Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: Mithrandylan on April 24, 2012, 09:47:14 PM
-
Especially the part where he killed himself, super Catholic.
-
Karl and those like him need to be perma-banned and their troll screeds erased from the board. Karl's purpose is to smear the board by posting ridiculous crap. Wouldn't be surprised if he is St. JC who was just banned.
-
Does anyone know of any other board where there are so many trolls like this?
What frightens me about it is it takes a certain cunning intelligence. Various Catholics are flirting with variants of these ideas, they are drawn to them because of an extreme reaction to the depredations of the Jews. When there was a Feeneyite infestation on these boards, you had various trolls planting extreme Feeneyite ideas. Now that there are these disturbing "racialist" ideas floating around, suddenly we get trolls like this.
Is it the same guy? Is it Pope Augustine, controlled by diabolical suggestion? The tone is the same. There is a clear mockery to what he's doing, I doubt whoever posted this really believes Hitler is a saint. Pope Augustine or The Great Monarch or whatever he called himself was clearly writing a mocking satire of Catholics, playing on our reactionary views. It appears to be someone or several someones who just like messing with Catholics.
I would say this very likely is Pope Augustine, the sense of humor is a strong hint in that direction. Another hint is the poster's in-depth knowledge of the faith, which gives his satire a certain accuracy. Augustine knews how we think and how to play off of it, and so does this person.
-
The winners, no matter how evil, write history.
Consider how the victors have whitewashed their own h0Ɩ0cαųsts before (Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki) and after (the prison camp murder of 1-2 million German soldiers) WW2. Consider how the victors have fabricated evidence (the construction of the Auschwitz "gas chamber" by USSR ʝʊdɛօ-Communists) to prop up the Judaic propagandist Ilya Ehrenberg's "h0Ɩ0cαųst" lies.
Considering the mountains of lies and fabricated evidence we know about, what is so bizarre about casting a sharp eye upon other suppressed evidence? I am most astonished at the mountain of suppressed evidence that surfaces day after day here: http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/
In fact, there was a thread there discussing evidence that Hitler did not commit ѕυιcιdє, but led a stealthy life in Argentina. I have been told so many historical lies by the victors that I want to see the evidence. If it isn't from the Magisterium I do not trust it—period.
-
I would say this very likely is Pope Augustine, the sense of humor is a strong hint in that direction. Another hint is the poster's in-depth knowledge of the faith, which gives his satire a certain accuracy. Augustine knews how we think and how to play off of it, and so does this person.
I think it's someone who is in tandem with a regular poster here.
-
I'm not a troll and I have NO AGENDA.
I just found an honest article I was looking to discuss.
The article cited well docuмented, academic books and articles. If you doubt any of the claims, you should look them up for yourselves.
I just don't understand why nobody wants to take an honest look at Hitler's religious views?
-
Why is everyone so scared of the truth? Why don't you just accept it so you can realize who our real enemy is...
The Church certainly did:
In 1205, Pope Innocent III criticized the Jews in Etsi non Displaceat (Though I Should Not…). He accused the Jews of arrogance, money lending for profit, and blasphemy. He also claimed the Jews were punished with perpetual servitude for killing Jesus.
In 1218, Pope Honorius III wrote Generali Concilio (General Council), which demanded that Jews wear special clothing to distinguish themselves from Catholics. He also forced Jews to pay a special tax to their local church.
In 1233, Pope Gregory IX wrote Sufficere Debuerat Perfidio (The Faithless Should Have Sufficient Work), which prohibited Jews from hiring Christian servants to avoid manual labor.
In 1239, he also wrote Si Vera Sunt (If They Are True…), which required that copies of the Jєωιѕн тαℓмυd be confiscated and burned.
In 1442, Pope Eugene IV wrote Dundum ad Nostram Audientiam (To Our Hearing…), which forced Jews to live in a segregated area of the city which became known as the ghetto.
In 1555 Pope Paul IV wrote cuм Nimis Absurdum (Since it is Absurd…), which introduced severe religious and economic restrictions on Jews throughout Europe.
In 1567, Pope Pius V wrote cuм nos Nuper (When We Recently…), which made it illegal for Jews to own real estate.
In 1569, he also wrote, Hebraeorum Gens (Nation of the Hebrews), which accused Jews of immorality and ordered their expulsion from the Papal States
In 1593, Pope Clement VIII wrote Caeca et Obdurata Hebraeorum Perfidia (Blinded and Hardened by the Deceitfulness of the Jews), which claimed the Jews used money lending to take advantage of the working class.
in 1755, Pope Benedict XIV wrote Beatus Andreas (Blessed Andrew), which declared Jews carried out the ritual murder and blood sacrifice of Catholic children.
-
Separating fact from fiction can be difficult when dealing with Adolf Hitler. Personally I doubt that he committed ѕυιcιdє. However it is a fact that he was funded by Prescott Bush and Averill Harrimen, two of the foremost eugenicists of the period, which makes claims that he was Catholic pretty ridiculous. They may have been made to dupe Catholics into thinking he was OK to vote for, he was democratically elected if I am not mistaken. When Obama is talking to Catholics he'll refer affectionately to Cardinal Bernadine or tell a story about how he went to a Catholic school in Indonesia. It's called pandering to the crowd.
Anyway, that may explain some of those references.
-
Why is everyone so scared of the truth? Why don't you just accept it so you can realize who our real enemy is...
The Church certainly did:
In 1205, Pope Innocent III criticized the Jews in Etsi non Displaceat (Though I Should Not…). He accused the Jews of arrogance, money lending for profit, and blasphemy. He also claimed the Jews were punished with perpetual servitude for killing Jesus.
In 1218, Pope Honorius III wrote Generali Concilio (General Council), which demanded that Jews wear special clothing to distinguish themselves from Catholics. He also forced Jews to pay a special tax to their local church.
In 1233, Pope Gregory IX wrote Sufficere Debuerat Perfidio (The Faithless Should Have Sufficient Work), which prohibited Jews from hiring Christian servants to avoid manual labor.
In 1239, he also wrote Si Vera Sunt (If They Are True…), which required that copies of the Jєωιѕн тαℓмυd be confiscated and burned.
In 1442, Pope Eugene IV wrote Dundum ad Nostram Audientiam (To Our Hearing…), which forced Jews to live in a segregated area of the city which became known as the ghetto.
In 1555 Pope Paul IV wrote cuм Nimis Absurdum (Since it is Absurd…), which introduced severe religious and economic restrictions on Jews throughout Europe.
In 1567, Pope Pius V wrote cuм nos Nuper (When We Recently…), which made it illegal for Jews to own real estate.
In 1569, he also wrote, Hebraeorum Gens (Nation of the Hebrews), which accused Jews of immorality and ordered their expulsion from the Papal States
In 1593, Pope Clement VIII wrote Caeca et Obdurata Hebraeorum Perfidia (Blinded and Hardened by the Deceitfulness of the Jews), which claimed the Jews used money lending to take advantage of the working class.
in 1755, Pope Benedict XIV wrote Beatus Andreas (Blessed Andrew), which declared Jews carried out the ritual murder and blood sacrifice of Catholic children.
Hitler is neither a saint nor a devil. He was a real historical person. As for Hitler's religious views there are accounts that support that Hitler continued to be a Catholic after boyhood and there are accounts that Hitler despised both Catholicism and Protestantism. No one but Hitler would know it seems. However if Hitler was indeed a Catholic (hypothetically speaking) in Mein Kampf he wants no part of the inter-denominational conflicts which he stated was a cause that the Jews were successful: they divided Christianity, and made Christians fight eachother. Yes Hitler was definitely against the same people the Church says She is against: Jews, Communists, Freemasons, etc. but as I said I assume only Hitler would know his own religious views.
-
Especially the part where he killed himself, super Catholic.
Well I'm not defending the guy of course but I assume he figured that the Soviets would have given him a fate worse than death had he surrendered. Also I believe Ernest Hemingway also committed ѕυιcιdє no?
-
However it is a fact that he was funded by Prescott Bush and Averill Harrimen, two of the foremost eugenicists of the period, which makes claims that he was Catholic pretty ridiculous.
The eugenics movement was founded in America and Great Britain which the nαzι Party simply copied. I'm not defending what they did but the nαzιs believed they were actually being humane by putting the people who were physically and mentally handicapped out of their misery. As for Hitler's racial ideas most of his ideas were very commonplace during that time period. As for Hitler's ideas about the Jews it could be traced to the German Lutheran community and Martin Luther's book "On the Jews and their Lies" (in fact Hitler praises Martin Luther a lot) and his own upbringing in a pre-Vatican II Church. Of course when I say that I just mean his initial views on Jews. Obviously a lot of his other ideas about Jews being Marxists, capitalists, democrats, dictators, etc. are from his own views. Also remember that Hitler was not a white supremacist. He only cared about what was good for the German nation and he considered enemies of Germany Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, Communists, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, Freemasons, Blacks etc. He was a German nationalist really and maybe an Anglophilliac considering his love for the British Empire.
-
Look at the academic evidence, there is ample proof that Hitler was a devout Catholic.
Nancy Peℓσѕι and Joe Biden claim to be devout Catholics as well. Does that mean we should think highly of them?
-
Saying you're a Catholic means zilch if you are flouting the tenets of the religion, on top of that, who ever thought of him as a Catholic in his time? Was he trying to establish a Catholic state?
The logic of those who, consciously or not, are working for the devil in their attempts to associate Catholics with Hitler, is "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Therefore, many Protestants and Orthodox are our compadres because they are against, say, communism. Or let's take it even further into a reductio ad absurdum. James I, king of England, was obsessed with witches and witchcraft, yet he was an Anglican leading an anti-Catholic state. I guess he was a friend of Catholics because he was against witches, and we're against witches too?
What if there is someone who is burning Catholics because he thinks that THEY'RE witches, should be on HIS side? Why not? He is against witches, isn't he?
See, these people who don't do God's will and don't follow the Church are a bundle of contradictions, of paradoxes. How easy it would be to just follow someone who says "I'm Catholic." Like that solves everything -- paying lip service to the faith while acting like a heathen.
-
Especially the part where he killed himself, super Catholic.
Well I'm not defending the guy of course but I assume he figured that the Soviets would have given him a fate worse than death had he surrendered. Also I believe Ernest Hemingway also committed ѕυιcιdє no?
Yes, as did Hunter S. Thompson, but that can't possibly excuse Hitler from committing ѕυιcιdє(or maybe not) if he was indeed catholic.
-
Was he trying to establish a Catholic state?
No offense but if we were regarding successful societies by this standard the Roman Republic, Roman Empire, Athens, the England of Elizabeth I, the Prussia of Frederick the Great, the Russia of Peter the Great, the Germany of Bismarck, the United States, the Islamic culture in Arabia, etc. would all be 'unsuccessful' societies. Besides your model 'Catholic state' would be Ferdinand and Isabella who expelled the Moors and Jews and countenanced the Inqusition. :wink:
-
Hitler was deeply into the occult, his copy of Helena Blavatsky's THE SECRET DOCTRINE is in the National archives (I think that's where it is) anyway Doctor Stan Monteith went over there and looked through it and saw all Hitlers notes written in the margins. The whole nαzι movement was connected to the occult, there are a few docuмentaries about it.
However Hitler may have been baptized, if he was I guess that makes him Catholic.
-
The Rothschilds, a Jєωιѕн family banking dynasty, funded Hitler. How do Jews like them apples?
-
Saying you're a Catholic means zilch if you are flouting the tenets of the religion, on top of that, who ever thought of him as a Catholic in his time? Was he trying to establish a Catholic state?
See, these people who don't do God's will and don't follow the Church are a bundle of contradictions, of paradoxes. How easy it would be to just follow someone who says "I'm Catholic." Like that solves everything -- paying lip service to the faith while acting like a heathen.
Adolf Hitler fought to unite Germany in much of the same way King Charlemagne had in the past.
Hitler proudly proclaimed his government was the Third Reich (Empire), which paid respect to the First Reich, the Holy Roman Empire founded by Charlemagne.
Both rulers fought wars with surrounding territories to expand the size of the state. Both rulers established economic policies that promoted real human labor and prevented the financial exploitation of the German people.
King Charlemagne also fought brutal wars to convert the Saxon tribe and once executed a group of 4,500 soldiers who had peacefully surrendered. He was triumphant though and his historical reputation was formed by his supporters. He was eventually named a saint by the Catholic Church following his death.
By contrast, Hitler was defeated and his Jєωιѕн enemies have carefully developed and spread his legacy… the h0Ɩ0cαųst…
As Winston Churchill once famously declared, “history is written by the victors.”
-
So because Jews are enemies of the Church, we should support Hitler since he was the enemy of our enemies?
That is not logical reasoning. Might as well say Obama is our friend just because he appears hesitant to defend Israel. Of course, we all know a World War III will break out eventually.
-
I'm not defending what they did but the nαzιs believed they were actually being humane by putting the people who were physically and mentally handicapped out of their misery.
And it saved money too!
(http://www.thebreman.org/exhibitions/online/1000kids/neuesvolk.jpg)
"This genetically ill person will cost our people's community 60,000 marks over his lifetime. Citizens, that is your money. Read Neues Volk, the monthly of the racial policy office of the NSDAP."
-
It's not pleasant reading and the photographs are quite graphic and distressing but 'Forged War Crimes malign the German Nation' by Udo Walendy is a recommended booklet. 'Truth for Germany' is also recommended.
-
See the videotaped interview of the Auschwitz director admitting that the "gas chamber" was fabricated AFTER the war by the Communists with a wooden door, a "homicidal gas chamber" that has NO safe means of introducing or removing cyanide, and has NO cyanide residue. The interview was conducted by David Cole, himself a Jew.

http://www.h0Ɩ0cαųstdenialvideos.com/
Numerous h0Ɩ0cαųst Fundamentalist "scholars" have RECANTED THEIR CLAIMS:


The Victories of Revisionism
http://www.rense.com/general74/revis.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UzlesmG0f9c
…and experts admit the lack of evidence:
http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2011/12/no-real-evidence-for-gas-chambers.html
See also Germar Rudolf and Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz Lies, available at: http://vho.org/dl/ENG/al.pdf
Faked photographs:
http://www.heretical.com/walendy/fakes.html
The quality of "eyewitness" testimony is shameful. Watch ABC News video of "h0Ɩ0cαųst eyewitness," Herman Rosenblat rationalizing his shameful deception:

Interviewer: How can you say it wasn't a lie? It wasn't true and you know it's not true.


Rosenblat: Yes, it's not true, but in my imagination it was true.
http://tinyurl.com/yjg324c
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3822415128071766948&ei=WPAiSt_iGJ2wqAODmfHNDg&q=Herman+Rosenblat&hl=en&client=safari
“The head nαzι-hunter’s trail of lies” by Guy Walters, Times, London, UK, July 18, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/yjrer3u
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article6718913.ece
Professor David O'Connell also published a well-docuмented study of Elie Wiesel's "eyewitness" lies. For his effort, the h0Ɩ0cαųst Fundamentalists attempted to have him fired.
http://www.culturewars.com/2004/Weisel.htm
"I describe incidents which may or may not have happened but which are true." Elie Wiesel in Elie Wiesel: conversations By Élie Wiesel, Robert Franciosi, (1970), p 33.
Spielberg's Hoax - The Last Days of The Big Lie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=80GgRWuXcO8
Many other incidents that never happened:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bYsSu9FV3D4
Zion’s Big Lie
http://sixmillionmyth.blogspot.com/p/six-million-myth.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=n0V1ypKN_HM
145 references to “6 million” from 1900-1945,
78 of the references before the outbreak of World War 2:
http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/?zx=bff7ab91b4b883b0
Lots of 6,000,000 Jews stories prior to World War ONE
http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2011/05/lots-of-6000000-jews-stories-prior-to.html
The First h0Ɩ0cαųst: Jєωιѕн Fund Raising Campaigns with h0Ɩ0cαųst Claims During and After World War I by Don Heddesheimer, ISBN-13: 978-1591480037
http://www.amazon.com/First-h0Ɩ0cαųst-Jєωιѕн-Raising-Campaigns/dp/1591480035
The Jews were claiming that "6 million" Jews were killed in World War ONE! ("The Crucifixion of the Jews Must Stop," The American Hebrew, October 31, 1919, p. 582.) You can see a photocopy of the original bogus claim on page 755 of Michael Hoffman's new 1,102 page book Judaism Discovered, ISBN9780970378453, or on Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/0970378459/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_0?ie=UTF8&index=0
http://tinyurl.com/y977p8j
The book also examines the fundamentally racial supremacist and misanthropic tenets of Judaism. It is available at http://www.revisionisthistory.org )
The "6 million" number is a number that has magical numerology ("gematria") significance to occultic Judaism's Kabbalists:
Deconstructing Six Million HoloMyths
By Harrell Rhome (a Gnostic)
http://www.rense.com/general82/decon.pdf
The Sacred Nature of Six Million in the Judaic Religion
Why Six Million h0Ɩ0cαųst Victims Cannot be Questioned
by Michael Fishwick, 11th February 2009 (Our Lady of Lourdes).
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=3473
The Kabbalah, gematria, Jєωιѕн Magic & the h0Ɩ0cαųst's sacred 6,000,000
http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2010/06/kabbalah-gematria-Jєωιѕн-magic_228.html?zx=ae5fecb822319271
6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 etc etc: 34 appearances of the Kabbalistic 6,000,000 figure of Jews in the
New York Times from 1869 - 1945 (months before the end of WWII)
http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2011/01/6000000-6000000-6000000-6000000-6000000.html
6,000,000 Jews killed in 136 A.D.: An 1897 "Science of Religion" American magazine, claimed nearly six million Jews were killed in the Bar Kokhba revolt 132-136AD
http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2011/05/6000000-jews-killed-in-136ad.html
“but that must be an anti-Semitic, h0Ɩ0cαųst-denying lie because it is well known that over FOUR BILLION Jews were killed in just the final battle of the Bar Kokhba [the “Messiah”] revolt”:
http://www.halakhah.com/gittin/gittin_57.html#PARTb
http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2010/11/over-four-billion-jews-were-killed-by.html
More obsession with the Kabbalistic number of 6 million: 1932 movie The Symphony of Six Million
“…The cast in this movie is genuine and almost flawless. Gregory Ratoff as the father, Ricardo Cortez (Jacob Krantz) as his son - the doctor, and Noel Madison as the ambitious brother. They are all authentic and they are all Jєωιѕн. I said almost flawless because there is one flaw. Irene Dunne is cast as the love interest. She is a good actress, but she is clearly a shiksa in looks, speech, and mannerism. She stood out like a pork chop amongst the knishes and kugels...
