Author Topic: Adolf Hitler (Read 23210 times)

PereJoseph · « **Reply #45 on:** April 26, 2012, 11:23:42 PM »

Quote from: Karl

By the way, you may already know but Germans NEVER called themselves nαzιs. That was actually a pejorative name created by the Jews. (“αѕнкenαzι” is the Hebrew word for Germany)

Are you sure that "nαzι" isn't just a slang abbreviation for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei ?

Quote

Germans proclaimed their government was the Third Reich (Empire), which paid respect to the First Reich, the Holy Roman Empire founded by Saint Charlemagne.

Charlemagne is not a canonised saint nor did he found the HRE of the German Nation; Otto of Saxony did founded it during the Pornocracy. There is very little institutional continuity between the reign of Charlemagne, King of the Franks and Emperor of the Romans, and the Empire of the Ottonian, Hohenstaufen, and Habsburg dynasties, and no continuity between Charlemagne's empire and that of the Hohenzollern's, much less the German State run by Adolf Hitler.

Thursday · « **Reply #46 on:** April 26, 2012, 11:42:43 PM »

I hesitated to link to this article, firstly because it is non-Catholic publication (Lyndon Larouche's Executive Intelligence Review) interviewing a senior Churchman and portraying him in a rather negative light. The interview is with Archbishop Pintonello, the highest ranking member of the Church not to sign Vatican II.

However it does pertain to the discussion.
The interview is titled a "A Jesuit calls for a New Adolf Hitler." (1982)

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1982/eirv09n44-19821116/eirv09n44-19821116_024-honorary_military_archbishop_arr.pdf

PereJoseph · « **Reply #47 on:** April 27, 2012, 12:59:09 AM »

Quote from: Thursday

I hesitated to link to this article, firstly because it is non-Catholic publication (Lyndon Larouche's Executive Intelligence Review) interviewing a senior Churchman and portraying him in a rather negative light. The interview is with Archbishop Pintonello, the highest ranking member of the Church not to sign Vatican II.

However it does pertain to the discussion.
The interview is titled a "A Jesuit calls for a New Adolf Hitler." (1982)

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1982/eirv09n44-19821116/eirv09n44-19821116_024-honorary_military_archbishop_arr.pdf

It seems very unlikely that those are accurate quotations, given the source. Even then, they are presented as if they are direct quotations, so my opinion of the Archbishop is mixed. On the one hand, it seems impossible to argue against his call for the end of "Christian Democracy," the defeat of socialism, and the return of peace to Europe under the aegis and hegemony of a strong Catholic monarchy. Likewise, he is of course correct about the postwar liberal social order advancing the corruption and degeneration of Europe and the entire world, as well as the economic crisis being an opportunity for the dissolution of the evil order mentioned. Where he goes wrong, however, is in his admiration for Adolf Hitler and National Socialism, his alleged membership in the Thule Society, and in his belief in Nordic/Germanic/Anglo-Saxon racial superiourity, which, besides being non-Catholic ideas the origins of which are found deep in the Protestant and Germanic psyche (which is evidently deeply disordered given the history of the past five hundred years), they also seem rather difficult to justify prima facie or even after extensive discussion. Then again, he is Venetian, and there is a history of people from the northern Italy becoming misguided and over-eager partisans of the German emperors, in all of their pretensions, even to the point of helping the emperors in their historic crimes against the Pope and against other Catholic powers. Dante Alighieri is a famous example. Anyway, there are other strange ideas, such as his support for Otto von Habsburg and the Habsburg dynasty generally.

