristic of our human nature except only for sin. Our Lord is then thought to be much too "elevated" to have any mere racial characteristics of mere human royalty. He is seen as far too "good" to have any mere human biology. Hence He must have no true human racial identity whatsoever and be somehow quintessentially mixed and ignoble, exactly like an oh-so-beyond-perfect Pharisee hypocrite always knows himself to be. In brief, He must be an utterly typical Jєω!
And hence miscegenation (together with incest) becomes gradually evermore mandatory because the original uncensored тαℓмυd and Satanic Judaism so command. Our God then ceases to be the incarnate real-life historic Davidid King of Old Israel with His real-life royal human racial characteristics of a real-life human Indo-European king of the historic Ancient World and becomes instead the Anti-Christ, a savagely mixed-race and hideously in-bred vampire-like bloodless bastard Jєω.
Such is the true underlying purpose of contemporary government-sponsored forced miscegenation. The usual claims of "free choice" and "feelings of love" are bogus. Instead contemporary miscegenation is in reality occurring through the unrestrained violence of Jєω-controlled Marxist tyrannies and at the behest of the diabolical unleashed monolithic malice of Global Judaism.
Therefore Roman Catholics need to recognize that contemporary miscegenation is in truth and in practice usually virtually a sharing in the apostate Jєω crime of Anti-Christ Deicide, a most grave mortal sin against the Holy Ghost.
And if that blinding insight cannot dissuade Roman Catholics from the sin of unnecessary miscegenation, then we would be right to wonder whatever can do so...
You have repeatedly ignored my requests, but I will say it again;
What Catholic, pre-Vatican II sources can you cite in support of your theories? Because without that your posts are worthless.
You make it sound as though one's spiritual worth is tied to one's race. Even Telesphorus and InfiniteFaith do not share that heresy. Is that what you believe?
Do you believe that people are saved by their race? Or that members of certain races (i.e. Jєωs) cannot be saved?
You keep ignoring me. If you continue to ignore my questions, you are nothing more than a bombastic hypocritical coward.
-
I obviously was not referring to urban ghetto culture. I was referring to the traditional rural agrarian culture of blacks in the South. I have met people from that culture and although they are unusUal now, they are deeply honorable people with a considerable amount of natural virtue.
If I had a child, I would much rather have them marry one of them than a Marxist class-warfare advocate with a grudge against the rich, if those were my only choices... :wink:
Do you think that there are no intelligent, good black people?
I hate to bring up an old topic but you know what I find funny about braininglitch? He's the first liberal to label me as far-left. :wink:
No one has ever called me a Marxist before since usually I'm called a bunch of far-right names. Usually they just call me racist, anti-Semetic, nαzι, fascist, etc.
Your hatred of the rich is typical of Marxism
-
So then what exactly is a mongrel Jєω? Well, let us first quote what our Highest Authority has to say about exactly what a Jєω is:
"You are of your father the Devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof."
(John 8:44, Authorized Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible)
The Pharisees were such in the spirit. No Catholic exegete that I have ever read says that this refers to the Jєωs or Hebrews in any sort of racial way.
I suspect you are, Protestant-like, making up this shit as the whim strikes you.
-
Your hatred of the rich is typical of Marxism
Obviously you have ignored my posts. I do not support an international workers' movement or a classless society therefore I am not a Marxist. Being for social justice does not make one a Marxist. Also one who argues for nation and race is one who is anti-Marxist since Marxism argues for egalitarianism.
-
The Pharisees were such in the spirit. No Catholic exegete that I have ever read says that this refers to the Jєωs or Hebrews in any sort of racial way.
I suspect you are, Protestant-like, making up this shit as the whim strikes you.
Jєωs are not just a religion, they are an ethnicity. That is a proven fact.
-
This topic may well be key to the entire argument on this very long thread. Is Our Lord a Jєω and some kind of low-born non-white mongrel?
Do you deny that on the spiritual plane, those "non-whites" are just as much Sons of God as the "pure" whites?
If you deny this, you are a heretic.
-
The Pharisees were such in the spirit. No Catholic exegete that I have ever read says that this refers to the Jєωs or Hebrews in any sort of racial way.
I suspect you are, Protestant-like, making up this shit as the whim strikes you.
Jєωs are not just a religion, they are an ethnicity. That is a proven fact.
I am not denying that. But they are not damned because of their race; they are damned if they persist in their false religion. brotherfrancis appears to be believe that they are damned because of their race. That in itself is a damnable heresy.
-
Your hatred of the rich is typical of Marxism
Obviously you have ignored my posts. I do not support an international workers' movement or a classless society therefore I am not a Marxist. Being for social justice does not make one a Marxist. Also one who argues for nation and race is one who is anti-Marxist since Marxism argues for egalitarianism.
Are you a monarchist? Just curious.
-
Are you a monarchist? Just curious.
Politically I am traditionally conservative, but I do not support forcing any type of government on anyone. Some nations are suited for monarchies, some for dictatorships, and some for democracies, but not all nations are suited for democracy. Therefore I reject the Bush Doctrine of "world democratic revolution" especially since democracy can be the most evil of governments.
-
I am not denying that. But they are not damned because of their race; they are damned if they persist in their false religion. brotherfrancis appears to be believe that they are damned because of their race. That in itself is a damnable heresy.
Well let's put it this way. What would you say about an ethncitiy that dominates a society and forces its ideas on it? What would you say about an ethnicity that promotes feminism or the Frankfurt School?
-
Are you a monarchist? Just curious.
Politically I am traditionally conservative, but I do not support forcing any type of government on anyone. Some nations are suited for monarchies, some for dictatorships, and some for democracries, but not all nations are suited for democracy. Therefore I reject the Bush Doctrine of "world democratic revolution" especially since democracy can be the most evil of governments.
Do you hold to Kirk's Six Canons of conservatism? I read them several years ago and they greatly helped me to break free of the Americanist ethos and become a monarchist:
"A belief in a transcendent order, which Kirk described variously as based in tradition, divine revelation, or natural law;
An affection for the "variety and mystery" of human existence;
A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize "natural" distinctions;
A belief that property and freedom are closely linked;
A faith in custom, convention, and prescription, and
A recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence."
-
I am not denying that. But they are not damned because of their race; they are damned if they persist in their false religion. brotherfrancis appears to be believe that they are damned because of their race. That in itself is a damnable heresy.
Well let's put it this way. What would you say about an ethncitiy that dominates a society and forces its ideas on it? What would you say about an ethnicity that promotes feminism or the Frankfurt School?
What would you say about Jєωs who convert to the True Faith? Do you believe that one can be damned by their ethnicity? Or that it is acceptable to hate certain ethnicities, even the Jєωs?
-
I am not denying that. But they are not damned because of their race; they are damned if they persist in their false religion. brotherfrancis appears to be believe that they are damned because of their race. That in itself is a damnable heresy.
Well let's put it this way. What would you say about an ethncitiy that dominates a society and forces its ideas on it? What would you say about an ethnicity that promotes feminism or the Frankfurt School?
To put it another way, the false ideas do not come from their ethnicity, they come from the false religion. Just as the false belief in reincarnation does not come from the Indian race, but rather from their false religion of Hinduism. There is a world of difference, and it is an extremely important distinction to make.
-
Do you hold to Kirk's Six Canons of conservatism? I read them several years ago and they greatly helped me to break free of the Americanist ethos and become a monarchist:
"A belief in a transcendent order, which Kirk described variously as based in tradition, divine revelation, or natural law;
An affection for the "variety and mystery" of human existence;
A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize "natural" distinctions;
A belief that property and freedom are closely linked;
A faith in custom, convention, and prescription, and
A recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence."
I consider myself a Kirkian conservative although I am not a monarchist per se, where I support monarchies being in every nation. I am socially conservative however and culturally conservative and I reject the ethos of the French Revolution and "American values."
-
What would you say about Jєωs who convert to the True Faith? Do you believe that one can be damned by their ethnicity? Or that it is acceptable to hate certain ethnicities, even the Jєωs?
A Jєω who acts like a Jєω can be damned. A Jєω who acts like a Catholic can be saved. That being said I think the persecution of ex-nαzιs and the people who ran the cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρs is reminiscient of the hatred of Christ that put him on the cross.
-
Your hatred of the rich is typical of Marxism
Being for social justice does not make one a Marxist.
yes it does, if the means of the "social justice" is just plain old marxist redistribution of wealth
-
yes it does, if the means of the "social justice" is just plain old marxist redistribution of wealth
One should also realize of course that global capitalism is just as immoral as global communism.
-
Forgot to add:
If "race-mixing" is a Jєωιѕн, Marxist conspiracy, why are the regions with the highest racial admixture (Latin America, Central America) predominantly Catholic?
Why are those "Catholics" also well known for crime, rape, drugs, gang violence, liberation theology, etc. when they have been immersed in Catholicism for 500 years?
-
Behold the temerity of a man who, showing nothing but contempt for his culture, dares to say that he is strengthening his race through his "purity". No QuoVadisPetre, much better that you were of mixed blood or did not have an ounce of our ancient Oriental blood running through your veins, for if such self-hatred and sniveling subservience to the West is the product of your pedigree, I wish to have nothing to do with it. Please, refrain from daring to refer to yourself as Vietnamese if you hold our culture in such disdain.
What would the liberals say if we replaced certain words so it looked like this:
Behold the temerity of a man who, showing nothing but contempt for his Aryan culture, dares to say that he is strengthening his Aryan race through his "purity". No QuoVadisPetre, much better that you were of mixed blood or did not have an ounce of our ancient Aryan blood running through your veins, for if such self-hatred and sniveling subservience to the Jєωs is the product of your pedigree, I wish to have nothing to do with it. Please, refrain from daring to refer to yourself as Aryan if you hold our culture in such disdain.
I have a feeling all the liberals here would condemn that as "racist".
Perhaps liberals would.
Why don't you end the suspense and just tell us whether you would or not?
Would you?
We've already been over this. "Racist" is a Jєωιѕн word.
No, I wouldn't.
Racist is an English word. If you don't like it, how would you describe someone who hates others because of their race?
-
I agree with a lot of the posts in this thread (including matthew's post) and i appreciate the contributions of those whom i disagree with, providing they were civil and seemed to encourage or at least not undermine, a sense of catholic fraternity. The thing that i come away from this thinking is that as men we need to take on the burden of our fathers and carry on the line. I think that is our duty. If we do not do it, then I'm inclined to think we should be helping others do it, most probably through a holy order, but if not, then somehow.
The burden we carry and the line we should seek to continue is the Catholic faith. Nothing else really matters.
I'm sorry Sigismund, but I think that our identity is and should be, tied up in our blood/ancestry/ethnicity/race. I don't blame you for doing what you did, because we were all taught to do things like that, but I don't think it is right, because I don't think that's the way God made us. I do think you're robbing your children of something fundamental to who they are, by teaching them it doesn't matter and I think you're failing your wife, not to mention yourself. I don't feel sorry for you because of what you've done, but I do because of how you fight so hard to defend it. Please don't think I'm trying to put you down (i respect you, because of what you have accomplished), but it seems like "denial" to me.
He is raising his children to be good Catholics. If you have a problem with that, take it to the man upstairs.
Thank you. However, I am actually pretty much done raising my children and am now watching them raise my grandchildren. Except for my son the priest of course.
I'm so grateful that you married your Catholic wife and had your son, giving us a consecrated person during this crisis.
I'm just curious as to those who pretty obviously hate minorities feel voicing their opinions at their parishes would impact minority consecrated persons and traditional Catholics. I've read terms like "natural revulsion" and inferiority a lot.
Also, how does would it help a mixed race person, such as his son the priest, to believe in his own genetic and moral inferiority due to the fact that he is mixed, which he cannot undo?
BTW: IQ tests are not indicative of intelligence. IQ scores change for an individual over time. They change for immigrant groups over time as well. Jєωs had lower IQ scores at the first half of the 20th century and now have the highest. The Irish also had low test scores.
Africans have some of the highest college education and post-graduate degrees of any group in the US. If their supposed inferiority is true, and if IQ test would be predictive of educational attainment, they should have never have been able to finish any education. Also, an IQ test of 70 doesn't denote mental "retardation". Medical history and adaptive behavior in addition to multiple measures are used by both the medical and educational communities to label retardation.
My graduate degree makes me specialized in assessment. I also evaluate tests for a living. I am not White and a traditionalist.
MysticalRose,
Thanks for your input. However, your gonna have to show some evidence behind what you are saying. Please understand we cannot just buy your word for it. It would be great if you show proof of such high variances in IQ as well as how Africans are more likely to have college degrees than all other ethnic groups here in the US.
I wouldn't doubt that there is a good number of African immigrants who do have college degrees. You know why? Because they come here illegally, pop out a few kids, collect welfare which pays rent, utilities, food, etc. Then while they are collecting welfare they are also going back to school using financial aid/student loan money. So basically hard working Americans are paying for people to come here illegally, get an education, and rise above them in the social hierarchy.
Congratulations on being an educated individual. That does not necessarily prove that somebody knows how to use their brain, but it at least gives at least some credit to their mental ability. We need to see some evidence before taking you more seriously. Thanks.
-
Culture is developed over many centuries. Raise an African baby among Swedish Lutherans, and you will get someone who is culturally a Swedish Lutheran,not an African.
You don't watch Swedish news very often do you?
Well no, I don't. I mean, not living in Sweden or speaking Swedish.