“Note: Although it was entirely unintentional, and could not have been imagined, there is an uncanny connection between the title of this movie and the h0Ɩ0cαųst which came to light a decade later. Six Million.”
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023545/reviews
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0OOuKGDHIE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKSTo3a_Fio
The Torah has a long tradition of lying victimhood. For example, note the typically ridiculous self-reports of victimhood in tractate Gittin 57b of the Torah, the 4 billion (yes, billion) Jews killed by the Romans [Gittin 57b claims Vespasian killed “four hundred thousand myriads” = 400,000 x 10,000 = 4 BILLION] and the 64 million Jєωιѕн children skewered and burned in scrolls by the Romans in one city alone [Gittin 58a claims “400 ѕуηαgσgυєs” each with “400 teachers” and “400 pupils” for each teacher” = 400 x 400 x 400 = 64 million].
http://www.halakhah.com/gittin/gittin_57.html#PARTb
http://www.halakhah.com/gittin/gittin_58.html
Even today the rabbis speak approvingly of Hitler's work as divine retribution. Revealingly the rabbis have been saying approving things about Hitler and his "h0Ɩ0cαųst" for half a century, Chabad Lubavitch Grand Rabbi (and erstwhile "Messiah") Schneerson among them [Yehuda Bauer, "God as surgeon." Haaretz, June 1, 2007]. www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/865718.html www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/868474.html
Rabbi Elizer Schach, founder of the "Israeli" Shas Party: "Does anyone here think that before the h0Ɩ0cαųst, which exacted such a terrible price and left no family untouched all the Jews of Europe were righteous, God-fearing folk? There was a drift away from our faith and way of life. What happened was divine retribution for the accuмulated weight of years of drifting away from Judaism." Mordecai Richter, National Post (Canada), August 26, 2000.
"Israeli" Rabbi Ovadia Yosef stated that those who died in the nαzι persecutions were "reincarnated sinners" who got what they deserved, that Hitler "was simply the messenger of God sent to give the Jєωιѕн people their just desserts." Jack Katzenell, "Rabbi Says h0Ɩ0cαųst Victims Were Reincarnations of Sinners." The Independent (UK), August 6, 2000. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/rabbi-says-h0Ɩ0cαųst-victims-were-reincarnations-of-sinners-711547.html
The Judaic Trotskyite Lennie Brenner docuмented ZIONIST COLLUSION WITH THE nαzιS in his book, "51 Docuмents: Zionist Collaboration with the nαzιs," ISBN 9781569802359.
http://www.counterpunch.org/brenner1223.html
http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/index.htm
http://www.amazon.com/51-Docuмents-Zionist-Collaboration-nαzιs/dp/1569802351
The h0Ɩ0cαųst Hoax Exposed: Debunking the 20th Century’s Biggest Lie
http://www.barnesreview.org/the-h0Ɩ0cαųst-hoax-exposed-debunking-the-20th-centuryâ%C2%80%C2%99s-biggest-lie-p-552.html?cPath=80_79_46
You can put a crucifix in urine and call it Piss Christ art:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
You can splash urine on a picture of Jesus Christ on an international television network:
http://www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00028405.html
You can urinate almost daily on Christian holy sites:
http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=17130&size=A
You can paint a picture of the Blessed Virgin Mary with elephant dung:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Ofili
You can burn New Testaments:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/985362.html
You can brag about killing Jesus.
“You and your f@#king Jesus can kiss my a$%....We killed Jesus and we’re proud of it...” http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e1842edc4f
You can brag about killing Jesus AND threaten to kill Gentiles too:
“We killed Jesus and we’ll kill you too!” http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2006/11/18/hebron-day-06/
You can deny the h0Ɩ0cαųst of 0ver 61 million Gentiles at the hands of Jєωιѕн Communism:
See Part 1, especially “Jєωιѕн TESTIMONY,” at http://www.catholicvoice.co.uk/pinay/ (Also available in the original book form as The Plot Against the Church by Maurice Pinay from the bookstore at http://www.omnicbc.com )
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MEGA.HTM
You can encourage the genocide of men, women, and children, even when they wave little white flags of surrender:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1180527966693&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=154149
http://portail.islamboutique.fr/gaza2008/
http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2008/12/29/gaza-massacre-slideshow/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAzns3cvf8A&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUQYIb4wMg4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b8wK-6U6zg&feature=related
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7828536.stm
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/01/13/israeli-troops-ordered-to-shoot-rather-than-ask-questions/
BUT YOU CANNOT SPEAK TRUTH ABOUT THE Jєωιѕн FABLE OF "THE h0Ɩ0cαųst."
-
The whole subject should be studied carefully and one should undertake a study of events. There is a wide range of literature available. It's too simplistic to say the nαzιs were bad. They generally equate nαzι meaning all. The SS,Wehrmacht etc etc as opposed to the specific party which had members with varying views.
I'm all for "no more brothers wars" but would probably be more pro-German than I would be pro-English. I'm not hostile to the English but I prefer Germans and Italians.
-
Hitler was elected by the German people regardless of what people think of him. He lost the Catholic faith and this is tragic. The Jews won the war.
I always try and encourage Nations to work together against the enemy.The East of Europe still has the faith.I certainly commend Putin in Russia. I would regard myself as pro-Putin.
-
Elie Wiesel
Instead of taking the approach Clare did earlier, it's far better to confront pro-lifers with the truth about this Elie Wiesel.It's one example. I'm not suggesting you start an argument outside an abortuary during a pro-life vigil but organisations who quote from him must be challenged. Are we to believe his garbage? The Jews have been able to exploit. Not all Jews are abortionists but many are.
When pro-lifers quote from him they sure do insult revisionists. I'm inclined to believe it is a marketing ploy to attract the Christian Right and other Neo Cons. They are trying to be populist.
-
Normally, one has to try to put people off the likes of Marie Stopes by pointing out her connection with Hitler.
But, with some people, one has to attempt to put them off Hitler by connecting him with Marie Stopes.
Crazy world!
The nαzιs were not pro-life. If Catholics shouldn't vote for pro-abortion parties, they shouldn't defend the nαzιs.
If Catholics can defend the nαzιs, they shouldn't complain when other Catholics vote for pro-abortion parties.
-
I'm not defending what they did but the nαzιs believed they were actually being humane by putting the people who were physically and mentally handicapped out of their misery.
And it saved money too!
(http://www.thebreman.org/exhibitions/online/1000kids/neuesvolk.jpg)
"This genetically ill person will cost our people's community 60,000 marks over his lifetime. Citizens, that is your money. Read Neues Volk, the monthly of the racial policy office of the NSDAP."
Nobody should support a mindset of killing the disabled.
-
Good. I'm glad we agree on that much, JG.
-
Leanbh Dia is the Irish word for children with a disability. It translates as Children of God.
-
Good. I'm glad we agree on that much, JG.
Naturally we agree on this.
-
Normally, one has to try to put people off the likes of Marie Stopes by pointing out her connection with Hitler.
But, with some people, one has to attempt to put them off Hitler by connecting him with Marie Stopes.
Crazy world!
The nαzιs were not pro-life. If Catholics shouldn't vote for pro-abortion parties, they shouldn't defend the nαzιs.
If Catholics can defend the nαzιs, they shouldn't complain when other Catholics vote for pro-abortion parties.
In Ireland a Fine Gael TD (MP) recently stated that “Abortion as murder, therefore sin, which is the religious argument, is no more sinful, from a scriptural point of view, than all other sins we don’t legislate against, like greed, hate and fornication. The latter, being fornication, I would say, is probably the single most likely cause of unwanted pregnancies in this country.”
The Taoiseach (Prime Minister) who is in same party was quick to say it is her personal opinion and not position of the party.
Fine Gael are bad and far from the day when Oliver J. Flanagan (Fine Gael) declared in the irish parliament of the need to "rout the Jews out of this country" (1943). Alan Shatter, a Jew is the Irish Minister for Justice and in Fine Gael. Anti-Catholic as is usual with the Jews. A.K. Chesterton was correct as it is their arrogance that is their downfall.
We need to get rid of political parties. I regard parliamentary democracy as a total charade. It's laughable to watch these parties.
-
As I said and if time allows, a person should undertake a study of the subject matter. I still believe pro-life groups though perhaps well intentioned should avoid mentioning nαzι in their literature. I read an article recently about smoke rising up in a cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ. I have no doubt there was smoke but not from gas chambers as the author was trying to imply. I thought it a well intentioned but poorly researched piece.
Would a teacher in a school who would have the class read the diary of Anne Frank allow 'Is the Diary of Anne Frank Genuine'? by Robert Faurisson? It's a valid question.
I remember watching an excellent video of Precious Life exposing an abortuary in England but at end of video they had a quote from Elie Wiesel. It was a shame as otherwise it was an excellent and necessary video. I formed the view this organisation must believe in the 'h0Ɩ0cαųst' otherwise they would not quote this 'survivor'.
-
A quote from Elie Wiesel could easily lead to a 'Friends of Israel', this ʝʊdɛօ-Christian heritage approach. Sure why not have a rabbi over to speak? It's the wrong road to go down but being honest majority of pro-lifers are pro-Israel. One can very easily get neo conned.I never waste time lobbying 'pro-life' politicians or 'vote pro-life'.I find this approach a waste of time and naive.
I can only speak for my own Nation but we need a Second Republic. A total reconstruction of the Nation.
-
A quote from Elie Wiesel could easily lead to a 'Friends of Israel', this ʝʊdɛօ-Christian heritage approach. Sure why not have a rabbi over to speak? It's the wrong road to go down but being honest majority of pro-lifers are pro-Israel. One can very easily get neo conned.I never waste time lobbying 'pro-life' politicians or 'vote pro-life'.I find this approach a waste of time and naive.
I can only speak for my own Nation but we need a Second Republic. A total reconstruction of the Nation.
We need something better than what the deadbeats in the establishment have to offer. Only a return to Catholicism and a politics which is revolutionary will save our island.A Society of Guilds and our own currency away from cities is our future.
-
Fine Gael emerged from the Blueshirts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueshirts
The Army Comrades Association (ACA), later named the National Guard and better known by the nickname The Blueshirts (Irish: Na Léinte Gorma), was a right-wing Irish political organisation active in the 1930s.
The Blueshirts are sometimes described as "quasi-fascist",[1] and the extent to which they can be seen as the Irish equivalent of Hitler's Brownshirts and Mussolini's Blackshirts continues to be debated. They employed paramilitary-style uniforms, greeted each other with the Roman salute, and participated in street fights against the IRA.[2]
However some historians[who?] have argued that the members of the Blueshirts, generally speaking:
shared an opposition to the Irish Republican Army, the governing Fianna Fáil party, and contemporary economic policies,[3] rather than a fascist ideology;
were defensive rather than offensive in outlook, and;
unlike their counterparts in other countries, were not known to engage in political terrorism.[citation needed]
The historian R. M. Douglas has suggested that "those who have sought to find in the Blueshirts an Irish manifestation of fascism have been looking in the wrong place".[4] Since the 1970s, "Blueshirt" has also been used as a derogatory nickname for Fine Gael, the mainstream right-wing political party, into which the Blueshirts were subsumed in 1933. It has also been adopted by members and supporters of that party as a self-deprecating nickname.
-
Ailtirí na hAiséirghe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ailtir%C3%AD_na_hAis%C3%A9irghe
Ailtirí na hAiséirghe (English: Architects of the Resurrection) was a minor radical nationalist and fascist political party from Ireland, founded by Gearóid Ó Cuinneagáin in 1942.[1][2] The party sought to form a totalitarian Irish Christian corporatist state. Its objectives included the creation of a one-party state under the rule of an all-powerful leader; the criminalisation of the public use of the English language; discriminatory measures against Jews; the building-up of a massive conscript army; and the reconquest of Northern Ireland. In the longer term, Aiséirghe aimed to make a fascist Ireland into a "missionary-ideological" state spreading its combination of totalitarian politics and Christian social principles worldwide.
An "organised group of αnтι-ѕємιтєs",[3] its sympathies were with the Axis powers. It was one of a wave of minor far right parties in 1940s Ireland that failed to achieve mainstream success, like the Monetary Reform Party.[4]
The party obtained no seats in the 1943 and 1944 general elections.[5] In the 1945 local government elections, however, Aiséirghe candidates won nine seats (out of 31 contested), gaining a total of more than 11,000 first-preference votes.
Its supporters included Ernest Blythe, Oliver J. Flanagan and James Joseph Walsh.[6] Seán Treacy,[7] the future Ceann Comhairle of Dáil Éireann, was a party member in the 1940s, as were the novelist Brian Cleeve,[8] the philosopher Terence Gray[9] and the broadcaster and author Breandán Ó hEithir.[7] Although never a member, Seán South was familiar with the group's publications.[10]
After an internal split in late 1945, Aiséirghe's influence weakened. It held its last formal meeting in 1958, though the party newspaper continued to appear until the early 1970s.
-
Hitler was an occultist. He was not Catholic.
-
A quote from Elie Wiesel could easily lead to a 'Friends of Israel', this ʝʊdɛօ-Christian heritage approach. Sure why not have a rabbi over to speak? It's the wrong road to go down but being honest majority of pro-lifers are pro-Israel. One can very easily get neo conned.I never waste time lobbying 'pro-life' politicians or 'vote pro-life'.I find this approach a waste of time and naive.
I can only speak for my own Nation but we need a Second Republic. A total reconstruction of the Nation.
We need something better than what the deadbeats in the establishment have to offer. Only a return to Catholicism and a politics which is revolutionary will save our island.A Society of Guilds and our own currency away from cities is our future.
Totally agree, we need a return to the rural Catholicism of the Holy Roman Empire. There was a stronger community with a sense of place and identity. The people were connected to one another by loyalty and obligation. These relationships created a sense of stability and intimacy among Catholics.
The "dark ages" certainly weren't perfect, people often struggled to meet their basic needs BUT were free of outside control. They depended on their community and their Catholic faith for strength. Though everyday life was difficult, people were strengthened by the sacred bonds of family and community.
-
Oliver J. Flanagan on Abortion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jy1inp18kU
Here Oliver J. Flanagan (1920-1987), former Fine Gael TD for Laois-Offaly, voices his opposition to the hesitancy of the then Taoiseach Dr Garret FitzGerald on the subject of the proposed Pro-Life Amendment.
-
Good. I'm glad we agree on that much, JG.
Naturally we agree on this.
John (is it okay to call you that?) you should realize that the subject of eugenics was started by Americans and British not the nαzιs. In fact everyone from George Bernard Shaw to Winston Churchill supported euthanizing the retarded to "preserve the Anglo-Saxon legacy." Hitler in Mein Kampf was merely following that movement when he wrote that getting rid of those people before they could breed with healthy people would seem cruel at first but in the long run it would help the white race by getting rid of the "insane classes" in the gene pool.
-
If Catholics can defend the nαzιs, they shouldn't complain when other Catholics vote for pro-abortion parties.
Well then I guess that can work both ways: if Catholics vote for Marxists then they should not speak up and join the liberals when liberals call someone a nαzι.
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.
-
Other than that German women with German men were told to have as much children as possible.
Yeah, the Reich encouraged large families with many children.
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)
Germans proclaimed their government was the Third Reich (Empire), which paid respect to the First Reich, the Holy Roman Empire founded by Saint Charlemagne.
-
Germans proclaimed their government was the Third Reich (Empire), which paid respect to the First Reich, the Holy Roman Empire founded by Saint Charlemagne.
And the Second Reich, though Hitler also personally despised Kaisar Wilhelm II.
-
Totally agree, we need a return to the rural Catholicism of the Holy Roman Empire.
Are you sure that we need the resurrection of the Empire of the German Nation ? Maybe you meant something else, though. If you could, it would help if you described this allegedly Roman empire, because I suspect you mean the Saxon and Austrian empires, which are something quite unique.
There was a stronger community with a sense of place and identity. The people were connected to one another by loyalty and obligation. These relationships created a sense of stability and intimacy among Catholics.
This was all over Christendom, not just in the lands attached to Saxon and Austrian dynasties.
The "dark ages" certainly weren't perfect...
When were these so-called "dark ages," in you opinion ?
-
Post didn't format correctly. I will re-post it.
-
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 ?
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Pere Joseph said:
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.
-
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. :pray:
-
Pere Joseph said:
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.
-
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:
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.
-
Pere Joseph said:
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.
-
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:
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.
-
Pere Joseph said:
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:)
-
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??
-
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.
-
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.
-
Or are you seriously suggesting that abortion for racial reasons is acceptable??
Why don't you ask Mr. Churchill... :laugh1:
"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."
-
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.
-
Or are you seriously suggesting that abortion for racial reasons is acceptable??
Why don't you ask Mr. Churchill... :laugh1:
"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."
And I'm not defending them either!
-
And I'm not defending them either!
I don't understand why you're shouting (or I mean put an exclamation point there). :confused1:
As to my opinion I believe that women and men should preserve their race yes. There is nothing hateful about that.
-
As to my opinion I believe that women and men should preserve their race yes. There is nothing hateful about that.
"The essence of nαzι Nationalism is to preserve the purity of a race in a continent where all races are impure." - G K Chesterton.
-
"The essence of nαzι Nationalism is to preserve the purity of a race in a continent where all races are impure." - G K Chesterton.
So what? You think only nαzιs cared about preserving their race or ethnicty? I am not ashamed of saying I feel like I have a hell of a lot more in common with my Methodist and Baptist family than I do with Hispanic or Black Catholics. It is the essence of a liberal to accuse someone of nαzιsm.
Speaking of Chesterton: "When a man stops believing in God he doesn't believe in nothing, he believes in anything." And what is this dream of a nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr and world government and an international brotherhood of man than the dreams of the ideological mind?
-
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.
Details. Poetic justice.
-
"The essence of nαzι Nationalism is to preserve the purity of a race in a continent where all races are impure." - G K Chesterton.
It is the essence of a liberal to accuse someone of nαzιsm.
Unless, of course, that person is actively defending the nαzιs and defending eugenics, even quoting Churchill and FDR on the subject, both of whom are not Catholic at all. You cite some rather strange people as authorities; are you really even a Catholic ? I have seen little evidence that would indicate you are.
Speaking of Chesterton: "When a man stops believing in God he doesn't believe in nothing, he believes in anything." And what is this dream of a nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr and world government and an international brotherhood of man than the dreams of the ideological mind?