Imperialism (of the German variety) is a rather strange and dangerous ideology. ManoftheWest was a believer in it, as are some other people I have encountered, and it seems to make its supporters generally prone to many non-Catholic ideas and attitudes, such as the subjection of the Roman Pontiff to the German emperor, the superiority of the Germanic races, some sort of imagined special affinity between Italians and Germans in their interests and destinies, support for lay investiture, and, generally, enthusiasm for everything that pertains to the Renaissance and all of its filth and decadent offspring. In the Caesaropapism of these people, we can immediately recognise that same discomfort with the role of the Church versus the civil authority as enunciated by Pope Boniface VIII that would have made the German princes so eager to follow Luther. The theory has a strong whiff of Protestantism surrounding it; I really do believe that it will play a strong role in the reign of the Antichrist and in his propaganda. He will be the anti-Great Monarch, the anti-King of France, the brutalistic imperial dictator whose followers -- young men, I imagine -- will champion all of the great heresies and moral abominations in the name of perverted natural goods and a misunderstanding of the Church's glorious past. The role of men and the father, for instance, will be used to justify seducing women, disobeying tradition, polygamy, sɛҳuąƖ perversion, the political role of the emperor against the priests and against their royal advocates, the role of "the Race" and "the Nation", the role of the emperor in some sort of cosmic natural order (which will cause him to be worshipped as an idol), &c. It's all there.

It seems like Raoul is right about this being a problem; I have recently noticed the same trends as he has and they seem far more threatening than liberalism has been, since they are far more intellectually coherent and defensible than liberalism is. After all, liberalism has already been philosophically defeated; now we only have to do the legwork to get to the next resting point on our pilgrimage. But these new theories, these new movements that are quietly festering... these will have to be fought against in the future. They will have similar results as the Revolution, but there will be a much darker and harsher tone. Look at the days of Frederick II von Hohenstaufen, pretended heir of Charlemagne's realm, for a foretaste of what is in store for our descendants. This was in the great XIIIth century of all times, when Frederick II, one of the foulest of all men, was able to sack Rome, murder priests, conquer the Holy Land and jointly declare religious liberty with the Mohammedans, attempt to interrupt a Council, threaten to kill the Pope, mock God and our holy religion, rape and pillage, and do all of these things for his own pagan vainglory, à la Julian the Apostate, with enthusiastic collaborators who claimed to be Catholics themselves. This was in the time of Saint Louis, Saint Francis, Saint Dominic, Saint Thomas, Saint Bonaventure, and so forth. If it happened then, it could happen at any time.

It is too bad that Archbishop Pintonello latched on to this movement; surely he had a different idea of it than my own, but I, for one, cannot understand how somebody could not be shocked and repulsed by the claims, history, and theory of the Imperialist party and their leaders, the German emperors. Perhaps he was strongly influenced by his culture and the roots of his nobility; I cannot blame him, really, if he saw something of his family's legacy in playing the role he chose vis-à-vis the German emperors. That doesn't mean I can agree with it. Like I said, however, the Archbishop seems partly right about some things. Not everything Hitler did was bad, and some of it was good, but the enemy of our enemies is not our friend, contrary to what many today seem to believe (and many on this forum). Indeed, Hitler was an enemy of Christendom.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #48 on:** April 27, 2012, 01:08:25 AM »

Pere Joseph said:

Quote

In the Caesaropapism of these people, we can immediately recognise that same discomfort with the role of the Church versus the civil authority as enunciated by Pope Boniface VIII that would have made the German princes so eager to follow Luther. The theory has a strong whiff of Protestantism surrounding it; I really do believe that it will play a strong role in the reign of the Antichrist and in his propaganda. He will be the anti-Great Monarch, the anti-King of France, the brutalistic imperial dictator whose followers -- young men, I imagine -- will champion all of the great heresies and moral abominations in the name of perverted natural goods and a misunderstanding of the Church's glorious past. The role of men and the father, for instance, will be used to justify seducing women, polygamy, sɛҳuąƖ perversion, the political role of the emperor against the priests and against their royal advocates, the role of "the Race" and "the Nation", the role of the emperor in some sort of cosmic natural order (which will cause him to be worshipped as an idol), &c. It's all there.

Wow, here is pure untrammeled truth.