Well I do watch Swedish news. By your own admission you are ignorant of the fact that we have been witnessing "live experiments" for the last few centuries which prove your thesis wrong. Africans in Sweden behave just like Africans do in your own country, just like they do in their own African countries, and just like they do in all the other countries of Europe, as well as Australia. What culture these people are brought up in has little to do with how they behave.
They are being brought up as Africans among other Africans in Sweden, Yes? A lone African, brought up among white Swedish Lutherans alone(my original example) would be, culturally a white Swedish Lutheran.
If you know of an example that disproved what I actually said, I will happily concede the point.
-
I obviously was not referring to urban ghetto culture. I was referring to the traditional rural agrarian culture of blacks in the South. I have met people from that culture and although they are unusUal now, they are deeply honorable people with a considerable amount of natural virtue.
If I had a child, I would much rather have them marry one of them than a Marxist class-warfare advocate with a grudge against the rich, if those were my only choices... :wink:
Do you think that there are no intelligent, good black people?
I hate to bring up an old topic but you know what I find funny about braininglitch? He's the first liberal to label me as far-left. :wink:
No one has ever called me a Marxist before since usually I'm called a bunch of far-right names. Usually they just call me racist, anti-Semetic, nαzι, fascist, etc.
Well, you can add it to your collection. :smile:
-
The Pharisees were such in the spirit. No Catholic exegete that I have ever read says that this refers to the Jєωs or Hebrews in any sort of racial way.
I suspect you are, Protestant-like, making up this shit as the whim strikes you.
Jєωs are not just a religion, they are an ethnicity. That is a proven fact.
Is anyone debating that?
You can't push it too far though. One can convert to Judaism as a religion, but once cannot convert to an ethnicity.
-
The True Origins of Scientific Racism
Scientific racism is an "Enlightenment", Masonic pseudo-science that emerged in the 17th and 18th Centuries. If flourished (and continues to flourish) in Protestant German and English-speaking countries. It is inextricably linked to Darwinism and the explicit rejection of Adam and Eve. NONE of the ideas hold unless you believe that all humans are descended from apes.
A quick survey of the pioneers who invented terms like "Caucasian," their countries of origin, and their Protestant or Atheist origins should make clear why they are not compatible with traditional Catholicism.
Charles White (1728-1813): English Protestant. Believed that there were multiple origins for human beings. He believed that humans could be graded and classified like animals (due to humanity's animal origins). His particular obsessions were intelligence and beauty as found in European physical features.
Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (11 May 1752 – 22 January 1840) : German Protestant. He invented the terms Caucasian, Mongolian, etcetera. Southeast Asians were NOT classified as Caucasians, but members of the Malay race. He did this buy measuring skulls (only 60) and even he concluded that individual Africans were more different from one another than from Europeans.
Germaine de Stael: A German Protestant woman who supported Napoleon's coup. Supported mysticism and Paganism and inspired Transcendentalism. Believed that Latin cultures were inferior to Northern European races and were disorganized and earthy.She traced it directly to the influence of the Roman empire.
Francois-Dominique Villers (1765-1815): A Frenchman who studied at the University of Gottingen. Came to believe in the inferiority of the Latin races and the superiority of the Germanics. Renounced Catholicism and became a Transcendentalist.
Surveying the regions, religions, and dates of birth, one may deduce what historic and social influences inspired Scientific racism. Men like Thomas Jefferson (Protestant mason) were attracted to scientific racism, particularly the work of de Stael. There are many other Protestant, "Enlightenment" Scientific racist that can be researched.
MysticalRose,
Thanks again for your input. I am starting to notice that you have bought into the liberal agenda that "race does not matter" and "there are no differences between the races". I know this because you use the term "scientific racism" and this, according to you, is an "obsession".
I personally think that it is natural to be curious about differences in races. And it was pretty much inevitable that one day there would be a scientific study on the differences between races. As a matter of fact, there were a number of different studies. These studies are really no different than any other scientific study sparked by human curiosity. And low and behold, there are differences in the races. The most obvious differences would be skin color.
There are differences in IQ between members of the same race..Why can't there be differences in IQ between races? Some races are taller than others would you agree? Some congoids have differences in bone structure than a typical caucasian. These differences have been noted by anthropologists. I will say that not all congoid skeletons have variances though.
If congoids are generally a bit larger than caucasians then why can't caucasians be a bit more intelligent?
-
I agree with a lot of the posts in this thread (including matthew's post) and i appreciate the contributions of those whom i disagree with, providing they were civil and seemed to encourage or at least not undermine, a sense of catholic fraternity. The thing that i come away from this thinking is that as men we need to take on the burden of our fathers and carry on the line. I think that is our duty. If we do not do it, then I'm inclined to think we should be helping others do it, most probably through a holy order, but if not, then somehow.
The burden we carry and the line we should seek to continue is the Catholic faith. Nothing else really matters.
I'm sorry Sigismund, but I think that our identity is and should be, tied up in our blood/ancestry/ethnicity/race. I don't blame you for doing what you did, because we were all taught to do things like that, but I don't think it is right, because I don't think that's the way God made us. I do think you're robbing your children of something fundamental to who they are, by teaching them it doesn't matter and I think you're failing your wife, not to mention yourself. I don't feel sorry for you because of what you've done, but I do because of how you fight so hard to defend it. Please don't think I'm trying to put you down (i respect you, because of what you have accomplished), but it seems like "denial" to me.
He is raising his children to be good Catholics. If you have a problem with that, take it to the man upstairs.
Thank you. However, I am actually pretty much done raising my children and am now watching them raise my grandchildren. Except for my son the priest of course.
I'm so grateful that you married your Catholic wife and had your son, giving us a consecrated person during this crisis.
I'm just curious as to those who pretty obviously hate minorities feel voicing their opinions at their parishes would impact minority consecrated persons and traditional Catholics. I've read terms like "natural revulsion" and inferiority a lot.
Also, how does would it help a mixed race person, such as his son the priest, to believe in his own genetic and moral inferiority due to the fact that he is mixed, which he cannot undo?
BTW: IQ tests are not indicative of intelligence. IQ scores change for an individual over time. They change for immigrant groups over time as well. Jєωs had lower IQ scores at the first half of the 20th century and now have the highest. The Irish also had low test scores.
Africans have some of the highest college education and post-graduate degrees of any group in the US. If their supposed inferiority is true, and if IQ test would be predictive of educational attainment, they should have never have been able to finish any education. Also, an IQ test of 70 doesn't denote mental "retardation". Medical history and adaptive behavior in addition to multiple measures are used by both the medical and educational communities to label retardation.
My graduate degree makes me specialized in assessment. I also evaluate tests for a living. I am not White and a traditionalist.
Thank you.
And I am quite certain that nothing said on this forum would cause my priest son or any of my children to believe in their own genetic or moral inferiority due to the fact that their mother an I were of different races. They are too Catholic to believe such heresy and too intelligent to believe such nonsense.
-
Wow. Those downthumbings didn't take long. :smile:
-
deleted
-
On the point of schools, when I was at school, there were few immigrants. Of the 770 boys in the school there was one Indian and two from Pakistan. The rest were Irish.
Now the secondary school I went to has many immigrants. How things change in just over a decade.There are more non Irish in that photo than there was in the school when I was there. As I said there was three non Irish boys. That was it. How immigration and multi culturalism "enriches" us is beyond me.
When I was at school in in 1970s in London, England the majority of my school were Irish immigrants, first and second generation.
I believe there are more Irish living outside of Ireland than in it.
So why was that OK but the reverse situation godless and unacceptable?
-
On the point of schools, when I was at school, there were few immigrants. Of the 770 boys in the school there was one Indian and two from Pakistan. The rest were Irish.
Now the secondary school I went to has many immigrants. How things change in just over a decade.There are more non Irish in that photo than there was in the school when I was there. As I said there was three non Irish boys. That was it. How immigration and multi culturalism "enriches" us is beyond me.
When I was at school in in 1970s in London, England the majority of my school were Irish immigrants, first and second generation.
I believe there are more Irish living outside of Ireland than in it.
So why was that OK but the reverse situation godless and unacceptable?
Because maybe perhaps English and Irish are basically the same race separated more by spiritual, culture and heritage than by race, ethnicity or blood.
Moslem Pakis and Hindus from the subcontinent of Asia are an entirely different race of people where as if they become the dominant race in the British Isles and they will one day with runaway, borderless immigration legislation, "multiculturaism", diversity, white British/Irish self-hate and a real globalist/NWO agenda to dilute every nation in Europe racially as to render it powerless against the dark forces that want to control it physically and economically, the indigenous peoples of the UK and Ireland will dissappear forever.
In other words, biologically genocided.
I don't believe for a second that the God who created all the different races and actually separated them at the Babel Tower would approve of this NWO agenda of shoving everyone together on a borderless planet and creating one monolithic human brown blob and actually destroy his wonderful diversity would approve of this.
But you're point about there's no difference between pale-skinned Celtic peoples and the darker Asian ones is so indicative of the brainwashed, Internationalist mindeset these days. There is a differences in the races, regardless of what some Jєωιѕн cultural antropologist is peddling somewhere out there.
The reality is so evident, it's almost laughable that anyone would question it.
This all common sense folks.
-
yes it does, if the means of the "social justice" is just plain old marxist redistribution of wealth
One should also realize of course that global capitalism is just as immoral as global communism.
well, of course MILLIONS of absolutely real deaths of the innocent people all over the world murdered only to prove that marxism and it's theories DO NOT WORK are equal with normal life and it's problems :rolleyes:
-
well, of course MILLIONS of absolutely real deaths of the innocent people all over the world murdered only to prove that marxism and it's theories DO NOT WORK are equal with normal life and it's problems :rolleyes:
Uh wrong. The model of capitalism is the exploitation of the working-class under slave-like labor conditions. People suffer just as much, even if there is no death involved. The working man is not given a liveable wage, women are forced into the labor force, the family is torn apart, greed and materialism are the highest values, the naked indidualism of the individual is placed above what is good for the community, etc.
-
well, of course MILLIONS of absolutely real deaths of the innocent people all over the world murdered only to prove that marxism and it's theories DO NOT WORK are equal with normal life and it's problems :rolleyes:
Uh wrong. The model of capitalism is the exploitation of the working-class under slave-like labor conditions. People suffer just as much, even if there is no death involved. The working man is not given a liveable wage, women are forced into the labor force, the family is torn apart, greed and materialism are the highest values, the naked indidualism of the individual is placed above what is good for the community, etc.
No I am not. It is YOU who are wrong and spilling the lies of the left - you have never lived in a coommunist country and you have no idea what it is.
If you want to prove how much do you suffer in this wrong capitalism, switch your places with any North Korean guys - with passports involved.
Even in the most poor thirld world countries which are capitalists not communist people have much better because they actually HAVE that life.
-
No I am not. It is YOU who are wrong and spilling the lies of the left - you have never lived in a coommunist country and you have no idea what it is.
If you want to prove how much do you suffer in this wrong capitalism, switch your places with any North Korean guys - with passports involved.
Even in the most poor thirld world countries which are capitalists not communist people have much better because they actually HAVE that life.
If you look at countries built on socialism and authoritarianism in the Middle East they also have better values than America.
And nonsense I am not a leftist, however I am anti-capitalist. Catholicism teaches the social justice for the worker should be put over the individualism of greed and profit. Obviously I believe in private property and I support small businesses and family farms but I despise the greed of our corporate class and of the misery it puts workers under. Unions are necessary even today since our capitalist class wants to send jobs overseas and hire immigrant labor, making ghost towns out of our industrial centers.
And you say the doctrines of consumerism and free tade are better?!
-
well, of course MILLIONS of absolutely real deaths of the innocent people all over the world murdered only to prove that marxism and it's theories DO NOT WORK are equal with normal life and it's problems :rolleyes:
Uh wrong. The model of capitalism is the exploitation of the working-class under slave-like labor conditions. People suffer just as much, even if there is no death involved. The working man is not given a liveable wage, women are forced into the labor force, the family is torn apart, greed and materialism are the highest values, the naked indidualism of the individual is placed above what is good for the community, etc.
No I am not. It is YOU who are wrong and spilling the lies of the left - you have never lived in a coommunist country and you have no idea what it is.
If you want to prove how much do you suffer in this wrong capitalism, switch your places with any North Korean guys - with passports involved.
Even in the most poor thirld world countries which are capitalists not communist people have much better because they actually HAVE that life.
Perhaps the answer is to flood North Korea with 20 million Bantus from Africa and Moslem Pakis, I'm sure that would enrich their culture and spark a real revolution for democracy, liberty and the free markets.
Yes, I'm sure of it actually. :rolleyes:
-
Even if you look at the so-callled Communist countries like China they are actually more nationalist than anything else, willing to flood the southern part of Russia with millions of Hans Chinese. Plus their trade policy follows the lines of Freidrich List, not the Communist trade policy. China knows how to put its country first when it comes to trade.
-
Perhaps the answer is to flood North Korea with 20 million Bantus from Africa and Moslem Pakis, I'm sure that would enrich their culture and spark a real revolution for democracy, liberty and the free markets.
Yes, I'm sure of it actually. :rolleyes:
perhaps the answer is not to equate a murderous nαzι-like antihuman ideology and scio-economic model with a normal life
-
Even if you look at the so-callled Communist countries like China they are actually more nationalist than anything else, willing to flood the southern part of Russia with millions of Hans Chinese. Plus their trade policy follows the lines of Freidrich List, not the Communist trade policy. China knows how to put its country first when it comes to trade.
You do not have to "look". You have to LIVE there. If you have not - you can't " look" because you do not know what you are talking about.