You are being too vague, here. If you want to make an accusation, be a man and make one. Then stand behind your convictions. That being said, it seems rather ironic that you, who are viscerally defending or hinting at defending abortions and sterilisations because of race while claiming to be a Catholic, are throwing around the word "ideological." First things first, though : Who, precisely, are you suggesting believes in "a nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr and world government and an international brotherhood of man" ? And then tell me this : Are you, or have you recently, ever belonged to some sort of Nordic appreciation society, have you posited and/or believed that Our Lord was some how some sort of Aryan, and have you concerned yourself before or are you presently concerned with who is Aryan and who is not, and do you think that this relates to the present state of the world ?
-
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.
That reads awfully similar to an admission that you believe abortions for racial reasons are acceptable. Matthew, is this sort of thing actually allowed on this forum ? Are people who make ambiguous hints about whether or not they are in favour of or opposed to infanticide for racial reasons allowed to post at Cathinfo ?
"Traditional Guy 20," are you even a Traditional Catholic at all, or are you a traditional idol-worshipping pagan ?
-
That reads awfully similar to an admission that you believe abortions for racial reasons are acceptable. Matthew, is this sort of thing actually allowed on this forum ? Are people who make ambiguous hints about whether or not they are in favour of or opposed to infanticide for racial reasons allowed to post at Cathinfo ?
"Traditional Guy 20," are you even a Traditional Catholic at all, or are you a traditional idol-worshipping pagan ?
Where the hell did I say I supported abortions for racial reasons? Stop misquoting me. Yes I am a Traditional Catholic and I go to a Traditional Latin Mass. I guess telling historical facts about the events leading up to World War II makes one a nαzι?
-
"The essence of nαzι Nationalism is to preserve the purity of a race in a continent where all races are impure." - G K Chesterton.
So what? You think only nαzιs cared about preserving their race or ethnicty? I am not ashamed of saying I feel like I have a hell of a lot more in common with my Methodist and Baptist family than I do with Hispanic or Black Catholics. It is the essence of a liberal to accuse someone of nαzιsm.
I posted that quote more for the reference to the existing impurity of our races, rather than the nαzι part.
Speaking of Chesterton: "When a man stops believing in God he doesn't believe in nothing, he believes in anything." And what is this dream of a nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr and world government and an international brotherhood of man than the dreams of the ideological mind?
Pope Leo XIII (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_05051888_in-plurimis_en.html)
6. The greater part of humanity were toiling in this abyss of misery, and were the more to be pitied because they were sunk in the darkness of superstition, when in the fullness of time and by the designs of God, light shone down upon the world, and the merits of Christ the Redeemer were poured out upon mankind. By that means they were lifted out of the Slough and the distress of slavery, and recalled and brought back from the terrible bondage of sin to their high dignity as the sons of God. Thus, the Apostles, in the early days of the Church, among other precepts for a devout life taught and laid down the doctrine which more than once occurs in the Epistles of St. Paul addressed to those newly baptized: "For you are all the children of God by faith, in Jesus Christ. For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew, nor Greek; there is neither bond, nor free; there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus."(7) "Where there is neither Gentile nor Jew, circuмcision nor uncircuмcision, barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free. But Christ is all and in all."(8) "For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free; and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink."(9) Golden words, indeed, noble and wholesome lessons, whereby its old dignity is given back and with increase to the human race, and men of whatever land or tongue of class are bound together and joined in the strong bonds of brotherly kinship. Those things St. Paul, with that Christian charity with which he was filled, learned from the very heart of Him who, with much surpassing goodness, gave Himself to be the brother of us all, and in His own person, without omitting or excepting any one, so ennobled men that they might become participators in the divine nature. Through this Christian charity the various races of men were drawn together under the divine guidance in such a wonderful way that they blossomed into a new state of hope and public happiness; as with the progress of time and events and the constant labor of the Church the various nations were able to gather together, Christian and free, organized anew after the manner of a family.
7. From the beginning the Church spared no pains to make the Christian people, in a matter of such high importance, accept and firmly hold the true teachings of Christ and the Apostles. And now through the new Adam, who is Christ, there is established a brotherly union between man and man, and people and people; just as in the order of nature they all have a common origin, so in the order which is above nature they all have one and the same origin in salvation and faith; all alike are called to be the adopted sons of God and the Father, who has paid the self same ransom for us all; we are all members of the same body, all are allowed to partake of the same divine banquet, and offered to us all are the blessings of divine grace and of eternal life....
The brotherhood of man, under the Fatherhood of God, is not a Communist idea. Take away God's Fatherhood, and then you have problems.
-
That reads awfully similar to an admission that you believe abortions for racial reasons are acceptable. Matthew, is this sort of thing actually allowed on this forum ? Are people who make ambiguous hints about whether or not they are in favour of or opposed to infanticide for racial reasons allowed to post at Cathinfo?
Why are you trying to silence views you disagree with (again I'm not a nαzι) anyway if I may ask?
-
The brotherhood of man, under the Fatherhood of God, is not a Communist idea. Take away God's Fatherhood, and then you have problems.
How did that "Brotherhood of Man" work in Latin America and the Middle East recently in 2006. Oh yes I remember both regions of the world detest European and American presence there. How did it work with the Basques and the Catalans? If there is a "brotherhood of man" why is it radical Hispanic groups are speaking of the Atzlan and the return of the Southwest to Mexico. It appears ethnic conflicts are risiong, not diminishing and ethnic groups are seeing what divides them, not what keeps them together.
-
By making people give primacy to the state over the Church ...
Speaking of Man of the West's last post, I found it very curious how he said "the Church must be on the side of civilization."
-
Details. Poetic justice.
By "poetic justice" do you mean that innocent Germans should suffer for the crimes of guilty Germans?
-
That reads awfully similar to an admission that you believe abortions for racial reasons are acceptable. Matthew, is this sort of thing actually allowed on this forum ? Are people who make ambiguous hints about whether or not they are in favour of or opposed to infanticide for racial reasons allowed to post at Cathinfo ?
"Traditional Guy 20," are you even a Traditional Catholic at all, or are you a traditional idol-worshipping pagan ?
Where the hell did I say I supported abortions for racial reasons? Stop misquoting me. Yes I am a Traditional Catholic and I go to a Traditional Latin Mass. I guess telling historical facts about the events leading up to World War II makes one a nαzι?
No, making cryptic comments in defense of eugenics and nαzι policies sure makes you appear like a nαzι, though.
Why are you trying to silence views you disagree with (again I'm not a nαzι) anyway if I may ask?
To stop them from being propagated, obviously. If somebody is posting in a non-Catholic manner, I am concerned about their presence on the forum and its effect on lurkers and younger readers. It seems pretty easy for young men to get riled up and defensive over some great issue if somebody only makes the case for them.
By "poetic justice" do you mean that innocent Germans should suffer for the crimes of guilty Germans?
I haven't really thought about it. All I know is that Germany and the Germans enthusiastically supported racial hygiene and attempted to enslave the Slavs for a thousand years, their efforts on behalf of this project resulting precisely in hundreds of thousands of Slavic men producing even more Slavic babies with German women involuntarily.
-
The brotherhood of man, under the Fatherhood of God, is not a Communist idea. Take away God's Fatherhood, and then you have problems.
How did that "Brotherhood of Man" work in Latin America and the Middle East recently in 2006. Oh yes I remember both regions of the world detest European and American presence there. How did it work with the Basques and the Catalans? If there is a "brotherhood of man" why is it radical Hispanic groups are speaking of the Atzlan and the return of the Southwest to Mexico. It appears ethnic conflicts are risiong, not diminishing and ethnic groups are seeing what divides them, not what keeps them together.
What is the point of this ? Do you have a solution, or are you simply pointing out the rise in ethnic conflict ? If you do have a solution, what is it, and why would a world where your solution is executed be desirable for Catholics ?
-
By making people give primacy to the state over the Church ...
Speaking of Man of the West's last post, I found it very curious how he said "the Church must be on the side of civilization."
That is very strange, especially since he was fond of quoting Puritan novels as if they were an authority, and other such things. And here is a grave problem since the Renaissance, the worship of "civilization" at the expense of the Catholic Faith. But if "civilization" does not lead to salvation, what is the virtue of it ? How is it better for men to live in such a state if it imperils their souls and therefore their minds ? Look at today, how for the first time in recorded history, the majority of the world lives in cities. Has this excess of "civilzation" benefitted anybody morally, spiritually, mentally, physically, and culturally, as opposed to its historical alternative ? No. So what is the virtue in this thing called "civilization," which is actually an incoherent and poorly defined concept as it is ?
-
No, making cryptic comments in defense of eugenics and nαzι policies sure makes you appear like a nαzι, though.
I just stated the facts about nαzι social policy I did not defend it. It is a known fact America and Britain had the same policy.
To stop them from being propagated, obviously. If somebody is posting in a non-Catholic manner, I am concerned about their presence on the forum and its effect on lurkers and younger readers. It seems pretty easy for young men to get riled up and defensive over some great issue if somebody only makes the case for them.
There is nothing wrong with debating on views we disagree with.
I haven't really thought about it. All I know is that Germany and the Germans enthusiastically supported racial hygiene and attempted to enslave the Slavs for a thousand years, their efforts on behalf of this project resulting precisely in hundreds of thousands of Slavic men producing even more Slavic babies with German women involuntarily.
How very Catholic and Christian of you...that is like a Trotskyite morality or the morality of a jacobin or Marxist, "Whatever advances the revolution is moral, whatever doesn't is immoral and must be wiped out." However I blame America and Britain for Stalin's rape and murder of Europe along with France. :smirk:
-
I just stated the facts about nαzι social policy I did not defend it.
Well, it looked like you were defending it based on the language you chose to use.
It is a known fact America and Britain had the same policy.
Yes, they certainly did, to their eternal discredit and shame.
There is nothing wrong with debating on views we disagree with.
There is nothing wrong with suppressing false opinions, either. Error has no rights.
How very Catholic and Christian of you...that is like a Trotskyite morality or the morality of a jacobin or Marxist, "Whatever advances the revolution is moral, whatever doesn't is immoral and must be wiped out."
I never said I didn't think it was a great evil, but God did not allow it to happen in a vacuum. I wonder how many Germans dare to claim racial purity today... ? In any case, yes, obviously every Red Army soldier who participated in the rapes is guilty of mortal sin worthy of harsh punishments. But that doesn't mean, contrariwise, that the Germans didn't in some way bring it upon themselves. I was not there and am being somewhat professorial about events that, I imagine, were truly horrible and disgusting. I hope I didn't give the impression that I was defending the rapes.
-
Where the hell did I say I supported abortions for racial reasons? Stop misquoting me. Yes I am a Traditional Catholic and I go to a Traditional Latin Mass. I guess telling historical facts about the events leading up to World War II makes one a nαzι?
Thank you Traditional Guy, people like you make me proud to be Catholic
-
I hope I didn't give the impression that I was defending the rapes.
YOU SAID "POETIC JUSTICE"! You're just another brainwashed German hater...
-
And here is a grave problem since the Renaissance, the worship of "civilization" at the expense of the Catholic Faith.
I believe Catholicism is the worship of European Civilization.
G.K. Chesterton once wrote:
"It is often said by the critics of Christian origins that certain ritual feasts, processions, or dances are really of pagan origin. They might as well say that our legs are of pagan origin. Nobody ever disputed that humanity was human before it was Christian; and no Church manufactured the legs with which men walked or danced, either in a pilgrimage or a ballet. What can really be maintained, so as to carry not a little conviction, is this: that where such a Church has existed it has preserved not only the processions but the dance; not only the cathedral but the carnival. One of the chief claims of Christian civilization is to have preserved such things of pagan origin. In short, in the old religious countries men continue to dnace; while in the new scientific vities they are often content to drudge."
Catholicism preserved the ancient culture of our European ancestors.
-
I hope I didn't give the impression that I was defending the rapes.
YOU SAID "POETIC JUSTICE"! You're just another brainwashed German hater...
I am French, not brainwashed. Sorry, but most of what I have encountered amongst Germans is very unlikable. You seem to have a sort of reactionary understanding of my use of the phrase "poetic justice," but if you don't see the irony, that's your problem. Rich lessons can be taken from it. As for my opinion of the Germans, there is another thread on this subject that I participated in extensively. I have been nothing but fair to them. My words are candid and public; anybody can read them here.
-
And here is a grave problem since the Renaissance, the worship of "civilization" at the expense of the Catholic Faith.
I believe Catholicism is the worship of European Civilization.
A surprising admission ! Alright, well then you have a very impoverished and sick understanding of the Catholic Faith. I do not know if I can help you out of this problem, since you seem to have voluntarily gotten yourself into it by a way mysterious to all but yourself. At the very least, your opinion is offensive to pious ears, if not erroneous, heretical, and perhaps even blasphemous. Could somebody help me out here ?
G.K. Chesterton once wrote:
"It is often said by the critics of Christian origins that certain ritual feasts, processions, or dances are really of pagan origin. They might as well say that our legs are of pagan origin. Nobody ever disputed that humanity was human before it was Christian; and no Church manufactured the legs with which men walked or danced, either in a pilgrimage or a ballet. What can really be maintained, so as to carry not a little conviction, is this: that where such a Church has existed it has preserved not only the processions but the dance; not only the cathedral but the carnival. One of the chief claims of Christian civilization is to have preserved such things of pagan origin. In short, in the old religious countries men continue to dnace; while in the new scientific vities they are often content to drudge."
Catholicism preserved the ancient culture of our European ancestors.
Euh, okay, whatever. When you are ready to talk about what I posted to you, I will be ready to continue our discussion.
P.S. To the regular posters here, a sincere question : who in the world are these people ? Does anybody peruse perennialist or white nationalist fora who could tell me where these posters and ideas are coming from ?
-
A surprising admission ! Alright, well then you have a very impoverished and sick understanding of the Catholic Faith. I do not know if I can help you out of this problem, since you seem to have voluntarily gotten yourself into it by a way mysterious to all but yourself. At the very least, your opinion is offensive to pious ears, if not erroneous, heretical, and perhaps even blasphemous. Could somebody help me out here ?
Am I really the one with the impoverished understanding of Catholicism?
Following the decline of the Roman Empire, Europe was vulnerable to external influences. The political, economic, and religious values of European society were threatened by Islam and Judaism.
The Roman Catholic Church absorbed and preserved ancient European culture.
Why don't you acknowledge the real history of your Church?
-
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.
How DARE you talk about St. Charlemagne that way...
In 1800, Pope Leo III was threatened by the people of Rome and forced to flee the city. He asked Saint Charlemagne for his assistance and the Germanic Franks traveled to Rome and restored the Pope. Pope Leo III later returned to Rome and thanked King Karl der Grosse for his help.
Shortly after on Christmas Day, King Karl der Grosse entered St. Peter’s Basillica and knelt to pray at the altar. Pope Leo III unexpectedly crowned King Charlemagne, making him Emperor.
Germany eventually became known as the Holy Roman Empire and the leader of the Germans became known as the Emperor of Rome.
-
I have to say, I read Mein Kampf and it was in theory quite a good solid political plan, but in the end Hitler didn't stay Catholic, he simply did it more for the political reasons. I went through a period where I studied the nαzι's and some of it interests me still, but the most interesting of the bunch in my opinion were Goring and Goebbels. I now believe Hitler was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, I used to deny this fact vigourously, but now after reviewing it, there are too many signs to support he was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, which isn't very Catholic. For instance he was completely aware that Ernst Rohm was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, Hess has the black bertha file which states evidence he was a crossdresser into the S&M, and Berlin is the smut capital of the world. During the nαzι's rule Church attendance was at an all time low, Hitler replaced himself with Jesus basically and was so full of himself that throughout his writings he sees himself as someone sent from God to save Germany.
When Hitler became chancellor (1933), he
named Rudolf Hess as deputy führer and
later (1939) as second in succession to the
nαzι leadership. He was known for his dress-
up attire as Black Bertha in the gαy bars of
pre-war Berlin and Goebbels and Goring
surnamed him Fraulein Hess in mockery of
his utter devotion and fanatical loyalty to
Hitler. In May 1941 Hess was captured in
Scotland, where he had flown apparently in a
bid to start peace talks with Britain. At the
Nuremburg trials (1946) he was sentenced to
life imprisonment in Spandau Prison, Berlin,
for war crimes that he had never committed.
The poor man eventually took his life in jail in
a German prison aged 91. His IQ was 120
(tested at Nuremberg). He was one of the
scapegoats of the post-war era and the Allies
failed to give him a fair trial.
Hess who was allegged to be an ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ
was given within the Party many nicknames :
he was thus called “Hesserl” by Hitler,
“Fräulein Hess” by Otto Strasser, “Fräulein
Anna” by Ernst Hanfstaengl, “Fräulein Gusti”
by Helen Hanfstaengl, “Black Paula” by Ernst
Röhm, “Black Grete” by Bella Fromm and
“Black Emma” by Erich Ebermayer.
Hitler's respect for islam
Only in the Roman Empire and in Spain under Arab domination has culture been a potent factor. Under the Arab, the standard attained was wholly admirable; to Spain flocked the greatest scientists, thinkers, astronomers, and mathematicians of the world, and side by side there flourished a spirit of sweet human tolerance and a sense of purist chivalry. Then with the advent of Christianity, came the barbarians. Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers—already you see the world had already fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing Christianity!—then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so.
28 August 1942
The fact that the Japanese have retained their political philosophy, which is one of the essential reasons for their success, is due to their having been saved in time from the views of Christianity. Just as in Islam, there is no terrorism in the Japanese State religion, but, on the contrary, a promise of happiness. This terrorism in religion is , to put it briefly, of a Jєωιѕн dogma, which Christianity has universalized and whose effect is to sow trouble and confusion in men’s minds.
4 April 1942
In the end, I think Hitler was a fag, morally impotent, his anti-semitism was mainly formed due to Karl Luger of the Christian Socialist party, and led Germany to utter defeat. He was delusional about himself, about his war plans, he didn't listen to his Generals who stated Germany would lose brutally if they started a world war, which they did, he was a drug addict, had an affair with his niece, was locked in a cell with Rudolf Hess, which is more evidence the fuhrer was scwhul. Basically if he would have stuck to his plan outlined in Mein Kampf, he probably would have been a success, but he didn't and paid the price. He was no real Catholic in the end, maybe in his childhood, but he simply saw the Catholic faith as a barrier to causing complete destruction. I don't buy the h0Ɩ0cαųst facts, but I don't deny that jews were rounded up and in the end alot of them put to death, probably by firing squads, and now they're uncovering mass graves that were shot to death. I believe there were gas chambers but probably used to test chemical warfare, it simply doesn't make sense timewise to use gas chambers when you can make people dig their own graves then shoot them. Plus I've seen convincing evidence from crematory workers who've stated it takes about 4 hours or so to burn one body, in a crematory oven, so if 6 000 000 were burnt in the ovens, they would still be going. There's no doubt the jews have lied about alot of aspects and used their position in them media to promote the h0Ɩ0cαųst, yet they're responsible mainly for 20 000 000 Russians dead in the gulags, the starvation of the Ukranians during the holomodor, and have used this to guilt western society into accepting them. I would admit I'm borderline αnтι-ѕємιтє, to me traditional Christianity, the good old Vatican I kind is almost like a natural reaction to dislike the jews, just like with the muslims, they create their own ghetto's, don't assimilate into society, and generally don't contribute to society as they send all their money to support israel. So Adolf Hitler is no Catholic in the end, the 3rd Reich relied heavily on occult rituals and Himmler was extremely into this. Just off the top of my head, seeing this thread and just joined up, I'll have to make an introduction post.