Absolutely. I see it so clearly now. The Anti-Christ will pose as the antidote to a "lax" Catholicism -- i.e. the true Catholicism -- and will be kind of a Protestant and Pharisee, saying that the true priests are weak, slaves of the Jews, etc. People think it will be so easy to see through Anti-Christ: He'll be killing all the priests, the bad, bad man! Yes, but what if he poses as the Grand Inquisitor and gives people compelling reasons why these priests should be killed, playing on their misunderstanding of Catholicism and their scruples, as well as their hatred and rage that they confuse for righteousness?

Call him the ultimate home-aloner, setting himself up as a "purer" church.

And yeah, he will play on nationalist pride, you can see the seeds with Action Francaise, where patriotism and Catholicism are subtly reversed in the pecking order. It is not hard to see that this will leave the faith a hollow sham. God's Church is not to be used as a political tool only.

You are right, it is all there. It is encouraging that there are people who have the foresight to see this, as long as we are around we can stop the Anti-Christ from getting through. The devil is trying very hard to produce him.

PereJoseph · « **Reply #49 on:** April 27, 2012, 01:19:50 AM »

Speaking of MotW, he and I have an unfinished discussion. I wonder why he left. His last post was on these very questions; actually it was an unjust attack on my person, but his attack was partially excited by these issues, of which he claims to have written extensively. It would be interesting for him to come back and defend his claims, particularly his avowed "Caesarism," his racialism, his belief in "civilization" and so forth; perhaps he is dealing with personal issues, since he has not posted on his blog since January 1, either. Or maybe he took my advice and retired to study for some time ? I hope he is okay.

PereJoseph · « **Reply #50 on:** April 27, 2012, 01:41:52 AM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Pere Joseph said:
Quote
In the Caesaropapism of these people, we can immediately recognise that same discomfort with the role of the Church versus the civil authority as enunciated by Pope Boniface VIII that would have made the German princes so eager to follow Luther. The theory has a strong whiff of Protestantism surrounding it; I really do believe that it will play a strong role in the reign of the Antichrist and in his propaganda. He will be the anti-Great Monarch, the anti-King of France, the brutalistic imperial dictator whose followers -- young men, I imagine -- will champion all of the great heresies and moral abominations in the name of perverted natural goods and a misunderstanding of the Church's glorious past. The role of men and the father, for instance, will be used to justify seducing women, polygamy, sɛҳuąƖ perversion, the political role of the emperor against the priests and against their royal advocates, the role of "the Race" and "the Nation", the role of the emperor in some sort of cosmic natural order (which will cause him to be worshipped as an idol), &c. It's all there.

Wow, here is pure untrammeled truth.

Absolutely. I see it so clearly now. The Anti-Christ will pose as the antidote to a "lax" Catholicism -- i.e. the true Catholicism -- and will be kind of a Protestant and Pharisee, saying that the true priests are weak, slaves of the Jews, etc. People think it will be so easy to see through Anti-Christ: He'll be killing all the priests, the bad, bad man! Yes, but what if he poses as the Grand Inquisitor and gives people compelling reasons why these priests should be killed, playing on their misunderstanding of Catholicism and their scruples, as well as their hatred and rage that they confuse for righteousness?

Call him the ultimate home-aloner, setting himself up as a "purer" church.

And yeah, he will play on nationalist pride, you can see the seeds with Action Francaise, where patriotism and Catholicism are subtly reversed in the pecking order. It is not hard to see that this will leave the faith a hollow sham. God's Church is not to be used as a political tool only.

You are right, it is all there. It is encouraging that there are people who have the foresight to see this, as long as we are around we can stop the Anti-Christ from getting through. The devil is trying very hard to produce him.

I encourage you to read extensively about Père Joseph and his plans for the Crusade against the Turks, the restoration of the throne of the Eastern Empire in Constantinople, and his beliefs regarding the Germans and so forth. In the Second Epistle of Saint Paul to the Thessalonians, Our Lord speaking through the Apostle to the Gentiles says, "For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way." This man "who now holdeth," also called sometimes "the restrainer," was posited by many Doctors and Fathers, such as Saint Robert Bellarmine (at least that is how this theory is known to me), to be the Roman Emperor, or at least the sacred imperium romanum. This, I believe, is maintained in the whole of the reign of Christ through the first and second swords, that is to say, in Christendom, the natural head and hegemonic lord of which is the Eldest Son of the Church, the King of France. The public regicide of the restrainer immediately resulted in the assault on the Pope and, over the XIXth century, the progression of liberalism and the removal of papal and ecclesiastical liberty, by way of the Masonic sects, who were the exponents of this particular sortie against the reign of the Sacred Heart of Jesus through His chosen intermediaries. Indeed, those who help these intermediaries are helping to restrain the coming of the man of sin, the Antichrist. This is what I believe. Thus, I think you are exactly right when you say that we can stop the devil from producing him, at least for a time.

Two things.

First, remember that the domain of Charlemagne was accomplished in his role as King of the Franks, and he was only crowned after the fact. The King of the Franks is institutionally identical to the King of France, since it was Saint Louis himself who altered the title from the one to the other, thus making any claims against this institutional continuity both clearly illegitimate and of dubious honesty. The pretensions to the sacrum imperium romanum put forward by the German emperors and their flatterers are used to justify a dynastically and institutionally distinct institution after the fact of its rejection of its original sovereign and natural lord. If we use the effects of not having the King of France in the world and the historic designs and outrages committed by the German emperors as our touchstones for testing these claims, we do not run into any moral problems and in fact seem to have some moral proof to the claims. (I base this reliance on trial by battle on the two rival claims on the simple idea that God will want to glorify His own works and that, through the Baptism of Clovis, the pronouncements of St Rémy, the statements of the Popes to the Kings of the Franks (particularly Saint Louis himself), and the revelations and deeds of Ste Jeanne, and onward to the revelations of the Sacred Heart regarding Louis XIV, we can be sure that the mission of the King of France is a work of God's that He and His mother cherish with a special affection.)

Second, eventually we will fail and the Antichrist will come, only to be smote by Our Lord before the General Judgment and the arrival of the New Jerusalem, to which we are all mystically on pilgrimage. But, to paraphrase Juan Donoso Cortés, this struggle is a duty for us Catholics, despite our knowledge that we will eventually lose in the end. If we fight well and truly, however, we will be rewarded with temporary victory, to the greater glory of God and salvation of souls.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #51 on:** April 27, 2012, 01:51:11 AM »

Indeed, Man of the West seemed to be nothing less than a prophet of Antichrist, weird times we are living in. The Ubermensch is blatantly Nietzsche's fevered dream of Anti-Christ.

Here is what the devil is preparing:

By making people give primacy to the state over the Church, and preparing an even more dangerous form of Gallicanism, the devil is ensuring that the faith will become compromised and watered down. People will get in the habit of paying lip-service only to the faith, because they get worldly advantages from it. The charity of Catholics will grow cold, they will be driven by selfish and base desires, by their own ambitions, rather than for the will of God. France, formerly holy, will become like a pseudo-Catholic version of nαzι Germany.

How does the world fall apart again so fast after the Monarch? People will start to become ambitious again, they will use the strong state that he established only in order to raise themselves up, to climb the ladder of power.

The destruction of charity is the birth of monsters. Once we are in the ice age of charity, Anti-Christ will come, and will be the Messiah of the damned, of those who have gone blind, of the heartless, of the greedy, of the proud. He will be everything that they want to be. They will live vicariously through him; he will be the one who seems to have it all, just as they want to have it all. But underneath they will really hate him and be jealous of him, while he will only really care about himself while posing as the savior. It is a sort of sick parody of Christ and His followers. Where there once was humility and renunciation and suffering out of love, a rejection of the earth, now there is only a sort of giant mutual flattery society, mutual worldly gain, the Anti-Christ handing out largesse, jobs, favors.

Here is the judgment against those who follow Anti-Christ. He is the Messiah of the earth, that is, of hell.

PereJoseph said:

Quote

It seems like Raoul is right about this being a problem; I have recently noticed the same trends as he has and they seem far more threatening than liberalism has been, since they are far more intellectually coherent and defensible than liberalism is. After all, liberalism has already been philosophically defeated; now we only have to do the legwork to get to the next resting point on our pilgrimage.

There is a huge wave of liberalism that threatens to engulf everything. Can you imagine the POWER of the man who the devil would raise up to stand against this liberalism, to pose as the world's antidote to liberalism? That is what Hitler did, now imagine a global version of that, who also happens to be an artistic genius. Now imagine this man claims to stand in for the Church and says all must follow him. An extreme reaction in the OPPOSITE direction; a hero who stands against the arrayed forces of evil, and who because of that appears as a kind of Messiah... It is evil genius. It would seduce almost everybody.

I am no prophet, I had a certain temptation in my past that got me thinking along these lines. The devil uses extremes, he can swing from one to the other.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #52 on:** April 27, 2012, 02:02:21 AM »

Pere Joseph said:

Quote

I encourage you to read extensively about Père Joseph and his plans for the Crusade against the Turks, the restoration of the throne of the Eastern Empire in Constantinople, and his beliefs regarding the Germans and so forth. In the Second Epistle of Saint Paul to the Thessalonians, Our Lord speaking through the Apostle to the Gentiles says, "For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way." This man "who now holdeth," also called sometimes "the restrainer," was posited by many Doctors and Fathers, such as Saint Robert Bellarmine (at least that is how this theory is known to me), to be the Roman Emperor, or at least the sacred imperium romanum. This, I believe, is maintained in the whole of the reign of Christ through the first and second swords, that is to say, in Christendom, the natural head and hegemonic lord of which is the Eldest Son of the Church, the King of France. The public regicide of the restrainer immediately resulted in the assault on the Pope and, over the XIXth century, the progression of liberalism and the removal of papal and ecclesiastical liberty, by way of the Masonic sects, who were the exponents of this particular sortie against the reign of the Sacred Heart of Jesus through His chosen intermediaries. Indeed, those who help these intermediaries are helping to restrain the coming of the man of sin, the Antichrist. This is what I believe. Thus, I think you are exactly right when you say that we can stop the devil from producing him, at least for a time.

You are right. I was going to say that the Angelic Pastor was the restrainer but this makes more sense. The Anti-Christ indeed is the culmination of the revolution that unseated the king of France. It is all connected. Once the royalty and nobility was removed, a new manmade nobility replaced it, which was basically just whoever would be as corrupt as possible for money.

Then we got a new manmade Vatican, a new manmade church. What is left? The final Judas kiss -- a man who poses as God Himself. That is the summit of man's rebellion, of man trying to replace God's order with his own disorder, which began in earnest with the beheading of the king and queen, the most Satanic act in recent history. People who wonder why I get upset about Chesterton, as if it's no big deal that we just "disagree" about the French Revolution being a good thing, here is why. The evil of the French Revolution cannot be overestimated. It was the beginning of the downfall we're in now; and the Restoration of the Church, not coincidentally, COINCIDES with the return of the King.

No doubt, you are right. It is all about the king. We must have a king, and everyone here should pray for this.

PereJoseph · « **Reply #53 on:** April 27, 2012, 02:16:34 AM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Indeed, Man of the West seemed to be nothing less than a prophet of Antichrist, weird times we are living in. The Ubermensch is blatantly Nietzsche's fevered dream of Anti-Christ.

Here is what the devil is preparing:

By making people give primacy to the state over the Church, and preparing an even more dangerous form of Gallicanism, the devil is ensuring that the faith will become compromised and watered down. People will get in the habit of paying lip-service only to the faith, because they get worldly advantages from it. The charity of Catholics will grow cold, they will be driven by selfish and base desires, by their own ambitions, rather than for the will of God. France, formerly holy, will become like a pseudo-Catholic version of nαzι Germany.

How does the world fall apart again so fast after the Monarch? People will start to become ambitious again, they will use the strong state that he established only in order to raise themselves up, to climb the ladder of power.

The destruction of charity is the birth of monsters. Once we are in the ice age of charity, Anti-Christ will come, and will be the Messiah of the damned, of those who have gone blind, of the heartless, of the greedy, of the proud. He will be everything that they want to be. They will live vicariously through him; he will be the one who seems to have it all, just as they want to have it all. But underneath they will really hate him and be jealous of him, while he will only really care about himself while posing as the savior. It is a sort of sick parody of Christ and His followers. Where there once was humility and renunciation and suffering out of love, a rejection of the earth, now there is only a sort of giant mutual flattery society, mutual worldly gain, the Anti-Christ handing out largesse, jobs, favors.

Here is the judgment against those who follow Anti-Christ. He is the Messiah of the earth, that is, of hell.

PereJoseph said:
Quote
It seems like Raoul is right about this being a problem; I have recently noticed the same trends as he has and they seem far more threatening than liberalism has been, since they are far more intellectually coherent and defensible than liberalism is. After all, liberalism has already been philosophically defeated; now we only have to do the legwork to get to the next resting point on our pilgrimage.

There is a huge wave of liberalism that threatens to engulf everything. Can you imagine the POWER of the man who the devil would raise up to stand against this liberalism, to pose as the world's antidote to liberalism? That is what Hitler did, now imagine a global version of that, who also happens to be an artistic genius. Now imagine this man claims to stand in for the Church and says all must follow him. An extreme reaction in the OPPOSITE direction; a hero who stands against the arrayed forces of evil, and who because of that appears as a kind of Messiah... It is evil genius. It would seduce almost everybody.

I am no prophet, I had a certain temptation in my past that got me thinking along these lines. The devil uses extremes, he can swing from one to the other.

I think you've got it. I wonder how long it could be prevented, though. I still don't buy the idea that the Antichrist will come only thirty years after the Great Monarch, or after the Chastisement. Perhaps Our Lady of La Salette meant that the beginning of the downward progression will begin then. That is what I hope, anyway.

As for the charity of souls running out, there is a certain compassion and warmth and zealous love for souls that seems common to all the saints. When this is utterly gone, and the tone of Christianity has turned into something harshly doctrinaire, rather than something calm and personal, then I think people will just go through the sacramental motions again, or perhaps not even bother, being assured of their blessedness because of their social honours and so forth. I can picture it now; it is not very different than our own days, where Catholics are deceiving and backbiting other Catholics, or else trying to turn Catholicism into some brutal, militaristic religion like old-fashioned Calvinism or Islam (as opposed to a principled, militant religion -- there is a profound difference).

It seems that the Great Monarch will necessarily be a model of the opposite, insisting on personal holiness and voluntary simplicity and poverty amongst his friends and associates, who will follow his good example. I think the society he creates will be very warm and humble, as men who fought with him retire back to country estates he has awarded them as his vassals, many of their children going to monasteries, the country sides therefore emptying out and being taken over by trees and animals amongst the ruins. Wholesome art and relationships and conversation will abound, rather than the present day pomp of cosmopolitan galas and shows. It will be natural, familial, intimate, quiet, with modest laughter, singing, and so forth. It seems like institutional rigidity -- in the sense of bureaucratic procedure, for instance -- and large, loud public events tend to accommodate the progression of evil in the world; look at the concerts and restaurants today, the rush to the bars and clubs on the weekends, the manner of dancing and socialising, and the political protests, the pace of life, filled with the constant background hum of electronic noise -- voices, music, bass, tires, acceleration, the whirring of the highway. The world is not at peace whether morally or, in imitation of the spiritual reality, materially, and this in all of its facets and details -- visually, aromatically, gastronomically, audially, or in the touch. It is either cold, blunt, and industrial, like death metal and McDonald's and a warehouse or the smell of diesel, or else it is sensual and overly seductive and gaudy, like the most avant garde Spanish chemical cuisine, pop music, electronics, microfiber, etc. In a Catholic society, it seems like there will be a wholesome balance; when this is accomplished by Our Lord through His saints of the days of the Great Monarch, it will be a record and rebuke and foil against the times of the Antichrist, where no man will be content keeping to his duties in peace; he will instead agitate to go to the glamourous cities in search of fame, wealth, glory, and low delights.

PereJoseph · « **Reply #54 on:** April 27, 2012, 02:32:46 AM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Pere Joseph said:
Quote
I encourage you to read extensively about Père Joseph and his plans for the Crusade against the Turks, the restoration of the throne of the Eastern Empire in Constantinople, and his beliefs regarding the Germans and so forth. In the Second Epistle of Saint Paul to the Thessalonians, Our Lord speaking through the Apostle to the Gentiles says, "For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way." This man "who now holdeth," also called sometimes "the restrainer," was posited by many Doctors and Fathers, such as Saint Robert Bellarmine (at least that is how this theory is known to me), to be the Roman Emperor, or at least the sacred imperium romanum. This, I believe, is maintained in the whole of the reign of Christ through the first and second swords, that is to say, in Christendom, the natural head and hegemonic lord of which is the Eldest Son of the Church, the King of France. The public regicide of the restrainer immediately resulted in the assault on the Pope and, over the XIXth century, the progression of liberalism and the removal of papal and ecclesiastical liberty, by way of the Masonic sects, who were the exponents of this particular sortie against the reign of the Sacred Heart of Jesus through His chosen intermediaries. Indeed, those who help these intermediaries are helping to restrain the coming of the man of sin, the Antichrist. This is what I believe. Thus, I think you are exactly right when you say that we can stop the devil from producing him, at least for a time.

You are right. I was going to say that the Angelic Pastor was the restrainer but this makes more sense. The Anti-Christ indeed is the culmination of the revolution that unseated the king of France. It is all connected. Once the royalty and nobility was removed, a new manmade nobility replaced it, which was basically just whoever would be as corrupt as possible for money.

Then we got a new manmade Vatican, a new manmade church. What is left? The final Judas kiss -- a man who poses as God Himself. That is the summit of man's rebellion, of man trying to replace God's order with his own disorder, which began in earnest with the beheading of the king and queen, the most Satanic act in recent history. People who wonder why I get upset about Chesterton, as if it's no big deal that we just "disagree" about the French Revolution being a good thing, here is why. The evil of the French Revolution cannot be overestimated. It was the beginning of the downfall we're in now; and the Restoration of the Church, not coincidentally, COINCIDES with the return of the King.

No doubt, you are right. It is all about the king. We must have a king, and everyone here should pray for this.

The Pope is not free if the King is not defending him. And surely, as nature has designed it, the Pope could never be in the liberty he deserves in his place in Rome if he is not protected by France. United-Statesians especially should take this into account, since we have an incarnational religion, and the Faith is not simply a series of metaphors and abstract ethical teachings (difficult for Americatholics to grasp). The liberty of the Church depends on the liberty of the Pope. The liberty of the Pope depends on his defense by Christian civil powers; because of the geographical situation, this means that the liberty of the Pope depends on the strength of a Catholic France. Heaven issued a charter with the King of France at the Baptism of Clovis, through the mouth of Saint Rémi and as recognised by the Popes. He is the Eldest Son of the Church and, mystically, was furnished with this unique mission to keep peace in Europe, such that the Pope, in Rome, would enjoy the liberty and exaltation necessary to send missionaries throughout the world in order to bring the whole world to the sweet yoke of Our Lord. The Pope, on the other hand, has no way to compel Christendom, so here we see a symbiotic relationship.

Why was Constantine so great ? He enabled the Church to perform its work on the global scale unhampered, to acquire the resources necessary to perform its mission in its totality. Our Lord later furnished Constantine's successors in Christendom with all the means and endowments necessary to continue in this role, such that the Church could perform Her work undisturbed and from a serene vantage. Thus, in my opinion, until Rome is liberated, none of will be able to say that we lived when the Church was in peace and liberty. Nobody since 1870 has been able to say so.

(By the way, as a point of showing divine consistency in drawing the battle lines and distinguishing His favourites from the nations that are not holy, it is of note that the Papal Zouaves who distinguished themselves at Mentana and elsewhere in defense of the liberty of the Pope were led by the general Athanase de Charette de la Contrie, whose relative François-Athanase de Charette de la Contrie was likewise the general of the Royal and Catholic Army of the Vendée during the rising of Poitevins there in defense of the Faith and the King during the Revolution. This is surely no coincidence. The younger Charette was also on the board for the development and construction of the Sacré-Coeur Basilica in Montmartre, Paris, built to fulfill the too-late vow of the King of France to consecrate France to the Sacred Hear and to "expiate the sin of liberalism." This is an example, in my opinion, of Our Lord making known the battle lines of the struggle. And, just for the record, the Lusignan dynasty and Père Joseph himself (and Cardinal Richelieu) were also men of Poitou. Then again, this could all just be a meaningless coincidence ! :geezer:)

clare · « **Reply #55 on:** April 27, 2012, 03:43:56 AM »

Quote from: Traditional Guy 20

Speaking on abortion and birth control again I'm not defending nαzιsm but it was outlawed in nαzι Germany EXCEPT in the case of race. Since the retarded were segregated in hospitals and sterilized there could be no propagation anyway but in nαzι Germany you had what you called the "Rhineland bastards" which were children of German women and black Free French forces that occupied Germany after World War I which were also starilized. If a woman was conceiving a child whose father was a Gypsy, Black, or Jew that was when the nαzιs would perform abortions to "keep the German race clean." Other than that German women with German men were told to have as much children as possible.

Eh? I don't get that.

You begin with "I'm not defending nαzιsm but..." as if the information which follows the "but" could be mistaken for a defence!

Or are you seriously suggesting that abortion for racial reasons is acceptable??

PereJoseph · « **Reply #56 on:** April 27, 2012, 03:51:19 AM »

Quote from: clare

Quote from: Traditional Guy 20
Speaking on abortion and birth control again I'm not defending nαzιsm but it was outlawed in nαzι Germany EXCEPT in the case of race. Since the retarded were segregated in hospitals and sterilized there could be no propagation anyway but in nαzι Germany you had what you called the "Rhineland bastards" which were children of German women and black Free French forces that occupied Germany after World War I which were also starilized. If a woman was conceiving a child whose father was a Gypsy, Black, or Jew that was when the nαzιs would perform abortions to "keep the German race clean." Other than that German women with German men were told to have as much children as possible.

Eh? I don't get that.

You begin with "I'm not defending nαzιsm but..." as if the information which follows the "but" could be mistaken for a defence!

Great point.

As an aside, apparently their project failed miserably, given that the end of the nαzι war effort resulted in between hundreds of thousands and several million Russian babies being born of German women.

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #57 on:** April 27, 2012, 08:00:56 AM »

Quote from: clare

You begin with "I'm not defending nαzιsm but..." as if the information which follows the "but" could be mistaken for a defence!

Or are you seriously suggesting that abortion for racial reasons is acceptable??

Take it however you like but I put that there because sometimes the historical facts makes that person get called a nαzι or Jew-hater or whatnot.

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #58 on:** April 27, 2012, 08:04:55 AM »

Quote from: clare

Or are you seriously suggesting that abortion for racial reasons is acceptable??

Why don't you ask Mr. Churchill...

"Keep England White!"

Or Mr. FDR. "The result of all mingling of Asiatic blood with that of European or American blood creates 9 times out of 10 the most unfortunate results."

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #59 on:** April 27, 2012, 08:06:13 AM »

Quote from: PereJoseph

Great point.

As an aside, apparently their project failed miserably, given that the end of the nαzι war effort resulted in between hundreds of thousands and several million Russian babies being born of German women.

I think you mean the mass rape of German women by the Red Army hordes.