-
perhaps the answer is not to equate a murderous nαzι-like antihuman ideology and scio-economic model with a normal life
You do realize that Leftists are the ones who accuse people/systems of nαzιsm and fascism right? :rolleyes:
Also you do realize that Communism uses the terms nαzι, fascist, and αnтι-ѕємιтє to silence opponents correct?
-
You do not have to "look". You have to LIVE there. If you have not - you can't " look" because you do not know what you are talking about.
I do know what I am speaking of thank you. China has slave-like labor but they also have high tariffs which is the economic model of Freidrich List.
-
No I am not. It is YOU who are wrong and spilling the lies of the left - you have never lived in a coommunist country and you have no idea what it is.
If you want to prove how much do you suffer in this wrong capitalism, switch your places with any North Korean guys - with passports involved.
Even in the most poor thirld world countries which are capitalists not communist people have much better because they actually HAVE that life.
If you look at countries built on socialism and authoritarianism in the Middle East they also have better values than America.
And nonsense I am not a leftist, however I am anti-capitalist. Catholicism teaches the social justice for the worker should be put over the individualism of greed and profit. Obviously I believe in private property and I support small businesses and family farms but I despise the greed of our corporate class and of the misery it puts workers under. Unions are necessary even today since our capitalist class wants to send jobs overseas and hire immigrant labor, making ghost towns out of our industrial centers.
And you say the doctrines of consumerism and free tade are better?!
as I have said above - if you have not lived there, you can not "look".
You have to live as a citizen of such a country in order to realize that it is a cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ.
If you have not - your "looks" based on the media descriptions are irrelevant.
-
You do not have to "look". You have to LIVE there. If you have not - you can't " look" because you do not know what you are talking about.
I do know what I am speaking of thank you. China has slave-like labor but they also have high tariffs which is the economic model of Freidrich List.
No you do not. You are not a Chinese citizen or haven't been.
This is not an offense - most people on Earth have not been living in the communist regimes.
But if you have not - you do not know.
Which is obvious, since nobody who've tasted that "heaven" will ever equate consumerism with marxist hell
-
as I have said above - if you have not lived there, you can not "look".
You have to live as a citizen of such a country in order to realize that it is a cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ.
If you have not - your "looks" based on the media descriptions are irrelevant.
My grandfather was in Egypt and Iran back in the 70's---but nevertheless...
I realize that Arab prisons make Gitmo look like a vacation resort however Arabs are more socially conservative than American society.
-
My grandfather was in Egypt and Iran back in the 70's---but nevertheless...
I realize that Arab prisons make Gitmo look like a vacation resort however Arabs are more socially conservative than American society.
Egypt was flirting with socialism in 70s but it was never a socialist country per se.
-
No you do not. You are not a Chinese citizen or haven't been.
This is not an offense - most people on Earth have not been living in the communist regimes.
But if you have not - you do not know.
Which is obvious, since nobody who've tasted that "heaven" will ever equate consumerism with marxist hell
Uh yes I do. You obviously follow an Americanist way of life. Therefore you do not know what you are speaking of when you talk about the greatness of capitalism...which is just as evil as Marxism. I am a working-class man forced to deal with corporate nonsense every day. I DO know what I am talking about. Also it takes a simple book to pick up to see that China has high tariffs and is beating America's free trade model.
-
No you do not. You are not a Chinese citizen or haven't been.
This is not an offense - most people on Earth have not been living in the communist regimes.
But if you have not - you do not know.
Which is obvious, since nobody who've tasted that "heaven" will ever equate consumerism with marxist hell
Uh yes I do. You obviously follow an Amercanist way of life. Therefore you do ot know what you are speaking of when you talk about the grestness of capitalism...which is just as evil as Marxism. I am a working-class amn forced to deal with corporate nonsense every day. I DO know what I am talking about. Also it takes a simple book to pick up to see that China has high tariffs and is beating America's free trade model.
As a matter of fact I do know BOTH and I can compare.
Marxism and communism are the worst evils on Earth. Even speaking in arythmetic terms.
People who like to talk about evil American way of life usually do not know anything else except the leftist media brainwashing.
Have to run now - we may continue in the evening. Have a nice Sunday.
p.s. if you want to talk about evil American way - start your life as an immigrant for 5 bucks per hour, than we can compare.
p.p.s. you have no idea what working class in America is.
-
well, of course MILLIONS of absolutely real deaths of the innocent people all over the world murdered only to prove that marxism and it's theories DO NOT WORK are equal with normal life and it's problems :rolleyes:
Uh wrong. The model of capitalism is the exploitation of the working-class under slave-like labor conditions. People suffer just as much, even if there is no death involved. The working man is not given a liveable wage, women are forced into the labor force, the family is torn apart, greed and materialism are the highest values, the naked indidualism of the individual is placed above what is good for the community, etc.
Precisely what measures do you find acceptable to address each of these problems?
-
Precisely what measures do you find acceptable to address each of these problems?
Well for starters I want to make myself clear, that I believe in private property. However I support tax cuts and less regulations on small businesses and family farms while moving the taxes on large corporations. I also support a working-class family man given a higher wage than his single co-workers. Also women need to know their natural role is in the home, not in highly-paid careers.
Nevertheless I am a protectionist and support raising tariffs on foreign-made goods.
To combat inflation I support ending the Federal Reserve.
-
Jester liberalism is a condemned ideology and is just as bad as Communism. It puts the individual over the community and nation. Liberals supported free trade because they were anti-religious and anti-nationalist. The free trade of Adam Smith, Bastiat, Cobden, etc. ruined nations like Great Britain.
-
Precisely what measures do you find acceptable to address each of these problems?
Well for starters I want to make myself clear, that I believe in private property. However I support tax cuts and less regulations on small businesses and family farms while moving the taxes on large corporations. I also support a working-class family man given a higher wage than his single co-workers. Also women need to know their natural role is in the home, not in highly-paid careers.
Nevertheless I am a protectionist and support raising tariffs on foreign-made goods.
To combat inflation I support ending the Federal Reserve.
Those adjustments seem acceptable to me too, even though I am sure they would shock most American capitalists. What other economic policies do you favor that you think would shock American capitalism?
-
I agree that our current capitalism on steroids is bad. I have always been against NAFTA. I think "globalism" and the "global economy," and women flooding the workforce and competing with men in every job/career field are the primary problems making capitalism tend toward immorality in America.
-
Perhaps the answer is to flood North Korea with 20 million Bantus from Africa and Moslem Pakis, I'm sure that would enrich their culture and spark a real revolution for democracy, liberty and the free markets.
Yes, I'm sure of it actually. :rolleyes:
perhaps the answer is not to equate a murderous nαzι-like antihuman ideology and scio-economic model with a normal life
What's "normal" to you? The German National Socialists were trying to avoid the kind of cultural Marxism and nation-destroying ideals that eventually came to pass with their defeat, Tell me, was Europe a better plce after "murderous" nαzιs were eradicated?How many millions had to be put down in those Stalinists and Maoists "purges"?
The Naionalists model in prewar Europe was implemented in order to save their independence and the whole social/ethnic contsruct of their culture, much to the chagrin of globalist-minded Jєωιѕн banksters and their goy "christian" lemmings.
There would've been no "murderous", anti-human ideology had not the powers that be in London, Washington and Moscow just left well enough alone and let the Germans have control of their own nation and destiny. But no, the constant meddling, usurping and attempted "regime-change" that goes on even today, wouldn't allow it. It was the Zionists and Ango-saxons that demanded German blood for actually daring to to step out side the control of the world banks and their bought and paid for politicians, no one can be outside of the Judaic, global, protosphere.
-
Well said. I have also been against NAFTA, even though the Republican Party went along with Clinton to pass it.
Nevertheless do not forget that our economic system also relies on the ideas of materialism and consumerism, and our corporate class relies on greed.
I despise all of the free trade deals like GATT, the WTO, MFN, etc. Nevertheless I am not a complete isolationist when it comes to foreign markets since I think American farmers should be allowed to sell their food to other nations, and therefore I am against embargos and sanctions, even on countries like Cuba and North Korea, even if I am a strong anti-Communist.
-
No you do not. You are not a Chinese citizen or haven't been.
This is not an offense - most people on Earth have not been living in the communist regimes.
But if you have not - you do not know.
Which is obvious, since nobody who've tasted that "heaven" will ever equate consumerism with marxist hell
Uh yes I do. You obviously follow an Amercanist way of life. Therefore you do ot know what you are speaking of when you talk about the grestness of capitalism...which is just as evil as Marxism. I am a working-class amn forced to deal with corporate nonsense every day. I DO know what I am talking about. Also it takes a simple book to pick up to see that China has high tariffs and is beating America's free trade model.
As a matter of fact I do know BOTH and I can compare.
Marxism and communism are the worst evils on Earth. Even speaking in arythmetic terms.
People who like to talk about evil American way of life usually do not know anything else except the leftist media brainwashing.
Have to run now - we may continue in the evening. Have a nice Sunday.
p.s. if you want to talk about evil American way - start your life as an immigrant for 5 bucks per hour, than we can compare.
p.p.s. you have no idea what working class in America is.
Five bucks an hour? LOL! I pay more than that in taxes to pay for those same immigrants to come here and get entitlements that even my family whose been here for three generation can't even obtain. Then at the end of the year, I still have to give back more than your poor oppressed immigrants make all year which either leaves me owing or wipes out any savings I was able to eke out all year.
the newbies in this country have more advantages and entittlements that the naturalized taxpaying citizen could only dream of! We can't even afford to go to a doctor or send our kids to college while if you just ran over the border or stepped off the boat from China you'll qualify for everything and anything, especially if you can't speak the language.
I don't think mister court jester here has actually done a days work and paid the tax in his life. If he did, he would more than understand the reality of thigs here in the USSA these days.
-
Old Bush and Clinton publicly agreed during the campaign about NAFTA. Buchanan in the primary and Perot were against it, of course.
How do you propose to deal with this:
"Nevertheless do not forget that our economic system also relies on the ideas of materialism and consumerism, and our corporate class relies on greed."
-
Five bucks an hour? LOL! I pay more than that in taxes to pay for those same immigrants to come here and get entitlements that even my family whose been here for three generation can't even obtain. Then at the end of the year, I still have to give back more than your poor oppressed immigrants make all year which either leaves me owing or wipes out any savings I was able to eke out all year.
the newbies in this country have more advantages and entittlements that the naturalized taxpaying citizen could only dream of! We can't even afford to go to a doctor or send our kids to college while if you just ran over the border or stepped off the boat from China you'll qualify for everything and anything, especially if you can't speak the language.
I don't think mister court jester here has actually done a days work and paid the tax in his life. If he did, he would more than understand the reality of thigs here in the USSA these days.
Also well said alaric. :wink:
Honestly immigrants get welfare programs, they get emergency medical care when they cross the border, their children become immigrants automatically if they are born here, etc.
Meanwhile what do we get? Well we get immigrants taking the jobs away from Americans, we get the social costs of crime, rape, murder, drugs, drug cartels, etc. We see our old neighborhoods stocked full of immigrants, we have more of our wages paid for taxes to support the immigrant welfare programs, etc.
And now that blacks are getting government jobs they are even moving into middle-class neighborhoods.
-
Old Bush and Clinton publicly agreed during the campaign about NAFTA. Buchanan in the primary and Perot were against it, of course.
How do you propose to deal with this:
"Nevertheless do not forget that our economic system also relies on the ideas of materialism and consumerism, and our corporate class relies on greed."
I support corporations hiring American workers of course and not immigrant workers or sending jobs overseas. I myself do not live a materialistic lifestyle nor a consumeristic lifestyle. If there has to be consumerism it should support our own home market made by American manufactoring.
-
The True Origins of Scientific Racism
Scientific racism is an "Enlightenment",
Whether you want to slap a name on it of "scientific racism", and insinuate that those of us here you accuse of it of agreeing with things certain people have said which doesn't agree with Catholicism (which is of course not true) doesn't change what normal people observe with regard to race.
Masonic pseudo-science that emerged in the 17th and 18th Centuries. If flourished (and continues to flourish) in Protestant German and English-speaking countries.
You have to be kidding if you think it's mainly restricted to Protestant and English speaking countries. That is a huge stretch.
In fact anti-African protests in China were one of the incidents that led to the Tiananmen Square protests:
The course of the Nanjing protests went from anti-African sentiment to banners proclaiming human rights. The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 came 4 months after the anti-African protests in Nanjing and some elements of the Nanjing protests were still evident, such as banners proclaiming "Stop Taking Advantage of Chinese Women".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_anti-African_protests
It is inextricably linked to Darwinism and the explicit rejection of Adam and Eve. NONE of the ideas hold unless you believe that all humans are descended from apes.
That is of course false. Admitting that race exists and that different races have different traits does not at all require admitting polygenesis.
Anne Catherine Emmerich spoke of the sons of Ham.
A quick survey of the pioneers who invented terms like "Caucasian,"
Now the term Caucasian is claimed to not be compatible with Catholicism. That is ridiculous.
their countries of origin, and their Protestant or Atheist origins should make clear why they are not compatible with traditional Catholicism.
Why they are not compatible. We are not them, we don't hold the same views.
-
There were people in England who made excuses for letting the Irish starve in the 1840s. The "philosophy" they had then was just a paper-thin mask for their hostility to Irish Catholics. The same thing is in the ʝʊdɛօ-masonic mindset today.
Irish nationalists don't typically regard the Irish diaspora as a good thing.