-
The Roman Catholic Church absorbed and preserved ancient European culture.
It certainly did this with the best of Greek/Egyptian philosophy and Roman custom and law, and in addition baptised many of the wonderful mythologies of Northern and Eastern Europe including the Grail legend. But in case you're forgetting, the scriptures themselves are Hebrew, and evangelizing Catholics abolished Indo-European paganism, by force when necessary. There was continuity, rupture, and development.
The good news and the providential mission of the Church do not amount to a futile "worship of European civilization" - that's gross idolatry. When was the last time European civilization bestowed sanctifying grace on anybody? It's such a crazy thing to say that you must mean something else and just worded it very badly.
P.S. To the regular posters here, a sincere question : who in the world are these people ? Does anybody peruse perennialist or white nationalist fora who could tell me where these posters and ideas are coming from ?
Many less intelligent perennialists glory in a neopaganism of their own fevered and decadent invention, while some more sophisticated perennialists point to continuities 'vertical and horizontal' between the traditions of pre-Christian Europe and those of Roman Catholicism. When speaking of the traditions of pre-Christian Europe, they exclude the proto-modern moral and intellectual deviations exemplified in democratic/naturalistic Athens and late Imperial Rome. This extraordinary statement of St. Augustine may reveal the intention of the latter approach: "The very thing that is now called the Christian religion was not wanting among the ancients from the beginning of the human race, until Christ came in the flesh, after which the true religion, which had already existed, began to be called ‘Christian.’ "
Karl appears to be somewhere in between. His views on Christianity are stunted and shallow.
-
Many less intelligent perennialists glory in a neopaganism of their own fevered and decadent invention
In fact I would rather not dignify these people with the term perennialists - they're really just Nietzscheans. But this is certainly a proclivity in the 'Evolian' wing of the new or 'alternative right,' and through him they claim some vague relationship with Guenon, A. Coomaraswamy, Schuon, etc.
-
The Roman Catholic Church absorbed and preserved ancient European culture.
It certainly did this with the best of Greek/Egyptian philosophy and Roman custom and law, and in addition baptised many of the wonderful mythologies of Northern and Eastern Europe including the Grail legend. But in case you're forgetting, the scriptures themselves are Hebrew, and evangelizing Catholics abolished Indo-European paganism, by force when necessary. There was continuity, rupture, and development.
The good news and the providential mission of the Church do not amount to a futile "worship of European civilization" - that's gross idolatry. When was the last time European civilization bestowed sanctifying grace on anybody? It's such a crazy thing to say that you must mean something else and just worded it very badly.
I suspected the same thing until he didn't seem to respond accordingly.
...while some more sophisticated perennialists point to continuities 'vertical and horizontal' between the traditions of pre-Christian Europe and those of Roman Catholicism. When speaking of the traditions of pre-Christian Europe, they exclude the proto-modern moral and intellectual deviations exemplified in democratic/naturalistic Athens and late Imperial Rome. This extraordinary statement of St. Augustine may reveal the intention of the latter approach: "The very thing that is now called the Christian religion was not wanting among the ancients from the beginning of the human race, until Christ came in the flesh, after which the true religion, which had already existed, began to be called ‘Christian.’ "
Fair enough. I think there is quite a bit to discuss here, and, naturally, while I think Saint Augustine is exaggerating, I agree with what it seems like he is trying to convey. I doubt he meant his statement literally, however. In any case, the general problem seems to be the lack of solid formation amongst so many of those Catholics who are apparently attracted to perennialism and/or "National Socialist Catholicism" and/or White Nationalism -- they seem to know just enough to be dangerous. Some seem to generally be more balanced and informed, though I wonder why, once somebody gets to this point, he continues to entangle himself in perennialist circles and language, rather than just sharing whatever legitimate insights the school of thought might have in a fully Catholic way.
Karl appears to be somewhere in between. His views on Christianity are stunted and shallow.
Agreed, and thank you for your answers.
I think our views on these matters are probably closer than originally thought.
-
Yes, they certainly did, to their eternal discredit and shame.
No not to their eternal discredit or shame since not many people know of America's eugenics program that continued even AFTER World War II.
I never said I didn't think it was a great evil, but God did not allow it to happen in a vacuum. I wonder how many Germans dare to claim racial purity today... ? In any case, yes, obviously every Red Army soldier who participated in the rapes is guilty of mortal sin worthy of harsh punishments. But that doesn't mean, contrariwise, that the Germans didn't in some way bring it upon themselves. I was not there and am being somewhat professorial about events that, I imagine, were truly horrible and disgusting. I hope I didn't give the impression that I was defending the rapes.
Well you did. Think about this quote from W.H. Auden: "Those to whom evil is given do evil in return." What France and Britain did to Germany after World War I created the hatred that lead to World War II. But you know the most amusing thing for me is that you French started World War II because you were worried about Germanic hordes and in the end you lost your greatness and your empire. It was the same way for Britain. :smirk:
-
When was the last time European civilization bestowed sanctifying grace on anybody?
Well why don't you look at Latin America, Africa, and Asia. I believe those countries were better when Europeans controlled them no?
Many less intelligent perennialists glory in a neopaganism of their own fevered and decadent invention, while some more sophisticated perennialists point to continuities 'vertical and horizontal' between the traditions of pre-Christian Europe and those of Roman Catholicism. When speaking of the traditions of pre-Christian Europe, they exclude the proto-modern moral and intellectual deviations exemplified in democratic/naturalistic Athens and late Imperial Rome.
Alright well it seems you are British (as am I 1/4 English by the way) so let me tell you what those 'pagan' Europeans gave to you today. Laws in America and Britain (at least before Britain got rid of the death penalty and the right to bear arms) were founded on those laws of the 'pagan' Anglo-Saxons. The very language you speak as do I is a product of quite a bit of the Old English those pagan Anglo-Saxons spoke. One of the other influences is Latin, a language of those pagan Romans. As for those pagan Romans they influenced the French language PereJoseph uses himself I am sure, along with literature, Western thought, etc. So was the Roman Empire an 'unsuccessful society'? Was the Islamic caliphate in Arabia during the Middle Ages an 'unsuccessful society' even though it built a great culture and the people in Europe were largely illiterate?
-
P.S. To the regular posters here, a sincere question : who in the world are these people ? Does anybody peruse perennialist or white nationalist fora who could tell me where these posters and ideas are coming from ?
I'm not defending this Karl guy but how very liberal of you, trying to silence views you do not agree with.
-
For instance he was completely aware that Ernst Rohm was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ...
He only allied with him for political reasons. You DO know that Hitler later shot him right and segregated ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs in cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρs?
...full of himself that throughout his writings he sees himself as someone sent from God to save Germany.
Yes he thought he was the man to lead Germany back to her greatness.
Only in the Roman Empire and in Spain under Arab domination has culture been a potent factor. Under the Arab, the standard attained was wholly admirable; to Spain flocked the greatest scientists, thinkers, astronomers, and mathematicians of the world, and side by side there flourished a spirit of sweet human tolerance and a sense of purist chivalry. Then with the advent of Christianity, came the barbarians. Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers—already you see the world had already fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing Christianity!—then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so.
28 August 1942
Yes Hitler respected Islam for its militancy since he saw Christianity as milquetoast but Hitler thought that the Germans were higher than the Arabs, trust me. He saw Arabs as "half-apes." By the way I think Catholics Joe Sobran and Pat Buchanan have also expressed a little admiration for Islam in their writings as well.
The fact that the Japanese have retained their political philosophy, which is one of the essential reasons for their success, is due to their having been saved in time from the views of Christianity. Just as in Islam, there is no terrorism in the Japanese State religion, but, on the contrary, a promise of happiness. This terrorism in religion is , to put it briefly, of a Jєωιѕн dogma, which Christianity has universalized and whose effect is to sow trouble and confusion in men’s minds.
4 April 1942
Yes Hitler respected the Japenese for maintaining their race but he preferred the British Empire to the "Yellow Peril."
So Adolf Hitler is no Catholic in the end, the 3rd Reich relied heavily on occult rituals and Himmler was extremely into this.
Whether the Third Reich was occultist there were still plenty of Germans that were Catholic or Protestant.
Welcome to the forum!
-
Oh and by the way why don't all of you good Catholics here read this article by another good Catholic. :smile:
http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2009/08/31/did-hitler-want-war/
"On Sept. 1, 1939, 70 years ago, the German Army crossed the Polish frontier. On Sept. 3, Britain declared war.
Six years later, 50 million Christians and Jews had perished. Britain was broken and bankrupt, Germany a smoldering ruin. Europe had served as the site of the most murderous combat known to man, and civilians had suffered worse horrors than the soldiers.
By May 1945, Red Army hordes occupied all the great capitals of Central Europe: Vienna, Prague, Budapest, Berlin. A hundred million Christians were under the heel of the most barbarous tyranny in history: the Bolshevik regime of the greatest terrorist of them all, Joseph Stalin."
"The Sudeten Germans were returned to German rule, as they wished. Poland had annexed the tiny disputed region of Teschen, where thousands of Poles lived. Hungary’s ancestral lands in the south of Slovakia had been returned to her. The Slovaks had their full independence guaranteed by Germany. As for the Czechs, they came to Berlin for the same deal as the Slovaks, but Hitler insisted they accept a protectorate.
Now one may despise what was done, but how did this partition of Czechoslovakia manifest a Hitlerian drive for world conquest?
Comes the reply: If Britain had not given the war guarantee and gone to war, after Czechoslovakia would have come Poland’s turn, then Russia’s, then France’s, then Britain’s, then the United States."
"Indeed, why would he want war when, by 1939, he was surrounded by allied, friendly, or neutral neighbors, save France? And he had written off Alsace, because reconquering Alsace meant war with France, and that meant war with Britain, whose empire he admired and whom he had always sought as an ally.
As of March 1939, Hitler did not even have a border with Russia. How then could he invade Russia?
Winston Churchill was right when he called it 'The Unnecessary War' – the war that may yet prove the mortal blow to our civilization."
-
He was delusional about himself, about his war plans, he didn't listen to his Generals who stated Germany would lose brutally if they started a world war, which they did, he was a drug addict, had an affair with his niece, was locked in a cell with Rudolf Hess, which is more evidence the fuhrer was scwhul.
Hitler was not at all delusional about his war plans during World War II. Now he made mistakes granted, but he was not delusional. Hitler let the British Army go at Dunkirk so that there would be in his own words, "no irreconcirable breach between our two peoples." Hitler gave England a chance for peace twice and did not smash them to pieces because he wanted the alliance of Great Britain. He greatly admired the "Tommies." Hilter did the Battle of Britain not to bring down the British Empire, which Hitler wrote would be a "tragedy" in his memoirs but to bring Churchill down. Hitler invaded Russia in 1941 not because of ʝʊdɛօ-Bolshevism, Lebensraum, etc. but to knock out the one country (besides America) Britain placed most of her hopes in. Hitler attacked the West because they declared war on him first over a city that was 95% German and begged to rejoin the Reich. Hitler declared war on America because he figured America would attack Germany eventually, telling of America's actions against Germany by sending ships to escort the British, sinking German submarines, and telling of FDR's lies about an "International nαzι Church" and plans for "nαzι hegemony in this Hemisphere" in Hitler's declaration of war. Hitler saved Mussolini numerous times during the Second World War because of his great admiration and appreciation of Il Duce. Germany bombed British cities only after Britain bombed German civilian centers FIRST.
As for listening to his generals his generals were hardly perfect. His generals were near petrified when Hitler marched into Czechoslovakia, though Hitler was proven right, NOT THE GENERALS.
-
Yes, they certainly did, to their eternal discredit and shame.
No not to their eternal discredit or shame since not many people know of America's eugenics program that continued even AFTER World War II.
Have you ever studied logic or taken a formal logic class ? Right now, your statement implies that, because the horrible programme of sterilisation and abortion for racial reasons continued longer than just the war, therefore it was okay and does not redound to the eternal discredit and shame of Anglo-American societies who practiced it. You realise that that doesn't follow -- makes no sense at all -- right ? By the way, yesterday or so you also tried to make the argument that Germany's shameful eugenics programme was somehow not so bad because it was common to the US and England. That also completely doesn't follow and makes no sense.
Are you assuming that my premise is something akin to, "Because it was something those nαzιs did, it was evil," and that the reason I didn't think it was tolerable was because I didn't think that the "good guys" did it, too ? If so, it seems like you are not really prepared to be having a discussion on this issue here, since there is ample -- no, overwhelming -- reason for you to infer that I don't believe that at all. And, since you are just banging your own drum alone in your corner over there and were too busy to notice (or couldn't notice ?) what was happening in the discussions, maybe it's time for you to retire from it. Just a thought for you to consider, lest you embarrass yourself further by making more wild arguments that sound very much like defenses of infanticidal murder and involuntary sterilisation motivated by concerns for "racial hygiene.
:detective: Then again, now I am thinking that maybe you don't even realise why you said what you did, and didn't even notice what arguments, logically, you ended up making.
Well you did.
Oh, well, I did not mean to.
Think about this quote from W.H. Auden: "Those to whom evil is given do evil in return."
Okay; it seems to really help my point about God allowing the rapes as poetic divine justice for a people so concerned about "racial hygiene."
What France and Britain did to Germany after World War I created the hatred that lead to World War II.
Eh, I am sure it contributed significantly to other causes. But so what ?
But you know the most amusing thing for me is that you French started World War II because you were worried about Germanic hordes and in the end you lost your greatness and your empire.
Well, we certainly didn't lose our greatness, though the Republic lost most of its empire. Algeria and Viet Nam, however, were lost many years after the war concluded, and Algeria could easily have been kept if not for the Mason, De Gaulle, betraying the piednoirs there. I don't see what is amusing about any of this. Amusing or not, though, how did this work out for Germany ? I don't see why this makes you so happy.
As for worrying about Germanic hordes, well, the English probably were not concerned with any vaguely "Germanic" hordes, since that would include them. They were likely more concerned about the old Prussian military machine being activated and used against them by an angry Austrian dictator.
It was the same way for Britain.
I think you're confusing your wars. The Third Republic was totally unprepared for the task of another European war, chiefly because it was governed by cowardly men, incompetent socialist bureaucrats who had no grasp on reality. It didn't have quite the same role with England that it did in the beginning of the First World War. This is totally irrelevant to what we were talking about, however.
You seem to be making arguments as if you think somebody has to pick one side to be loyal to and support almost everything it did. I am not a nationalist or a liberal or a white supremacist or whatever, so you should move on from thinking that I supported either side during that war, or that such support one way or another effects my judgment and my moral reasoning when analysing either side's actions.
-
P.S. To the regular posters here, a sincere question : who in the world are these people ? Does anybody peruse perennialist or white nationalist fora who could tell me where these posters and ideas are coming from ?
I'm not defending this Karl guy but how very liberal of you, trying to silence views you do not agree with.
Oh, yes, it is very liberal of me to want to suppress discussion to protect the minds of earnest young Catholics who haven't studied enough to know the difference. :rolleyes:
What do you think liberalism is, and what is a liberal ?
-
When was the last time European civilization bestowed sanctifying grace on anybody?
Well why don't you look at Latin America, Africa, and Asia. I believe those countries were better when Europeans controlled them no?
Do you understand what sanctifying grace is ?
Alright well it seems you are British (as am I 1/4 English by the way)...
He is from Canada, as evidenced from the Maple Leaf flag under his name.
...so let me tell you what those 'pagan' Europeans gave to you today.
We are not saying that, just because something is discovered or used by pagans, therefore it is not good. And there is no need for you to put quotation marks around the word "pagans." These people being described as pagans really were pagans; they had a pagan religion and culture. Thus, etc.
Laws in America and Britain (at least before Britain got rid of the death penalty and the right to bear arms) were founded on those laws of the 'pagan' Anglo-Saxons. The very language you speak as do I is a product of quite a bit of the Old English those pagan Anglo-Saxons spoke.
What is your point ? It seems like you think you are figuring out some great mystery or something. This has nothing to do with the thread.
One of the other influences is Latin, a language of those pagan Romans. As for those pagan Romans they influenced the French language PereJoseph uses himself I am sure, along with literature, Western thought, etc.
You don't really know what you are talking about at all, which brings up another question. How old are you ?
So was the Roman Empire an 'unsuccessful society'? Was the Islamic caliphate in Arabia during the Middle Ages an 'unsuccessful society' even though it built a great culture and the people in Europe were largely illiterate?
No. Why do you ask ?
-
Do you understand what sanctifying grace is ?
I do. Europeans brought Christianity to especially Africa and Latin America.
You don't really know what you are talking about at all, which brings up another question. How old are you ?
Why I thought you said you were French?
No. Why do you ask ?
I ask because it seems to me the only 'notable' civilizations to you are Catholic ones.
-
Oh, yes, it is very liberal of me to want to suppress discussion to protect the minds of earnest young Catholics who haven't studied enough to know the difference. :rolleyes:
What do you think liberalism is, and what is a liberal ?
Well the number one attitude of a liberal is that they are very emotional and do not like dissenting views.
-
Have you ever studied logic or taken a formal logic class ? Right now, your statement implies that, because the horrible programme of sterilisation and abortion for racial reasons continued longer than just the war, therefore it was okay and does not redound to the eternal discredit and shame of Anglo-American societies who practiced it. You realise that that doesn't follow -- makes no sense at all -- right ? By the way, yesterday or so you also tried to make the argument that Germany's shameful eugenics programme was somehow not so bad because it was common to the US and England. That also completely doesn't follow and makes no sense.
What I am trying to say is that everyone knows about the nαzι eugenics program but not too many people know of America's and Britain's and they are always the "good guys."
Okay; it seems to really help my point about God allowing the rapes as poetic divine justice for a people so concerned about "racial hygiene."
Actually that quote is about the German Army crossing into Poland basically meaning that since the Allies humiliated Germany to the extreme she got her revenge. And I find it sick that you continue to defend rape. It's wrong period and no one deserves it! That was the GREATEST war crime of World War II, done by the Allies!
Eh, I am sure it contributed significantly to other causes. But so what ?
Well in the words of Clemenceau, "There are twenty million Germans too many!" The Allied reparations and humiliating defeat on Germany made Germans seethe with anger. It lead straight to the nαzι Party. France and Britain did it to themselves. By the way there's an old joke my grandfather used to say: the one military manual that tells how to lose a war is the French manual. :smile: It was so bad in Weimar Germany German mothers had to prostitue themselves for daily bread. It was not ALL of Germany's fault. Allied Powers shared the blame of the First World War.
Well, we certainly didn't lose our greatness, though the Republic lost most of its empire. Algeria and Viet Nam, however, were lost many years after the war concluded, and Algeria could easily have been kept if not for the Mason, De Gaulle, betraying the piednoirs there. I don't see what is amusing about any of this. Amusing or not, though, how did this work out for Germany ? I don't see why this makes you so happy.
Uh France is coming apart from Islamic hordes so yes this is not the France of Louis XIV or Napoleon. But you see World War II forced France to lose her empire. She lost her vitality.
As for worrying about Germanic hordes, well, the English probably were not concerned with any vaguely "Germanic" hordes, since that would include them. They were likely more concerned about the old Prussian military machine being activated and used against them by an angry Austrian dictator.
Hitler was born on Branau-on-the-Inn on the German-Austrian border and was of German ethnicity. And as I said Hitler admired the British Empire and Britain. He did NOT want a war with Britain.
I think you're confusing your wars. The Third Republic was totally unprepared for the task of another European war, chiefly because it was governed by cowardly men, incompetent socialist bureaucrats who had no grasp on reality. It didn't have quite the same role with England that it did in the beginning of the First World War. This is totally irrelevant to what we were talking about, however.
If they weren't prepared for another war perhaps they should have not declared war on the most powerful country in Europe no?
You seem to be making arguments as if you think somebody has to pick one side to be loyal to and support almost everything it did. I am not a nationalist or a liberal or a white supremacist or whatever, so you should move on from thinking that I supported either side during that war, or that such support one way or another effects my judgment and my moral reasoning when analysing either side's actions.
I am making the argument that World War II was not worth it. All of the "blood, sweat, and tears" were not worth it. Ah but remember the words of the British propagandists: it 'twas a great victory.
-
I hope I didn't give the impression that I was defending the rapes.
YOU SAID "POETIC JUSTICE"! You're just another brainwashed German hater...
I am French, not brainwashed. Sorry, but most of what I have encountered amongst Germans is very unlikable. You seem to have a sort of reactionary understanding of my use of the phrase "poetic justice," but if you don't see the irony, that's your problem. Rich lessons can be taken from it. As for my opinion of the Germans, there is another thread on this subject that I participated in extensively. I have been nothing but fair to them. My words are candid and public; anybody can read them here.
Oh bullsh*t. You my friend are nothing but a German-hater, through'n"through. Spare us with your "objectivity, you revel in the fact that the German countryside was bombarded by Allied and Communist war-shells and her women were systematically raped and tormented by Red Army savage barbarians. The same barbarians that were "brainwashed" by the Judaic Bolshevism that Hitler and the NS's were trying to rid Europe of to begin with.
And another thing, don't forget that you frogs and your Masonic British masters started that war to begin with before the Reich kicked your collective asses back across the English Channel where you belonged.
You like phrases so much, don't forget, the victors write the history texts.
-
Do you understand what sanctifying grace is ?
I do. Europeans brought Christianity to especially Africa and Latin America.
Please return to Karl's original statement for a reminder of the context. He said that Catholicism is "the worship of European civilization." What you are talking about is Europe being allowed to act as an instrument of conversion. If, however, we follow Karl's thinking, European civilization itself has the power to dispense sanctifying grace to those who sufficiently worship it. Because, apparently, European civilization is God.
-
I hope I didn't give the impression that I was defending the rapes.
YOU SAID "POETIC JUSTICE"! You're just another brainwashed German hater...
I am French, not brainwashed. Sorry, but most of what I have encountered amongst Germans is very unlikable. You seem to have a sort of reactionary understanding of my use of the phrase "poetic justice," but if you don't see the irony, that's your problem. Rich lessons can be taken from it. As for my opinion of the Germans, there is another thread on this subject that I participated in extensively. I have been nothing but fair to them. My words are candid and public; anybody can read them here.
You my friend are nothing but a German-hater, through'n"through.
Ah, shoot first and ask questions later : très américain. Besides considering myself friends with several German posters on this board and being on good terms with many individual Germans, I have publicly defended certain actions of the German nation during the XXth century. Read the last three pages of this thread and come back to this thread :
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Will-all-of-the-nαzιs-please-stand-up?
Perhaps it will cause you to amend what you have said so far.
Spare us with your "objectivity, you revel in the fact that the German countryside was bombarded by Allied and Communist war-shells and her women were systematically raped and tormented by Red Army savage barbarians.
Far from it. I have never reveled in the Communist mass raping of Germans or of any people, nor any mass raping by any army against any people. I do not have racial hatred for any people; perhaps racial hatred comes easy to your imagination, but it is rather foreign to my thoughts, and I can recognise a Divine punishment of the Germans by the Red Army that fits the former's sin without hating the Germans and loving the subjective mortal sins of the rapists who carried out the deed that God, in His inscrutable mercy, allowed.
God wants us to love His judgments and His punishments, even if we cannot understand them. I know that one thing that I think is absolutely satanic and wholly detestable, the French Revolution, I can also appreciate as a fitting punishment for the neglect of duty on the part of the King, nobles, and French society generally. Likewise, the Acadian expulsion and the martyrdom of my fellow Acadians, which happened to my family directly, I also accept. That does not mean that it was not an evil, or that it was not unjust, or that it will not eventually be avenged by a just authority through the proper channels bequeathed by Our Lord, but I accept it as the will of God all the same. This is a great mystery and a paradox that I think cannot be fully appreciated without the Beatific Vision, the way in which Divine Providence dispenses favours and punishments -- allowing sin all the while and even bringing good from it -- as a means of pruning souls and nourishing the Church.
All I said was that the punishment of the Germans by the Red Army thugs was an act of justice that was poetic, given the German fixation on racial purity. If that causes your blood to boil and you cannot imagine somebody saying such a thing dispassionately, I cannot convince you otherwise. I can only plead with you that you believe me when I say that I am not a German-hater. That being said, I would be lying if I claimed that I was fond of the Germans as a people, the same with both the American and British English.
The same barbarians that were "brainwashed" by the Judaic Bolshevism that Hitler and the NS's were trying to rid Europe of to begin with.
I don't really see the benefit of using the word "barbarian." It seems to imply the superiourity of domesticated life in the city, of soft bodies and luxury, middle class pretension and so forth. The Germans may have been trying to eliminate Bolshevism and degeneracy, but they replaced it with a perversion of the natural order of their own -- the idolatrous worship of their race, even to the point of murdering children in the womb and sterilising those they believed undesirable. They attempted, likewise, to erect an all-powerful saecular Germanic state that disrespected the sovereign prerogatives of the Pope and the ability for Catholics to worship freely and with undivided consciences (such as they have in the United States). We should thank God that such a monster did not succeed, at least objectively; it clearly was built on many natural goods, but it twisted these natural goods and ordered them to an idolatrous service. The alternative was worse, though of a different kind, so any direct comparison is hard to make. Anyway, we should pray that this other monster, under which the Church and the nations currently suffer, is likewise destroyed, so that the natural and divine laws are bowed before by all.
And another thing, don't forget that you frogs and your Masonic British masters started that war...
...Which is another way of saying that the Anglo-American establishment exclusively started that war in coöperation with the wishes of international Jєωιѕн finance.
...to begin with before the Reich kicked your collective asses back across the English Channel where you belonged.
When did the German "Reich" push the British and French across the English channel within the past one hundred years ? Or when did any continental German power ever push us French across La Manche in any conflict ?
You like phrases so much, don't forget, the victors write the history texts.
Yes, they certainly do. :wink:
-
Fair enough. I think there is quite a bit to discuss here, and, naturally, while I think Saint Augustine is exaggerating, I agree with what it seems like he is trying to convey. I doubt he meant his statement literally, however.
No, I don't think he meant it literally either. To go into it further would be rather too off-topic though.
Some seem to generally be more balanced and informed, though I wonder why, once somebody gets to this point, he continues to entangle himself in perennialist circles and language, rather than just sharing whatever legitimate insights the school of thought might have in a fully Catholic way.
I think the short answer is cognitive dissonance. Some suffer from competing loyalties due to a misguided sense, inculcated by the foremost perennialists themselves, that Catholicism lacks a truly metaphysical character. Minor contributing issues are intellectual pride and an adolescent fascination with secret knowledge. At some point such people must ask themselves why they prefer to heed Sufi Muslims over Christian Saints.
What the perennialists can offer us are thorough refutations of the errors of modernity in a general sense, a window to the cosmological sciences of past ages, especially of symbolism, and a signpost to the ultimate Christian doctrines of the via negativa and the indwelling presence.
-
Do you understand what sanctifying grace is ?
I do. Europeans brought Christianity to especially Africa and Latin America.
Yes, we did, though some other Europeans from a certain island brought heresy and death.
You don't really know what you are talking about at all, which brings up another question. How old are you ?
Why I thought you said you were French?
I am, but you are just listing off data without apparently studying it and really knowing about it. How does what you said relate to the conversation ? What point were you trying to make, and what point was your counterpoint meant to address ?
No. Why do you ask ?
I ask because it seems to me the only 'notable' civilizations to you are Catholic ones.
I don't believe in terms of the Enlightenment word "civilisation," so we are clearly drawing different meanings and inferences from the conversation than one another. I have deep respect for the natural virtues and accomplishments of many non-Catholic societies, but I do not see any intrinsic virtue in what many would consider "civilisation," which is itself an incoherent term that was especially popular in the XIXth and XXth centuries but was unknown in its modern usage before the mid-XVIIth century. The modern usage is not Catholic and I will no go along with it. That being said, I do admire many of the natural accomplishments and virtues found in study of the old Romans, Greeks, Chinese, Japanese, Incas, Persians, Celts, Mongolians, Egyptians, Slavs, North American Indians, Aztecs, Mayans, and various nomads ? Do I think that certain natural accomplishments render certain of these races superiour to others ? No. Every race has its own qualities and customs, and every race must be brought to the Faith. The Church will keep and nourish that which is found to be good in them and purge that which is bad.
This seems to be a very different usage and perspective than your own. I am not anti-European, being of mostly Indo-European myself. All things must be judged according to how they look in light of the Logos, Our Lord Jesus Christ, however, and I still maintain that the Indian tribes had many goods that were utterly ignored so that the English heretics and their adopted brethren could conquer them -- and for what ? What virtues do the English heretics have ? How were the Indians bettered ? Are they closer to God ? Are they more naturally ordered because some of them farm now and attend public schools ? Are they "civilised" now that they have no pride, make their money from casinos, and are fat, forsaking their old traditions ? What does that word even mean ?
It would have been better to make them Catholic, to marry them and bring Catholic words into their languages, to befriend them and confirm everything good in their cultures. That is what we tried to do and, yes, we were building a European empire. There is a noble and honourable way to prosecute such a project, however, and the people like Custer or those who are too bigoted to see any virtue in the Indians' traditions and who still want to turn them into a bunch of Northern European middle class town dwellers -- such as have only existed in large numbers in Protestant societies, mind you, since Protestantism always flourished amongst (surprise !) Germanic merchant classes -- are far from the nobility and honour of that way, and shallow besides.
-
Fair enough. I think there is quite a bit to discuss here, and, naturally, while I think Saint Augustine is exaggerating, I agree with what it seems like he is trying to convey. I doubt he meant his statement literally, however.
No, I don't think he meant it literally either. To go into it further would be rather too off-topic though.
Agreed.
Some seem to generally be more balanced and informed, though I wonder why, once somebody gets to this point, he continues to entangle himself in perennialist circles and language, rather than just sharing whatever legitimate insights the school of thought might have in a fully Catholic way.
I think the short answer is cognitive dissonance. Some suffer from competing loyalties due to a misguided sense, inculcated by the foremost perennialists themselves, that Catholicism lacks a truly metaphysical character. Minor contributing issues are intellectual pride and an adolescent fascination with secret knowledge. At some point such people must ask themselves why they prefer to heed Sufi Muslims over Christian Saints.
What the perennialists can offer us are thorough refutations of the errors of modernity in a general sense, a window to the cosmological sciences of past ages, especially of symbolism, and a signpost to the ultimate Christian doctrines of the via negativa and the indwelling presence.
I agree with you here, too. I have always thought the same thing about perennialists, just as you describe. I also think it is incredibly dangerous, however, and that we should be trying to lure people away from perennialism into a fully integrated Catholicism, since perennialism has so many evil tendencies. That is a separate discussion, too, though.
-
Oh bullsh*t. You my friend are nothing but a German-hater, through'n"through. Spare us with your "objectivity, you revel in the fact that the German countryside was bombarded by Allied and Communist war-shells and her women were systematically raped and tormented by Red Army savage barbarians. The same barbarians that were "brainwashed" by the Judaic Bolshevism that Hitler and the NS's were trying to rid Europe of to begin with.
And another thing, don't forget that you frogs and your Masonic British masters started that war to begin with before the Reich kicked your collective asses back across the English Channel where you belonged.
You like phrases so much, don't forget, the victors write the history texts.
I believe Churchill said that quote. :laugh1: I don't know why Americans really love the 'great man.' If anything considering the buckets of champayne he drank he was the 'great drunk.' It is true that Hitler was against Bolshevism and Marxism for as he said in Mein Kampf, "The Jєωιѕн doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Naure and replaces the eternal privelage of power and strength by the masses and their dead weight. Thus it denies the personality of man, questions the significance of race and nation, and thus withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture." However Hitler was also against capitalism as well, remember that Hitler said in Mein Kampf, "Just as the Jew uses capitalistic methods of human exploitation to their ultimate advantages..." He also as I said saw the British Empire as something that should survive, comparing it to the Catholic Church, a force of stablility in the world. So he respected the British even though he said Jews control England and personally despised Churchill personally. Hitler's opinion on America was also positive and negative as he praised America in Mein Kampf for segregating the 'colored peoples' and being against racial mixture but later on in the 30's and 40's saw America as a nation of just opulent capitalists, using jazz to blure racial distinctions, and said in 1942, "The American society is half-Judaized, half-Negrified, with 80% of the public purse going to public words, with values built on the Almighty Power of the dollar. How can a mongrel nation like that survive for long?" Hitler also had criticisms of the monarchy as well criticizing Kaisar Wilhelm II and his policies for starting World War I, despising the Hapsburghs, and saying in Mein Kampf, "It is thanks to the German princes that the German nation could not get rid of the Jєωιѕн menace." However Hitler did want a return of the peasant system since the Third Reich was promoting Germans returning to the farmland and shifting them to Eastern Europe.
-
I don't believe in euthanizing retarded people but I have a question: Does anyone believe in giving their job to someone who is mentally challenged? Under affirmative action in this country that CAN happen. I know I wouldn't be willing.
-
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ This is a good site for German propaganda, it has a wealth of info and speeches. I really studied it a lot when I sympathized with the nαzι's, but I've since realized that it was a flawed idealogy. WW2 was just a huge mistake in my opinion, I don't bother talking about it much anymore, it seems like alot of armchair generals seem to know what "they would have done to win WW2".
-
I don't believe in euthanizing retarded people but I have a question: Does anyone believe in giving their job to someone who is mentally challenged? Under affirmative action in this country that CAN happen. I know I wouldn't be willing.
I have no objection to it. A few days ago, I brought books I no longer needed to a local Society of St. Vincent de Paul shop. The volunteer was "mentally challenged" to use the definition outlined above. There was other volunteers. I treated him as I would with any other person. I approached him. I told him, I wished to donate books.He took them. He thanked me.
It would be a pity if somebody ignored him on basis of disability. I could easily have gone in with the mindset of that "simpleton" won't understand me and could of taken the books up to the 'normal' looking woman at the desk. I didn't.
Often visitors are surprised to see so many disabled people out and about in Ireland.Particularly those with Down's syndrome.
You wouldn't see this in Britain where sadly so many are murdered in abortuaries.
-
I have no objection to it. A few days ago, I brought books I no longer needed to a local Society of St. Vincent de Paul shop. The volunteer was "mentally challenged" to use the definition outlined above. There was other volunteers. I treated him as I would with any other person. I approached him. I told him, I wished to donate books.He took them. He thanked me.
It would be a pity if somebody ignored him on basis of disability. I could easily have gone in with the mindset of that "simpleton" won't understand me and could of taken the books up to the 'normal' looking woman at the desk. I didn't.
Often visitors are surprised to see so many disabled people out and about in Ireland.Particularly those with Down's syndrome.
You wouldn't see this in Britain where sadly so many are murdered in abortuaries.
So you would give up your job and the money you make to that person?
-
So you would give up your job and the money you make to that person?
If someone more qualified came along, would you happily give up your job and money to him?
-
Formatting problem.
-
What I am trying to say is that everyone knows about the nαzι eugenics program but not too many people know of America's and Britain's and they are always the "good guys."
Clearly, all three of them are "bad guys."
Actually that quote is about the German Army crossing into Poland basically meaning that since the Allies humiliated Germany to the extreme she got her revenge.
Does this mean that you are okay with the German invasion of Poland ?
And I find it sick that you continue to defend rape.
I have not once defended rape. If you cannot understand the subtlety of the point I was making about justice and irony, thinking that therefore I endorse rape, that is your problem. Shame on you for continuing to say that I am defending rape, though, when my words do not imply any defense.
That was the GREATEST war crime of World War II, done by the Allies!
I don't buy that it was the greatest crime. Whether or not it was done by the Axis or the Allies is irrelevant. You seem to be under the impression that I was some supporter of the Allies; is this right ?
The Allied reparations and humiliating defeat on Germany made Germans seethe with anger.
Yes, this is the history of World War II. So what ?
It lead straight to the nαzι Party. France and Britain did it to themselves.
It's a little more complicated than that, but I agree that the peace conditions imposed by the French Republic and England on the Germans was too much and that there was legitimate cause for German anger against them. I am sure that heavy investment from US industry and finance played no small factor in the rise of the nαzι Party as well. The legacy of XIXth-century German art, culture, and scholarship under the aegis of the Prussian state and nationalist ideology surely contributed, too.
By the way there's an old joke my grandfather used to say: the one military manual that tells how to lose a war is the French manual.