Those who attempt to draw an equivalence between the Irish settling in parts of the former British Empire (which had forcibly included the Irish nation for centuries) and the post-68 insistence of mass migration of coloreds to all European countries are people who speak in bad faith.
To suggest that all nationalities, peoples, etc, are equivalently distinct, to say that one cannot discriminate, to suggest that a nation from which many people have emigrated must also be a nation which indiscriminately accept migrants, is simply bad faith from dishonest people who have contempt and hatred for national identity.
Barbara Spectre:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2Vq_e2Z1ug
"Europe will not survive" - unless it accepts mass migration of colored ethnicities and abandons ethnic nationalism.
Says the Israeli woman from ethnic nationalist Israel.
-
correction:
Whether or not you slap a name on it of "scientific racism", and insinuate that the alleged "racists" here agree with things that Protestant "scientific racists" have said - insinuating we don't start from a Christian standpoint but agree with those godless men, (which isn't true) can't change what normal people observe with regard to race.
-
I have to catch up on some posts, but in the meanwhile - Matthew, I believe it was, who'd said earlier in this discussion that race is only an issue to the extent that culture is an issue. Therefore, it seems that since cultural disparities are often very great, there are more barriers to overcome in a mixed race marriage being successful.
The problem with such an argument is that it seems to me that the stigma attached from the outside to a mixed race marriage might in fact be much more difficult for the family to overcome than any cultural or racial difference.
The majority of people choose to marry within their own race, a few do not. Sorry, but I see no positive evidence that has been presented to back up the claim that the latter in any significant and objective way differ from the former or cause some insuperable difficulty by themselves, apart from the possible difficulty of having to face other people brand your marriage as somehow inferior, defective or abnormal.
-
I have to catch up on some posts, but in the meanwhile - Matthew, I believe it was, who'd said earlier in this discussion that race is only an issue to the extent that culture is an issue. Therefore, it seems that since cultural disparities are often very great, there are more barriers to overcome in a mixed race marriage being successful.
He didn't say that.
The problem with such an argument is that it seems to me that the stigma attached from the outside to a mixed race marriage might in fact be much more difficult for the family to overcome than any cultural or racial difference.
It's noticed because it's very visible. There's no denying when one's children look as though they have a completely different origin than oneself.
Sorry, but I see no positive evidence
That just means you lack objectivity and common sense.
that has been presented to back up the claim that the latter in any significant and objective way differ from the former or cause some insuperable difficulty by themselves,
So unless something is an "insuperable" difficulty, one can't make a comparison?
Silly way to discuss the topic.
apart from the possible difficulty of having to face other people brand your marriage as somehow inferior, defective or abnormal.
It would appear you're not open to admitting that preservation of race can possibly have value. It is fruitless to argue with someone who makes such a dogmatic assumption. How is one ever supposed to prove anything to you Nishant?
It's not possible (to take Sigismund's example) to argue with someone who says an African child raised by a Swedish Lutheran family would be Swedish Lutheran - as though there would be no major differences from other native born Swedes.
Someone who really insists there is no difference could claim that Swedes, by adopting black children, could create a black Sweden in which people thought, acted, and lived just as Swedes of the past lived.
It's a delusion to take the premise of "color-blindness" (pretending the races are interchangeable). And I think it's fair to say, it's a willful delusion.
-
It's noticed because it's very visible. There's no denying when one's children look as though they have a completely different origin than oneself.
Heh. There are many immigrants of Caucasian descent in India and other Asian countries. Many of them inter marry with people of other races. Are you going to take it up with them as well, that their descendants won't look like the way you think they should, while they themselves are perfectly fine with it?
That just means you lack objectivity and common sense.
Charming as ever, aren't we today!
It would appear you're not open to admitting that preservation of race can possibly have value.
And you aren't open to seeing people are quite content to value certain other things in a potential spouse much, much more so that race seems trivial in comparison. You just aren't.
You're argument is similar to the claim that, if say one's nationality has value, one should never choose to give it up for something else one deems more valuable.
It is formally fallacious. What you want to say just doesn't follow from saying that race can have value.
It is fruitless to argue with someone who makes such a dogmatic assumption.
I can't recall forcing you to argue with me. I'm quite content to agree to disagree.
How is one ever supposed to prove anything to you Nishant?
I mentioned how you could begin to go about doing that long ago - beside the immediate downthumb, there was no response to that post. Show that by any objective measure and outcome these marriages significantly differ from other marriages.
You know, the way one actually goes about demonstrating that one's philosophising actually holds true in the real world.
It's a delusion to take the premise of "color-blindness" (pretending the races are interchangeable). And I think it's fair to say, it's a willful delusion.
I think it's fair to say many of the opponents of inter racial marriage believe precisely that their race is in fact by itself superior to others, just as the eugenicists of old did, and contrary to revealed truth. That conclusion (opposition to such marriages) logically follows from the premise (taht one race is superior to another), you think you can hold the conclusion without the premise implied by it. Some might manage it just by holding the conclusion without thinking about it too much, but many of those who insist on drawing it out and dwelling on it sooner or later tend to follow it back to the premise logically implied by it, that one race is fundamentally superior to others.
-
Show that by any objective measure and outcome these marriages significantly differ from other marriages.
There are whole countries full of mixed race people. Show me one that is truly thriving.
You know, the way one actually goes about demonstrating that one's philosophising actually holds true in the real world.
In the so-called "real world" people who object to dogmatic color-blindness and argue against it are dismissed a priori.
Your appeal to the authority of "the real world" on this topic is perfidious.
Indeed, the typical tactic is that whenever any sort of study on these subjects is cited, the accusation is then to accuse the other side of being eugenicist, pseudo-scientific, etc.
Heads you win tales I lose.
Which is basically what whites are told by Jєωs, their lackeys, and other non-whites in this culture.
They hold whites to a universal standard of "inclusion" while freely cooperating against whites and Christians in their own dealings.
-
Our ancestors didn't need studies to come to valid common sense conclusions on these issues!
Conclusions. Adolescents who self-identify as more than 1 race are at higher health and behavior risks. The findings are compatible with interpreting the elevated risk of mixed race as associated with stress.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/
-
Sigh. Telesphorus, I think you are reacting to one extreme, the promotion of inter-racial marriage as by itself a higher ideal, by going to the other, which is refusing to recognize there is nothing inferior or abnormal about such marriages. I think both are deviations. Perhaps we will not agree, there is no need to agree on everything.
In my opinion, in all probability, the majority of people will continue to marry within their own race, and a minority will choose otherwise, largely irrespective of misguided activism in favor of one or the other.
-
I think it's fair to say many of the opponents of inter racial marriage believe precisely that their race is in fact by itself superior to others, just as the eugenicists of old did, and contrary to revealed truth. That conclusion (opposition to such marriages) logically follows from the premise (taht one race is superior to another), you think you can hold the conclusion without the premise implied by it. Some might manage it just by holding the conclusion without thinking about it too much, but many of those who insist on drawing it out and dwelling on it sooner or later tend to follow it back to the premise logically implied by it, that one race is fundamentally superior to others.
That's like saying that a patriot who loves his country more than others must believe that his country is intrinsically superior to others.
Such a patriot might want to keep jobs for his fellow nationals, and be opposed to moving them offshore. And that suggests that he believes his countrymen are "fundamentally superior" to others?
No, it's just normal. He's looking out for those close to him.
One can wish to protect and advance the interests of a person or group without asserting its fundamental superiority over others. Those who hold otherwise have an agenda.
-
Those who hold otherwise have an agenda.
Often a racial agenda of their own.
-
Perhaps the answer is to flood North Korea with 20 million Bantus from Africa and Moslem Pakis, I'm sure that would enrich their culture and spark a real revolution for democracy, liberty and the free markets.
Yes, I'm sure of it actually. :rolleyes:
perhaps the answer is not to equate a murderous nαzι-like antihuman ideology and scio-economic model with a normal life
What's "normal" to you? The German National Socialists were trying to avoid the kind of cultural Marxism and nation-destroying ideals that eventually came to pass with their defeat, Tell me, was Europe a better plce after "murderous" nαzιs were eradicated?How many millions had to be put down in those Stalinists and Maoists "purges"?
The Naionalists model in prewar Europe was implemented in order to save their independence and the whole social/ethnic contsruct of their culture, much to the chagrin of globalist-minded Jєωιѕн banksters and their goy "christian" lemmings.
There would've been no "murderous", anti-human ideology had not the powers that be in London, Washington and Moscow just left well enough alone and let the Germans have control of their own nation and destiny. But no, the constant meddling, usurping and attempted "regime-change" that goes on even today, wouldn't allow it. It was the Zionists and Ango-saxons that demanded German blood for actually daring to to step out side the control of the world banks and their bought and paid for politicians, no one can be outside of the Judaic, global, protosphere.
really? Do you at last know the history and who made that possible that nαzιs in Germany got the power? or you are trying to compare 12 years of intronization of Hitler by commies with Stalin as a head with 70 years of commie slaughter in soviet union? Soviet union from it's very beginnig in November 1917 ( then even called differently) was able to survive only on terror against it's own citizens.
60 million murdered during the soviet era, from artificial famine in Ukraine 10 million, 2 million murdered in South-East Asia - that is not murderous, right?
I am sick and tired of hearing about nαzιs and never mentioning much bigger and much more bloodier regimes of soviet union and it's sattelites.
BTW, nαzι regime was also socialistic - so in economic terms not much difference. The state power wasn't absolute as it was in the communist countries, though.
-
While the nαzιs' crimes have been exaggerated to an extent, I will never understand why Catholics continue to support a political movement that was condemned by Pius XII and persecuted many Catholics, including priests and bishops. Heck, we had a guy on this forum once who claimed that Adolf Hitler was a saint and said that he prayed for his intercession! In our opposition to Bolshevism, it is very dangerous to ally ourselves to a purely secular, flawed movement like nαzιsm, one which essentially denies the universality of the Faith and exalts race higher than anything else.
-
The Divinity of Christ has no skin-color, but the Humanity of Christ is most modestly and compassionately of the white Indo-European race, the naturally most universal among the human races. And the Romans, His divine and human Chosen People on earth, are humbly and meekly likewise.
No. Christ's humanity was that of a middle eastern Jєω whom you would defiantly not regard as white if He knocked on your door today. Have you suffered a head injury lately?
Although it isn't always easy to avoid personal mudslinging, we should always try.
This topic may well be key to the entire argument on this very long thread. Is Our Lord a Jєω and some kind of low-born non-white mongrel?
So then what exactly is a mongrel Jєω? Well, let us first quote what our Highest Authority has to say about exactly what a Jєω is:
"You are of your father the Devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof."
(John 8:44, Authorized Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible)
Should we identify Our Lord as a son of the Devil? Perhaps not. Therefore how is the Son of God a son of the Devil? Something in the popular thesis of a non-white "Jesus the Jєω" appears to be most horribly amiss!
What is going on here?
To make a long story short, we are witnessing here the false histories written by German and Russian Bolsheviks being cleverly slipped in to falsify the very well-docuмented histories of real-life historical Roman Catholicism. We are seeing the sly subterfuges of the Novus Ordo at work.
In the real world of objective Catholic history the truth is that Ancient Israel was a white nation with the Indo-European aristocracy that has always been usual in that part of the world since time immemorial. The same as with the aristocrats of present-day Syria and Palestine. Therefore Our Lord could only be a white Indo-European like every other royal in the Near East of those days. Royals are notoriously opposed to race-mixing their own royal dynasties and in ancient times they were even more opposed than they are at present. The Royal House of David was most assuredly never casual about its own dynastic marriages. They never just married any low-born mixed-race scuм that might happen to come their way! And exactly who were the most disreputable and universally despised riff-raff dregs of the ancient Middle East anyway?
The good reader has guessed correctly. Those were the source of our contemporary Jєωs and their Judaism, none other than the most notorious and loathed mixed race bastards in the entire Ancient World, namely, the Ancient Edomite Jєωs. In brief, the people of King Herod and his singularly evil Herodian Royal Dynasty, the incomparably traitorous mixed-race Deicide People of the New Testament.
Our Lord remains eternally both a Roman citizen and the Davidid King of Ancient Israel and her white Ancient Hebrew race. Whereas, apart from the miracles of Roman Catholic baptism, the Jєωs must forever remain what Our Lord so infallibly declared them to be: The Pharisee demonic spawn of Herod's Satanic Edomite Kingdom, that eternally accursed and damned mixed-race collection of incomparable blood-drenched bastards we now know all too well as "the sons of the Devil," namely, the Jєωs.
Prominent among the innumerable heresies of the Novus Ordo we can identify the heresy of Docetism. That heresy subtly denies the Incarnation of Our Lord who thereby has every characteristic of our human nature except only for sin. Our Lord is then thought to be much too "elevated" to have any mere racial characteristics of mere human royalty. He is seen as far too "good" to have any mere human biology. Hence He must have no true human racial identity whatsoever and be somehow quintessentially mixed and ignoble, exactly like an oh-so-beyond-perfect Pharisee hypocrite always knows himself to be. In brief, He must be an utterly typical Jєω!
And hence miscegenation (together with incest) becomes gradually evermore mandatory because the original uncensored тαℓмυd and Satanic Judaism so command. Our God then ceases to be the incarnate real-life historic Davidid King of Old Israel with His real-life royal human racial characteristics of a real-life human Indo-European king of the historic Ancient World and becomes instead the Anti-Christ, a savagely mixed-race and hideously in-bred vampire-like bloodless bastard Jєω.
Such is the true underlying purpose of contemporary government-sponsored forced miscegenation. The usual claims of "free choice" and "feelings of love" are bogus. Instead contemporary miscegenation is in reality occurring through the unrestrained violence of Jєω-controlled Marxist tyrannies and at the behest of the diabolical unleashed monolithic malice of Global Judaism.
Therefore Roman Catholics need to recognize that contemporary miscegenation is in truth and in practice usually virtually a sharing in the apostate Jєω crime of Anti-Christ Deicide, a most grave mortal sin against the Holy Ghost.
And if that blinding insight cannot dissuade Roman Catholics from the sin of unnecessary miscegenation, then we would be right to wonder whatever can do so...
You have repeatedly ignored my requests, but I will say it again;
What Catholic, pre-Vatican II sources can you cite in support of your theories? Because without that your posts are worthless.
You make it sound as though one's spiritual worth is tied to one's race. Even Telesphorus and InfiniteFaith do not share that heresy. Is that what you believe?
Do you believe that people are saved by their race? Or that members of certain races (i.e. Jєωs) cannot be saved?
You keep ignoring me. If you continue to ignore my questions, you are nothing more than a bombastic hypocritical coward.
Sorry to ignore. These threads get pretty long!
Of course people aren't "saved by their race." That is precisely the central tenet of Judaism that justifies the Novus Ordo and its Americanism in the first place. Jєωs and Americans think they are saved by their natural births and are then free to indulge every whim the Devil incites in them, whereas we Roman Catholics know we are saved only by a holy death or else headed for a most unpleasant long-term incineration. Nevertheless our births are critical in forming our duties in life and our natural standing in the human hierarchy that largely determines those duties. So our natural worth is most definitely tied to our racial and biological inheritance.
But, contrary to what the тαℓмυd says, natural birth is quite different from supernatural salvation. We are saved by how we shall die, not by how we were born. Hence my Catholicism and Jєωιѕн тαℓмυdism aren't the same at all. One is natural birth into the guilt of the Deicide of God, while the other is supernatural birth into the innocence of a Christian death which is also the Death of Christ and His Roman People. These two religions are more like mortal enemies to the bitter end than like the same view of race or anything else.
The Catholic sources that support my "theories" are beyond number. The convert Ratisbonne brothers who so greatly influenced the First Vatican Council shared my attitude towards Jєωs. Perhaps a careful study of their lives and writings might do wonders to enlighten you on the historic Catholic view of Jєωιѕнness. The life and writings of St. Paul are also a good place to start. Or deep contemplation on the Old Testament Prophets and Our Lord's own words on this cruelly unforgiving topic.
No doubt the best source fpr my "theories" about Jєωs must remain the Crucifixion of Christ!
Jєωs can be saved, but only as Roman Catholic ex-Jєωs, not as Jєωs. A few nominal Jєωs are saved by the baptism of desire and that seems to have led to the vast conversions of Jєωs that have in turn sparked perhaps every great development in our Roman civilization these past two thousand years. Many Jєωs have become friendly towards Catholics and that has always been the surest sign of the immanent sincere conversion of their children and grandchildren. Those few Catholic ex-Jєωs who have returned to their white Hebrew roots have proven to be the truest hope and light of the world. And the rarest of men...
In any event this writer may well be bombastic, although perhaps literature sometimes benefits from a strong wind. But is wearing one's heart on one's sleeve a true sign of hypocrisy? The visionary fool and the sly hypocrite aren't often the same. Then there is the hardest word, cowardice.
Franciscans are already dead men. For us, what is bravery?
Thank you for your reply. While I disagree with some of your opinions, I see by your explanation that you do not hold to any heresy. In the end, we're on the same side.
Pax tecuм Christi.
-
No you do not. You are not a Chinese citizen or haven't been.
This is not an offense - most people on Earth have not been living in the communist regimes.
But if you have not - you do not know.
Which is obvious, since nobody who've tasted that "heaven" will ever equate consumerism with marxist hell
Uh yes I do. You obviously follow an Amercanist way of life. Therefore you do ot know what you are speaking of when you talk about the grestness of capitalism...which is just as evil as Marxism. I am a working-class amn forced to deal with corporate nonsense every day. I DO know what I am talking about. Also it takes a simple book to pick up to see that China has high tariffs and is beating America's free trade model.
As a matter of fact I do know BOTH and I can compare.
Marxism and communism are the worst evils on Earth. Even speaking in arythmetic terms.
People who like to talk about evil American way of life usually do not know anything else except the leftist media brainwashing.
Have to run now - we may continue in the evening. Have a nice Sunday.
p.s. if you want to talk about evil American way - start your life as an immigrant for 5 bucks per hour, than we can compare.
p.p.s. you have no idea what working class in America is.
Five bucks an hour? LOL! I pay more than that in taxes to pay for those same immigrants to come here and get entitlements that even my family whose been here for three generation can't even obtain. Then at the end of the year, I still have to give back more than your poor oppressed immigrants make all year which either leaves me owing or wipes out any savings I was able to eke out all year.
the newbies in this country have more advantages and entittlements that the naturalized taxpaying citizen could only dream of! We can't even afford to go to a doctor or send our kids to college while if you just ran over the border or stepped off the boat from China you'll qualify for everything and anything, especially if you can't speak the language.
I don't think mister court jester here has actually done a days work and paid the tax in his life. If he did, he would more than understand the reality of thigs here in the USSA these days.
Do not lie. If you would be paying that many taxes you won't be in a creed that hates "the rich" the most. The newbies in this country which play up the system can do it exactly because the guys who hate the rich elect the "anointed ones" who will put everybody on a feeding tube of government money in order to transfer the people into cattle which can then be manipulated anyway the "elite" wants.
-
While the nαzιs' crimes have been exaggerated to an extent, I will never understand why Catholics continue to support a political movement that was condemned by Pius XII and persecuted many Catholics, including priests and bishops. Heck, we had a guy on this forum once who claimed that Adolf Hitler was a saint and said that he prayed for his intercession! In our opposition to Bolshevism, it is very dangerous to ally ourselves to a purely secular, flawed movement like nαzιsm, one which essentially denies the universality of the Faith and exalts race higher than anything else.
the problem is most of the people do not understand that BOTH regimes are THE SAME and have socialism and The Govenrment as an economic basis to their totalitarian systems. Soviet Union made classes an enemy of the nation, nαzιs made nations the enemies. Not much difference at the basis, though - both are the extreme left.
-
Jester liberalism is a condemned ideology and is just as bad as Communism. It puts the individual over the community and nation. Liberals supported free trade because they were anti-religious and anti-nationalist. The free trade of Adam Smith, Bastiat, Cobden, etc. ruined nations like Great Britain.
No it is not. There is not enough liberalism in the US - that's why we have all the problems. Too much government intrusion and too much envy and hatred against the rich.
Not that some problems could not be corrected in the corporate world ( but nobody, even the "heart bleeding" leftists will touch it - jon corzine to remind the latest) but if you want a guy down the ladder to have a decent life - you have to let the guy on the top to have his/her excesses. If you think that government regulations will change the human nature - you are wrong - they were not able to change it anywhere( even with rivers of blood)
Let the rich prosper and that way there will be jobs for everybody.
Correcting the working system ( cautiously) has nothing to do with turning it upside down and introducing the totalitarian regime in order to keep it.
-
The problem with such an argument is that it seems to me that the stigma attached from the outside to a mixed race marriage might in fact be much more difficult for the family to overcome than any cultural or racial difference.
It's noticed because it's very visible. There's no denying when one's children look as though they have a completely different origin than oneself.
Half-Japanese Sean Lennon bears no resemblance to his English dad whatsoever!
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VAGGU-a6q2c/TeGdHzP4rnI/AAAAAAAAAP0/1xRljC2ZtCw/s640/600full.jpg)
I guess the glasses help.
-
Some races are more dominant in expression than others.
What a shock that we have a liberal bringing up someone related to the Beatles.
-
the problem is most of the people do not understand that BOTH regimes are THE SAME and have socialism and The Govenrment as an economic basis to their totalitarian systems. Soviet Union made classes an enemy of the nation, nαzιs made nations the enemies. Not much difference at the basis, though - both are the extreme left.
Uh wrong. National Socialism was created in Germany to carve out the old German Empire in the East and crush Bolshevism in Russia. Anyone who is an expert on Adolf Hitler's political thought knows that Hitler came up with the Drang Noch Osten even before Mein Kampf, hell it was a traditional German policy. Hitler did not believe in exporting National Socialism ouitside of Germany. That was Stalin who believed in imposing Communism on subject lands and peoples. You're believing liberal myths, which is not surprising since you want MORE liberalism in this country.
-
While the nαzιs' crimes have been exaggerated to an extent, I will never understand why Catholics continue to support a political movement that was condemned by Pius XII and persecuted many Catholics, including priests and bishops. Heck, we had a guy on this forum once who claimed that Adolf Hitler was a saint and said that he prayed for his intercession! In our opposition to Bolshevism, it is very dangerous to ally ourselves to a purely secular, flawed movement like nαzιsm, one which essentially denies the universality of the Faith and exalts race higher than anything else.
World War II destroyed Western civilization, period. The obsession to "crush nαzιsm and fascism" by the Allies is the main reason why the West is dying, not feminism or even liberalism.
-
The funny thing about all that socialism and communism non sense is that they wanted to spread these philosophies to the rest of the world without even proving that the system worked. That just goes to show what liberalism brings to our planet. People that don't know how to use their brains, and spread their errors to other people because of that. Stalin was an extreme liberal authoritarian. Those are the worst of the worst right there. I can't stand liberal authoritarians.
-
the problem is most of the people do not understand that BOTH regimes are THE SAME and have socialism and The Govenrment as an economic basis to their totalitarian systems. Soviet Union made classes an enemy of the nation, nαzιs made nations the enemies. Not much difference at the basis, though - both are the extreme left.
Uh wrong. National Socialism was created in Germany to carve out the old German Empire in the East and crush Bolshevism in Russia. Anyone who is an expert on Adolf Hitler's political thought knows that Hitler came up with the Drang Noch Osten even before Mein Kampf, hell it was a traditional German policy. Hitler did not believe in exporting National Socialism ouitside of Germany. That was Stalin who believed in imposing Communism on subject lands and peoples. You're believing liberal myths, which is not surprising since you want MORE liberalism in this country.
No I am not. Not only was Hitler put into power with the help of Stalin, those two were buddies all the way until June 22 1941 - do I have to name which treaty actually let the WWII start? Both wanted territorial expansion and what ideological garbage they used in order to brainwash their own people does not make any difference - the economic basis of their existence and the totalitarian meas of suppressing any opposition to The Government were the same.
Learn your history not from the liberal high school history of this country but from the real docuмents. hitler's nαzιsm and Stalin's communism were twin brothers.
Which does not mean they weren't always eager to cut each other's throat.
-
The funny thing about all that socialism and communism non sense is that they wanted to spread these philosophies to the rest of the world without even proving that the system worked. That just goes to show what liberalism brings to our planet. People that don't know how to use their brains, and spread their errors to other people because of that. Stalin was an extreme liberal authoritarian. Those are the worst of the worst right there. I can't stand liberal authoritarians.
Stalin was a Communist, not a liberal. A liberal believes in promoting the the good of the individual over the community, while Communism believes in a classless community tied together without property. Hell even Stalin wasn't a Communist per se in the Marxian sense, but he did believe in Russia as the vanguard of the revolution., against the Trotskyist idea of a permanent revolution. The point is liberalism does support freedom in the economic sense, Communism does not.
-
since you want MORE liberalism in this country.
what actual meaning do you put in that word?I mean liberalism - because I suspect we mean different things - liberal economy for me is as far from those leftists called "liberals" in this country as they can get.
-
Show that by any objective measure and outcome these marriages significantly differ from other marriages.
There are whole countries full of mixed race people. Show me one that is truly thriving.
Australia is doing pretty well.
Brazil is growing rapidly.
Canada ain't doing so bad.
"Truly thriving", if an absolute statement then no country makes this benchmark, nor ever did.
If relatively speaking in terms of their economic progress and lack of war, then the above three are doing better than most countries.
-
No I am not. Not only was Hitler put into power with the help of Stalin, those two were buddies all the way until June 22 1941 - do I have to name which treaty actually let the WWII start? Both wanted territorial expansion and what ideological garbage they used in order to brainwash their own people does not make any difference - the economic basis of their existence and the totalitarian meas of suppressing any opposition to The Government were the same.
Learn your history not from the liberal high school history of this country but from the real docuмents. hitler's nαzιsm and Stalin's communism were twin brothers.
Which does not mean they weren't always eager to cut each other's throat.
Uh yes you are. The docuмent you speak of is the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact but Hitler only signed that because the West declared war on him in 1939. Hitler's ambitions lay in the East, towards crushing Bolshevism in Russia. Many Americans and British have pointed this out, even before the war, but Britain and France still declared war. Hitler had to cover his Eastern flank, which is why he signed the peace. Hitler didn't even want war with anybody. He tried to reclaim the territorial expansion of the old German Empire, and concerning Poland he tried to negotiate with the Poles but Poland refused because of the British-French war guarentee. Hell in 1939 Hitler couldn't even attack Russia, considering he had no border with Russia.
-
what actual meaning do you put in that word?I mean liberalism - because I suspect we mean different things - liberal economy for me is as far from those leftists called "liberals" in this country as they can get.
I am speaking of wholesale economic freedom. I believe in limited economic freedom.
-
Australia is doing pretty well.
Australia's prosperity is based on its being a settlement of whites.
Brazil is growing rapidly.
The Brazilian slums and crime remain notorious
Canada ain't doing so bad.
Canada is another state founded as a settlement overwhelmingly European.
What we see here is something that is very typical of your posts:
BAIT AND SWITCH
You say you're going to give an example but then give something else.
You speak of predominantly European countries as being "mixed race"
Then you include Brazil without any discussion of the disastrous poverty there.
-
And Canada is making a hellhole of itself by the growing Arab population, which they refuse to do anything about. Australia is also suffering from Asian immigration.
Brazil is a prime example of what America, Canada, Australia, and Europe will become.
-
Why does this guy spew BS relentlessly?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Australia
Using Canada and Australia as examples of "mixed race" countries seems to be dishonest or stupid.
Or it may be sheer ignorance based on some of his past posts here.
I suppose if in 50 years Europe is "mixed race" and European states are better off than others it will be claimed to be proof of the success of race-mixing.
Ignoring the foundation built before.
Which is what all this liberalism is about.
Undermining the foundation of society for the benefit of a parasitic class.
-
No I am not. Not only was Hitler put into power with the help of Stalin, those two were buddies all the way until June 22 1941 - do I have to name which treaty actually let the WWII start? Both wanted territorial expansion and what ideological garbage they used in order to brainwash their own people does not make any difference - the economic basis of their existence and the totalitarian meas of suppressing any opposition to The Government were the same.
Learn your history not from the liberal high school history of this country but from the real docuмents. hitler's nαzιsm and Stalin's communism were twin brothers.
Which does not mean they weren't always eager to cut each other's throat.
Uh yes you are. The docuмent you speak of is the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact but Hitler only signed that because the West declared war on him in 1939. Hitler's ambitions lay in the East, towards crushing Bolshevism in Russia. Many Americans and Brtitish have pointed this out, even before the war, but Britain and France still declared war. Hitler had to cover his Eastern flank, which is why he signed the peace. Hitler didn't even want war with anybody. He tried to reclaim the territorial expansion of the old German Empire, and concerning Poland he tried to negotiate with the Poles but Poland refused because of the British-French war guarentee. Hell in 1939 Hitler couldn't even attack Russia, considering he had no border with Russia.
Oh, please, just stop this western bs stemming from infinite love of the pinkish american governments of that time towards stalin's regime.
Stalin's ambitions ALWAYS were to conquer all Europe for his empire and Molotov-Ribbentropp treaty was aimed exactly at that. His plan was to start HIS expansion to the west on July 6 1941, but Hitler learned about Stalin's plans and was left with no choice and to start the war on 2 flanks - which everybody knew was not meant to be won.
you my want to read about it a bit:
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/icebreaker.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy
-
what actual meaning do you put in that word?I mean liberalism - because I suspect we mean different things - liberal economy for me is as far from those leftists called "liberals" in this country as they can get.
I am speaking of wholesale economic freedom. I believe in limited economic freedom.
how limited and who is going to be the limitator?
(though I partially agree)
-
Oh, please, just stop this western bs stemming from infinite love of the pinkish american governments of that time towards stalin's regime.
Stalin's ambitions ALWAYS were to conquer all Europe for his empire and Molotov-Ribbentropp treaty was aimed exactly at that. His plan was to start HIS expansion to the west on July 6 1941, but Hitler learned about Stalin's plans and was left with no choice and to start the war on to flanks - which everybody knew was not meant to be won.
you my want to read about it a bit:
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/icebreaker.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy
What on earth are you going on about? We are talking about Hitler, not Stalin. Of course Stalin's ambitions led him to add Eastern Europe to the Soviet Empire. However the British-French war guarentee actually was a good thing for Stalin, because it gave him time to prepare for a German attack, which was bound to come.
-
how limited and who is going to be the limitator?
(though I partially agree)
Business should want to do business here in America, small businessmen and farmers should be placed above large corporations, etc. Obviously the government would have to collect the taxes and deal with trade. Also my moral beliefs predetermine that the kind of freedom wanted by Hollywood movies is not good, and the federal government should regulate the culture.
-
Oh, please, just stop this western bs stemming from infinite love of the pinkish american governments of that time towards stalin's regime.
Stalin's ambitions ALWAYS were to conquer all Europe for his empire and Molotov-Ribbentropp treaty was aimed exactly at that. His plan was to start HIS expansion to the west on July 6 1941, but Hitler learned about Stalin's plans and was left with no choice and to start the war on to flanks - which everybody knew was not meant to be won.
you my want to read about it a bit:
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/icebreaker.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy
What on earth are you going on about? We are talking about Hitler, not Stalin. Of course Stalin's ambitions led him to add Eastern Europe to the Soviet Empire. However the British-French war guarentee actually was a good thing for Stalin, because it gave him time to prepare for a German attack, which was bound to come.
I know what we are talking about. We are talking about what you do not know - the essential plans of Stalin to conquer all Europe ( to the point that he did not even consider the end of WWII to be a victory( no such name and no such holiday as Victory day in soviet union until he died) - since he gained only Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and part of Germany to his influence and he was aiming at ALL Europe.
BOTH hitler and Stalin had plans on expansion - therefore they made a treaty and started the WWII - divided Poland and one part was taken by nαzιs, the other - by soviets.
I am from that other part - occupied by soviets in September 1939 and I know firsthand - including the preparations for the expansion to the west which was ongoing all 1940 and first part of 1941 - later described in the books I've provided thee links for you.
I
-
No it is not. There is not enough liberalism in the US - that's why we have all the problems. Too much government intrusion and too much envy and hatred against the rich.
Not that some problems could not be corrected in the corporate world ( but nobody, even the "heart bleeding" leftists will touch it - jon corzine to remind the latest) but if you want a guy down the ladder to have a decent life - you have to let the guy on the top to have his/her excesses. If you think that government regulations will change the human nature - you are wrong - they were not able to change it anywhere( even with rivers of blood)
Let the rich prosper and that way there will be jobs for everybody.
Correcting the working system ( cautiously) has nothing to do with turning it upside down and introducing the totalitarian regime in order to keep it.
What?! Unregulated capitalism is condemned asnd so is liberalism. Again the naked greed of the individual, as wanted by liberalism, is dangerous for the nation that pursues it. Frankfully I find this economic obsession that we have on this thread distasteful. I don't like talking this economic babble, when our moral crisis is more important.
-
how limited and who is going to be the limitator?
(though I partially agree)
Business should want to do business here in America, small businessmen and farmers should be placed above large corporations, etc. Obviously the government would have to collect the taxes and deal with trade. Also my moral beliefs predetermine that the kind of freedom wanted by Hollywood movies is not good, and the federal government should regulate the culture.
no objections to almost everything, except the last part - the regulation, or censorship - this is no good. at all. ( not that i like hollywood garbage, but censorship is eveil)
-
No it is not. There is not enough liberalism in the US - that's why we have all the problems. Too much government intrusion and too much envy and hatred against the rich.
Not that some problems could not be corrected in the corporate world ( but nobody, even the "heart bleeding" leftists will touch it - jon corzine to remind the latest) but if you want a guy down the ladder to have a decent life - you have to let the guy on the top to have his/her excesses. If you think that government regulations will change the human nature - you are wrong - they were not able to change it anywhere( even with rivers of blood)
Let the rich prosper and that way there will be jobs for everybody.
Correcting the working system ( cautiously) has nothing to do with turning it upside down and introducing the totalitarian regime in order to keep it.
What?! Unregulated capitalism is condemned asnd so is liberalism. Again the naked greed of the individual, as wanted by liberalism, is dangerous for the nation that pursues it. Frankfully I find this economic obsession that we have on this thread distasteful. I don't like talking this economic babble, when our moral crisis is more important.
one might agree or disagree which is more important and what comes first - economy or the morals, but the less we regulate economy - the better - for the guy down the ladder, because the guys up the ones have the means to buy and corrupt all government regulators - and that is why any regulations is infinitely bad - for the small guys.
-
Speaking of Australia and Canada as though they were primarily mixed race is not much different than the lightening of pixelated faces of crime suspects in Scandinavia.
(http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/3792/expressenem0.png)
-
I know what we are talking about. We are talking about what you do not know - the essential plans of Stalin to conquer all Europe ( to the point that he did not even consider the end of WWII to be a victory( no such name and no such holiday as Victory day in soviet union until he died) - since he gained only Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and part of Germany to his influence and he was aiming at ALL Europe.
BOTH hitler and Stalin had plans on expansion - therefore they made a treaty and started the WWII - divided Poland and one part was taken by nαzιs, the other - by soviets.
I am from that other part - occupied by soviets in September 1939 and I know firsthand - including the preparations for the expansion to the west which was ongoing all 1940 and first part of 1941 - later described in the books I've provided thee links for you.
I
What can I say jester? You Poles screwed yourselves over by relying on the war guarentee. :wink:
Now that I know you are Polish, that explains a lot. For example, just because you saw the evils of Communism does not make economic liberalism better. Obviously there needs to be private property, but the kind of capitalism and liberalism wanted in America is greatly harmful.
-
white 92%, Asian 7%, aboriginal and other 1%
For Canada it doesn't give a racial breakdown. It says 25 percent is of "mixed background" but how many of those are overwhelmingly Europeans is unknown.
One things these multiculturalists do is they try to blur distinctions in order to create false impressions. So in the US they will claim mestizo criminals are whites, even the CIA factbook won't give a breakdown by race in Canada, etc.
-
one might agree or disagree which is more important and what comes first - economy or the morals, but the less we regulate economy - the better - for the guy down the ladder, because the guys up the ones have the means to buy and corrupt all government regulators - and that is why any regulations is infinitely bad - for the small guys.
The Church condemns unregulated capitalism. That being said I support less regulations on small businesses and family farms.
-
no objections to almost everything, except the last part - the regulation, or censorship - this is no good. at all. ( not that i like hollywood garbage, but censorship is eveil)
I wonder is "censorship" of abortion, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, and pornography evil?
-
I know what we are talking about. We are talking about what you do not know - the essential plans of Stalin to conquer all Europe ( to the point that he did not even consider the end of WWII to be a victory( no such name and no such holiday as Victory day in soviet union until he died) - since he gained only Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and part of Germany to his influence and he was aiming at ALL Europe.
BOTH hitler and Stalin had plans on expansion - therefore they made a treaty and started the WWII - divided Poland and one part was taken by nαzιs, the other - by soviets.
I am from that other part - occupied by soviets in September 1939 and I know firsthand - including the preparations for the expansion to the west which was ongoing all 1940 and first part of 1941 - later described in the books I've provided thee links for you.
I
What can I say jester? You Poles screwed yourselves over by relying on the war guarentee. :wink:
Now that I know you are Polish, that explains a lot. For example, just because you saw the evils of Communism does not make economic liberalism better. Obviously there needs to be private property, but the kind of capitalism and liberalism wanted in America is greatly harmful.
I am NOT a Pole. before 1939 some of my brethren thought Poles were the worst, but here came the soviets. nαzιs came later.
soviets were THE WORST. Thanks God they are dead and gone as well.
which brings me back to the starting point - do not even aim at comparing apples and oranges - the evils of socialism/communism/marxism can't be compared even to nαzιsm . Economic liberalism is not heaven on Earth, but it is the best available system under the sun.
-
no objections to almost everything, except the last part - the regulation, or censorship - this is no good. at all. ( not that i like hollywood garbage, but censorship is eveil)
I wonder is "censorship" of abortion, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, and pornography evil?
censorship is eveil altogether.
abortion/homo/porn should be simply illegal not censored.
-
Proponents of multiculturalism seem to have a serious problem with the truth.
http://www.info14.com/bilder/abdulgadir.jpg
http://www.info14.com/bilder/mursal.jpg
http://www.info14.com/bilder/jassin.jpg
http://www.info14.com/bilder/omar.jpg
-
soviets were THE WORST. Thanks God they are dead and gone as well.
Obviously being half-German and having Soviet soldiers rape 3 million German women I agree. However modern-day Russia is not the Soviet Union. Also our former government in Washington under George W. Bush was full of ex-Trotskyist communists.
which brings me back to the starting point - do not even aim at comparing apples and oranges - the evils of socialism/communism/marxism can't be compared even to nαzιsm . Economic liberalism is not heaven on Earth, but it is the best available system under the sun.
Uh no it is not. The "best" economic system is one that supports a man getting a living wage, supports men in the labor force, supports women in the home, etc. Basically the best "economic system" is one that supports the good of the nation over the individual.
-
one might agree or disagree which is more important and what comes first - economy or the morals, but the less we regulate economy - the better - for the guy down the ladder, because the guys up the ones have the means to buy and corrupt all government regulators - and that is why any regulations is infinitely bad - for the small guys.
The Church condemns unregulated capitalism. That being said I support less regulations on small businesses and family farms.
this is NOT the matter of Faith or Morals so the Church is not infallible on this one :wink:
some regulationsare needed. the problem is that when we start that some the regulators start to multiply themselves to the degree of the extinction of the matter to be regulated ( look at EU - this is a horrid cancer on the body of European people)
-
censorship is eveil altogether.
abortion/homo/porn should be simply illegal not censored.
The point is sex and violence are shown in our Hollywood movies which leads to disasters like the recent school shooting. Hollywood does not support a moral youth.
-
this is NOT the matter of Faith or Morals so the Church is not infallible on this one
It is a matter of Faith and Morals. That's what the Encyclicals say - that it does pertain to Faith and Morals.