:rolleyes: And have you ever heard the one about the chicken and the road ? It's hysterical, just wait until you hear it ! ...Well, I don't want to ruin it for you. Your joke must not take into account the fact that France's martial history tells the story of the most successful and prestigious fighting men of all time besides the armies of Genghis Khan and Subutai, Alexander the Great, and the Roman Republic.
It was so bad in Weimar Germany German mothers had to prostitue themselves for daily bread.
Naturally, of course, they had to do no such thing.
It was not ALL of Germany's fault.
Never claimed it was. You seem to think this discussion is about something else : :soapbox:.
Allied Powers shared the blame of the First World War.
Sure, chiefly Woodrow Wilson I would say, since Karl von Habsburg and Benedict XV were willing to make a generous peace.
Uh France is coming apart from Islamic hordes so yes this is not the France of Louis XIV...
No, it's not, but the real France -- the Eldest Daughter of the Church, Our Lady's own kingdom -- is only a sleeping giant, always on the verge of what Louis XIV almost accomplished if not for his pride (may he rest in peace).
But you see World War II forced France to lose her empire. She lost her vitality.
Not really. She could have easily maintained her colonies if not for the lack of missionary activity and the lack of moral willingness to keep them. De Gaulle could have easily won Algeria, which was not a colony at all but an actual Republican département -- if only he had not been too willing to surrender Algeria to the Mohammedans without any serious fight, apparently in obedience to some prerogative of the globalists that he kept quiet. It was not inevitable that the colonies were lost, but the post-war culture and the culture of the Third Republic -- that is to say, the Revolution and the Republic themselves in their essence -- sapped the spirit of the majority of the French. It is anathema to the French character and vocation.
Hitler was born on Branau-on-the-Inn on the German-Austrian border and was of German ethnicity.
Yes... Like I said, an Austrian, which is a subgroup within the German ethnicity.
And as I said Hitler admired the British Empire and Britain. He did NOT want a war with Britain.
Yep, you got it. :shocked:
If they weren't prepared for another war perhaps they should have not declared war on the most powerful country in Europe no?
Yes. To hell with the French Republics -- back to where they came from.
I am making the argument that World War II was not worth it. All of the "blood, sweat, and tears" were not worth it. Ah but remember the words of the British propagandists: it 'twas a great victory.
Alright. I should probably point out, though, that that particular point is a departure from what we were talking about before. I do have to say, though, I am happy that the Hilterian state did not survive and that we don't have to endure a Germany today with muscle like that of the Hohenstaufens. Not that I prefer the Judaeo-Communist world order that succeeded instead, of course, but if we are only focussing on the positive aspects, I think that the German state of Hitler and as envisioned by the nαzιs would have been horrible and am glad it did not succeed. Unfortunately, it was a war between two great evils. Life is rough.
-
Oh, yes, it is very liberal of me to want to suppress discussion to protect the minds of earnest young Catholics who haven't studied enough to know the difference. :rolleyes:
What do you think liberalism is, and what is a liberal ?
Well the number one attitude of a liberal is that they are very emotional and do not like dissenting views.
The number one attitude of an Inquisitor is that they are very dispassionate and do not like dissenting views. Are Inquisitors, therefore, half liberal ? :scratchchin:
-
So you would give up your job and the money you make to that person?
If someone more qualified came along, would you happily give up your job and money to him?
It would be up to the boss. Under affirmative action a mentally challenged person or one who is physically handicapped along with minorities and women will get a job over a normal, white male.
-
"Ah, shoot first and ask questions later : très américain."
Well, at least we have guts to shoot to begin with. I wonder how many fully loaded French rifles were dropped as they were high-tailing it back across the Channel with their limey Masonic British allies.
" I can recognise a Divine punishment of the Germans by the Red Army that fits the former's sin without hating the Germans and loving the subjective mortal sins of the rapists who carried out the deed that God, in His inscrutable mercy, allowed. "
Divine punishment? Really? And by a bunch savage commie muderers and rapists nonetheless. Thanks God, you really proved a point there. And then "God" in his divine wisdom hands half of Europe over to these same godless, communist heathens. Tell me, was that "divine punishment" for Poland too? Or the Baltic countries and Balkans? I mean, how much divine punishment did God deal out and for how long because of those mean, nasty ol German National Socialists?
"God wants us to love His judgments and His punishments, even if we cannot understand them."
Uhh....what? That makes no sense. If someone is punishing me, I sure would like to know damn well what I did wrong. I mean, wouldn't anybody?
"All I said was that the punishment of the Germans by the Red Army thugs was an act of justice that was poetic, given the German fixation on racial purity. If that causes your blood to boil and you cannot imagine somebody saying such a thing dispassionately, I cannot convince you otherwise."
Justice? You mean raping and pillaging of women and children is now "justice"? You have a twisted idea of justice IMO, more like retribution or revenge. Sure, if you said that I could understand, not that I agree, but at least I could understand where your coming from.
" That being said, I would be lying if I claimed that I was fond of the Germans as a people, the same with both the American and British English."
Ahh yes, Pierre, lover of all things French and Red Russian. I tell you what, given the chance,I'd much rather dine with Patton and Rommel than Degaulle or Zhukov, but that's just me.
"I don't really see the benefit of using the word "barbarian."
The way the Red Army behaved, I don't see how you could refer to them as anything different.
-
" The Germans may have been trying to eliminate Bolshevism and degeneracy, but they replaced it with a perversion of the natural order of their own -- the idolatrous worship of their race, even to the point of murdering children in the womb and sterilising those they believed undesirable. They attempted, likewise, to erect an all-powerful saecular Germanic state that disrespected the sovereign prerogatives of the Pope and the ability for Catholics to worship freely and with undivided consciences (such as they have in the United States). We should thank God that such a monster did not succeed, at least objectively; it clearly was built on many natural goods, but it twisted these natural goods and ordered them to an idolatrous service. The alternative was worse, though of a different kind, so any direct comparison is hard to make. Anyway, we should pray that this other monster, under which the Church and the nations currently suffer, is likewise destroyed, so that the natural and divine laws are bowed before by all."
Well. I don't know where to start. Firstly, I don't understand about this "race worship" thing, from what I've read over the years, Hitler wanted to revive Germany as a nation, first and foremost. Germany was getting a beat down globally, especially by the banks, and basically laid to waste so the International criminals could rape her at will. Your snotty French and Brits caused all this with the Versailles Treaty and all it's disabling of the German people with all the debt and blame for a war it did not start to begin with and never really lost. The Nationalists came to power and built up Germany as a direct result of the Western Democracies and all their meddling with the German economy and enabling their Communists nemesis, The West reaped what they sowed in Hitler and the Reich. And I don't really see where they stepped on the Pope's toes unless in involved affairs of the state, but they never closed churches or prohibited Christian worship, unlike the commies, which they effectively did in Germany after God's "divine punishment".
Germany's motto as "DEUTSCHLAND über ALLES" was Germany above all, not lording or ruling over other races but putting the interests of their own people first. What a people are supposed to do if they want to survive, what all nations and races do naturally on this planet. It has nothing to do with "worshipping" themselves, that's a bunch Jєωιѕн malarky.
".Which is another way of saying that the Anglo-American establishment exclusively started that war in coöperation with the wishes of international Jєωιѕн finance. "
No argument there.
"When did the German "Reich" push the British and French across the English channel within the past one hundred years ? Or when did any continental German power ever push us French across La Manche in any conflict ?"
Someone needs a history lesson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dunkirk#Evacuation
-
Does this mean that you are okay with the German invasion of Poland?
Well it was Poland's defiance of Hitler, because of the British war guarentee, that lead to Hitler invading Poland, since Hitler wanted an alliance with Poland and was willing to negotiate for extra territory for Poland for the taking of Danzig. It was the Allies' declaring war on Germany and the courting of Stalin that lead to Hitler to grasp the opportunity not to be dragged into a two-front war by making a treaty with Stalin.
I don't buy that it was the greatest crime. Whether or not it was done by the Axis or the Allies is irrelevant. You seem to be under the impression that I was some supporter of the Allies; is this right ?
Uh two million Germans died from the rape and gore of the Red Army. 15 million Germans were ethnically cleansed from homelands thay had been on for many years.
Yes, this is the history of World War II. So what?
So looking back that was not a very wise decision no?
It's a little more complicated than that, but I agree that the peace conditions imposed by the French Republic and England on the Germans was too much and that there was legitimate cause for German anger against them. I am sure that heavy investment from US industry and finance played no small factor in the rise of the nαzι Party as well. The legacy of XIXth-century German art, culture, and scholarship under the aegis of the Prussian state and nationalist ideology surely contributed, too.
There is nothing wrong with nationalism.
Naturally, of course, they had to do no such thing.
Uh considering Germany was facing a depression worse than America's yes they did.
Yep, you got it. :shocked:
Uh it is vey well docuмented by even British historians that Hitler wanted to see the British Empire survive. Ironically, America, Britain's ally, would help bring it down.
Alright. I should probably point out, though, that that particular point is a departure from what we were talking about before. I do have to say, though, I am happy that the Hilterian state did not survive and that we don't have to endure a Germany today with muscle like that of the Hohenstaufens. Not that I prefer the Judaeo-Communist world order that succeeded instead, of course, but if we are only focussing on the positive aspects, I think that the German state of Hitler and as envisioned by the nαzιs would have been horrible and am glad it did not succeed. Unfortunately, it was a war between two great evils. Life is rough.
Germany had always been the natural boundary to Oriental barbarism and despotism, so when the West smashed Germany it was obvious the Soviets would move in. And guess what? Those dictators of the communist countries were far more murderous than Hitler.
-
Ahh yes, Pierre, lover of all things French and Red Russian.
You forgot lover of all things American Indian. :laugh1:
-
Oh and one more thing: people are very mistaken when they say that FDR was an 'isolationist' during this time period. During that time FDR was trying to manuever the United States towards a collision with Germany AND Japan by any means possible.
-
Well, at least we have guts to shoot to begin with.
Yeah yeah yeah, the old "the French are cowards line" because of -- what was it, a single war effort prosecuted by the Republic, of all things, whereas Marechal Pétain and the royalists collaborated with the Germans against international Jewry and liberal degeneracy ? I don't believe the myth of unique United-Statesian martial prowess -- which doesn't seem to exist without expensive technology that other nations have not been able to produce in large numbers (how come you don't thank the Jews on Wall Street for that ? Isn't that a little inconsistent ? :scratchchin:). You can save your stupid chest-thumping for the American Legion hall or the country club where they might want to hear about it. France was a divided nation and still is; she labours under the ideology and machinery of the Revolution. Her historical legacy, however, is a proud one.
The Américains believe that they have usurped the prestige and martial reputation of the French because of the results of one single conflict, wherein the resources and industrial capacity were completely incomparable, as well as the calibre of leadership, and the nation was morally deeply divided. This is hardly an objective comparison. Regardless, sorry, but it isn't that easy : The US cannot take the military reputation of France because of one war. Come back after winning the majority of battles and wars, and accomplishing heroic feats on many continents to do so, over the course of one thousand and five hundred years. Then we can actually compare France and the US in all seriousness.
I wonder how many fully loaded French rifles were dropped as they were high-tailing it back across the Channel with their limey Masonic British allies.
Blah blah blah. You seem to be under the impression that I am a supporter of the Allies or that I believe that the Republic truly represents France and French interests. If so, you are wrong on both scores.
Divine punishment? Really?
Yes, really. That is how Divine Providence works. People sin and become forgetful of God, God sends them war and famine and death as they deserve, in order to save souls and make people trust and remember Him again, since otherwise they would all become corrupted and be damned. Sometimes wars are not the punishment for sin but are the sin themselves; it seems pretty clear that the World Wars were punishments, though. After all, not only did God punish the Israelites multiple times for their idolatry by means of war, such as when he allowed the Babylonians to conquer them, but Our Lady of Fatima herself predicted World War II, explicitly denoting it as a punishment for the wickedness of the world.
Now, certain acts, since the beginning of time, often go along with war, such as raping and pillaging. The Huns and, especially, the Mongols are good examples of this. Genghis Khan was aware of his role, and nobody would deny it. He said, "Had you not created great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you." He was right.
And by a bunch savage commie muderers and rapists nonetheless.
God frequently uses brutal people, frequently from the steppe as it so happens, to punish nations that have left Him or that have committed great crimes.
Thanks God, you really proved a point there.
Shame on you for speaking of Our Lord so lightly.
And then "God" in his divine wisdom hands half of Europe over to these same godless, communist heathens.
Yes, just like when the Israelites were taken captive by the Babylonians. It was just.
Tell me, was that "divine punishment" for Poland too?
Yes, most likely for Polish liberalism, which was running amok and growing. Or maybe it was to pay for some future reward we have not yet seen. It is hard to tell sometimes; but who would dare to question the ways of the Eternal Father, when He sends out His angels to deliver punishments to various places ?
Or the Baltic countries and Balkans?
Sure, why not ? I don't understand why this concept, which is as old as Melchisdech and as Catholic as priestly celibacy, is so offensive to you.
I mean, how much divine punishment did God deal out and for how long because of those mean, nasty ol German National Socialists?
Apparently not enough, given the state of the world. And if you don't believe that a nation that murders children in the womb because they are "impure" and that murders those who are handicapped and ailing is worthy of punishment, how do you consider yourself Catholic ? Oh, I get it, they were the enemies of the Communists and you have an ethnic affinity with them, so it's okay because it's your guys, right ? It's okay to officially subject the Church to the all-powerful state, to forbid Catholic parents to homeschool in violation of the natural law, because the Germans -- who are good guys, apparently -- are doing it ? And because the USSR existed at the same time ?
Uhh....what? That makes no sense. If someone is punishing me, I sure would like to know damn well what I did wrong. I mean, wouldn't anybody?
Surely you would know if you made an examination of your conscience. Sometimes misfortune happens to us in order to strengthen us against a future temptation, or else to lead us to our true vocations. I feel bad for you, in case you lose a loved one and have the gall to blame your misfortune on God being cruel.
Justice? You mean raping and pillaging of women and children is now "justice"?
It is certainly not subjective justice for the soldiers, but certainly the rape and pillage of cities and countries after losses in war can be seen as a form of punishment that God allows. The punishment itself, the death, He authors. The subjective sinful intentions and the sinfulness in general He only allows by way of His permissive will. That being said, it would have been just for the rapists to be hanged. But that doesn't mean that the German destruction on the part of the Red Army was not a divine punishment, just like the conquests of the Mongols were divine punishments. (Let me guess, those were chiefly conquests of Chinese, Mohammedan, and Slavic peoples, so they don't count, since they are not Germans, a people so great that God winks at their otherwise horrible sins ?)
You have a twisted idea of justice IMO, more like retribution or revenge.
There is justice according to human laws, and there is justice meted out by God according to His own laws that He has revealed in His two garments, Nature and the Scriptures, and in the Regula Fidei of the New and Eternal Covenant. I have a strict and timeless idea of justice, since my idea of justice comes from the Fathers, the Scriptures, and Catholic writers -- especially a certain Savoyard ambassador.
Sure, if you said that I could understand, not that I agree, but at least I could understand where your coming from.
"And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord, and they served Baalim. And they left the Lord the God of their fathers, who had brought them out of the land of Egypt: and they followed strange gods, and the gods of the people that dwelt round about them, and they adored them: and they provoked the Lord to anger. Forsaking him, and serving Baal and Astaroth. [14] And the Lord being angry against Israel, delivered them into the hands of plunderers: who took them and sold them to their enemies, that dwelt round about: neither could they stand against their enemies: But whithersoever they meant to go, the hand of the Lord was upon them, as he had said, and as he had sworn to them: and they were greatly distressed" (Judges II, xi-xv).
(Note : (XII) They followed strange gods: What is here said of the children of Israel, as to their falling so often into idolatry, is to be understood of a great part of them; but not so universally, as if the true worship of God was ever quite abolished among them: for the succession of the true church and religion was kept up all this time by the priests and Levites, at least in the house of God in Silo.)
"In the days of Samgar the son of Anath, in the days of Jahel the paths rested: and they that went by them, walked through by-ways.The valiant men ceased, and rested in Israel: until Debbora arose, a mother arose in Israel. The Lord chose new wars, and he himself overthrew the gates of the enemies: a shield and spear was not seen among forty thousand of Israel" (Judges II, vi-viii).
(Note : (VI) The paths rested: The ways to the sanctuary of God were unfrequented: and men walked in the by-ways of error and sin.)
"In those days the Lord began to send into Juda Basin king of Syria, and Phacee the son of Romelia" (IV Kings XV, xxxvii).
"And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Phul king of the Assyrians, and the spirit of Thelgathphalnasar king of Assur: and he carried away Ruben, and Gad, and the half tribe of Manasses, and brought them to Lahela, and to Habor, and to Ara, and to the river of Gozan, unto this day" (I Paralipomenon V, xxvi).
Read the Saint Petersburg Dialogues of Joseph de Maistre, as well as his Considerations on France and The Enlightenment on Sacrifices. Then you will see from where I am coming and will see that it is Catholic.
Ahh yes, Pierre, lover of all things French and Red Russian.
Yes, I do love the culture and history and heros of my people, being that I am a patriot. Even if I were not French, though, I think I would have to be quite the philistine to be enthusiastic about the Protestant culture and history of the Anglo-American establishment and the Prussians. As for also being a Russophile, consider me guilty as charged. That being said, I am able to distinguish between the Russian people themselves and their history and the Communist régime (even to the point, yes, of listening to the Red Army choir -- which I hope will not anger somebody of your sensibilities too much). But what can I say, what's not glorious and lovable about the North, the steppe, and the traditions of the Eastern Slavs ? Or the Celts and Latins ? Or anybody, really, but the Germans and English and their inbred offspring, the United-Statesians, a people proud in their ignorance and lack of true culture ?
I tell you what, given the chance, I'd much rather dine with Patton and Rommel than Degaulle or Zhukov, but that's just me.
I would rather dine with a voyageur or a cossack, or the Eldest Son of the Church, than some German or United-Statesian general.
The way the Red Army behaved, I don't see how you could refer to them as anything different.
It's a dumb word, so I won't use it to refer to anybody. Whenever anybody uses it, I imagine some vain woman from Victorian England saying it with Received Pronunciation or else an effeminate man -- alien to physical exertion -- allocating it with dripping contempt upon those clearly more manly than himself. It really is a stupid word.
-
Well. I don't know where to start. Firstly, I don't understand about this "race worship" thing, from what I've read over the years, Hitler wanted to revive Germany as a nation, first and foremost. Germany was getting a beat down globally, especially by the banks, and basically laid to waste so the International criminals could rape her at will.
Yes, I understand that international and domestic situation for Germany at the time. How does this justify the fact that the Germans under Hitler and the official ideology of the National Socialist party practiced racialist eugenics through abortion and sterilisations and wanted to subject the Church, in its jurisdiction, to the "interests of the German people" (as if these could be separate from the interests of the Church) ?
Your snotty French...
Just because you cannot think of many real faults that are not absurd exaggerations, Anglo-Americans call us "snotty." It seems clear to me that the United-Statesians have a chip on their shoulders.
...and Brits caused all this with the Versailles Treaty and all it's disabling of the German people with all the debt and blame for a war it did not start to begin with and never really lost. The Nationalists came to power and built up Germany as a direct result of the Western Democracies and all their meddling with the German economy and enabling their Communists nemesis, The West reaped what they sowed in Hitler and the Reich.
So, your conclusion is that, because an eye was taken out, it was just to take out an eye in return ? Because Germany truly suffered, it gets a pass on its disgusting violations of the natural law and its neo-pagan idolatry of its "racial and cultural purity," which, by the way, never existed ?
And I don't really see where they stepped on the Pope's toes unless in involved affairs of the state, but they never closed churches or prohibited Christian worship...
It was a saecular state that forbade homeschooling and forced all children to attend public schools where they learned to worship themselves via fabricated Aryan mythology. In affairs of state, they officially did not recognise the rights of God and the Church except as it seemed to benefit them. The ideology of the party did not allow it.
...unlike the commies, which they effectively did in Germany after God's "divine punishment".
So we're back to that -- Hitler was okay because the Communists were so bad. Yes, they were bad, but the enemy of our enemy is not our friend. Yes, they actively persecuted religion as such, though I would say that Hitler himself was a punishment upon the stiff-necked Germans in addition to the punishments that followed. The point is that both régimes were evil, each according to its kind, and that their being enemies does not mean that Catholics must take sides with one or the other.
Germany's motto as "DEUTSCHLAND über ALLES" was Germany above all...
Sure, including the Pope, Christendom, accurate history, and so forth.
...not lording or ruling over other races...
What about the Lebensraum plan, where wehrbaueren would colonise the East and make the Slavs German slaves for a thousand years ?
...but putting the interests of their own people first.
...completely to the prejudice of the supernatural order.
What a people are supposed to do if they want to survive, what all nations and races do naturally on this planet.
If a people want to survive, yes, they must be independent of international money powers and other private interests, securely under a sovereign power that is their own, and living according to the natural order. This, naturally, I admit. But must they likewise adopt a strange and idolatrous ideology that serves to make them loyal to an all-powerful centralised state that disrespects the sovereign rights of the Pope and the Church ? No, of course not. This endangers the survival of a people because it places them outside of the reign of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, without which there is no lasting peace in this world.
It has nothing to do with "worshipping" themselves, that's a bunch Jєωιѕн malarky.
Based on how you framed the issue, it seems like a bunch of Jєωιѕн lies. I do not believe you accurately and fairly framed the issue, however; Pius XI wrote Mit Brennender Sorge to deal with the problems of the German ideology, which themselves were the outgrowth of centuries of German pride and self-love to the prejudice of the true religion (as evidenced by lay investiture, the Hohenstaufens, the Habsburgs sacking Rome, Protestantism, and then German nationalism). This is what he wrote : "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." I suppose it was just a coincidence that he wrote the encyclical in German and ordered it to be read from every Catholic pulpit in Germany ? He could have been talking about anything, most likely in the abstract ! :laugh1:
I am saying the same thing, that such a State was objectively a monster that needed to be slain. I do not think the Red Army and the US, who replaced the monster with an even greater and more duplicitous one, were the ones to do that slaying. That being said, clearly men did not become less sinful and less forgetful of God, and reaped what their pride had sown. Let us imagine that international Jєωιѕн finance and Communism and Masonry did not exist, though. Even then, the monster of the German nationalist state and its idolatrous ideology would be worthy of destruction -- for the sake of the common good of Christendom first, of course, and then, secondly, for the sake of the Germans themselves.
Someone needs a history lesson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dunkirk#Evacuation
I admit that I did not know that there was such a large scale evacuation of men from France itself and across the Channel. I do not consider the Republic to truly represent France, however, so I have never been concerned with its battles against Germany and have not really read much about them. The government of Maréchal Pétain was certainly better and closer to the true French spirit than the Republic ever was. So, the socialist Republic, and its misadventures, do not really count, though the jealous United-Statesians will keep this small blunder of the French Republic fixed in their memories as long as the US is still around as evidence of US superiourity over France as a whole, both in its present and historical state. I have little patience for such childishness and would rather not talk about it much more : Reasoning with the unreasonable is impossible, and anybody who holds the US up as some great nation is unreasonable or brainwashed.
-
"You forgot lover of all things American Indian."
Not all things unreservedly, but yes, I do love the many nations of the American Indians (some more than others, of course).
-
Or anybody, really, but the Germans and English and their inbred offspring, the United-Statesians, a people proud in their ignorance and lack of true culture ?
Y'know, I was totally with you, in almost 100% agreement with your posts on this thread, until I read that.
a) The Germans and the English both have very high cultures. Have you never seen the cathedrals of Dresden and Cologne? Have you ever seen the Ring cycle, heard the strains of Beethoven and Brahms and Bach? Have you ever heard Purcell, read Schiller or Goethe or Chesterton or More or Shelley or Byron or Tennyson or a hundred others? They have plenty to be proud of (and I speak as one without a drop of English or German blood in me, btw).
b)As for the Americans, one can certainly make the argument that the development of an integral culture has been stunted by the pressure of commercialism and false, jingoist ideas of intrinsic American superiority, however I do not believe it is accurate to say that there is no such thing as aan American culture. It is difficult to define, thanks to the myth-making of the Americanists, but if you live in a small town, in a rural part of the country, and get to know people-I think that beneath all the trappings of American glitz and tawdry commercialism one can sense an American culture. Any nation or people with a common history and language have a culture. A stunted culture, perhaps, lacking the enlightenment of Faith and a rich Catholic history, but a culture nonetheless.
I think that statement that I have in quotes up above was just a small moment of letting prejudice take hold of your otherwise lucid and thoughtful posts.
I don't believe the myth of unique United-Statesian martial prowess which doesn't seem to exist without expensive technology that other nations have not been able to produce in large numbers
Well, as far as American martial prowess goes, there is a lot of myth in the typical neo-con line that "Americans are the best of the best of the best, and everyone else are pussies!". I certainly don't think that the American soldier of the military is invincible. However, there is a very real historical basis to that myth.
There are plenty of well-known examples of American soldiers defying superior odds of all kinds to win victories. One only has think of the battle of Bastogne and many of the battles of the Pacific War (Guadalcanal, Wake Island,etc.) where American superiority of either numbers and technology was either non-existent or was possessed by the foe. What about the Battle of Midway-generally considered to be one of the most decisive sea battles in history? The American fleet was outnumbered, with inferior ships and planes, and won a huge victory. Or what about that shining moment in the history of the Marine corps, the long battle in North Korea in the "Frozen Chosin", where a division of Marines was surrounded, with few suppplies, outnumbered, with almost no air support and no reinforcements, and not only made good their escape but brought out all of their dead and wounded and completely destroyed seven communist divisions? There are other examples, that are hardly due to superior technology. So while the attitude that Americans are better than everyone else is a myth, there is a very strong core of reality to that myth-as the Germans, Japanese, and Chinese discovered.
-
Well it was Poland's defiance of Hitler, because of the British war guarentee, that lead to Hitler invading Poland, since Hitler wanted an alliance with Poland and was willing to negotiate for extra territory for Poland for the taking of Danzig. It was the Allies' declaring war on Germany and the courting of Stalin that lead to Hitler to grasp the opportunity not to be dragged into a two-front war by making a treaty with Stalin
Ah, yes....so because the Poles wouldn't let their hereditary enemy do what ever they wanted, Germany was right to invade Poland, enslave the population, and murder hundred of thousands if not millions of the citizens. Right. Gotcha.
There is nothing wrong with nationalism.
There is nothing wrong with patriotism; there is plenty wrong with nationalism.
Germany had always been the natural boundary to Oriental barbarism and despotism, so when the West smashed Germany it was obvious the Soviets would move in. And guess what? Those dictators of the communist countries were far more murderous than Hitler.
Only because they were in power for far, far longer. People seem to forget this when they say "But Stalin killed more people!" Sure, he did. But Hitler only had his program of genocide going for about 5 years or so. Stalin was in power for over thirty years. So you have to take that into account.
Don't use fire to fight fire.....don't support nαzιsm to oppose Communism. It's that simple.
-
Ah, yes....so because the Poles wouldn't let their hereditary enemy do what ever they wanted, Germany was right to invade Poland, enslave the population, and murder hundred of thousands if not millions of the citizens. Right. Gotcha.
The Poles feared the Soviets far more than they feared the Germans. Also Danzig was 95% German and under Wilson's principles of self-determination should have been returned to the Reich for the Danzigers were wanting to return. So yes Poland made a mistake by not negotiating with Germany when Hitler was hinting that he would negotiate with Poland and give them compensatory territory and they were also mistaken to believe in Britain actually standing by their war guarentee. Ironically the Polish defiance of Hitler actually set up the Poles being taken by the Soviets whom they despised the most. And really stop with the emotional response. Why is it there can never be a discussion of Hitler without someone yelling out, "Well but Hitler's evil!!!"
There is nothing wrong with patriotism; there is plenty wrong with nationalism.
Nonsense fighting for your own country's interests is a good thing. Nationalism, ethnicity, and race are the biggest deciders in our world.
Only because they were in power for far, far longer. People seem to forget this when they say "But Stalin killed more people!" Sure, he did. But Hitler only had his program of genocide going for about 5 years or so. Stalin was in power for over thirty years. So you have to take that into account. Don't use fire to fight fire.....don't support nαzιsm to oppose Communism. It's that simple.
Hitler's victims as of 1939 were a fraction of even General Pinochet's. Stalin had far more victims and yet the West wanted to smash Hitler and enter into an alliance with Stalin. And no one is supporting nαzιsm here so that argument is meaningless. However some people actually like to tell history as it is and not get called a nαzι.
-
As to the Lebensraum plan it is true that Hitler had no love of Slavs but that was mostly because of again his own German nationalism. He saw Austria in his own words become de-Germanized and become a "Slavisized state." However that still does not negate that Hitler's ideology really meant nothing to how he did his own plans. Hitler would drop ideology for more pragmatic means which is why he decided to negotiate with the countries surrounding him, so as not to go to war with Britain.
Oh by the way Pere where is that money that good old France still owes us for saving their collective butts. :smile:
-
Oh and one more thing Pere: as to it being sinful for putting your own people first I guess those good old Catholic Hispanics didn't get the memo since they are trying to return the American Southwest to Mexico. :wink: Also about rape being divine punishment are you suggesting that our modern-day Hispanics are divine punishment when they rape our women?
-
Your responses are childish and do not address the matter at hand. Was Hitler right to execute millions of Slavs, Jews, Russians, Frenchmen, and others, to serve Germany? Is it right for your country to enslave other countries if it promotes the national interests of your country?
What nationalism proposes is "every nation for herself". Should America invade Canada? After, we could use the natural resources, and it's in our best interests! Should France invade Spain, because they want to use the Spanish economy for slave labor? Hey, it would help them, why not! What you are proposing is anarchy; not of individuals, but of nations. It was that kind of thinking that gave us both the World Wars.
As to the Lebensraum plan it is true that Hitler had no love of Slavs
No kidding.
but that was mostly because of again his own German nationalism[/quote
So, there is a problem with nationalism? Or is the slaughter of innocent foreigners OK because it's in the name of nationalism?
Also about rape being divine punishment are you suggesting that our modern-day Hispanics are divine punishment when they rape our women?
Another idiotic statement.
Nonsense fighting for your own country's interests is a good thing. Nationalism, ethnicity, and race are the biggest deciders in our world.
That maybe true, but does it make it right? Should those things be the biggest deciding factors? Is conquering other countries for your own interests a good thing? Even Bush pretended that we weren't going to war over oil, but to "save the Iraqi people".
Hitler's victims as of 1939 were a fraction of even General Pinochet's.
So? What's you're point? Was everything Hitler did after 1939 OK, because he was at war?
-
Your responses are childish and do not address the matter at hand. Was Hitler right to execute millions of Slavs, Jews, Russians, Frenchmen, and others, to serve Germany? Is it right for your country to enslave other countries if it promotes the national interests of your country?
You call me childish and yet you are the one getting all emotional about this Hitler topic. Simmer down and think rationally here for a moment. No it was not right but as to the Frenchmen Hitler only 'executed' them during World War II when the two nations were at war with eachother. Oh and I myself have doubts about diesel engine fuel killing Jews. Oh and another thing World War II caused the h0Ɩ0cαųst. The Wannasee Conference was not done until 1942 and that when the death camps really started. Hitler's thinking was that, "If I'm going down I'll take the rest of Europe with me." Had the British and French stayed out of World War II there may have been discriminatory laws against Jews but there would have never been the massive deaths.
What nationalism proposes is "every nation for herself".
Nothing wrong with that either.
Another idiotic statement.
Well hey Pere was saying rape was "divine punishment."
That maybe true, but does it make it right? Should those things be the biggest deciding factors? Is conquering other countries for your own interests a good thing? Even Bush pretended that we weren't going to war over oil, but to "save the Iraqi people".
The biggest racists these days are minorities not whites. Whites are naive enough to believe that race doesn't matter. Oh and we went to war against Iraq for Israel by the way.
So? What's you're point? Was everything Hitler did after 1939 OK, because he was at war?
I would argue the Allied war crimes were MUCH worse.
By the way I think I actually have sympathy for Tele now dealing with all of these people reading the lines of Jews, liberals, and pacifists. :cool:
-
If I understand it correctly, Britain gave Poland a war guarantee, which it could not uphold and it knew it. Britain's days as a great empire were over, but that handn't been illustrated to the world yet. Poland believed in that guarantee and ended up in a war with Germany, which it could not win. Still, Poland did not realize how vulnerable it was. It still believed its military had a good chance. That pretext brought Britain into a war it could not win, without U.S. involvement. FDR ran and was elected on a non-interventionists campaign. So, maybe that's why Polish people got a reputation for being stupid.
-
If I understand it correctly, Britain gave Poland a war guarantee, which it could not uphold and it knew it. Britain's days as a great empire were over, but that handn't been illustrated to the world yet. Poland believed in that guarantee and ended up in a war with Germany, which it could not win. Still, Poland did not realize how vulnerable it was. It still believed its military had a good chance. That pretext brought Britain into a war it could not win, without U.S. involvement. FDR ran and was elected on a non-interventionists campaign. So, maybe that's why Polish people got a reputation for being stupid.
Yep you got it. Britain gave out a war guarentee it could not honor and Poland defied Hitler relying on this war guarentee leading Hitler to invade from the West and Stalin from the East. Oh and by the way it was Stalin who killed the Polish Officer Corps in Katyn Forest, though at Nuremburg the Soviets charged the Germans with that crime and Americans and the British looked the other way. The Germans actually invited the Red Cross to the site hoping that the Allies would see the Soviets did that crime but instead the Allies still blamed the Germans. While FDR ran on, "I have promised you again and again your boys will not be in another European war," FDR was lying and was trying to incite Japan and Germany against America by being fully involved in those regional conflicts.
-
If I understand it correctly, Britain gave Poland a war guarantee, which it could not uphold and it knew it. Britain's days as a great empire were over, but that handn't been illustrated to the world yet. Poland believed in that guarantee and ended up in a war with Germany, which it could not win. Still, Poland did not realize how vulnerable it was. It still believed its military had a good chance. That pretext brought Britain into a war it could not win, without U.S. involvement. FDR ran and was elected on a non-interventionists campaign. So, maybe that's why Polish people got a reputation for being stupid.
Yep you got it. Britain gave out a war guarentee it could not honor and Poland defied Hitler relying on this war guarentee leading Hitler to invade from the West and Stalin from the East. Oh and by the way it was Stalin who killed the Polish Officer Corps in Katyn Forest, though at Nuremburg the Soviets charged the Germans with that crime and Americans and the British looked the other way. The Germans actually invited the Red Cross to the site hoping that the Allies would see the Soviets did that crime but instead the Allies still blamed the Germans. While FDR ran on, "I have promised you again and again your boys will not be in another European war," FDR was lying and was trying to incite Japan and Germany against America by being fully involved in those regional conflicts.
That's pretty much how I understand it too. Germany caught between Bolshevism from the east and cultural marxism from the west. In the end, crushed by both.
-
That's pretty much how I understand it too. Germany caught between Bolshevism from the east and cultural marxism from the west. In the end, crushed by both.
That is the entire West today though I would argue it is more of cultural Marxism and capitalism instead of Bolshevism.
-
"Yeah yeah yeah, the old "the French are cowards line" because of -- what was it, a single war effort prosecuted by the Republic, of all things, whereas Marechal Pétain and the royalists collaborated with the Germans against international Jewry and liberal degeneracy ? I don't believe the myth of unique United-Statesian martial prowess -- which doesn't seem to exist without expensive technology that other nations have not been able to produce in large numbers (how come you don't thank the Jews on Wall Street for that ? Isn't that a little inconsistent ? ). You can save your stupid chest-thumping for the American Legion hall or the country club where they might want to hear about it. France was a divided nation and still is; she labours under the ideology and machinery of the Revolution. Her historical legacy, however, is a proud on"
You don't believe the U.S is a superior military prowess?
Talk about delusional, when was the last time France fought it's way out of anything on her own? All America has done the last 100 years is follow you frogs around and bail you out of wars you started to begin with and couldn't finish, be it German NS or Viet Cong in SE Asia, and soon I believe it will be in the ME again with that little runt Sarkozy saber rattling against third world Arabs who would kick sh*t out of you Champagne sipping, cheese-eating surrender monkeys given half the chance.
Do yourself a favor, google "French Military Victories" when you get a chance and comeback and tell me about French military "prowess".
My family died storming the beaches of Normandy trying to liberate you snotty, stuck up, Euro-trash and now we have to listen to you preach to us about how "over-rated" we are. Give me a break, we should've let them Krauts keep flying the Swasticka from the Eiffel Tower to Caucasus's and saved ourselves a whole lot of grief, American lives and money.
Sorry Pierre, this "angry-American" is not impressed.
-
That's pretty much how I understand it too. Germany caught between Bolshevism from the east and cultural marxism from the west. In the end, crushed by both.
That is the entire West today though I would argue it is more of cultural Marxism and capitalism instead of Bolshevism.