Time for you to fess up and admit it.
the Pope, clearly exercising his right and correctly holding that the guardianship of religion and the stewardship over those things that are closely bound up with it had been entrusted especially to him and relying solely upon the unchangeable principles drawn from the treasury of right reason and Divine Revelation, confidently and as one having authority,[12] declared and proclaimed "the rights and duties within which the rich and the proletariat -- those who furnish material things and those who furnish work -- ought to be restricted in relation to each other,"
-
this is NOT the matter of Faith or Morals so the Church is not infallible on this one :wink:
some regulationsare needed. the problem is that when we start that some the regulators start to multiply themselves to the degree of the extinction of the matter to be regulated ( look at EU - this is a horrid cancer on the body of European people)
It is a matter of morality otherwise we get the current economic system of the United States, which is immoral and against social justice.
I agree the EU is bad for Europe, although it is curious Europe did not want Russia in the EU to bring it into the European "gates" if you will.
-
soviets were THE WORST. Thanks God they are dead and gone as well.
Obviously being half-German and having Soviet soldiers rape 3 million German women I agree. However modern-day Russia is not the Soviet Union. Also our former government in Washington under George W. Bush was full of ex-Trotskyist communists.
I do not know much about economy of modern Russia, however, the ideology of the same imperialists as 100 years ago are the same - and that is dangerous.
Bush won't be my favorite guy but I ill trade the marxist in the office now for 10 Bushes.
which brings me back to the starting point - do not even aim at comparing apples and oranges - the evils of socialism/communism/marxism can't be compared even to nαzιsm . Economic liberalism is not heaven on Earth, but it is the best available system under the sun.
Uh no it is not. The "best" economic system is one that supports a man getting a living wage, supports men in the labor force, supports women in the home, etc. Basically the best "economic system" is one that supports the good of the nation over the individual.
And this Utopia is located under which latitude ?( BTW, I would never want to live in the mentioned Utopia as it was a totalitarian regime as well).
And I do not agree with the collectivist assumption that the good of the nation prevails over the good of the individual - it is the basis of totalitarian regime, as it was both in the soviet and nαzι ones.
-
this is NOT the matter of Faith or Morals so the Church is not infallible on this one
It is a matter of Faith and Morals. That's what the Encyclicals say - that it does pertain to Faith and Morals.
Time for you to fess up and admit it.
the Pope, clearly exercising his right and correctly holding that the guardianship of religion and the stewardship over those things that are closely bound up with it had been entrusted especially to him and relying solely upon the unchangeable principles drawn from the treasury of right reason and Divine Revelation, confidently and as one having authority,[12] declared and proclaimed "the rights and duties within which the rich and the proletariat -- those who furnish material things and those who furnish work -- ought to be restricted in relation to each other,"
No, it is not.
-
this is NOT the matter of Faith or Morals so the Church is not infallible on this one :wink:
some regulationsare needed. the problem is that when we start that some the regulators start to multiply themselves to the degree of the extinction of the matter to be regulated ( look at EU - this is a horrid cancer on the body of European people)
It is a matter of morality otherwise we get the current economic system of the United States, which is immoral and against social justice.
I agree the EU is bad for Europe, although it is curious Europe did not want Russia in the EU to bring it into the European "gates" if you will.
well, as I've said on the other thread there is no such thing as social justice, because of the subjective nature of any social issues, to start with.
-
I do not know much about economy of modern Russia, however, the ideology of the same imperialists as 100 years ago are the same - and that is dangerous.
Uh Russia is nationalist, not Communist. It is not America's role to "contain" Russia. The Cold War is over. It is time for America to leave NATO to the Europeans.
Bush won't be my favorite guy but I ill trade the marxist in the office now for 10 Bushes.
Obama has been a bad President but let's not get away from the point of the neoconservative ideology which comes from Trotskyism and liberalism. It was this ideology that got us into the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that bankrupted this nation, it lead to the loss of 2.5 million manufactoring jobs under Bush's free trade policies, it lead to Bush doing nothing about immigration, etc.
And this Utopia is located under which latitude ?( BTW, I would never want to live in the mentioned Utopia as it was a totalitarian regime as well).
And I do not agree with the collectivist assumption that the good of the nation prevails over the good of the individual - it is the basis of totalitarian regime, as it was both in the soviet and nαzι ones.
Obviously you would find evey government from Athens to Franco's Spain to be immoral because of its "totalitarianism." You don't happen to belong to the Austrian School do you? A nation that does not put itself first commits ѕυιcιdє, which is why our trade deficits are a mess with our free-trade policies.
-
well, as I've said on the other thread there is no such thing as social justice, because of the subjective nature of any social issues, to start with.
The Church says there is such a thing as social justice according to its economic theories (pre-Vatican II economic theories at least). It argues for a "living wage" given to the man to support his family. That is the first role of any moral society.
-
I do not know much about economy of modern Russia, however, the ideology of the same imperialists as 100 years ago are the same - and that is dangerous.
Uh Russia is nationalist, not Communist. It is not America's role to "contain" Russia. The Cold War is over. It is time for America to leave NATO to the Europeans.
I do not disagree here
Bush won't be my favorite guy but I ill trade the marxist in the office now for 10 Bushes.
Obama has been a bad President but let's not get away from the point of the neoconservative ideology which comes from Trotskyism and liberalism. It was this ideology that got us into the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that bankrupted this nation, it lead to the loss of 2.5 million manufactoring jobs under Bush's free trade policies, it lead to Bush doing nothing about immigration, etc..
'
I've already said that I will take 10 bushes for the marxist in office now. you obviously prefer obama and your side won. which does not mean the country won
And this Utopia is located under which latitude ?( BTW, I would never want to live in the mentioned Utopia as it was a totalitarian regime as well).
And I do not agree with the collectivist assumption that the good of the nation prevails over the good of the individual - it is the basis of totalitarian regime, as it was both in the soviet and nαzι ones.
Obviously you would find evey government from Athens to Franco's Spain to be immoral because of its "totalitarianism." You don't happen to belong to the Austrian School do you? A nation that does not put itself first commits ѕυιcιdє, which is why our trade deficits are a mess with our free-trade policies.
any totalitarian government is evil. and yes, I prefer Austrians to Keynes, and individual vs nation.
Jesus Christ was an individualist as well :wink:
-
I've already said that I will take 10 bushes for the marxist in office now. you obviously prefer obama and your side won. which does not mean the country won
My side?! :laugh2: I'm more right-wing than you are. Do you or do you not deny that hatred of Bush lead to Obama's election?
any totalitarian government is evil. and yes, I prefer Austrians to Keynes, and individual vs nation.
Jesus Christ was an individualist as well :wink:
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into Heaven." Matthew 19:24 :wink:
The Austrian School is also condemned. Which side would you have had supported during the Spanish cινιℓ ωαr? Franco's Nationalists or the Red Republicans?
-
well, as I've said on the other thread there is no such thing as social justice, because of the subjective nature of any social issues, to start with.
The Church says there is such a thing as social justice according to its economic theories (pre-Vatican II economic theories at least). It argues for a "living wage" given to the man to support his family. That is the first role of any moral society.
Those are not the issues of Faith and Morals per se. Therefore those teachings are not infallible.
I do not disagree on the basis of living wages and so on - on general. Because as I said before - who and when is going to decide what is living wage? There was a thread here about a family living on 14K per year - is it living wage?The French Socialist wants to tax anybody making more than 1mln euros 75% ( though their Supreme Court ruled this figure unconstitutional) - is this figure moral or just? I am not talking about being sane - since anybody not insane understands that this figure is insane, unjust and plain stupid.
Who is going to decide?
Previously here the discussion touched so called government support - WHO is going to decide it is moral to provide the taxpayer's money to immoral creatures who drive Mercedes and Audis and pay for the groceries by the food stamps money?
where does the stop sign appear? and who is going to decide what is just and moral here?
-
Those are not the issues of Faith and Morals per se. Therefore those teachings are not infallible.
I do not disagree on the basis of living wages and so on - on general. Because as I said before - who and when is going to decide what is living wage? There was a thread here about a family living on 14K per year - is it living wage?The French Socialist wants to tax anybody making more than 1mln euros 75% ( though their Supreme Court ruled this figure unconstitutional) - is this figure moral or just? I am not talking about being sane - since anybody not insane understands that this figure is insane, unjust and plain stupid.
Who is going to decide?
Previously here the discussion touched so called government support - WHO is going to decide it is moral to provide the taxpayer's money to immoral creatures who drive Mercedes and Audis and pay for the groceries by the food stamps money?
where does the stop sign appear? and who is going to decide what is just and moral here?
Obviously the federal government would encourage businesses to support paying higher wages to fathers who have to support their families over single persons.
-
I've already said that I will take 10 bushes for the marxist in office now. you obviously prefer obama and your side won. which does not mean the country won
My side?! :laugh2: I'm more right-wing than you are. Do you or do you not deny that hatred of Bush lead to Obama's election?
The first time - probably yes. But the second time it was just greed, hatred and plain stupidity. plus laziness on the other side.
any totalitarian government is evil. and yes, I prefer Austrians to Keynes, and individual vs nation.
Jesus Christ was an individualist as well :wink:
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into Heaven." Matthew 19:24 :wink:
The Austrian School is also condemned. Which side would you have had supported during the Spanish cινιℓ ωαr? Franco's Nationalists or the Red Republicans?
This quote does not make him a communist. It is more difficult for the haves to be more moral - and that was obvious 2000 years ago and is now. Which does not mean that if we make everybody poor with a monstrous corrupt government to redistribute the scarce productions left - it will not make those poor more moral or just.
on the war - neither, I guess. though reds are more repugnant for me
-
Obviously the federal government would encourage businesses to support paying higher wages to fathers who have to support their families over single persons.
OMG, a believer in just and effective federal government.
You are a rare species :wink:
-
OMG, a believer in just and effective federal government.
You are a rare species :wink:
If you have the right person, yes.
That is something you do not understand. Government itself is not evil. If used for a moral purpose it can do good. If used for an immoral purpose it will do bad.
-
OMG, a believer in just and effective federal government.
You are a rare species :wink:
If you have the right person, yes.
That is something you do not understand. Government itself is not evil. If used for a moral purpose it can do good. If used for an immoral purpose it will do bad.
No, it is YOU who does not understand - there is no such thing as uncorrupted or just or at least effective government - anywhere and at any given time. Because the government is people who redistribute not their own money and have no responsibility for any failure. Not to forget the corruption of power.
It can NEVER be good - it is a necessary evil for some areas and the less the government - the better for the people.
-
This quote does not make him a communist. It is more difficult for the haves to be more moral - and that was obvious 2000 years ago and is now. Which does not mean that if we make everybody poor with a monstrous corrupt government to redistribute the scarce productions left - it will not make those poor more moral or just.
No one said Christ was a Communist or that anyone supports socialist economic leveling.
on the war - neither, I guess. though reds are more repugnant for me
Think about this now...the Red Communist Republicans were attacking the clergy and the Churches. Franco and his Nationalists saved Spain from Communism.
-
This quote does not make him a communist. It is more difficult for the haves to be more moral - and that was obvious 2000 years ago and is now. Which does not mean that if we make everybody poor with a monstrous corrupt government to redistribute the scarce productions left - it will not make those poor more moral or just.
No one said Christ was a Communist or that anyone supports socialist economic leveling.
on the war - neither, I guess. though reds are more repugnant for me
Think about this now...the Red Communist Republicans were attacking the cloergy and the Churches. Franco and his Nationalists saved Spain from Communism.
it makes them lesser evil
-
No, it is YOU who does not understand - there is no such thing as uncorrupted or just or at least effective government - anywhere and at any given time. Because the government is people who redistribute not their own money and have no responsibility for any failure. Not to forget the corruption of power.
It can NEVER be good - it is a necessary evil for some areas and the less the government - the better for the people.
The same about government can be applied to unlimited freedom. Unlimited freedom can also put people down into a moral dung-heap, make the working-class man suffer, tear apart the family, etc. Government can be used for a moral purpose. Anyone who thinks government is automatically evil belongs to the Austrian School, which is condemned.
-
I have to go now, thanks for the discussion
-
it makes them lesser evil
In my opinion it makes them the greater good. American liberals and Communists supported the Republicans and the Abraham Lincoln Brigade.
-
Culture is developed over many centuries. Raise an African baby among Swedish Lutherans, and you will get someone who is culturally a Swedish Lutheran,not an African.
You don't watch Swedish news very often do you?
Well no, I don't. I mean, not living in Sweden or speaking Swedish.
Well I do watch Swedish news. By your own admission you are ignorant of the fact that we have been witnessing "live experiments" for the last few centuries which prove your thesis wrong. Africans in Sweden behave just like Africans do in your own country, just like they do in their own African countries, and just like they do in all the other countries of Europe, as well as Australia. What culture these people are brought up in has little to do with how they behave.
They are being brought up as Africans among other Africans in Sweden, Yes? A lone African, brought up among white Swedish Lutherans alone(my original example) would be, culturally a white Swedish Lutheran.
If you know of an example that disproved what I actually said, I will happily concede the point.
Most Africans in Sweden are raised in the same culture, as evangelicals in the Swedish church or mission church. Some of them are even priests. It's still the same story... rape, robbery, violence, murder. They are overshadowed only because there are so many Arabs committing the same crimes.
Swedish Lutheran clergy of African descent ate committing rape on a large scale? Really?
-
No I am not. It is YOU who are wrong and spilling the lies of the left - you have never lived in a coommunist country and you have no idea what it is.
If you want to prove how much do you suffer in this wrong capitalism, switch your places with any North Korean guys - with passports involved.
Even in the most poor thirld world countries which are capitalists not communist people have much better because they actually HAVE that life.
If you look at countries built on socialism and authoritarianism in the Middle East they also have better values than America.
And nonsense I am not a leftist, however I am anti-capitalist. Catholicism teaches the social justice for the worker should be put over the individualism of greed and profit. Obviously I believe in private property and I support small businesses and family farms but I despise the greed of our corporate class and of the misery it puts workers under. Unions are necessary even today since our capitalist class wants to send jobs overseas and hire immigrant labor, making ghost towns out of our industrial centers.
And you say the doctrines of consumerism and free tade are better?!
as I have said above - if you have not lived there, you can not "look".
You have to live as a citizen of such a country in order to realize that it is a cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ.
If you have not - your "looks" based on the media descriptions are irrelevant.
So you have never expressed an opinion, or even had an opinion, about something happening in a country you haven't lived in?
-
this is NOT the matter of Faith or Morals so the Church is not infallible on this one
It is a matter of Faith and Morals. That's what the Encyclicals say - that it does pertain to Faith and Morals.
Time for you to fess up and admit it.
the Pope, clearly exercising his right and correctly holding that the guardianship of religion and the stewardship over those things that are closely bound up with it had been entrusted especially to him and relying solely upon the unchangeable principles drawn from the treasury of right reason and Divine Revelation, confidently and as one having authority,[12] declared and proclaimed "the rights and duties within which the rich and the proletariat -- those who furnish material things and those who furnish work -- ought to be restricted in relation to each other,"
No, it is not.
It may not be a matter of faith exactly. It is most certainly a matter of morality.
-
Obviously the federal government would encourage businesses to support paying higher wages to fathers who have to support their families over single persons.
I like this and I like the concept of making one-breadwinner households the norm again, as you have indicated in other posts. But how do we get there? I see how some of your policy ideas tend to get us there. But how does a candidate for office get elected espousing those policies today? Even if we got a president through, how do people who support these ideas get elected/re-elected to congressional seats other than in very conservative districts?
I do not believe teaming with labor unions is the answer. If labor unions were truly out for the good of the American worker rather than some parallel or alternative objective, then they would have strongly supported Buchanan's candidacies.
Then there is the issue of the political strength of women. There is a thread elsewhere on here that most women today would rather divorce than be housewives. I believe that. How do we get past that? Frankly, I don't see this country having the moral wherewithal to elect people to implement your policies before being brought to their knees by a major chastisement.
Your thoughts?
-
I like this and I like the concept of making one-breadwinner households the norm again, as you have indicated in other posts. But how do we get there? I see how some of your policy ideas tend to get us there. But how does a candidate for office get elected espousing those policies today? Even if we got a president through, how do people who support these ideas get elected/re-elected to congressional seats other than in very conservative districts?
As you well know OHCA the term "conservative" these days doesn't mean a thing. Most "conservatives" follow the liberal doctrine of free trade which came from liberals like FDR and Wilson. I have little hope unfortunately anyone in America would win on a "social justice" platform. Pat Buchanan tried and look what happened to him. They labelled him a fascist, a socialist, a racist, and an αnтι-ѕємιтє.
I do not believe teaming with labor unions is the answer. If labor unions were truly out for the good of the American worker rather than some parallel or alternative objective, then they would have strongly supported Buchanan's candidacies.
I do not believe in the closed shop where a worker is forced to pay union dues, nor do I support the outlandish claims of unions, but I do agree with unions on trade. Honestly though what working-class man in his right mind would support the GOP, which has supported free trade and open borders? Interestingly enough the Socialist Party, U.S.A. actually endorsed Pat Buchanan back in 2000 because he "would help the proletarians the most." This is not to say Pat Buchanan was a socialist of course.
Then there is the issue of the political strength of women. There is a thread elsewhere on here that most women today would rather divorce than be housewives. I believe that. How do we get past that? Frankly, I don't see this country having the moral wherewithal to elect people to implement your policies before being brought to their knees by a major chastisement.
That's a real dufficult topic. Obviously feminism has made women rebellious and want power and freedom against men. Societies who recognize rights for women also die the quickest. I support tax credits for women willing to stay at home rather than wanting to go into the labor force. However as you said there really needs to be a change of the minds so to speak, or the West is dead if it is not already. That being said it is funny to me to see conservatives bemoan Betty Freiden, Gloria Steinem, NOW, NARAL, etc. and then want to impose feminism on the Islamic world.
-
Perhaps the answer is to flood North Korea with 20 million Bantus from Africa and Moslem Pakis, I'm sure that would enrich their culture and spark a real revolution for democracy, liberty and the free markets.
Yes, I'm sure of it actually. :rolleyes:
perhaps the answer is not to equate a murderous nαzι-like antihuman ideology and scio-economic model with a normal life
What's "normal" to you? The German National Socialists were trying to avoid the kind of cultural Marxism and nation-destroying ideals that eventually came to pass with their defeat, Tell me, was Europe a better plce after "murderous" nαzιs were eradicated?How many millions had to be put down in those Stalinists and Maoists "purges"?
The Naionalists model in prewar Europe was implemented in order to save their independence and the whole social/ethnic contsruct of their culture, much to the chagrin of globalist-minded Jєωιѕн banksters and their goy "christian" lemmings.
There would've been no "murderous", anti-human ideology had not the powers that be in London, Washington and Moscow just left well enough alone and let the Germans have control of their own nation and destiny. But no, the constant meddling, usurping and attempted "regime-change" that goes on even today, wouldn't allow it. It was the Zionists and Ango-saxons that demanded German blood for actually daring to to step out side the control of the world banks and their bought and paid for politicians, no one can be outside of the Judaic, global, protosphere.
really? Do you at last know the history and who made that possible that nαzιs in Germany got the power? or you are trying to compare 12 years of intronization of Hitler by commies with Stalin as a head with 70 years of commie slaughter in soviet union? Soviet union from it's very beginnig in November 1917 ( then even called differently) was able to survive only on terror against it's own citizens.
60 million murdered during the soviet era, from artificial famine in Ukraine 10 million, 2 million murdered in South-East Asia - that is not murderous, right?
I am sick and tired of hearing about nαzιs and never mentioning much bigger and much more bloodier regimes of soviet union and it's sattelites.
BTW, nαzι regime was also socialistic - so in economic terms not much difference. The state power wasn't absolute as it was in the communist countries, though.
Pointing out the Soviet monster was the point of my post.
Did you even read it?
-
No you do not. You are not a Chinese citizen or haven't been.
This is not an offense - most people on Earth have not been living in the communist regimes.
But if you have not - you do not know.
Which is obvious, since nobody who've tasted that "heaven" will ever equate consumerism with marxist hell
Uh yes I do. You obviously follow an Amercanist way of life. Therefore you do ot know what you are speaking of when you talk about the grestness of capitalism...which is just as evil as Marxism. I am a working-class amn forced to deal with corporate nonsense every day. I DO know what I am talking about. Also it takes a simple book to pick up to see that China has high tariffs and is beating America's free trade model.
As a matter of fact I do know BOTH and I can compare.
Marxism and communism are the worst evils on Earth. Even speaking in arythmetic terms.
People who like to talk about evil American way of life usually do not know anything else except the leftist media brainwashing.
Have to run now - we may continue in the evening. Have a nice Sunday.
p.s. if you want to talk about evil American way - start your life as an immigrant for 5 bucks per hour, than we can compare.
p.p.s. you have no idea what working class in America is.
Five bucks an hour? LOL! I pay more than that in taxes to pay for those same immigrants to come here and get entitlements that even my family whose been here for three generation can't even obtain. Then at the end of the year, I still have to give back more than your poor oppressed immigrants make all year which either leaves me owing or wipes out any savings I was able to eke out all year.
the newbies in this country have more advantages and entittlements that the naturalized taxpaying citizen could only dream of! We can't even afford to go to a doctor or send our kids to college while if you just ran over the border or stepped off the boat from China you'll qualify for everything and anything, especially if you can't speak the language.
I don't think mister court jester here has actually done a days work and paid the tax in his life. If he did, he would more than understand the reality of thigs here in the USSA these days.
Do not lie. If you would be paying that many taxes you won't be in a creed that hates "the rich" the most. The newbies in this country which play up the system can do it exactly because the guys who hate the rich elect the "anointed ones" who will put everybody on a feeding tube of government money in order to transfer the people into cattle which can then be manipulated anyway the "elite" wants.
Why would I lie? I pay well more than what a guy making 5 bucks an hour in taxes every year and dole out a hell of a lot more in taxes but can barely get by on what I do make. meanwhile between what they take out of my check every week and the tax that I pay on everything I buy puts me way over the limit to qualify for anything, I'm basically the working "poor" yet a tax-slave as well. the people who don't (see won't) do a damn thing such as an honest days work, yet are handed every entitlement you can think of are living pretty good these days, we actually have no "starving" people in the country these days except those that work all day, get robbed practically at gun point for tax money, spend what's left over on gas, heat, fixing their vehicles to get to work and money for work clothes and shoes on their feet so they can keep going to feed a machine that is destined to eventually eliminate them. there is no more poverty class in america, there's only those that work and those that live off the people that do the work.
The "poor" nowadays are the new Middle Class.
-
The "poor" nowadays are the new Middle Class.
exactly. but this is not normal at all.
-
Culture is developed over many centuries. Raise an African baby among Swedish Lutherans, and you will get someone who is culturally a Swedish Lutheran,not an African.
You don't watch Swedish news very often do you?
Well no, I don't. I mean, not living in Sweden or speaking Swedish.
Well I do watch Swedish news. By your own admission you are ignorant of the fact that we have been witnessing "live experiments" for the last few centuries which prove your thesis wrong. Africans in Sweden behave just like Africans do in your own country, just like they do in their own African countries, and just like they do in all the other countries of Europe, as well as Australia. What culture these people are brought up in has little to do with how they behave.
They are being brought up as Africans among other Africans in Sweden, Yes? A lone African, brought up among white Swedish Lutherans alone(my original example) would be, culturally a white Swedish Lutheran.
If you know of an example that disproved what I actually said, I will happily concede the point.
Most Africans in Sweden are raised in the same culture, as evangelicals in the Swedish church or mission church. Some of them are even priests. It's still the same story... rape, robbery, violence, murder. They are overshadowed only because there are so many Arabs committing the same crimes.
Swedish Lutheran clergy of African descent ate committing rape on a large scale? Really?
That should be "are" not "ate".
-
Culture is developed over many centuries. Raise an African baby among Swedish Lutherans, and you will get someone who is culturally a Swedish Lutheran,not an African.
You don't watch Swedish news very often do you?
Well no, I don't. I mean, not living in Sweden or speaking Swedish.
Well I do watch Swedish news. By your own admission you are ignorant of the fact that we have been witnessing "live experiments" for the last few centuries which prove your thesis wrong. Africans in Sweden behave just like Africans do in your own country, just like they do in their own African countries, and just like they do in all the other countries of Europe, as well as Australia. What culture these people are brought up in has little to do with how they behave.
They are being brought up as Africans among other Africans in Sweden, Yes? A lone African, brought up among white Swedish Lutherans alone(my original example) would be, culturally a white Swedish Lutheran.
If you know of an example that disproved what I actually said, I will happily concede the point.
Most Africans in Sweden are raised in the same culture, as evangelicals in the Swedish church or mission church. Some of them are even priests. It's still the same story... rape, robbery, violence, murder. They are overshadowed only because there are so many Arabs committing the same crimes.
Swedish Lutheran clergy of African descent ate committing rape on a large scale? Really?
That should be "are" not "ate".
Okay, dwonthumbing the correction of a typo is just bizarre.
-
Okay, dwonthumbing the correction of a typo is just bizarre.
what is all the craze with downthumbing or upthumbing about?
do you really care?
-
I don't believe most of us care, except there are some circuмstances which are bizarre, uncharitable and, well, not Catholic. Those circuмstances illustrate the mind of the person selecting an up or down; i.e., there are those who will 'thumbs down' quotes from Holy Scripture, or excerpts of papal bulls, the writing of saints, etc.
-
So you have never expressed an opinion, or even had an opinion, about something happening in a country you haven't lived in?
Not as "infallible" opinion since "infallibility" relies on the opinions of mass-media, credibility of which is not reliable, to say it in the most charitable way.
-
I don't believe most of us care, except there are some circuмstances which are bizarre, uncharitable and, well, not Catholic. Those circuмstances illustrate the mind of the person selecting an up or down; i.e., there are those who will 'thumbs down' quotes from Holy Scripture, or excerpts of papal bulls, the writing of saints, etc.
Does it have any influence on the person's rights or privileges here? nothing about that in the rules, so, I assume, most thumbdowning is usually a childish retaliation on the part of those who feel offended ( rightfully or not - up for discussion).
-
I don't believe most of us care, except there are some circuмstances which are bizarre, uncharitable and, well, not Catholic. Those circuмstances illustrate the mind of the person selecting an up or down; i.e., there are those who will 'thumbs down' quotes from Holy Scripture, or excerpts of papal bulls, the writing of saints, etc.
Does it have any influence on the person's rights or privileges here? nothing about that in the rules, so, I assume, most thumbdowning is usually a childish retaliation on the part of those who feel offended ( rightfully or not - up for discussion).
good question, Jester. I'm new enough to be ignorant of the influence, if any. I'm sure someone smarter than I will let us both know.
In reviewing many threads on this forum, the pattern I see is that the majority of "thumbs downing" is reserved for posts that are contrary to doctrine/dogma, not an emotional reaction to feeling offended. Of course, there are some exceptions, but you'll notice the same pattern as time progresses.