I guess you'd be right. Usury and Pornography aka Capitalism and Cultural Marxism :laugh1:
-
I guess you'd be right. Usury and Pornography aka Capitalism and Cultural Marxism :laugh1:
Both were invented by the same group of people so it is not surprising...
-
I guess you'd be right. Usury and Pornography aka Capitalism and Cultural Marxism :laugh1:
Both were invented by the same group of people so it is not surprising...
What, you don't like the "free market?" :jester:
Well, it's important to remember that just because they've been stoning Christians for 2000 years, we shouldn't mind them ruling over us, because that would be "prejudice" and that would be worse than anything! :jester:
-
What, you don't like the "free market?" :jester:
Well, it's important to remember that just because they've been stoning Christians for 2000 years, we shouldn't mind them ruling over us, because that would be "prejudice" and that would be worse than anything! :jester:
There is nothing wrong with the 'free market' or private property for small businessmen but what happens under capitalism is that you have these huge monopolies set up that exploit their workers and you have this international stock exchange used for the detriment of the common people, and for the benefit of one group of people. This 'same group of people' if you will notice has gone through history with the fewest changes to his character and attaches himself to movements that are for the betterment of his people.
These 'same group of people' love the usurious rates of interest for it impoverishes the common man while making himself very rich indeed. In fact his whole religion is based off of the тαℓмυd, a book that advocates only living for the here and now. And these 'same group of people' use Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, the press, and the Marxist doctrine to convert a nation to their way of thinking.
-
Hitler's reduction of the Church whenever he could was what drove Pius XII into an alliance w/ Roosenveldt & Stalin. This despite whatever words he may have uttered trying to garner Catholic votes. Was he baptised a Catholic? I think so but it is a pretty sure bet that the clown suffered from MPD(DID) & was a closet Communist carrying out the Red agenda in the name of Hegelianism.
The Pope later regretted his alliance w/ the Allies.
-
Hitler's reduction of the Church whenever he could was what drove Pius XII into an alliance w/ Roosenveldt & Stalin. This despite whatever words he may have uttered trying to garner Catholic votes. Was he baptised a Catholic? I think so but it is a pretty sure bet that the clown suffered from MPD(DID) & was a closet Communist carrying out there agenda in the name of Hegelianism.
Hitler was a baptized Catholic (no I'm not saying Hitler was a faithful Catholic) and he was not a closet Communist since he talks with despisement of Marxism in all of his thoughts and speeches, public and private. Hell he murdered some German Communists.
-
Maybe---- Maybe not. I am not convinced that he committed ѕυιcιdє.
-
What, you don't like the "free market?" :jester:
Well, it's important to remember that just because they've been stoning Christians for 2000 years, we shouldn't mind them ruling over us, because that would be "prejudice" and that would be worse than anything! :jester:
There is nothing wrong with the 'free market' or private property for small businessmen but what happens under capitalism is that you have these huge monopolies set up that exploit their workers and you have this international stock exchange used for the detriment of the common people, and for the benefit of one group of people. This 'same group of people' if you will notice has gone through history with the fewest changes to his character and attaches himself to movements that are for the betterment of his people.
These 'same group of people' love the usurious rates of interest for it impoverishes the common man while making himself very rich indeed. In fact his whole religion is based off of the тαℓмυd, a book that advocates only living for the here and now. And these 'same group of people' use Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, the press, and the Marxist doctrine to convert a nation to their way of thinking.
Oh, you must want a "just wage," where the average working man can support a wife and kids. Well, Americans cherish their "freedom" too much, for something like that! :jester:
Here's "proof!"
"In the 1960s, the United States made 98 percent of its shoes. It now imports more than 90 percent of its footwear. The iconic red Radio Flyer wagons for children are now made in China. Even the Apple iPod comes in a box that says it was made in China but "designed in California."
"Some people lament the loss of manufacturing jobs we could have had making iPods - so what?" said Daniel Ikenson, associate director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute. "The imports of iPods support U.S. jobs," including engineers, marketers and advertisers."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/business/worldbusiness/20iht-wbmake.1.20332814.html
Yeah Daniel, "so what!" :really-mad2:
-
Oh, you must want a "just wage," where the average working man can support a wife and kids. Well, Americans cherish their "freedom" too much, for something like that! :jester:
Here's "proof!"
"In the 1960s, the United States made 98 percent of its shoes. It now imports more than 90 percent of its footwear. The iconic red Radio Flyer wagons for children are now made in China. Even the Apple iPod comes in a box that says it was made in China but "designed in California."
"Some people lament the loss of manufacturing jobs we could have had making iPods - so what?" said Daniel Ikenson, associate director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute. "The imports of iPods support U.S. jobs," including engineers, marketers and advertisers."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/business/worldbusiness/20iht-wbmake.1.20332814.html
Yeah Daniel, "so what!" :really-mad2:
Yes I know I'm asking too much when I ask for those greedy fat cats up on Wall Streeet to perhaps help their workers out. How foolish of me: they only care for money.
As for that libertarian Cato Institute what do you expect? Those ideologues follow the Jews Von Mises and Milton Freidman.
-
Oh, you must want a "just wage," where the average working man can support a wife and kids. Well, Americans cherish their "freedom" too much, for something like that! :jester:
Here's "proof!"
"In the 1960s, the United States made 98 percent of its shoes. It now imports more than 90 percent of its footwear. The iconic red Radio Flyer wagons for children are now made in China. Even the Apple iPod comes in a box that says it was made in China but "designed in California."
"Some people lament the loss of manufacturing jobs we could have had making iPods - so what?" said Daniel Ikenson, associate director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute. "The imports of iPods support U.S. jobs," including engineers, marketers and advertisers."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/business/worldbusiness/20iht-wbmake.1.20332814.html
Yeah Daniel, "so what!" :really-mad2:
Yes I know I'm asking too much when I ask for those greedy fat cats up on Wall Streeet to perhaps help their workers out. How foolish of me: they only care for money.
As for that libertarian Cato Institute what do you expect? Those ideologues follow the Jews Von Mises and Milton Freidman.
Face it, working people are the greedy ones, not the "fat cat wall street bankers." :jester:
All those "useless eaters" who want good jobs, so they can create more "useless eaters," just create huge "inefficiencies" that "the poor market" has to work so hard just to "sort out." :jester:
Oh, where would we be without Milton Freidman and Murray Rothbard and their combined "uberjewisdom!" :jester:
You obviously know nothing of the "science" of economics! :jester:
-
Face it, working people are the greedy ones, not the "fat cat wall street bankers." :jester:
All those "useless eaters" who want good jobs, so they can create more "useless eaters," just create huge "inefficiencies" that "the poor market" has to work so hard just to "sort out." :jester:
Oh, where would we be without Milton Freidman and Murray Rothbard and their combined "uberjewisdom!" :jester:
You obviously know nothing of the "science" of economics! :jester:
Yes of course the working-class folks are the greedy ones. They are such a burden, wanting to have enough money to support their children. Oh those poor Wall Street bankers. They could have used that money to buy them a fancy car or jet but they have to help their workers out. :rolleyes:
And yes the Jew is 'smart' but he is smart in the sense that his intelligence and theories are used for the benefit of his people. Marxism, libertarianism, capitalism, multiculturalism etc. are all to the benefit for him so that he may lord it over others.
-
Face it, working people are the greedy ones, not the "fat cat wall street bankers." :jester:
All those "useless eaters" who want good jobs, so they can create more "useless eaters," just create huge "inefficiencies" that "the poor market" has to work so hard just to "sort out." :jester:
Oh, where would we be without Milton Freidman and Murray Rothbard and their combined "uberjewisdom!" :jester:
You obviously know nothing of the "science" of economics! :jester:
Yes of course the working-class folks are the greedy ones. They are such a burden, wanting to have enough money to support their children. Oh those poor Wall Street bankers. They could have used that money to buy them a fancy car or jet but they have to help their workers out. :rolleyes:
And yes the Jew is 'smart' but he is smart in the sense that his intelligence and theories are used for the benefit of his people. Marxism, libertarianism, capitalism, multiculturalism etc. are all to the benefit for him so that he may lord it over others.
Well, it's a "no brainer" isn't it? You take money away from rich people and you give it to working people and then they have lots of babies and they just need more, more, more, more! Does it take a genius to figure out that's "unsustainable?!" No, it makes much more "common sense" to give that money to rich people instead. Then they buy fancy cars with it, which creates jobs washing their cars, which keep the few surviving workers alive. :jester:
I think what's important to understand here is that Economics is not about Morality, but rather it is about "science/magic." :jester:
I think the most important part of I.Q. measurement is the "scheister reasoning skills," which enable one to "joo" someone out of their money! :jester:
-
Especially the part where he killed himself, super Catholic.
It is not true that, Hitler never killed himself. Where is his body? The Soviet Russians staged the death and you see it was not Hitler in the photographs, and the scene was also altered.
(http://www.blackraiser.com/redoubt/files/port.gif)
-
German women raped during WWII by the Soviets http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsOouDLL_EA
-
German women raped during WWII by the Soviets http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsOouDLL_EA
I saw the video. I also noticed that some trolls came in and posted under comments how somehow it was right to rape German women because the Germans massacred Soviet civilians. Yeah...Didn't Stalin and Lenin murdered and starved 60 million Soviet citizens? :rolleyes: As I said innocent Germans were punished by the Red Army and it was nothing short of the greatest crime against humanity and war terror. It was terrorism.
-
Just finished watching a history channel show, nαzι Collaborators. It was on Croatia and the ustashi. Seems that more than a dozen times it linked "the Catholic Church" with so called war crimes. At the h0Ɩ0cαųst museaum in D.C., a film on 'anti-semitism', it blames the Church for a general culture of of this and Hitler, a 'baptized Catholic" and quotes him as saying "he is only finishing the job the church started" though I defy one docuмent demonstrating a direct link w/ A.H. with the so-called 'h0Ɩ0cαųst'. The whole damn lie is dreamed up by ʝʊdɛօ-masonry(as opposed to my Jєωιѕн buddy Andre', he's just a heretic and not part of the conspiracy) to undermine the church. You know what? much more of this and all I can say is Big deal, so what? to the h0Ɩ0cαųst.
-
I read that all charges and fines had finally been dropped against Bishop Williamson and that he had never withdrawn his comments, only apologized for causing any offense.
-
Just finished watching a history channel show, nαzι Collaborators. It was on Croatia and the ustashi. Seems that more than a dozen times it linked "the Catholic Church" with so called war crimes. At the h0Ɩ0cαųst museaum in D.C., a film on 'anti-semitism', it blames the Church for a general culture of of this and Hitler, a 'baptized Catholic" and quotes him as saying "he is only finishing the job the church started" though I defy one docuмent demonstrating a direct link w/ A.H. with the so-called 'h0Ɩ0cαųst'. The whole damn lie is dreamed up by ʝʊdɛօ-masonry(as opposed to my Jєωιѕн buddy Andre', he's just a heretic and not part of the conspiracy) to undermine the church. You know what? much more of this and all I can say is Big deal, so what? to the h0Ɩ0cαųst.
The Church and Christianity is by definition "antisemitic" as the Jews define it.
I don't see how hard it is for most Christians to conceive this.
You will never, ever convince the Jews of this otherwise, so don't bother trying.
Every Christian's a "Hitler" as far as their concerned. :rolleyes:
-
I read that all charges and fines had finally been dropped against Bishop Williamson and that he had never withdrawn his comments, only apologized for causing any offense.
He should never "apologize" for telling the truth.
Did Jesus?
-
I read that all charges and fines had finally been dropped against Bishop Williamson and that he had never withdrawn his comments, only apologized for causing any offense.
He should never "apologize" for telling the truth.
Did Jesus?
I know what you mean, but if I remember correctly, the way Benedict xvi initially handled it was to say something like, the bishop's comments were impolite. At that point, iirc, bishop williamson said he was sorry if he had been impolite. Seeing as how catholics are "true" israel and israel is, once again, "in bondage," I thought they were handling it pretty well.
Of course, if they were "free men," I'd expect more, but when you live under the lash, sometimes you've got to try to placate your "master," even if he is wrong.
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/-lclaNiaD35M/TtY-rkkxkDI/AAAAAAAAAis/BobyKNuzSYw/16%252520Israel%252520in%252520Bondage%25255B2%25255D.jpg)
-
Just finished watching a history channel show, nαzι Collaborators. It was on Croatia and the ustashi. Seems that more than a dozen times it linked "the Catholic Church" with so called war crimes. At the h0Ɩ0cαųst museaum in D.C., a film on 'anti-semitism', it blames the Church for a general culture of of this and Hitler, a 'baptized Catholic" and quotes him as saying "he is only finishing the job the church started" though I defy one docuмent demonstrating a direct link w/ A.H. with the so-called 'h0Ɩ0cαųst'. The whole damn lie is dreamed up by ʝʊdɛօ-masonry(as opposed to my Jєωιѕн buddy Andre', he's just a heretic and not part of the conspiracy) to undermine the church. You know what? much more of this and all I can say is Big deal, so what? to the h0Ɩ0cαųst.
See Part 1, especially “Jєωιѕн TESTIMONY,” at http://www.catholicvoice.co.uk/pinay/
Intermittently the site is hacked, but the data are still available in book form, data on 2 millennia of "Jєωιѕн Catholic relations." The research was compiled by Vatican archivists who resisted the assault upon the Second Vatican Council. See The Plot Against the Church by Maurice Pinay and Judaism and the Vatican by Vicomte Leon de Poncins, ISBN 9780904656220, both available at the bookstore of
http://www.omnicbc.com
See also:
The Jєωιѕн Role in the Bolshevik Revolution and Russia's Early Soviet Regime: Assessing the Grim Legacy of Soviet Communism by Mark Weber
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p-4_Weber.html
The Prop-Masters–Perpetrators of the h0Ɩ0cαųst against Christian Russia transform themselves into "survivors" of "the h0Ɩ0cαųst
http://revisionisthistory.org/communist.html
“We hate Christianity and the Christians. Even the best amongst them must be considered as our worst enemies. ... Down with love of our neighbours. What we need is hatred. We must learn to hate: this is they way in which we will conquer the world.”
USSR’s 1933 New Anti-Religious Manual in Hill, Kent R. The Puzzle of the Soviet Church. An Inside Look at Christianity & Glasnost. Multnomah Press, Oregon. 1989
http://tinyurl.com/6p7gfgt
-
In another thread:
"6 million"?.... ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha....
Lots of "6,000,000 Jews" stories prior to World War ONE
http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2011/05/lots-of-6000000-jews-stories-prior-to.html
The First h0Ɩ0cαųst: Jєωιѕн Fund Raising Campaigns with h0Ɩ0cαųst Claims During and After World War I by Don Heddesheimer, ISBN-13: 978-1591480037
http://www.amazon.com/First-h0Ɩ0cαųst-Jєωιѕн-Raising-Campaigns/dp/1591480035
The Jews were claiming that "6 million" Jews were killed in World War ONE! ("The Crucifixion of the Jews Must Stop," The American Hebrew, October 31, 1919, p. 582.) You can see a photocopy of the original bogus claim on page 755 of Michael Hoffman's new 1,102 page book Judaism Discovered, ISBN9780970378453, or on Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/0970378459/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_0?ie=UTF8&index=0
http://tinyurl.com/y977p8j
The book also examines the fundamentally racial supremacist and misanthropic tenets of Judaism. It is available at http://www.revisionisthistory.org )
145 references to “6 million” from 1900-1945,
78 of the references before the outbreak of World War 2:
http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/?zx=bff7ab91b4b883b0
The "6 million" number is a number that has magical numerology ("gematria") significance to occultic Judaism's Kabbalists:
Deconstructing Six Million HoloMyths
By Harrell Rhome (a Gnostic)
http://www.rense.com/general82/decon.pdf
The Sacred Nature of Six Million in the Judaic Religion
Why Six Million h0Ɩ0cαųst Victims Cannot be Questioned
by Michael Fishwick, 11th February 2009 (Our Lady of Lourdes).
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=3473
The Kabbalah, gematria, Jєωιѕн Magic & the h0Ɩ0cαųst's sacred 6,000,000
http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2010/06/kabbalah-gematria-Jєωιѕн-magic_228.html?zx=ae5fecb822319271
6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 etc etc: 34 appearances of the Kabbalistic 6,000,000 figure of Jews in the
New York Times from 1869 - 1945 (months before the end of WWII)
http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2011/01/6000000-6000000-6000000-6000000-6000000.html
6,000,000 Jews killed in 136 A.D.: An 1897 "Science of Religion" American magazine, claimed nearly six million Jews were killed in the Bar Kokhba revolt 132-136AD
http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2011/05/6000000-jews-killed-in-136ad.html
“but that must be an anti-Semitic, h0Ɩ0cαųst-denying lie because it is well known that over FOUR BILLION Jews were killed in just the final battle of the Bar Kokhba [the “Messiah”] revolt”:
http://www.halakhah.com/gittin/gittin_57.html#PARTb
http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2010/11/over-four-billion-jews-were-killed-by.html
More obsession with the Kabbalistic number of 6 million: 1932 movie The Symphony of Six Million
“…The cast in this movie is genuine and almost flawless. Gregory Ratoff as the father, Ricardo Cortez (Jacob Krantz) as his son - the doctor, and Noel Madison as the ambitious brother. They are all authentic and they are all Jєωιѕн. I said almost flawless because there is one flaw. Irene Dunne is cast as the love interest. She is a good actress, but she is clearly a shiksa in looks, speech, and mannerism. She stood out like a pork chop amongst the knishes and kugels...
“Note: Although it was entirely unintentional, and could not have been imagined, there is an uncanny connection between the title of this movie and the h0Ɩ0cαųst which came to light a decade later. Six Million.”
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023545/reviews
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0OOuKGDHIE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKSTo3a_Fio
The Torah has a long tradition of lying victimhood. For example, note the typically ridiculous self-reports of victimhood in tractate Gittin 57b of the Torah, the 4 billion (yes, billion) Jews killed by the Romans [Gittin 57b claims Vespasian killed “four hundred thousand myriads” = 400,000 x 10,000 = 4 BILLION] and the 64 million Jєωιѕн children skewered and burned in scrolls by the Romans in one city alone [Gittin 58a claims “400 ѕуηαgσgυєs” each with “400 teachers” and “400 pupils” for each teacher” = 400 x 400 x 400 = 64 million].
http://www.halakhah.com/gittin/gittin_57.html#PARTb
http://www.halakhah.com/gittin/gittin_58.html
ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.... "6 million"? "4 billion"?.... Tell us another funny one.... ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha....
:laugh1: