Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: Matthew on March 15, 2013, 09:34:04 PM
-
This post flabbergasted me:
I have a question, but not about Taize. Do you think that human-animal hybrids would have immortal souls?
It is hard fro me to imagine why you are asking this question, unless it is reference to the non-white kids in the picture. But that can't possibly be correct, since no one who even flirted with being any kind of Catholic could even think such a vulgar, malevolent, and heretical piece of idiocy, let alone post it on a Catholic discussion board for all to see. I am very sure you meant nothing of the kind, but perhaps it would be prudent to explain this comment, since it is not clear what you did mean, at least to me. Thank you.
Why would ANYONE jump to such a ridiculous conclusion?
Has ANYONE on CathInfo -- banned or not -- ever posted such a belief?
"Oh, but they've posted a lot about race, mixing of races, talked about the importance of race, love of one's race, differences in races, the Jєωιѕн question, and some might have even suggested or implied that Whites are near the top of the heap, etc. That makes them Racist, right?"
But some Racists(tm) believe that Indians and Blacks are sub-humans without souls...
THEREFORE, some people on CathInfo believe that!
See the logical fallacy here?
You're applying "racist" in one sense, and connecting it with "racist" in another sense.
I tell you what.
If anyone can find me JUST ONE POST where they say (even in a crafty manner) that certain races don't have a soul, or are sub-human, I will ban that individual (or those individuals) without any questions.
I promise you this before everyone here on CathInfo.
Deal?
-
Please see my response to your PM.
-
Actually I still have no idea what Matto's post was about, and Sigismund's response made more sense than Matto's, in my humble opinion.
-
Not getting involved in the whole race issue.
But that aside, aren't there supposed to be animals in heaven or the afterlife?
How is that even possible if they don't have "souls"?
I'll be honest, I don't know much about that subject but aren't there bible references about animals in the New Heaven or New Earth?
-
Not getting involved in the whole race issue.
But that aside, aren't there supposed to be animals in heaven or the afterlife?
Not to my knowledge.
aren't there supposed to be animals in heaven or the afterlife?How is that even possible if they don't have "souls"?
They could be created in the afterlife by God in the same form as today, with finite souls.
I'll be honest, I don't know much about that subject but aren't there bible references about animals in the New Heaven or New Earth?
I've seen animal lovers defending the notion on other forums, but their theological evidence is scanty. I don't see the need for animals in heaven, we have everything, God. Where would the "animals" stop, you would only have good dogs and horses that don't bite, and no fleas, ticks, mosquitos, sharks, gators? I think the subject is emotional and not reasoned. What we love in animals is a microscopic fragment of what God will give us.
-
I admit my post was silly and strange. I was just thinking about my question from the other post I linked. I am sorry it got misunderstood.
-
Oh, I see 5 people tried (and failed) to find the posts in question!
Frustrating to try and find something that isn't there, eh?
Frustration must have led them to thumb down my post.
I see that of the 5, not a SINGLE ONE OF THEM has any manhood, courage, and/or cajones to critique this post to my face.
Come on, man up! Take on that nαzι, racist ____! Stand up for the truth!
What you have here is just more knee-jerk reacting and emotionalism surrounding race.
See what a great job the Jєωιѕн media has done? We can't even bring up the topic of race without feeling guilty. And no one can discuss it calmly. As soon as the word "Race" is mentioned, most people's brains shut off.
I start a thread stating that we've had no examples of extreme (true?) racism on here -- i.e., hatred of other races, or thinking they are less than human -- as well as a promise to ban any such racists. What kind of reaction would you expect with such a post?
Apparently, a few anonymous, emotion-fueled downvotes.
No rational argument or statements.
-
Curiously, in the first editions of Darwin's book, On the Origin of Species, a
prominent theme was that the negroid race was "less evolved" and that their
appearance more closely resembling primates is BECAUSE of that lower level
of evolution. It was at the VERY ROOT of his thinking from the start, and it was
only culled out in later years by the progressives who could see that by phasing
out that aspect, the bad philosophy of evolution (because it's not science, it's
bad philosophy) would stand a chance for serving a 'greater goal' in the future --
Well, the future is HERE!
Would that we could be so passionate about the Big Lie of evolution!
-
"They could be created in the afterlife by God in the same form as today, with finite souls. "
Yet souls nevertheless and they would be eternal.
"I've seen animal lovers defending the notion on other forums, but their theological evidence is scanty."
Not a big lover of four-footed creatures here myself but there are references about animals in the afterlife or heaven. Not sure what Church doctrine has to say about it, maybe they're silent on the issue.
". I don't see the need for animals in heaven, we have everything, God."
Revelation 19:11 ESV
"Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. "
"Where would the "animals" stop, you would only have good dogs and horses that don't bite, and no fleas, ticks, mosquitos, sharks, gators?"
Well I guess of course it would be heaven so these things wouldn't exist. Just think of the Garden of Eden, there were beasts of the field there but they were harmless and were more or less in harmony with man for which God created these beasts to commune with in some way, they might have even had the capability of speech, hence the Serpent. But I'm sure all forms of violence and survival instincts will be unecessary.
Seems God had intentions of animals to be part of his grand design of nature in some way, I'm sure this could possibly continue in paradise.
Isaiah 65:25 ESV
"The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent's food. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain,” says the Lord."
Of course the bible is full of allegory and symbolism, but that sound pretty cut and dry to me about animals having some kind of role in the afterlife. But like I said, I need to see what or if any of the Church fathers had anything to say on this subject, I'm certainly not an authority or about to go all Sola Scriptura to back up animals in heaven.I need to research more on it.
-
At the risk of derailing Matthew's thread, I might start another one about animals having "souls".
-
Oh, I see 5 people tried (and failed) to find the posts in question!
Frustrating to try and find something that isn't there, eh?
Frustration must have led them to thumb down my post.
I see that of the 5, not a SINGLE ONE OF THEM has any manhood, courage, and/or cajones to critique this post to my face.
Come on, man up! Take on that nαzι, racist ____! Stand up for the truth!
What you have here is just more knee-jerk reacting and emotionalism surrounding race.
See what a great job the Jєωιѕн media has done? We can't even bring up the topic of race without feeling guilty. And no one can discuss it calmly. As soon as the word "Race" is mentioned, most people's brains shut off.
I start a thread stating that we've had no examples of extreme (true?) racism on here -- i.e., hatred of other races, or thinking they are less than human -- as well as a promise to ban any such racists. What kind of reaction would you expect with such a post?
Apparently, a few anonymous, emotion-fueled downvotes.
No rational argument or statements.
You do realize Jєωs, Anti-Racists/Catholics, Leftists, sɛҳuąƖ Devaints and all kinds of abnormals troll boards like these just for the simple oppourtunity to slander and obstruct any real discussion about issues like these don't you?
I wouldn't get too upset about any negative reps, I remember a few years ago when I used to post on another Catholic forum and they had that rating system with pos/neg points on posters and I used to get as ton of negs for merely pointing out the obvious, especially on race or ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ issues, after a while I noticed that anyone on there with a high neg count was usually telling the truth.
And you're correct, they are cowards, outside of throwing neg reps at me, none of them could ever back up any of their accusations I was a "racist" or "nαzι" of some sort, most didn't even try, it's all about baseless slander and character assasination, most of these type lurking in the shadows wouldn't have the guts to say some thing like this to your face in the real world.
-
The reason why I down-thumbed you, Matthew, was because your definition of a "racist" is so narrow that it makes racism essentially non-existent. Of course, finding a post such as you describe would be well-nigh impossible, because a) very few racists believe what you are describing, and b) those that do are not going to blatantly post that, because they would be banned.
Still, we had posters on this forum telling Sigismund that he made a mistake and that he was cruel to his children by "burdening" them with the "stigma" of mixed race. It was also said on that incredibly long mixed race thread that miscegenation was a mortal sin and a form of child abuse. If that is not racist then the fellows over at Stormfront aren't racist either. Neither is the Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan's band of nutjobs.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=22189&min=30&num=5
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=22189&min=45&num=5
Just among some....I don't have time to keep looking.
On a somewhat related note....A lot of my older Irish-American relatives believe that Italians aren't white. Apparently this was a common sentiment at one time among the Irish and German communities. So, should "white" Europeans avoid racially intermixing with Italians?
-
The reason why I down-thumbed you, Matthew, was because your definition of a "racist" is so narrow that it makes racism essentially non-existent. Of course, finding a post such as you describe would be well-nigh impossible, because a) very few racists believe what you are describing, and b) those that do are not going to blatantly post that, because they would be banned.
I never said that was the only or best definition of "racist".
You flunk Reading Comprehension, brainglitch.
For your remedial homework, GO BACK AND RE-READ MY POST and try to let it soak in this time.
What I said was:
No matter what you've seen on CathInfo that you deem "racist" (and I went on to list several definitions), it's still an order of magnitude worse to think that minority races are sub-human.
That's never been expressed on CathInfo before.
And yet Sigismund, by a random coincidence, revealed his thinking on the matter. Namely, that the "racists" he perceives on CathInfo (using a very weak definition of the word, I might add) are the same knuckle-dragging, inbred, toothless, appalachian WASP racist bad guys in countless movies and TV series.
You know, the ones that hate every Injun' they see. The ones that try to run nice black men and/or pregnant black women off the road, because they tried to eat at a white man's cafe, and so forth. (These characters usually wear overalls.)
He's confusing two very, very different things.
And the fact that he would equate someone who values his race highly, to the point of rejecting marriage candidates outside his race (for example) to someone COMMITTING MORTAL SIN by hating others of another race is highly disturbing to my Catholic sensibility.
I could care less about 5 downvotes when I post something controversial. But sometimes it bothers me that people can be so mindless and emotional.
As an aside:
It's stupid to complain about downvotes because of what they do to your score. I never do that. Why is it stupid? Because usually you get several upvotes on that same post -- usually more, unless you really don't belong on CathInfo. And every downvote only costs you 1/3 of a point. Every upvote gains you one whole point.
So the more you post, the more your Rep score goes up. That's how to play the game.
-
At the risk of derailing Matthew's thread, I might start another one about animals having "souls".
Yes, you might do that.
-
Curiously, in the first editions of Darwin's book, On the Origin of Species, a
prominent theme was that the negroid race was "less evolved" and that their
appearance more closely resembling primates is BECAUSE of that lower level
of evolution. It was at the VERY ROOT of his thinking from the start, and it was
only culled out in later years by the progressives who could see that by phasing
out that aspect, the bad philosophy of evolution (because it's not science, it's
bad philosophy) would stand a chance for serving a 'greater goal' in the future --
Well, the future is HERE!
Would that we could be so passionate about the Big Lie of evolution!
I agree. It's hard to see how someone who loses their catholic faith, because of a belief in evolution, would not conclude that man was an animal, who had no immortal soul. Naturally, he would conclude that man was evolved from apes, since we kind of look/act more like apes, than any other animal. Of course, he would conclude that men who bore a greater resemblance to apes, than other men, were sort of more "ape/ape-like," than other men. This of course, would not preclude the conclusion that all men were animals and, in a culture obsessed with egalitarianism, it should see men on an equal plane with mr. tyson's chickens. So, the real horror there is that all men are fair game for "the dinner table," just as any turkey would be in november.
Now contrast this with the traditional catholic belief that all men have an immortal soul and all animals do not have an immortal soul, but merely have a material soul, which ceases to exist, at their death. Thus, there exists, in the traditional catholic mind, a huge chasm between all mankind (regardless of their color/features/prediliction to violence/intelligence) and the animal kingdom (regardless of how loyal they are to their masters/how ugly they are).
-
Not getting involved in the whole race issue.
But that aside, aren't there supposed to be animals in heaven or the afterlife?
How is that even possible if they don't have "souls"?
I'll be honest, I don't know much about that subject but aren't there bible references about animals in the New Heaven or New Earth?
This isn't only a stupid question for kids. When I was young, we had a Scottish Deerhound named Knight and he was an excellent dog. Great!
He lived a long time, and he was old and wise in dog years, when he passed away, and we all missed him very much and even the kids cried. We believed he must have gone to Scottish Deerhound Heaven. How else could it be with such a great companion and friend.
He was a wonderful soul.
Can anybody find a heresy in here? I'll give you a doggie bone if you do.
-
Of course, if one concludes that the material world is all there is, then it stands to reason that men would no longer be entitled to traditional catholic charity/mercy/love from their masters. Thus, authority could take on a menacing quality, which it ordinarily lacked in the catholic world and one might want/be desperate for protection from it.
In a traditional catholic world, all men are God's subjects and hence, no man may harm another man, without God's permission and one may gain God's favor, by helping his fellow man. Once the faith is abandoned, the strong have no apparent reason to fear the consequences of harming the weak. They certainly have little in the way of social consequences. So, it seems reasonable to conclude, at least to me, that the "death" of catholicism in the west, left a void of protection for the weak, which "isms" (like egalitarianism) stepped in to fill. Albeit, pathetically and often, if not usually, backwardly.
-
Of course, if one concludes that the material world is all there is ...
This is one of the secrets of atheism and communism, of course. To deny God is to deny spiritual things and powers. God is pure spirit.
The Incarnation and the story of creation are mysteries that follow.
-
Oh, I see 5 people tried (and failed) to find the posts in question!
Frustrating to try and find something that isn't there, eh?
Frustration must have led them to thumb down my post.
I see that of the 5, not a SINGLE ONE OF THEM has any manhood, courage, and/or cajones to critique this post to my face.
Come on, man up! Take on that nαzι, racist ____! Stand up for the truth!
What you have here is just more knee-jerk reacting and emotionalism surrounding race.
See what a great job the Jєωιѕн media has done? We can't even bring up the topic of race without feeling guilty. And no one can discuss it calmly. As soon as the word "Race" is mentioned, most people's brains shut off.
I start a thread stating that we've had no examples of extreme (true?) racism on here -- i.e., hatred of other races, or thinking they are less than human -- as well as a promise to ban any such racists. What kind of reaction would you expect with such a post?
Apparently, a few anonymous, emotion-fueled downvotes.
No rational argument or statements.
I down thumbed your post by accident. I meant to up thumb it, because, as I acknowledged in my PM to you and should have acknowledged more clearly here, I was wrong in my assumptions about Matto's OP. I tried to correct it my up thumbing it as well, but as you know, that doesn't work. Feel free to delete my down thumb if you like. In fact, I would appreciate it if your would.
And to be absolutely clear, I think a lot of posts on CathInfor deserve the name racist. However, no one, that I know of, has ever suggested that people who are not white are not human.
-
The reason why I down-thumbed you, Matthew, was because your definition of a "racist" is so narrow that it makes racism essentially non-existent. Of course, finding a post such as you describe would be well-nigh impossible, because a) very few racists believe what you are describing, and b) those that do are not going to blatantly post that, because they would be banned.
I never said that was the only or best definition of "racist".
You flunk Reading Comprehension, brainglitch.
For your remedial homework, GO BACK AND RE-READ MY POST and try to let it soak in this time.
What I said was:
No matter what you've seen on CathInfo that you deem "racist" (and I went on to list several definitions), it's still an order of magnitude worse to think that minority races are sub-human.
That's never been expressed on CathInfo before.
And yet Sigismund, by a random coincidence, revealed his thinking on the matter. Namely, that the "racists" he perceives on CathInfo (using a very weak definition of the word, I might add) are the same knuckle-dragging, inbred, toothless, appalachian WASP racist bad guys in countless movies and TV series.
You know, the ones that hate every Injun' they see. The ones that try to run nice black men and/or pregnant black women off the road, because they tried to eat at a white man's cafe, and so forth. (These characters usually wear overalls.)
He's confusing two very, very different things.
And the fact that he would equate someone who values his race highly, to the point of rejecting marriage candidates outside his race (for example) to someone COMMITTING MORTAL SIN by hating others of another race is highly disturbing to my Catholic sensibility.
I could care less about 5 downvotes when I post something controversial. But sometimes it bothers me that people can be so mindless and emotional.
As an aside:
It's stupid to complain about downvotes because of what they do to your score. I never do that. Why is it stupid? Because usually you get several upvotes on that same post -- usually more, unless you really don't belong on CathInfo. And every downvote only costs you 1/3 of a point. Every upvote gains you one whole point.
So the more you post, the more your Rep score goes up. That's how to play the game.
I do not assume that. I misunderstood one post, because I had not seen or simply had forgotten the thread that Matto was referring to. The only explanation I could see was that his comment was referring to something on the thread it was actually posted on. This hardly seems like a crazy leap in logic to me, especially since threads are supposed to stay on topic. I stated in my post that I found it almost impossible to believe that anyone would say such a thing, but that I saw no other explanation. Matto corrected my misunderstanding, while at the same time stating that his post did look a bit odd in context. I said I was relieved to be wrong and glad to see I had misunderstood him.
-
And to be absolutely clear, I think a lot of posts on CathInfor deserve the name racist.
The English Lion -- one great hour of lecture at the London Forum :
Main part: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efD60DhyK0M
Extra Min: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK8zLp6LdL0
During the Questions & Answers part ("extra min") the good bishop says word-for-word:
Liberals are rats!
And to be absolutely clear, Sigismund is a perfect liberal.
-
I do not assume that. I misunderstood one post, because I had not seen or simply had forgotten the thread that Matto was referring to. The only explanation I could see was that his comment was referring to something on the thread it was actually posted on. This hardly seems like a crazy leap in logic to me, especially since threads are supposed to stay on topic. I stated in my post that I found it almost impossible to believe that anyone would say such a thing, but that I saw no other explanation. Matto corrected my misunderstanding, while at the same time stating that his post did look a bit odd in context. I said I was relieved to be wrong and glad to see I had misunderstood him.
Yes, I did see the posts in question.
Without belaboring this issue too much, I'd just like to point out that the thread was about Taize (not the Race thread) and Matto said:
I have a question, but not about Taize. Do you think that human-animal hybrids would have immortal souls?
You then concluded that he was talking about the few black women in the picture. He had just clearly stated that it wasn't about Taize. Most people would have taken the post AND the picture out of their consideration. But apparently you didn't think it was TOO crazy to think that one of the "racists" on CathInfo would be talking about those black ladies when he was asking about "human-animal hybrids having immortal souls". Or you wouldn't have even typed it.
You see, I would never have made that mistake. But then again, I don't believe that a group on CathInfo are a hop, skip and a jump away from being full-fledged KKK members. You do.
I realize Matto's question was a bit random. He even admitted that. I realize it was a misunderstanding. But it shows how serious you think the racism is on CathInfo, and that's disturbing to me.
You said you believe that some here are racists -- I presume you're not referring to anyone I've banned. But I haven't seen any "racists" here that need to go to confession, so to speak.
As I said before, members saying things like:
"I would never marry outside my own race."
"I'd be disappointed if my daughter married outside my race."
"I prefer the company of my own race."
or even a real zinger like
"I believe whites are the second-most intelligent race."
might make them "racist" to you -- but you have to be careful how you throw around that word. Others might think you mean REAL racists -- you know, the kind that HATE others of other races, the ones that would commit crimes against them, burn crosses on their front lawn, consider them less than human, and who are living in a state of mortal sin.
The word "racist" was invented to push an agenda. Go ahead and research it. Try to find something from even the 1950's that uses the term "racist".
-
To clarify, the reason I complained about the 5 downvotes is because I'm running a discussion forum.
It's sad and disturbing for me to see that a subset of the membership is not capable (at least in this particular case I'm observing) of reading, understanding, and carrying on a rational conversation without jingoism, knee-jerk emotionalism, etc.
Because those things are kryptonite for a good discussion, or a good discussion forum.
Those things are what make GOOD MEMBERS bash their heads against the wall, or bang their heads on the keyboard in frustration. They come to CathInfo looking for a rational discussion, and what they get instead is a bunch of emotionalism and hot-button, "loaded word", propaganda-fueled, intellectual blindspots.
-
The reason why I down-thumbed you, Matthew, was because your definition of a "racist" is so narrow that it makes racism essentially non-existent. Of course, finding a post such as you describe would be well-nigh impossible, because a) very few racists believe what you are describing, and b) those that do are not going to blatantly post that, because they would be banned.
Still, we had posters on this forum telling Sigismund that he made a mistake and that he was cruel to his children by "burdening" them with the "stigma" of mixed race. It was also said on that incredibly long mixed race thread that miscegenation was a mortal sin and a form of child abuse. If that is not racist then the fellows over at Stormfront aren't racist either. Neither is the Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan's band of nutjobs.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=22189&min=30&num=5
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=22189&min=45&num=5
Just among some....I don't have time to keep looking.
On a somewhat related note....A lot of my older Irish-American relatives believe that Italians aren't white. Apparently this was a common sentiment at one time among the Irish and German communities. So, should "white" Europeans avoid racially intermixing with Italians?[/quote]
Obviously didn't stop my parents. But there has always been ethnic tensions bewteen Irish and Italians going back a long way in this country, mostly because they were in competition on many levels in the big cities so they were slugging it out trying to rise above the tide and create a better world for them and their descendants. Although there might have been some racial epithets thrown around through the years, the animosity was purely ethinc. Also they were both predominately Catholic so therer were some common bonds between the two people.
Now the Irish were really kicked around in the old days, they weren't even considered "white" by the ruling class of British and European prots that ran this nation when it first started. Any form of "racism" that is percieved on here I believe is strictly a Protestant creation, they were the ones that believed in owning black slaves and really considered themselves superior to some of the lower races.
-
Matthew,
Would you consider the statements that I mentioned to be racist?
Still, we had posters on this forum telling Sigismund that he made a mistake and that he was cruel to his children by "burdening" them with the "stigma" of mixed race. It was also said on that incredibly long mixed race thread that miscegenation was a mortal sin and a form of child abuse.
Miscegenation a mortal sin? Sigismund guilty of child abuse because his children are mixed race? if that isn't racist, what is?
-
That the enlightened micks and mick krauts alike look down upon the swarthy terrone hardly makes a Sicilian out to be a sub-Saharan.
-
Oh, I see 5 people tried (and failed) to find the posts in question!
Frustrating to try and find something that isn't there, eh?
Frustration must have led them to thumb down my post.
I see that of the 5, not a SINGLE ONE OF THEM has any manhood, courage, and/or cajones to critique this post to my face.
Come on, man up! Take on that nαzι, racist ____! Stand up for the truth!
What you have here is just more knee-jerk reacting and emotionalism surrounding race.
See what a great job the Jєωιѕн media has done? We can't even bring up the topic of race without feeling guilty. And no one can discuss it calmly. As soon as the word "Race" is mentioned, most people's brains shut off.
I start a thread stating that we've had no examples of extreme (true?) racism on here -- i.e., hatred of other races, or thinking they are less than human -- as well as a promise to ban any such racists. What kind of reaction would you expect with such a post?
Apparently, a few anonymous, emotion-fueled downvotes.
No rational argument or statements.
I down thumbed your post by accident. I meant to up thumb it, because, as I acknowledged in my PM to you and should have acknowledged more clearly here, I was wrong in my assumptions about Matto's OP. I tried to correct it my up thumbing it as well, but as you know, that doesn't work. Feel free to delete my down thumb if you like. In fact, I would appreciate it if your would.
And to be absolutely clear, I think a lot of posts on CathInfor deserve the name racist. However, no one, that I know of, has ever suggested that people who are not white are not human.
Perhaps you could give us a clear definition of what you consider "white" in your belief system.
Because I really can't come up with one these days.
Of course, it always seems like Liberals, Leftists and anti-racists love tossing that word around, they use it more than any costume wearing neo-nαzι or klan-klown ever dreamed of.
-
Sigismund guilty of child abuse because his children are mixed race?
I'm not making any attempt to answer your question, but who said this?
-
The enlightened micks and mick krauts alike look down on the swarthy terrone hardly turns a Sicilian into a sub-Saharan.
Yea, yea I've heard it all growing up about why Italian don't have freckles and the difference between and Italian and a Negro all baseless stupid references. Most of those stupid Micks don't even know the difference between a North African Berber and a Sub-Saharan Bantu. at least the Germans have some conception of history and could locate Africa on a globe, but the poor,obnoxious, shanty Irish could be the worst sometimes, I'd have to remind them from time to time that while the Italians were establishing the world's greatest civilization their Celtic ancestors were running around the green hills in loincloths and worshipping trees and engaging in human sacrifice. Of course they're cluelss about their own history as well.
-
Yea, yea I've heard it all growing up about why Italian don't have freckles and the difference
between and Italian and a Negro all baseless stupid references. Most of those stupid Micks
As someone who is 50 percent Irish, I resent that! And on St. Patrick's day of all days! :surprised:
:jester:
-
Yea, yea I've heard it all growing up about why Italian don't have freckles and the difference
between and Italian and a Negro all baseless stupid references. Most of those stupid Micks
As someone who is 50 percent Irish, I resent that! And on St. Patrick's day of all days! :surprised:
:jester:
My old dear grandma hailed from County Cork and today's me birthday me-boy, so I get a free pass to take a few cheap shots at a few of them bastard sons of Erin that abused me oh those many years ago. :mad:
-
Yea, yea I've heard it all growing up about why Italian don't have freckles and the difference between and Italian and a Negro all baseless stupid references. Most of those stupid Micks don't even know the difference between a North African Berber and a Sub-Saharan Bantu. at least the Germans have some conception of history and could locate Africa on a globe, but the poor,obnoxious, shanty Irish could be the worst sometimes, I'd have to remind them from time to time that while the Italians were establishing the world's greatest civilization their Celtic ancestors were running around the green hills in loincloths and worshipping trees and engaging in human sacrifice. Of course they're cluelss about their own history as well.
The Irish monks did save Western civilization by saving a lot of the classical works of Greece and Roime after the Roman Empire fell.
I am not Italian at all, I'm mostly German and about 1/4 Irish but you're right the Italians have quite a cultural past as well. I mean there's of course the Roman Republic and Roman Empire, there's Dante and Michelangelo, etc.
-
Try to find something from even the 1950's that uses the term "racist".
Catholic Herald, 11th June 1937:
...When Christianity ceased to be the leading cultural influence in Germany, the way for the new racism was open...
Catholic Herald, 25th February 1938:
In these days of racism run crazy, of nationalism erected into a faith, of Jєω baiting and anti-Semitism, it is a comfort to come across the life of a great and saintly Jєω, convert, priest and founder of a missionary congregation.
Catholic Herald, 22nd July 1938:
But in Italy more direct means may be expected, in view of the fact that Anti-Semitism has existed there for a considerable time, and after the publication, a few days ago, of a docuмent drawn up by a commission of University Professsors, and published in the Giornale d'Italia on the subject of Racism,...
Catholic Herald, 25th November 1938:
Cardinal van Roey, Primate of Belgium, has refuted the racist theories of the totalitarian states....
And there's plenty more in the Catholic Herald archive (search=racism) (http://archive.catholicherald.co.uk/search?term=racism&sort=date).
-
Oh come on everyone knows the Catholic Herald was doing good old propaganda for the dear old Brits.
Only the British and Americans really obsessed over "racism" and "anti-Semitism" in those days in other countries while the Brits were keeping an empire of their own subjugating Africans and Indians. And we all know how philo-Semetic Britain was. One only has to look at Churchill.
Hypocrites.
-
So the term "anti-Semitic" goes way back.
Ok, so maybe I need to change my "1940's" to "1920's".
Anyhow, I posted quite a bit on "race" today, and I'm a bit "raced" out.
-
Anyhow, I posted quite a bit on "race" today, and I'm a bit "raced" out.
It's getting a bit racy round here!
-
So the term "anti-Semitic" goes way back.
Ok, so maybe I need to change my "1940's" to "1920's".
Anyhow, I posted quite a bit on "race" today, and I'm a bit "raced" out.
The term "racist" was coined by leftists, and for fellow travellers like Clare, her attitudes on those subjects dear to the hearts of leftists are the real foundation of her beliefs. She cares far more about that - and for comparing people who believe what typical Catholic believed before Vatican II to "nαzιs" than for Catholic teaching. (eg on marriage (as her apology for Vox and Quis, never retracted, proves), on Catholic teaching against Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, against Judaism, etc)
-
Try to find something from even the 1950's that uses the term "racist".
Catholic Herald, 11th June 1937:
...When Christianity ceased to be the leading cultural influence in Germany, the way for the new racism was open...
Catholic Herald, 25th February 1938:
In these days of racism run crazy, of nationalism erected into a faith, of Jєω baiting and anti-Semitism, it is a comfort to come across the life of a great and saintly Jєω, convert, priest and founder of a missionary congregation.
Catholic Herald, 22nd July 1938:
But in Italy more direct means may be expected, in view of the fact that Anti-Semitism has existed there for a considerable time, and after the publication, a few days ago, of a docuмent drawn up by a commission of University Professsors, and published in the Giornale d'Italia on the subject of Racism,...
Catholic Herald, 25th November 1938:
Cardinal van Roey, Primate of Belgium, has refuted the racist theories of the totalitarian states....
And there's plenty more in the Catholic Herald archive (search=racism) (http://archive.catholicherald.co.uk/search?term=racism&sort=date).
Care,
Bravo!
Alaric,
I would define white as someone of European descent.
-
To clarify, the reason I complained about the 5 downvotes is because I'm running a discussion forum.
It's sad and disturbing for me to see that a subset of the membership is not capable (at least in this particular case I'm observing) of reading, understanding, and carrying on a rational conversation without jingoism, knee-jerk emotionalism, etc.
Because those things are kryptonite for a good discussion, or a good discussion forum.
Those things are what make GOOD MEMBERS bash their heads against the wall, or bang their heads on the keyboard in frustration. They come to CathInfo looking for a rational discussion, and what they get instead is a bunch of emotionalism and hot-button, "loaded word", propaganda-fueled, intellectual blindspots.
Matthew,
Your criticism of those who thumbed you down (of which I am not a member) can easily and validly be applied to the some members who gave you a thumbs up.
Your original post in this thread disheartens me. I do not know whether or not anyone on this forum has ever made comments like the one you challenged your critics to find. However, posing this question draws the attention away from the fact that a vocal portion of the regularly posting members of CathInfo hold views so gross that one can only behold with wonderment that they have the audacity to post them in public for the world to view. Even if one may vaguely agree with some fundamental parts of their position, so violent is their expression of it and so abhorrent are the conclusions to which they take it, one cannot do less than shun them and wonder with helpless horror at how one could share anything in common with such men, much less share the same Holy, Catholic universal Faith, which unites all men and nations in the same bonds of Christian charity.
I say this as one who is among the likely few members of this forum that has any legitimate claim to "pure" racial ancestry, and one who does not have any particular desire or need to marry outside of his race. I have always offered words of caution and reservation to those who would violently and indiscriminately mix together diverse cultures with no regard for, or discernment of, the conflicting and volatile components of each respective culture. However, as I have elsewhere said, there are members who will seemingly espouse innocent views similar to mine and yet, because the premises on which they base them differ from my own intentions, will extrapolate these views and reach conclusions that I can only regard with revulsion. The most recent thread on the issue of mixed race marriages is too explicit of this point - even if I failed to sufficiently defend my position through a lack of eloquence and detailed argument on my part, it seems that the responses that my posts provoked were evidence enough of this principle.
I do not criticize this forum's management. I have always been fond of your rather "hands-off" approach to moderating this forum - I find therein many elements that echo ideals of Taoist philosophy of government, i.e., that of non-action. However, this forum has become a place that is seemingly hostile to "non-Aryan" (and I use this word with the utmost contempt and ridicule, since the idea of a unified "white race" is as absurd as a unified "Asian race") cultures and therefore, members. To such extent that I regard any future participation on this forum to be an affront to my own dignity and a disgrace to my ancestors. To continue to participate on this forum in good will while other members openly declare my culture and people to be inferior to their own is nothing short of silent acceptance of their debasement of my people and contempt for my culture. I consulted the advice of one of my fellow countrymen who, after reading the thread in question, agreed strongly with this sentiment, adding only that were he in my position, he would not have been so patient and polite when addressing those who held our culture in such contempt. Knowing now the opinions others on this forum, I regretfully regard as pearls cast before swine any part of my culture that I have shared on this forum, in so far as it has been received as nothing more than the unwanted, left-over refuse of pagan land as yet unenlightened by white men. If I could describe the pain and anger which some of the comments that there interjected by other members in between my posts in this last thread has caused me, I know not how to express such swelling emotions of indignation and sorrow in the English language. The closest anecdote that comes to mind is the defiance with which a Vietnamese general rejected the bribe of an invading Mongol ruler: "I would rather be made a devil of the South than a king in the North." Yet even this does not suffice. The English language, a tongue which my ancestors described as a language of foreign devils and barbarians, cannot do justice to fiery rage that courses through my veins when I see my culture put to such public shame. In the face of such indignation, my forefathers would have sworn on heaven and earth and carved it into their bones, not to rest nor allow anything to quench their rage or satiate their desire for retribution until they would snap and crush the bones and drink the blood of such offenders against their fatherland and ancestors.
I am well aware that only a portion of the forum's posting population espouses the views that I find objectionable in this area. However, so vocal are they and so unopposed is their support that I now feel utterly alone and voiceless on this forum when defending my culture. Even the one member who shares anything of a semblance of common heritage with me has been willfully entered into alliance with those very men who regard our ancestry with the utmost revilement. I can only sadly murmur with defeated resignation, "And you as well, Brutus?".
My people have often counseled the angry, "Persevere for a moment and the waves will die down and the wind will quiet. Take one step back and suddenly you will realize the spaciousness of the heavens and the sea."
Perhaps the time has come for me to take a step back.
-
To such extent that I regard any future participation on this forum to be an affront to my own dignity and a disgrace to my ancestors. To continue to participate on this forum in good will while other members openly declare my culture and people to be inferior to their own is nothing short of silent acceptance of their debasement of my people and contempt for my culture
That is childish and shows hyper-sensitivity.
-
When one sees the way minorities react to whites expressing any sort of ethnic self-interest, the response is one of arrogant contempt and even the denial that such a thing as a white race exists. (which is pure sophistry)
These people have learned well the arrogance they have been taught to adopt. In their world view, whites are supposed to make way for them in their own country.
Their own people are ten times more ethnocentric and more resentful of aliens in their own country than we are of them.
There is the sanctimonious "taking of offense" - the suggestion that we hold his country and people in contempt. Simply because we speak frankly.
Yes, there is a real difference in the way of thinking, and that is why the cultures are not compatible.
-
Matthew,
...
I consulted the advice of one of my fellow countrymen who, after reading the thread in question, agreed strongly with this sentiment, adding only that were he in my position, he would not have been so patient and polite when addressing those who held our culture in such contempt. Knowing now the opinions others on this forum, I regretfully regard as pearls cast before swine any part of my culture that I have shared on this forum, in so far as it has been received as nothing more than the unwanted, left-over refuse of pagan land as yet unenlightened by white men. If I could describe the pain and anger which some of the comments that there interjected by other members in between my posts in this last thread has caused me, I know not how to express such swelling emotions of indignation and sorrow in the English language. The closest anecdote that comes to mind is the defiance with which a Vietnamese general rejected the bribe of an invading Mongol ruler: "I would rather be made a devil of the South than a king in the North." Yet even this does not suffice. The English language, a tongue which my ancestors described as a language of foreign devils and barbarians, cannot do justice to fiery rage that courses through my veins when I see my culture put to such public shame. In the face of such indignation, my forefathers would have sworn on heaven and earth and carved it into their bones, not to rest nor allow anything to quench their rage or satiate their desire for retribution until they would snap and crush the bones and drink the blood of such offenders against their fatherland and ancestors.
I am well aware that only a portion of the forum's posting population espouses the views that I find objectionable in this area. However, so vocal are they and so unopposed is their support that I now feel utterly alone and voiceless on this forum when defending my culture. Even the one member who shares anything of a semblance of common heritage with me has been willfully entered into alliance with those very men who regard our ancestry with the utmost revilement. I can only sadly murmur with defeated resignation, "And you as well, Brutus?".
My people have often counseled the angry, "Persevere for a moment and the waves will die down and the wind will quiet. Take one step back and suddenly you will realize the spaciousness of the heavens and the sea."
Perhaps the time has come for me to take a step back.
As I said in another thread, I have resolved not to beg, cajole, or try to force people to stay members at CathInfo. If you think you can do better alone (no online Catholic friends or discussion), or with a forum like Fisheaters or one of those various "120 member" forums, be my guest. It's a free country.
That having been said, it does seem a bit childish to let 1 or 2 members make you so livid with rage that you feel you need to leave the entire forum. Isn't that why I created the Ignore feature? I would counsel you to simply avoid threads dealing with the topic of "race", just as most Catholics should avoid salacious news stories where the headline mentions "sex". If certain topics are dead-ends, or lead to problems (for some people, it's threads dealing with "sedevacantism"), it's wise to avoid them.
The members you speak of -- you sound like you're ready to disembowel them with your teeth. I think you're giving too much leash to your emotions and national pride -- isn't that precisely what you're criticizing certain "white supremacists" for doing? If you're letting national pride make you livid with rage or filled with hatred -- that sinful, you know. Just like it's sinful for 2 Arkansas hicks in a pickup truck to hate black people enough to try to run a black man off the road, or to beat him almost to death.
Is it only Whites that can give excessive importance to race or their own people? I'm sure any other race can fall into that trap as well.
You've certainly shown that Whites don't have a monopoly on race-fueled hatred.
One thing I want you to think about: Those proverbial "hicks" like you see in so many TV shows and movies -- what do you suppose motivated THEM to hate black people? Maybe they felt their own culture was in danger, or being belittled? You know, the same line of thought that you've described above?
(I'm not defending these proverbial hicks, of course -- I'm just doing this as an exercise -- to show you where your thinking leads)
Imagine if a bunch of white people -- filled with pride in their race -- settled in Vietnam and starting having lots of children. I could imagine someone with the mindset you describe (above) getting in that pickup truck and trying to run them off the road. Or burning some symbol in their front yard that means "go home white man". Etc.
Let's face it -- you're basically describing white-hot hatred, wounded pride, and frustration. That's what fuels all racial conflicts.
-
When one sees the way minorities react to whites expressing any sort of ethnic self-interest, the response is one of arrogant contempt and even the denial that such a thing as a white race exists. (which is pure sophistry)
These people have learned well the arrogance they have been taught to adopt. In their world view, whites are supposed to make way for them in their own country.
Their own people are ten times more ethnocentric and more resentful of aliens in their own country than we are of them.
There is the sanctimonious "taking of offense" - the suggestion that we hold his country and people in contempt. Simply because we speak frankly.
Yes, there is a real difference in the way of thinking, and that is why the cultures are not compatible.
Yes, I've become very suspicious of nonwhites, in general, in trad Catholic circles. Because almost all of them side with Jєωs against whites. I never side with Jєωs against nonwhites. But they frequently side with Jєωs against us.
You know, people laugh at roscoe for saying that there's no such thing as racism, but there'a lot of truth to that. Either everyone is a racist or no one is a racist. Right?
-
Yes, I've become very suspicious of nonwhites, in general, in trad Catholic circles. Because almost all of them side with Jєωs against whites.
Really? I haven't had that experience. I think the problem is more generational. Most younger people just don't get it. There are exceptions, but the overall trend is disturbing. The mass propagandists have never been more effective or insidious.
I never side with Jєωs against nonwhites. But they frequently side with Jєωs against us.
The Jєωs support the mass migration of minorities, even of Muslims, because they know that foreigners will readily accept the contemptuous view of American ethnics that they have carefully cultivated for decades now. They will vote Democrat because they perceive "white Christians" to be backward inferiors they've been invited to supplant.
You know, people laugh at roscoe for saying that there's no such thing as racism, but there'a lot of truth to that. Either everyone is a racist or no one is a racist. Right?
It seems sometimes that only whites (especially northern whites) are ingenuous enough to believe whole-heartedly in color-blindness.
Racial chauvinism will always exist, except among those who are being dispossessed. The people without any racial chauvinism whatsoever will not last long.
-
As i understand it, traditional catholicism did not teach that men were "materially equal," only that they were "spiritually equal."
-
Really? I haven't had that experience. I think the problem is more generational. Most younger people just don't get it. There are exceptions, but the overall trend is disturbing. The mass propagandists have never been more effective or insidious.
Well I think that anyone who has PC views on race is a type of Noahide. So I think it's fair to accuse people who hold whites to different standards regarding race as being, in effect, servants of the Jєωs. Do you think that is too simple minded?
The Jєωs support the mass migration of minorities, even of Muslims, because they know that foreigners will readily accept the contemptuous view of American ethnics that they have carefully cultivated for decades now. They will vote Democrat because they perceive "white Christians" to be backward inferiors they've been invited to supplant.
Yes.
It seems sometimes that only whites (especially northern whites) are ingenuous enough to believe whole-heartedly in color-blindness.
Racial chauvinism will always exist, except among those who are being dispossessed. The people without any racial chauvinism whatsoever will not last long.
I go with the idea that everyone is racist, so there's no need for the term to exist. I think to say that some people are racist and some aren't is false. I think that's what roscoe means when he says racism doesn't exist.
-
Also, it seems obvious from things like dog breeding, that different breeds have different qualities.
-
Well I think that anyone who has PC views on race is a type of Noahide.
I think that depends. There are a lot of naive people who hold views on race that are PC.
However, people who are familiar with these forums are not typically naive about the world. Not as naive as they pretend.
So I think it's fair to accuse people who hold whites to different standards regarding race as being, in effect, servants of the Jєωs. Do you think that is too simple minded?
Yes, it is a bit, because it isn't even something people do consciously anymore. To be honest, in some respects, I am probably more politically correct than I should be with respect to race, without even knowing it. Just as I am probably more feminist than I should be.
I try to use reason though to determine positions.
We need to have some patience with people in the general culture who don't get it. We won't get through to them by telling them they're controlled by Jєωs. We have to be more subtle than that.
People on these forums though, generally know the score, if they side with the post-68 view on race, it's a conscious decision. They know they're taking sides, and why they're doing it.
-
People on these forums though, generally know the score, if they side with the post-68 view on race, it's a conscious decision. They know they're taking sides, and why they're doing it.
Could you elaborate a bit?
I often feel like I don't know the 'score' on this subject.
I always feel like the last guy to show up at a dinner party on the trad discussion of "race," (particularly a particular race), who doesn't get all the 'in jokes' or references, or every subject has been talked about already and no one wants to rehash anything.
It is difficult to find reliable information to inform myself about this subject as well, due to both active and passive forms of censorship, otherwise I wouldn't bother you with this request.
If you prefer, a PM is of course fine.
-
There are obviously some people to whom it doesn't apply.
However, people who have posted on sites like this for years are familiar with the issues.
If you never see them discuss ʝʊdɛօ-masonry and if they get up in arms over very mild views about race, then it is because they think those views are "out there." They certainly know what Catholics of the past thought though. So why do they want to go along with the post-68 narrative?
Well, they want to be modern and accepted and they just don't understand what's going on, and what's at stake, or they think it's too late, or not worth the trouble, or certain ideas about race seem personally threatening to them. (which sometimes they might be)
-
Matthew,
Would you consider the statements that I mentioned to be racist?
Still, we had posters on this forum telling Sigismund that he made a mistake and that he was cruel to his children by "burdening" them with the "stigma" of mixed race. It was also said on that incredibly long mixed race thread that miscegenation was a mortal sin and a form of child abuse.
Miscegenation a mortal sin? Sigismund guilty of child abuse because his children are mixed race? if that isn't racist, what is?
Those are not racist. Racist is when someone believes that their race is superior to another race. If you believe miscegenation is a mortal sin then that is not racist. But it is wrong.
You can't really say that racial segregation is racist either. It is possible that the people behind segregation are doing it because they believe their race is superior. In which case you could say that these people are racist. But segregation in and of itself is not racism. I actually see some use for it if it meant preserving the European culture and way of life. If it were being implemented for this reason, it would not be racism. It is possible that it could be ethnocentrism, but even then just because you want to preserve your culture, race, and way of life does not necessarily mean you think your culture is superior.
-
That's just one definition of "Racist".
It could also be defined as a mortal sin whereby one hates others because of their race.
If one excludes certain races from those whom we should be charitable to, that is serious business for a Catholic.
The problem with the term "racist" is that it means different things to different people. The long and short of it: It causes confusion.
-
When one sees the way minorities react to whites expressing any sort of ethnic self-interest, the response is one of arrogant contempt and even the denial that such a thing as a white race exists. (which is pure sophistry)
These people have learned well the arrogance they have been taught to adopt. In their world view, whites are supposed to make way for them in their own country.
Their own people are ten times more ethnocentric and more resentful of aliens in their own country than we are of them.
There is the sanctimonious "taking of offense" - the suggestion that we hold his country and people in contempt. Simply because we speak frankly.
Yes, there is a real difference in the way of thinking, and that is why the cultures are not compatible.
If it is one Jєω I might agree with on some things its this guy...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zq8wvG7p1c4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K88njLoYVgc
-
That's just one definition of "Racist".
It could also be defined as a mortal sin whereby one hates others because of their race.
If one excludes certain races from those whom we should be charitable to, that is serious business for a Catholic.
The problem with the term "racist" is that it means different things to different people. The long and short of it: It causes confusion.
I think most of the time when people make racist claims it is more of a racial discrimination issue. Not really racism.
Even then though I think it goes too far. People abuse the race card way too much.
-
You've certainly shown that Whites don't have a monopoly on race-fueled hatred.
Hatred?
Please cite my posts that have led you to make this insinuation.
I have never glorified my race or culture blindly and have been extremely critical of its failings on numerous occasions. I have never failed to call to attention to the Oriental's propensity to deceit and conspiring. Nor have I failed to mention that Vietnamese in particular are especially fond of back-stabbing and sowing disunity among their own people. I have never shirked away from conceding that failings on part of Oriental men lead to many societal problems in the Orient, including widespread ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity among both sexes and Oriental women marrying foreigners. Even with my profound reverence for the philosophy of my forefathers I have not failed to admit that its human perfection has led many to a hardness of heart that refused to allow the seeds of the Gospel to be sown among them.
Conversely, I have never failed to lavish glowing praise on Western civilization, particularly in the arts. I have exposed my most intimate feelings to the forum and declared that the music of the West has provided me with solace through many a difficulty -and this on several occasions. I have not failed to recommend, based on personal experience, the writings of Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, and Seneca to those in difficulty and doubt.
I am thoroughly immersed in the fine arts of Western culture whereas many of my critics quite frankly don't know a thing about my culture other than what they can scramble to look up on Wikipedia five minutes before they reply to my posts.
Where is the hate?
Where are my equivalent statements to those made such as insinuations that Western men are "superior" and more attractive than Oriental men? Where is my equivalent statement to a flat out declaration that my culture is inferior to that of the West and that the presence of secular French imperialists improved my people materially and spiritually? Where is my equivalent statement to a disgusting, vile, and abominable insinuation that I am not to be trusted as a sincere Catholic, but to be regarded as a lackey of the ѕуηαgσgυє simply because I am not white?
Where among my critics is the admission of failings on behalf of their own race? Or is all we see externalizing problems and projecting them on "minorities"? Why does everyone have it in for this "victim" "white" race (hmm....sounds familiar)? Where among my critics is a mutual respect for my culture, which is just as ancient, venerable, and deserving of it as is their own? Or are we just a bunch of backwards half-converted pagans owing anything good attributable to us to the charity of white men fulfilling their burden in "civilizing" us?
-
Vladimir you're a very bright guy, and yes you're right that you didn't show hatred of whites. But you certainly showed a great deal of resentment of what was said.
Some of it is tactless, some of it is foolish, but you're overreacting and misrepresenting what has been said.
As for whites being victims: yes, they have definitely been victims. The wars of the last two centuries, with the ongoing cultural and religious war of the past 50 years which has become more pernicious by the year.
You need to lighten up and realize no one here has anything against you or your people.
-
Vladimir, I can't speak for what everyone on CathInfo has ever posted.
Also, I have no problem with what you said in your first few paragraphs. I agree with those.
To answer your post:
I would mention in passing that even if someone insulted your people, you should recall that anyone taking to the Internet for online discussions needs to prepare himself a skin somewhat thicker than 1/2 a millimeter.
This quote of yours sounds tantamount to hatred:
If I could describe the pain and anger which some of the comments that there interjected by other members in between my posts in this last thread has caused me, I know not how to express such swelling emotions of indignation and sorrow in the English language. The closest anecdote that comes to mind is the defiance with which a Vietnamese general rejected the bribe of an invading Mongol ruler: "I would rather be made a devil of the South than a king in the North." Yet even this does not suffice. The English language, a tongue which my ancestors described as a language of foreign devils and barbarians, cannot do justice to fiery rage that courses through my veins when I see my culture put to such public shame. In the face of such indignation, my forefathers would have sworn on heaven and earth and carved it into their bones, not to rest nor allow anything to quench their rage or satiate their desire for retribution until they would snap and crush the bones and drink the blood of such offenders against their fatherland and ancestors.
(Emphasis mine)
I just said you seemed to have "race-fueled" hatred, as in hatred borne of race issues (whether those feelings are offensive or defensive in nature).
You know, my own ancestors were pagans, and I certainly don't glory in German pre-Christian barbaric culture, nor the ancient Celtic paganism of my other forefathers. They were mercifully brought into higher forms of civilization as well as the True Faith by missionaries, thanks be to God.
Does it really matter who does what job, as long as we're all serving the Living God?
And does it matter if your people have been Catholic for 1 century, 5 centuries, or 19 centuries? How does that reflect on YOU personally? Is Jacques Publique (the Frenchman) somehow better than Juan Quetzalcoatl (the South American Indian) because the former's Catholic culture goes back several more centuries?
Not at all! They're both Catholic men alive today, working out their own salvation with fear and trembling, trying to do God's will.
And you know, we can compare the tonal quality of the various instruments in God's orchestra all we want -- the fact of the matter is, an Irishman or Frenchman doesn't have any easier of a time saving his soul than a Filipino or an African.
I do believe the challenges are different -- each race provides its members a different set of challenges to overcome in the conquest of self (so that God can be served).
-
Matthew,
I have been hitherto largely silent on these matters, except to offer bits of anecdotal experience here and there where they might have shed a light on new angles on other people's thread. There are a few exceptions where I started the thread myself. Prior to the latest inter-racial marriage thread, the only seemingly inflamed post I made on this subject was in response to a post by brotherfrancis75 and even in that case the ensuing dialogue was polite, well-measured, and generally pleasant (I can at least speak for my own impressions). Were I too thin-skinned, I certainly would have had no shortage of opportunities to reveal it in the past.
Your critique of that portion of my post is valid. It is was indeed an inflammatory and derisive attack on the English language which I included precisely to show that the contempt with which some look down on my culture can easily flow both ways. Interestingly, the part of my post that follows that statement actually illustrates my point that I can't even find the right words to articulate my feelings in English, since that part about snapping bones and drinking blood sounds horribly sadistic when translated (it is actually an established saying in my language). Nevertheless, I would think that anyone familiar with my posts would realize that such a caustic criticism of the English language was largely rhetorical, especially coming from someone who has discussed issues pertaining to early English typography, Samuel Johnson, and the delicacy and lyric pathos of Sara Teasdale's poetry in the past. Anyone reading my posts (at least those few that are somewhat thought out and orderly) can detect therein a fondness for the quirkiness of the English language and the liberality of creative expression and colorful syntax with which it endows the writer.
I agree with the remainder of your post. Other members have stated that my culture is inferior because it was exposed to Catholicism at a late date. I think what you argue on a personal level is equally applicable on a cultural level. The Jєωs were intimately connected with the Old Covenant, yet look where they are today. The Gentile nations were reviled under the Old Law yet inherited the glory of the New Covenant. St. Paul stood last among those to convert, yet first in merit. Why then insist that European culture is superior simply because the light of faith first enlightened its borders? More so now, since today the light of the faith has all but been extinguished in the West.
And no, I don't have some sort of jealous inferiority complex because Divine Providence deigned for Europeans to evangelize the Orient and not the opposite. I have always praised holy men like Matteo Ricci and Alexandre de Rhodes with the utmost respect and honor. What I have an issue with is people using these historical examples regarding religious matters to assert the cultural superiority of the West. If one studies the journals of these early missionaries, one will find that they overflowed with praise of Oriental culture.
Telesphorus,
I am not sure how it is possible to misunderstand a plain statement that my culture is inferior to that of the West.
If I have misrepresented anyone, then I apologize. But I have thus far seen little evidence to suggest that the admiration and respect in which I hold Western culture goes both ways. And indeed, if it turns out that others do not see my appreciation of Western culture as coming from a person of a culture of equal standing, but rather as the subservient sycophancy of an uncivilized pagan gazing up towards his superior, then I will be quick to voice my critiques of Western culture and reaffirm my allegiance to my own. This is of course, a shortcoming that I have found in many of my critics - namely, that while I am able to (and indeed, frequently am required to) shift comfortably between Eastern and Western cultures and understand/sympathize with both (to varying degrees), my critics are often woefully ignorant of my own culture which they criticize superficially, and indeed often of their own.
-
People on these forums though, generally know the score, if they side with the post-68 view on race, it's a conscious decision. They know they're taking sides, and why they're doing it.
Could you elaborate a bit?
I often feel like I don't know the 'score' on this subject.
I always feel like the last guy to show up at a dinner party on the trad discussion of "race," (particularly a particular race), who doesn't get all the 'in jokes' or references, or every subject has been talked about already and no one wants to rehash anything.
It is difficult to find reliable information to inform myself about this subject as well, due to both active and passive forms of censorship, otherwise I wouldn't bother you with this request.
If you prefer, a PM is of course fine.
Me to a "T", Iuvenalis.
In this respect, Vladimir, may I ask what is "your race or culture" ?
(I'm relatively new to the forum)
Initially I deduced from your forum name that you were eastern rite, but I think I'm mistaken.
Thank you!
-
It's my impression that it was Europeans who brought Catholicism to The Orient. It is also my impression that Europeans brought Catholicism to Indians and Africans as well. Thus, it would appear that Europeans, with few exceptions, brought the light of Catholicism to The World. I should think that folks would be grateful for this, but apparently that would require a humility, which appears to be rare. So, European Catholics may be proud of it, but with few exceptions, no one else is.
-
It's my impression that it was Europeans who brought Catholicism to The Orient. It is also my impression that Europeans brought Catholicism to Indians and Africans as well. Thus, it would appear that Europeans, with few exceptions, brought the light of Catholicism to The World.
Well, God's will, not their will.
I should think that folks would be grateful for this, but apparently that would require a humility, which appears to be rare. So, European Catholics may be proud of it, but with few exceptions, no one else is.
Perhaps they are thankful to God, from whom that Grace ultimately flowed.
None of us are suitable, deserving conduits of our Lord when we are, so the cooperation with God's Grace and salvific plan should not be an occasion of pride. Quite the opposite, it should help us to realize our own unworthiness to be chosen by God.
-
I am not sure how it is possible to misunderstand a plain statement that my culture is inferior to that of the West.
I'm trying to understand how someone could become so upset at such a statement. Statements justifying French colonialism, on the other hand, could be more offensive.
Being of Irish and German extraction, and yes, being American, means being exposed to far more insulting things than were said about the Vietnamese here all the time. We're inured to it. When someone speaks of the Irish needing to go back under the British crown, or being drunks, or when someone makes another stale remark about Germans and WWII, it's just normal life, it's not something to be offended about.
When someone suggests that Western Culture is superior, it's not something to get in a huff about. It's just part of life. You can be grateful for understanding something of the wisdom of the East, and shouldn't feel humiliated.
-
It's my impression that it was Europeans who brought Catholicism to The Orient. It is also my impression that Europeans brought Catholicism to Indians and Africans as well. Thus, it would appear that Europeans, with few exceptions, brought the light of Catholicism to The World.
Well, God's will, not their will.
I should think that folks would be grateful for this, but apparently that would require a humility, which appears to be rare. So, European Catholics may be proud of it, but with few exceptions, no one else is.
Perhaps they are thankful to God, from whom that Grace ultimately flowed.
None of us are suitable, deserving conduits of our Lord when we are, so the cooperation with God's Grace and salvific plan should not be an occasion of pride. Quite the opposite, it should help us to realize our own unworthiness to be chosen by God.
I think there's truth in that, but we're also supposed to honor our fathers and mothers. I'm not sure how we could do that, without being proud of them. So, pride does not appear to = bad.
-
… the "racists" … on CathInfo (using a very weak definition of the word, I might add) are the same knuckle-dragging, inbred, toothless, appalachian WASP racist bad guys in countless movies and TV series.
You know, the ones that hate every Injun' they see. The ones that try to run nice black men and/or pregnant black women off the road, because they tried to eat at a white man's cafe, and so forth. (These characters usually wear overalls.)
The words that need emphasis in these apt remarks are "in countless movies and TV series." Guess what people, who have made their hatred of the Cross their defining characteristic, make those films and TV programs! Finding nightmarishly evil white folks in daily terrestrial life, on the other hand, is about as easy as locating those WMDs that the late Saddam Hussein was supposed to have.
In the 67+ years of my life, I have never come into contact with a single white person (or even overheard one in a noisy bar) who expressed a desire to harm another person simply because he wasn't white. (Mind you, I'm not saying I haven't encountered some very bad, even genuinely evil white people. This isn't called a vale of tears for nothing.) On the other hand, I have lost count of the number of nonwhite people who, mutatis mutandis, both say such things and act upon what they say. A certain U.S. president and his attorney general are two such, as are the eight or nine guys who have mugged me on the NYC streets or in its parks over the years.
Of course, the $PLC and B'nai Brith would say that my saying these things proves I'm an incorrigible bigot and hater. And as we all know, they don't have an agenda of any sort, now do they? Of course, too, merely thinking these thoughts will, sooner rather than later, make me subject to arrest and indefinite incarceration for thoughtcrime. Fortunately for me, I guess, I'm not also concealing Saddam's WMDs.
-
It's my impression that it was Europeans who brought Catholicism to The Orient. It is also my impression that Europeans brought Catholicism to Indians and Africans as well. Thus, it would appear that Europeans, with few exceptions, brought the light of Catholicism to The World. I should think that folks would be grateful for this, but apparently that would require a humility, which appears to be rare. So, European Catholics may be proud of it, but with few exceptions, no one else is.
Thats probably why God chose to spread Catholicism to Europe foremost. He knew eventually that the europeans would imperialize and spread it to the rest of the world.
-
… the "racists" … on CathInfo (using a very weak definition of the word, I might add) are the same knuckle-dragging, inbred, toothless, appalachian WASP racist bad guys in countless movies and TV series.
You know, the ones that hate every Injun' they see. The ones that try to run nice black men and/or pregnant black women off the road, because they tried to eat at a white man's cafe, and so forth. (These characters usually wear overalls.)
The words that need emphasis in these apt remarks are "in countless movies and TV series." Guess what people, who have made their hatred of the Cross their defining characteristic, make those films and TV programs! Finding nightmarishly evil white folks in daily terrestrial life, on the other hand, is about as easy as locating those WMDs that the late Saddam Hussein was supposed to have.
In the 67+ years of my life, I have never come into contact with a single white person (or even overheard one in a noisy bar) who expressed a desire to harm another person simply because he wasn't white. (Mind you, I'm not saying I haven't encountered some very bad, even genuinely evil white people. This isn't called a vale of tears for nothing.) On the other hand, I have lost count of the number of nonwhite people who, mutatis mutandis, both say such things and act upon what they say. A certain U.S. president and his attorney general are two such, as are the eight or nine guys who have mugged me on the NYC streets or in its parks over the years.
Of course, the $PLC and B'nai Brith would say that my saying these things proves I'm an incorrigible bigot and hater. And as we all know, they don't have an agenda of any sort, now do they? Of course, too, merely thinking these thoughts will, sooner rather than later, make me subject to arrest and indefinite incarceration for thoughtcrime. Fortunately for me, I guess, I'm not also concealing Saddam's WMDs.
Very good point, claudel.
I agree -- Hollywood can portray any unrealistic fantasy and make it look as real as the world outside our home's windows. Let's face it -- the world in movies LOOKS a lot like the real world! So you're tempted to think everything you see is real, or at least realistic. Especially when dozens of movies stick to the same talking points, and push the same ideas.
-
Renzo,
The missionaries to the Orient certainly did not think that a duty to "civilize" the Orient was included in their missionary duties. I can't believe people suggest that Catholic missionaries thought it necessary to "civilize" the Orientals like was needed in the case of the Aztecs, etc. The Occidental missionaries were the ones that adapted to Chinese culture - not the opposite. And not just in a superficial way either. If you study the history of the missionaries in China there were in fact many who asserted the superiority of Chinese culture to European. Please reference the missionary journals of Matteo Ricci and the entire corpus of his monumental output in Chinese to attest to this fact.
As I have oft repeated, I have unceasing devotion to and reverence for holy men like Matteo Ricci and Alexandre de Rhodes. I see no reason why this gratitude needs to translate into kissing up to European culture.
Iuvenalis,
Your post articulates clearly what I feel.
Telesphorus,
Perhaps you don't see what I find so offensive - but look at this way. All that I am doing is trying to assert at least some level of equality between my culture and that of Europe. I'm not even trying to suggest that mine is superior. And look how violent my opposition is! Imagine what it would be if I were as obtuse as some of your supporters and flat out said that European culture was inferior to Oriental culture! I think anyone of good will who is familiar with my posting history will know that I have no regard for being "PC", am no friend of the ѕуηαgσgυє, and have no blind illusions about universal egalitarianism. Is admitting that Oriental culture is equal to the West in some areas, superior to it in others, and inferior to it in others, really too much to ask? Because that's basically all that I have been saying. It seems that some people are horrified at the thought that any other culture can even approach their own in terms of refinement and accomplishment.
Also, the same person that made the statement that I find so odious in fact did support French colonialism, which was totally secular and did nothing to the Catholic Church in Vietnam except inflame the hatred of non-Catholics and Catholics alike and make non-Catholics suspicious of Catholics.
claudel,
I have never heard someone of my ethnicity conspire against a white person based on his race.
I grew up in an area with a history of klan activity. I honestly cannot complain of anything serious, but growing up as literally the only Asian that my schoolmates probably ever saw in "real life", I had no shortage of cold, unfriendly stares, snide remarks, mean-spirited jokes, and rude behavior directed towards me from whites, both in my age group and from younger and older people! And all this with no apparent reason other than the fact that I was not white. And what do you think I thought when this behavior was directed at my siblings and parents as well!
I don't think that I need to remind anyone that a family member of mine was murdered by a white man.
Now before someone jumps down my throat, let's be clear that I don't take these experiences and walk around mumbling about how whites have it in for me and my people. Of course I don't judge all white people by these examples! For this reason, I don't see why whites on this forum who have had bad experience with blacks, etc group all "minorities" into the same category as violent ghetto denizens.
InfiniteFaith,
That is a fascinating, fascinating point that you make. I think that if the Orient were given the Faith first, we would have been content to remain secluded from the rest of the world practicing the true faith. We do not generally have wanderlust of Europeans.
-
Renzo,
The missionaries to the Orient certainly did not think that a duty to "civilize" the Orient was included in their missionary duties. I can't believe people suggest that Catholic missionaries thought it necessary to "civilize" the Orientals like was needed in the case of the Aztecs, etc. The Occidental missionaries were the ones that adapted to Chinese culture - not the opposite. And not just in a superficial way either. If you study the history of the missionaries in China there were in fact many who asserted the superiority of Chinese culture to European. Please reference the missionary journals of Matteo Ricci and the entire corpus of his monumental output in Chinese to attest to this fact.
As I have oft repeated, I have unceasing devotion to and reverence for holy men like Matteo Ricci and Alexandre de Rhodes. I see no reason why this gratitude needs to translate into kissing up to European culture.
Iuvenalis,
Your post articulates clearly what I feel.
Telesphorus,
Perhaps you don't see what I find so offensive - but look at this way. All that I am doing is trying to assert at least some level of equality between my culture and that of Europe. I'm not even trying to suggest that mine is superior. And look how violent my opposition is! Imagine what it would be if I were as obtuse as some of your supporters and flat out said that European culture was inferior to Oriental culture! I think anyone of good will who is familiar with my posting history will know that I have no regard for being "PC", am no friend of the ѕуηαgσgυє, and have no blind illusions about universal egalitarianism. Is admitting that Oriental culture is equal to the West in some areas, superior to it in others, and inferior to it in others, really too much to ask? Because that's basically all that I have been saying. It seems that some people are horrified at the thought that any other culture can even approach their own in terms of refinement and accomplishment.
Also, the same person that made the statement that I find so odious in fact did support French colonialism, which was totally secular and did nothing to the Catholic Church in Vietnam except inflame the hatred of non-Catholics and Catholics alike and make non-Catholics suspicious of Catholics.
claudel,
I have never heard someone of my ethnicity conspire against a white person based on his race.
I grew up in an area with a history of klan activity. I honestly cannot complain of anything serious, but growing up as literally the only Asian that my schoolmates probably ever saw in "real life", I had no shortage of cold, unfriendly stares, snide remarks, mean-spirited jokes, and rude behavior directed towards me from whites, both in my age group and from younger and older people! And all this with no apparent reason other than the fact that I was not white. And what do you think I thought when this behavior was directed at my siblings and parents as well!
I don't think that I need to remind anyone that a family member of mine was murdered by a white man.
Now before someone jumps down my throat, let's be clear that I don't take these experiences and walk around mumbling about how whites have it in for me and my people. Of course I don't judge all white people by these examples! For this reason, I don't see why whites on this forum who have had bad experience with blacks, etc group all "minorities" into the same category as violent ghetto denizens.
InfiniteFaith,
That is a fascinating, fascinating point that you make. I think that if the Orient were given the Faith first, we would have been content to remain secluded from the rest of the world practicing the true faith. We do not generally have wanderlust of Europeans.
I have been treated poorly by blacks at times. I got mugged by a few of them when I was 15 years old. They punched me in the side of the head and stole my bicycle. Do I hate black people? No. I realize there are good ones. But at the same time, I do think a large number of them have it out for the white man. Even white men who had nothing to do with them being treated poorly. Its a 2 way street. The older generations who treated black people bad have brought this upon us today. Now they want revenge. Which is somewhat understandable. One problem with blacks in America is that they are marxists, and they serve the Jєωs. If the corporate world would have been more fair to them they might not have chosen that route. At the same time, they would have probably started trying to race mix if they truly had equal opportunity. Which is a no no in my book. Thats why I think we should create Jim Crow laws. We could give black people real opportunity in the corporate world. The threat of race mixing would not be there.
Either that or we could place them in certain positions in companies where they will not have much contact with white women.
-
My experiences in the orient taught me that young oriental men generally hate young white men, particularly around their women. Although, there are exceptions. On the other hand, the girls are generally quite interested in white men. Almost makes a white guy feel sorry for the oriental guys, that is until he sees the daggers shooting out of their eyes!
Blacks do seem to be better sprinters, than whites.
Orientals, at least as far as the general population is concerned, do seem more intelligent than whites, but not at the extremes.
Orientals do seem less aggressive than whites.
Blacks seem much more aggressive than anyone else.
White girls, in particular blonde hair, with blue eyes and ruby lips, do seem more attractive than any other girls in the world. However, what i'd call, perhaps insensitively, the china doll look from the orient can be quite stunning. It seems to be no mistake that these women are associated with pearls, because they seem very flattering on them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV22BTCfeN0
-
At the same time, they would have probably started trying to race mix if they truly had equal opportunity. Which is a no no in my book. Thats why I think we should create Jim Crow laws.
Wow, really? Jim Crow laws? :facepalm: Thanks for admitting truly equal opportunity is a no no in your book.
To the others, whom I'm don't claim share the same view, I'd only ask this - St. Paul urges us to live as far as possible at peace with all men. Is it liberal simply to repeat that same sentiment of the great Apostle, and desire, as the Church also has taught, that people of different races can, especially within the household of faith, actually eke out a peaceful and harmonious co-existence, in whichever country they may happen to be?
I daresay that is all anyone asks, whether they be Americans or Europeans like Brainglitch, Sigismund and Clare, or Asians like Vladimir and myself, to any others I am forgetting, and yet for anyone to repeat it here is to be attacked of all sorts of things, of conspiring against people of European descent, of favoring the Jєωs, to liberalism to what not. It would be almost funny if it were not quite sad.
Hatred, spite, resentment or suspicion of the other only beget more of the same, on the natural level. If it is not us disciples of Christ, who are taught by Our Lord that peacemakers shall be blessed children on God, who try to break that vicious cycle at least not by adding to it, then who will?
It doesn't matter who said it, it's the truth - people should be judged on their character and their merits and the like and not on the color of their skin.
Doing otherwise will only spawn more resentment and bitterness, and is not in keeping with the faith which teaches us to see the image of God in all men and especially the Gospel ethic and the lofty precepts of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who taught us, "Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to Me."
Beside, if one really was superior in some innate sense, one could expect pretty much nothing else than a harsher judgment. For, as the Apostle says, "what hast thou that thou hast not received?" and Our Lord, "And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required". Not that I think so, but if anyone thinks it is, then assuredly these would apply to nature, as much as they do to grace.
Seriously, how anyone today could seriously suggest we go back to Jim Crow laws, and reintroduce complete or partial segregation, or wish to limit the freedom of people of other races in marriage or other ways, is beyond me. Why not just say we should go back to chattel slavery and be done with it, Infinite Faith? That way you'll never have to worry about the horror of someone from another race marrying someone of yours ever again.
It's absurd to think, it was done in the past, therefore it must be right. Segregation on racial lines is not equality, it is not Christian, and no matter whomever else it may have or may in future find favor with, it will not now or ever win the approval of the Man who told us the parable of the Good Samaritan.
-
To the others, whom I'm don't claim share the same view, I'd only ask this - St. Paul urges us to live as far as possible at peace with all men. Is it liberal simply to repeat that same sentiment of the great Apostle, and desire, as the Church also has taught, that people of different races can, especially within the household of faith, actually eke out a peaceful and harmonious co-existence, in whichever country they may happen to be?
That is not at all what multiculturalists ask for. They ask for people of European descent to surrender their identity. It's not peaceful at all. It's aggression, and it's aggression cloaked in sanctimony.
-
White people are very naive about the desire of others to ruin their patrimony and posterity, to supplant them in their own homelands and to smear them with slanders if they resist it.
It is "unjust" to resist their migrations, their clannishness, their grotesque ethno-centrism of which Vladimir provided a good example earlier, "unjust" to desire to keep one's own descendants of the same race as oneself. These people have an oriental mindset that is simply incompatible with the Western concepts of fairness and justice.
http://youtu.be/eiaMKUL-GSY
-
To such extent that I regard any future participation on this forum to be an affront to my own dignity and a disgrace to my ancestors. To continue to participate on this forum in good will while other members openly declare my culture and people to be inferior to their own is nothing short of silent acceptance of their debasement of my people and contempt for my culture
That is childish and shows hyper-sensitivity.
Given how easily you fly off the handle, that is a bit rich.
-
To such extent that I regard any future participation on this forum to be an affront to my own dignity and a disgrace to my ancestors. To continue to participate on this forum in good will while other members openly declare my culture and people to be inferior to their own is nothing short of silent acceptance of their debasement of my people and contempt for my culture
That is childish and shows hyper-sensitivity.
Given how easily you fly off the handle, that is a bit rich.
No one here is slandering Vladimir's personal life out of pure malice.
Someone said they think one culture is superior to another.
Vladimir's reaction only proved he is more ethno-centric than the so-called "racists" here.
-
As for segregation:
de facto segregation exists, the upper middle class pretends it doesn't by engaging in affirmative action tokenism.
It exists for the same reason property lines and national boundaries exist.
-
It's not peaceful at all. It's aggression, and it's aggression cloaked in sanctimony.
Just so. It's what we're hearing from Vladimir, unfortunately. "Really bad things have happened to me here, and it's all your fault. Give me your country, and we'll call it square, OK? Wait—you'd better throw in all of Europe, too."
"Diversity" and "understanding" and "antiracism" and "multiculturalism" have gone hand in hand with the New Springtime of the Faith. Is it any wonder that the same people are shoving them all down our throat?
Our Lord told the Eleven that they were to go and make disciples of all nations. I don't recall reading anything about the genetic elimination of all nations in Matthew's Gospel. Earlier, He lauded the centurion's exemplary faith; yet He didn't tell him to breed the Jєωs out of existence, however, nor did He encourage him to lead the charge to kick the Jєωs out of their own country. They brought that fate down upon themselves!
-
The rise of the surveillance state and the DHS with it's obsession with "homegrown" threats shows that the multi-culturalists intend to keep their new order in place with the threat of force.
http://www.nhteapartycoalition.org/tea/2011/11/30/remembering-the-miac-report/
-
My experiences in the orient taught me that young oriental men generally hate young white men, particularly around their women. Although, there are exceptions. On the other hand, the girls are generally quite interested in white men. Almost makes a white guy feel sorry for the oriental guys, that is until he sees the daggers shooting out of their eyes!
Blacks do seem to be better sprinters, than whites.
Orientals, at least as far as the general population is concerned, do seem more intelligent than whites, but not at the extremes.
Orientals do seem less aggressive than whites.
Blacks seem much more aggressive than anyone else.
White girls, in particular blonde hair, with blue eyes and ruby lips, do seem more attractive than any other girls in the world. However, what i'd call, perhaps insensitively, the china doll look from the orient can be quite stunning. It seems to be no mistake that these women are associated with pearls, because they seem very flattering on them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV22BTCfeN0
Quite frankly, I simply don't think that it's possible for a foreigner who doesn't understand the language and culture to make anything beyond rather superficial judgments on my people.
Granted, though you may pass judgments on the thoroughly Americanized ones - this would be like judging the values of Caucasians based on the behavior of wannabe thug "wiggers".
1) I'm a young Oriental man and I generally don't mind young Caucasian men given they abide by the basic rules of civility in their intercourse with and around me. Now, if a young Caucasian male were to be harassing or bothering a young female of my culture against her will my blood would begin to boil, but if there was mutual interest I would hardly bat an eyelash. In fact, I'd probably shake my head, pat him on the back and wish him good luck, since he probably has no idea what he's getting himself into.
I don't see why we need to include the adjective "Caucasian". I wouldn't like to have an Oriental acting rude to me either. It seems rather basic.
2) I've honestly never met an Oriental girl that was not Americanized that had a thing for white men. Never. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but if any young Caucasians out there are crossing their fingers hoping that they will gather a gaggle of pretty teenage admirers just by walking down Chinatown.....please don't hold your breath. And I'm not saying this out of jealousy either. Let's face it though, if you and I are vying for the attention of an Oriental girl, what do you think is going to get her attention? Your ability to play football, or my ability to recite from memory any number of Chinese love poems from the Tang and Song dynasties and even improvise a few myself on the spot? Just an example, but you see my point.
I think you'll be hard pressed to find worldly Oriental girls that live in the Orient with posters of white men in their rooms. More likely you'll see Korean pop stars. The same applies here in the States, although there is greater diversity here, especially among the very Westernized girls.
3) I find blonde hair and blue eyes unattractive. I'm not saying that they are objectively inferior to black hair and brown eyes, but my ability to appreciate the aesthetic sense of the latter is much, much greater. Obviously there is no right or wrong here and both of us are equally entitled to disagree!
Just so. It's what we're hearing from Vladimir, unfortunately. "Really bad things have happened to me here, and it's all your fault. Give me your country, and we'll call it square, OK? Wait—you'd better throw in all of Europe, too."
Hey old man, are you going senile or do you need an eye check-up?
Where have I ever suggested such a prospect?
If I'm not mistake, it is your people that have had an insatiable desire to colonize the rest of the world.
-
but if any young Caucasians out there are crossing their fingers hoping that they will gather a gaggle of pretty teenage admirers just by walking down Chinatown.
Why do you mention Chinatown? We were talking about Asia.
And that's not something anyone is "holding their breath" for, that's just a description of someone's
experience as an English teacher in South Korea.
I've spoken to others who've said they wished they could have near the attention from white women that they get from asian women. He told me he used to be followed around by a asian co-worker in his actuarial job.
No one is trying to denigrate you Vladimir. The priorities for young women are simply bad today, and it's causing real problems even for societies with somewhat more traditional family structures like East Asians.
These are intractable problems that will only get worse over time, especially since people are programmed to react with great hostility to those who discuss the problems honestly and outside of the norms of political correctness.
As Renzo said, I have sympathy for them until they start giving you stares, although to be honest asian men seem to care a lot less than certain other types.
-
I've spent considerable time in east Asia. In fact that's where I learned to be ethnocentric -- and I learned from some of the best.
I'm fond of the Koreans and the Japanese (am unfamiliar with the Chinese and Vietnamese), and hope their blood and culture can perservere:
http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php/Global-Korea
Korea has produced some of the world's most exquisite pottery (http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/citi/images/standard/WebLarge/WebImg_000125/40861_1272714.jpg). The Japanese elaboration of wood joinery (http://berglondon.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/japanese-joinery-02.jpg) is unmatched. Those are merely two things that have touched me personally. And can a Catholic express admiration for the Buddhist and Shinto temple architecture, the meditative and quasi-religious tea ceremony, the Zen-inspired sense of beauty in umi and wabi-sabi? East Asian culture is indeed ancient and wonderful.
Well, I think Vladimir just needed to let off some steam. Let's hope he can get back to contributing normally.
I'm not much good at this peace-making stuff.
-
The older generations who treated black people bad have brought this upon us today. Now they want revenge. Which is somewhat understandable.
NO!! This is in no way "somewhat understandable." Besides, what exactly did the older generations systematically do that amounted to "treat[ing] black people bad?" What actions beg for revenge?
Assuming earlier generations of whites did treat earlier generations of blacks badly, how is it understandable for over-protected blacks in today's world who have not been treated badly to want revenge from generations of whites who have not treated them badly?
-
. . . they wished they could have near the attention from white women that they get from asian women. He told me he used to be followed around by a asian co-worker in his actuarial job.
Maybe this has something to do with Asian ladies not being put off by pocket-protectors quite like American ladies are.
-
The older generations who treated black people bad have brought this upon us today. Now they want revenge. Which is somewhat understandable.
NO!! This is in no way "somewhat understandable." Besides, what exactly did the older generations systematically do that amounted to "treat[ing] black people bad?" What actions beg for revenge?
Assuming earlier generations of whites did treat earlier generations of blacks badly, how is it understandable for over-protected blacks in today's world who have not been treated badly to want revenge from generations of whites who have not treated them badly?
Very true.
I don't buy for a second that relations between blacks and whites are bad because of slavery.
The problems whites have with blacks are mirrored in every nonwhite group that has contact with blacks. The media keeps this under wraps because it doesn't fit the script. No one wants to be around blacks.
I also reject the idea that whites should be solely saddled with blame for the Atlantic Slave Trade. From what I've read of the slave trade it seems like whites were minor participants when compared with blacks themselves and Jєωs.
The fact is blacks have gone downhill since the civil rights movement.
-
The older generations who treated black people bad have brought this upon us today. Now they want revenge. Which is somewhat understandable.
NO!! This is in no way "somewhat understandable." Besides, what exactly did the older generations systematically do that amounted to "treat[ing] black people bad?" What actions beg for revenge?
Assuming earlier generations of whites did treat earlier generations of blacks badly, how is it understandable for over-protected blacks in today's world who have not been treated badly to want revenge from generations of whites who have not treated them badly?
Come to think of it. I can't really say for sure how often whites treated blacks badly even 50 years ago. I'm sure it happened. Just how much is the question.
I think a lot of it is black people being taught that the white man has oppressed them for centuries. So they develop the anti-white mentality. I have read on blogs and forums and stuff some of the things that white people say. And on some forums they still use the word "nigger" a lot. And they speak really bad about blacks. Granted I do think that some of the things they say are true (i.e. black on white hate crimes).
So yeah...I should not have said that it is understandable for them to want revenge against white men. More times than not, they have probably been programmed that way, and were never really treated poorly by whites. Even if they were treated badly by whites things have come along way and they should work towards forgiveness.
-
. . . they wished they could have near the attention from white women that they get from asian women. He told me he used to be followed around by a asian co-worker in his actuarial job.
Maybe this has something to do with Asian ladies not being put off by pocket-protectors quite like American ladies are.
I think it goes beyond that, but yes, there is no doubt that American women typically have a haughty air about them towards a very broad section of white men. The evidence seems to be that this has gotten progressively worse.
I remember going to China town once to eat with a Chinese girl, we were seated up on the upper floor by a mixed wedding party with Cantonese guests. The girl with me couldn't believe that that Chinese girl was able to snag as handsome a man as she had in the wedding.
A lot of white men are sick to death of drunken, slutty, entitled American women, no doubt about it.
-
I don't buy for a second that relations between blacks and whites are bad because of slavery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_anti-African_protests
-
The older generations who treated black people bad have brought this upon us today. Now they want revenge. Which is somewhat understandable.
NO!! This is in no way "somewhat understandable." Besides, what exactly did the older generations systematically do that amounted to "treat[ing] black people bad?" What actions beg for revenge?
Assuming earlier generations of whites did treat earlier generations of blacks badly, how is it understandable for over-protected blacks in today's world who have not been treated badly to want revenge from generations of whites who have not treated them badly?
Very true.
I don't buy for a second that relations between blacks and whites are bad because of slavery.
The problems whites have with blacks are mirrored in every nonwhite group that has contact with blacks. The media keeps this under wraps because it doesn't fit the script. No one wants to be around blacks.
I also reject the idea that whites should be solely saddled with blame for the Atlantic Slave Trade. From what I've read of the slave trade it seems like whites were minor participants when compared with blacks themselves and Jєωs.
The fact is blacks have gone downhill since the civil rights movement.
I think you're right. The Civil Rights Movement turned american blacks into obnoxious jerks and often criminals. It destroyed the good race relations that this country used to enjoy and that basically "went down the memory hole."
Of course, like Telesphorus pointed out, "emancipation" has had similar effects on white women.
And eventually, it seems to have the same effect on every other minority.
Look at gαys. They used to keep it in the closet and often seemed to try a little harder than everybody else to get along with others. Now, they put on obnoxious costumes and parade themselves all over town. Make all kinds of demands on people. Inconsiderate, obnoxious and selfish. I don't know any other way to describe it.
Civility is dead. And this nonsense these revolutionaries call "progress" is what murdered it. Of course, they'll never take any responsibility for it; instead they'll just keep "blaming the victim" (for the most part, respectable white men).
-
Not getting involved in the whole race issue.
But that aside, aren't there supposed to be animals in heaven or the afterlife?
How is that even possible if they don't have "souls"?
I'll be honest, I don't know much about that subject but aren't there bible references about animals in the New Heaven or New Earth?
This isn't only a stupid question for kids. When I was young, we had a Scottish Deerhound named Knight and he was an excellent dog. Great!
He lived a long time, and he was old and wise in dog years, when he passed away, and we all missed him very much and even the kids cried. We believed he must have gone to Scottish Deerhound Heaven. How else could it be with such a great companion and friend.
He was a wonderful soul.
Can anybody find a heresy in here? I'll give you a doggie bone if you do.
Even with the anonymity of the internet, I feel I've embarrassed myself here.
I've followed Scotus more than Aquinas, and even Aquinas admits that biological life includes "anima". Trees and dogs have "anima". They have souls, a living animation associated with them.
The questions about souls and where they come from are difficult to answer sometimes. "Traducianism" is a heresy, but human souls develop from an environment that includes the parents and kin, etc.
The New Testament emphasizes that Jesus Christ is the Word of God Incarnate, so from a Scotus point of view the univocity and predication of the terms per se becomes very important.
For example, when Christopher Hitchens wrote his blasphemous book, "God Is Not Great", or whatever it was, he insulted not only God but our old Scottish Deer Hound "Knight", who was indeed "great". We had an Australian Terrier named "Woodstock", after the little yellow bird who was Snoopy's friend, and he was "great" too. Christopher Hitchens insulted him as well.
How can there be so many great things, and yet God would not be "great"?
At any rate, Christopher Hitchens' soul was not great, imo. He was a bad dog. He may have gone to the bad place for bad dogs, like Alesiter Crowley and Hugo Chavez, etc.
-
Hey old man, are you going senile or do you need an eye check-up?
Where have I ever suggested such a prospect?
It's called knowing how to read between the lines, how to trace someone's whining to its root cause. Maybe it's a skill you'll pick up if you ever get old enough to stop feeling sorry for yourself.
-
The older generations who treated black people bad have brought this upon us today. Now they want revenge. Which is somewhat understandable.
Assuming earlier generations of whites did treat earlier generations of blacks badly, how is it understandable for over-protected blacks in today's world who have not been treated badly to want revenge from generations of whites who have not treated them badly?
Come to think of it. I can't really say for sure how often whites treated blacks badly even 50 years ago. I'm sure it happened. Just how much is the question.
I think a lot of it is black people being taught that the white man has oppressed them for centuries. So they develop the anti-white mentality. I have read on blogs and forums and stuff some of the things that white people say. And on some forums they still use the word "nigger" a lot. And they speak really bad about blacks. Granted I do think that some of the things they say are true (i.e. black on white hate crimes).
So yeah...I should not have said that it is understandable for them to want revenge against white men. More times than not, they have probably been programmed that way, and were never really treated poorly by whites. Even if they were treated badly by whites things have come along way and they should work towards forgiveness.
"They" have controlled media, news and film for at least the 50 years you mention.
Most of what people "know" about this fabled time is entirely fictionalized *movies*, or *textbooks* and *classes* (academia, anyone)?
The producers of this content have some thing in common.
And fomenting racial envy and anger and white guilt benefits them.
Truth be told, few are alive that were of age to really know how things were, and fewer and fewer everyday. My grandparents were always mystified by the depictions of yesteryear as far more cruel than they remember, and even then many things seen in movies would have been recognized as such (cruel) even back then.
The more the older generations die, the more we'll be reliant on 'academic' and 'artistic' depictions, and the subsequent generations will only have access to a caricature that serves a particular group's interest, much like the Crusades, the Inquisition, and *cough* 'other' time periods.
My grandfather told me about the segregated south, and that cruelty was recognized by the average person as such. They had black neighbors when he was a kids ('neighbors' in this case meaning several miles) and a well with a dipper. When the neighbor family stopped by one day one of their kids was overheating (the kid must have been in a fever or possibly dehydrated, and the south can take a lot out of you on a hot day with extreme humidity) and they asked for water. Of course they gave them as much as they needed from the well, him drinking from the dipper they themselves used. It was well understood everyone would go their separate ways, and did, after they left. The kid's dad even offered to obtain a new dipper for my great-grandfather, he told him it was not necessary.
They were polite and thanked them, and the boy was fine, but the community remained segregated. It wasn't an absurd cartoon wall, it was separation. People were still human to one another, no lynchings occurred.
-
I don't buy for a second that relations between blacks and whites are bad because of slavery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_anti-African_protests
Fascinating. Thumb up.
-
The older generations who treated black people bad have brought this upon us today. Now they want revenge. Which is somewhat understandable.
Assuming earlier generations of whites did treat earlier generations of blacks badly, how is it understandable for over-protected blacks in today's world who have not been treated badly to want revenge from generations of whites who have not treated them badly?
Come to think of it. I can't really say for sure how often whites treated blacks badly even 50 years ago. I'm sure it happened. Just how much is the question.
I think a lot of it is black people being taught that the white man has oppressed them for centuries. So they develop the anti-white mentality. I have read on blogs and forums and stuff some of the things that white people say. And on some forums they still use the word "nigger" a lot. And they speak really bad about blacks. Granted I do think that some of the things they say are true (i.e. black on white hate crimes).
So yeah...I should not have said that it is understandable for them to want revenge against white men. More times than not, they have probably been programmed that way, and were never really treated poorly by whites. Even if they were treated badly by whites things have come along way and they should work towards forgiveness.
"They" have controlled media, news and film for at least the 50 years you mention.
Most of what people "know" about this fabled time is entirely fictionalized *movies*, or *textbooks* and *classes* (academia, anyone)?
The producers of this content have some thing in common.
And fomenting racial envy and anger and white guilt benefits them.
Truth be told, few are alive that were of age to really know how things were, and fewer and fewer everyday. My grandparents were always mystified by the depictions of yesteryear as far more cruel than they remember, and even then many things seen in movies would have been recognized as such (cruel) even back then.
The more the older generations die, the more we'll be reliant on 'academic' and 'artistic' depictions, and the subsequent generations will only have access to a caricature that serves a particular group's interest, much like the Crusades, the Inquisition, and *cough* 'other' time periods.
My grandfather told me about the segregated south, and that cruelty was recognized by the average person as such. They had black neighbors when he was a kids ('neighbors' in this case meaning several miles) and a well with a dipper. When the neighbor family stopped by one day one of their kids was overheating (the kid must have been in a fever or possibly dehydrated, and the south can take a lot out of you on a hot day with extreme humidity) and they asked for water. Of course they gave them as much as they needed from the well, him drinking from the dipper they themselves used. It was well understood everyone would go their separate ways, and did, after they left. The kid's dad even offered to obtain a new dipper for my great-grandfather, he told him it was not necessary.
They were polite and thanked them, and the boy was fine, but the community remained segregated. It wasn't an absurd cartoon wall, it was separation. People were still human to one another, no lynchings occurred.
I have read somewhere that there were only about 5,000 lynchings and half of them were not black people. In fact, roughly half of the lynchings that occurred were white abolitionists.
-
I have read somewhere that there were only about 5,000 lynchings and half of them were not black people. In fact, roughly half of the lynchings that occurred were white abolitionists.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0929903056/
-
Not getting involved in the whole race issue.
But that aside, aren't there supposed to be animals in heaven or the afterlife?
How is that even possible if they don't have "souls"?
I'll be honest, I don't know much about that subject but aren't there bible references about animals in the New Heaven or New Earth?
This isn't only a stupid question for kids. When I was young, we had a Scottish Deerhound named Knight and he was an excellent dog. Great!
He lived a long time, and he was old and wise in dog years, when he passed away, and we all missed him very much and even the kids cried. We believed he must have gone to Scottish Deerhound Heaven. How else could it be with such a great companion and friend.
He was a wonderful soul.
Can anybody find a heresy in here? I'll give you a doggie bone if you do.
Even with the anonymity of the internet, I feel I've embarrassed myself here.
I've followed Scotus more than Aquinas, and even Aquinas admits that biological life includes "anima". Trees and dogs have "anima". They have souls, a living animation associated with them.
The questions about souls and where they come from are difficult to answer sometimes. "Traducianism" is a heresy, but human souls develop from an environment that includes the parents and kin, etc.
The New Testament emphasizes that Jesus Christ is the Word of God Incarnate, so from a Scotus point of view the univocity and predication of the terms per se becomes very important.
For example, when Christopher Hitchens wrote his blasphemous book, "God Is Not Great", or whatever it was, he insulted not only God but our old Scottish Deer Hound "Knight", who was indeed "great". We had an Australian Terrier named "Woodstock", after the little yellow bird who was Snoopy's friend, and he was "great" too. Christopher Hitchens insulted him as well.
How can there be so many great things, and yet God would not be "great"?
At any rate, Christopher Hitchens' soul was not great, imo. He was a bad dog. He may have gone to the bad place for bad dogs, like Alesiter Crowley and Hugo Chavez, etc.[/quote] Whoa, back up. I can assure Chavez is defintely in a better place than either Hitchens or that devil-worshipping Crowley.
As for "bad dogs, well, I thought all dogs go to heaven. :wink:
-
I daresay that is all anyone asks, whether they be Americans or Europeans like Brainglitch, Sigismund and Clare, or Asians like Vladimir and myself, to any others I am forgetting, and yet for anyone to repeat it here is to be attacked of all sorts of things, of conspiring against people of European descent, of favoring the Jєωs, to liberalism to what not. It would be almost funny if it were not quite sad.
Hatred, spite, resentment or suspicion of the other only beget more of the same, on the natural level. If it is not us disciples of Christ, who are taught by Our Lord that peacemakers shall be blessed children on God, who try to break that vicious cycle at least not by adding to it, then who will?
It doesn't matter who said it, it's the truth - people should be judged on their character and their merits and the like and not on the color of their skin.
Doing otherwise will only spawn more resentment and bitterness, and is not in keeping with the faith which teaches us to see the image of God in all men and especially the Gospel ethic and the lofty precepts of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who taught us, "Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to Me." .
Absolutely right, Nishant.
And just because many/most Catholics (in America and England) may have shared the mainstream mindset of their non-Catholic culture 50+ years ago, does not make that mindset Catholic.
-
..."unjust" to desire to keep one's own descendants of the same race as oneself. ...
If you have enough children, chances are most of your descendents will be of the same race as yourself. Does it really matter if some aren't?
Will it matter to you when you're in Heaven? Will it matter to your ancestors?
It's the faith that matters.
-
If only your Marxist utopia fantasy land of no nations and races worked in the real world. :rolleyes:
-
If only your Marxist utopia fantasy land of no nations and races...
Straw man.
...worked in the real world. :rolleyes:
Liberals constantly have recourse to "what works in the real world" to justify their dissent from Catholic moral teachings.
-
Straw man.
No, it really isn't.
Clare is a leftist, and she doesn't respect Catholic teachings. Don't let her act fool you.
She's far more insistent that all parents approve of miscegenation than she is on Catholic teaching on marriage.
She's a subversive, every time this woman makes a post it should be pointed out that that's just what she is.
-
"The pope hopes that there will not be Allied coloured troops among the units deployed in Rome," wrote the ambassador. Sir D'Arcy seems to have been rather bemused by the request, for - with a hint of sarcasm - he went on to say that the pontiff "had hastened to add that the Holy See has not fixed a limit to the range of colours".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2007/mar/23/didtheholyfa
Of course, blacks are regarded as special pets of leftists and conciliarists, and the ready-made excuse today is that the Pope was only really referring to Moors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marocchinate
In this video you'll hear Lawrence Olivier, as a mouth-piece for British propaganda, dismiss the rape of German women by the Russians as racist propaganda:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fe9_1275337124
These Air Strip one denizens have crippled cognitive faculties.
-
Try to find something from even the 1950's that uses the term "racist".
Catholic Herald, 11th June 1937:
...When Christianity ceased to be the leading cultural influence in Germany, the way for the new racism was open...
Catholic Herald, 25th February 1938:
In these days of racism run crazy, of nationalism erected into a faith, of Jєω baiting and anti-Semitism, it is a comfort to come across the life of a great and saintly Jєω, convert, priest and founder of a missionary congregation.
Catholic Herald, 22nd July 1938:
But in Italy more direct means may be expected, in view of the fact that Anti-Semitism has existed there for a considerable time, and after the publication, a few days ago, of a docuмent drawn up by a commission of University Professsors, and published in the Giornale d'Italia on the subject of Racism,...
Catholic Herald, 25th November 1938:
Cardinal van Roey, Primate of Belgium, has refuted the racist theories of the totalitarian states....
And there's plenty more in the Catholic Herald archive (search=racism) (http://archive.catholicherald.co.uk/search?term=racism&sort=date).
Care,
Bravo!
Alaric,
I would define white as someone of European descent.
Then why don't you refer to them as Europeans?
Do you refer to Asians as "yellows"?
-
I daresay that is all anyone asks, whether they be Americans or Europeans like Brainglitch, Sigismund and Clare, or Asians like Vladimir and myself, to any others I am forgetting, and yet for anyone to repeat it here is to be attacked of all sorts of things, of conspiring against people of European descent, of favoring the Jєωs, to liberalism to what not. It would be almost funny if it were not quite sad.
Hatred, spite, resentment or suspicion of the other only beget more of the same, on the natural level. If it is not us disciples of Christ, who are taught by Our Lord that peacemakers shall be blessed children on God, who try to break that vicious cycle at least not by adding to it, then who will?
It doesn't matter who said it, it's the truth - people should be judged on their character and their merits and the like and not on the color of their skin.
Doing otherwise will only spawn more resentment and bitterness, and is not in keeping with the faith which teaches us to see the image of God in all men and especially the Gospel ethic and the lofty precepts of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who taught us, "Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to Me." .
Absolutely right, Nishant.
And just because many/most Catholics (in America and England) may have shared the mainstream mindset of their non-Catholic culture 50+ years ago, does not make that mindset Catholic.
But that's the point, in this country and other Europeans ones, people ARE NOT JUDGED ON THEIR CHARACTER BUT THE COLOR OF THEIR SKIN! and those people more often than not, are white Europeans. And the powers that be in the govt/media,finance complex or whatever are going out of their way to pursue this agenda of making Europeans or the indigenous poeples of their lands either pariahs or an extinct species.
This is what you and these other mamby-pamby "liberals "catholics" don't get when it comes to these racial/ethnic issues that are quite real here in reality world. We are being attacked and genocided out in a very thought-out, contrived, systematic process by a very evil,hateful minority that doesn't believe that nations/peoples have the right to exist in a homogenous ethnic/racial state or have the ability for self-determination.
Some of you religious talk a good game about breaking cycles of "hate" and violence yet when a people are basically being phased out, removed or basically genocided through massive illegal immigration, miscegnation , affrimative action policies, media manipulation, entitlement programs, hate crime legislation, on and on and on, well, you just consider it "God's will" and we should just all become" peacemakers" and accept our fate willingly like a good Christian.
But what is going on is not "God's" will, it's, like I said, by a vengeful, hateful, godless minority and we are called to fight evil, to fight those who would cause our extinction merely as some sort of plan for global domination of some sort a rootless,raceless, nationless mass of humanity that they can systematically manipulate and control for their own vile and nefarious ends.
-
I daresay that is all anyone asks, whether they be Americans or Europeans like Brainglitch, Sigismund and Clare, or Asians like Vladimir and myself, to any others I am forgetting, and yet for anyone to repeat it here is to be attacked of all sorts of things, of conspiring against people of European descent, of favoring the Jєωs, to liberalism to what not. It would be almost funny if it were not quite sad.
Hatred, spite, resentment or suspicion of the other only beget more of the same, on the natural level. If it is not us disciples of Christ, who are taught by Our Lord that peacemakers shall be blessed children on God, who try to break that vicious cycle at least not by adding to it, then who will?
It doesn't matter who said it, it's the truth - people should be judged on their character and their merits and the like and not on the color of their skin.
Doing otherwise will only spawn more resentment and bitterness, and is not in keeping with the faith which teaches us to see the image of God in all men and especially the Gospel ethic and the lofty precepts of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who taught us, "Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to Me." .
Absolutely right, Nishant.
And just because many/most Catholics (in America and England) may have shared the mainstream mindset of their non-Catholic culture 50+ years ago, does not make that mindset Catholic.
But that's the point, in this country and other Europeans ones, people ARE NOT JUDGED ON THEIR CHARACTER BUT THE COLOR OF THEIR SKIN! and those people more often than not, are white Europeans. And the powers that be in the govt/media,finance complex or whatever are going out of their way to pursue this agenda of making Europeans or the indigenous poeples of their lands either pariahs or an extinct species.
This is what you and these other mamby-pamby "liberals "catholics" don't get when it comes to these racial/ethnic issues that are quite real here in reality world. We are being attacked and genocided out in a very thought-out, contrived, systematic process by a very evil,hateful minority that doesn't believe that nations/peoples have the right to exist in a homogenous ethnic/racial state or have the ability for self-determination.
Some of you religious talk a good game about breaking cycles of "hate" and violence yet when a people are basically being phased out, removed or basically genocided through massive illegal immigration, miscegnation , affrimative action policies, media manipulation, entitlement programs, hate crime legislation, on and on and on, well, you just consider it "God's will" and we should just all become" peacemakers" and accept our fate willingly like a good Christian.
But what is going on is not "God's" will, it's, like I said, by a vengeful, hateful, godless minority and we are called to fight evil, to fight those who would cause our extinction merely as some sort of plan for global domination of some sort a rootless,raceless, nationless mass of humanity that they can systematically manipulate and control for their own vile and nefarious ends.
They will never understand. Plus they don't want to see it your way. They have their own reasons as to why they cling on to their fairy tales.
-
Straw man.
No, it really isn't.
Clare is a leftist, and she doesn't respect Catholic teachings. Don't let her act fool you.
She's far more insistent that all parents approve of miscegenation than she is on Catholic teaching on marriage.
She's a subversive, every time this woman makes a post it should be pointed out that that's just what she is.
I don't know why people are so persistent about interracial marriages. It makes absolutely no sense how much zeal these people can muster over this issue. The only thing I could think of is ending racism. But other examples have shown that race mixing does not end racism. Mulattos end up discriminating against blacks in Brazil. If its a love thing then people should not have any problem falling in love with someone of their own race. Love exists regardless of race mixing. Forced assimilation causes people to hate each other. On top of that, it does not end racism.
The liberal utopia will never exist. It would take a very long time for it to happen, and chances are Christ is returning within the next 500 years. Plus evil will always exist in this realm. So it is unrealistic. Race mixing will only make things worse for Christians until Christ returns.
Is there any other reason to promote race-mixing? I really think it boils down to the individual being more attracted to another race, other than their own, and that is why they are such high supporters of it. Thats the only thing I can think of. I can't see any other reason to aggressively support it. Maybe they support wiping out an entire culture, and thats why.
-
I agree with a lot of the posts here and have learned some things from those that i don't necessarily agree with. I think racial equality is just like women's equality. Why would women want everything to be coed? Why wouldn't they want their own "women's spaces?" They do! And blacks do too! And so do whites and so do men! So, I don't think anybody truly thinks this is good for themselves or anybody else. Although, they might see some selfish advantage in it for themselves and support it or they might be confused/duped.
And by the way, it is the same thing in regards to religion. Catholics, Jєωs and muslims all want their own communities, that are sort of "sterilized" from all foreign contaminants. Bottom line: they either want to convert you or get rid of you.
So, we are all supposed to run around kind of "brain damaged," pretending that this isn't the way everybody is, but deep down, we all know that's the way it is and it will never change, until God destroys this world and builds a new one. Of course, the west has lost its faith in God, so it goes around trying to build heaven on earth and it just makes it worse.
-
Is there any other reason to promote race-mixing? I really think it boils down to the individual being more attracted to another race, other than their own, and that is why they are such high supporters of it. Thats the only thing I can think of. I can't see any other reason to aggressively support it. Maybe they support wiping out an entire culture, and thats why.
It is not a case of promoting or "aggressively supporting" miscegenation.
It is a case of defending people who have done it, as they are not doing anything wrong.
Even its opponents have to affirm it is not a sin.
People are not going to have to answer on Judgement Day for having mixed race children.
But people might have to answer for every idle thought and word they have had against them.
We are to love God and our neighbour as ourselves. We do not generally get to choose our neighbours. Divine Providence does that.
We are to love what God loves.
We are to imitate Christ and the saints.
I can't see how you can do that and simultaneously employ a lot of the rhetoric employed against "race-mxers" and their defenders.
It is cognitive dissonance!
-
Being mixed-race is fine, but those like me who defended marrying with one's own race as the norm were derided as heretics; I don't mind disagreement, but our position was misrepresented as expressive of racism (i.e., that all races, except the white [or in my case, Asian] are sub-human). And other than brotherfrancis, did any other claim otherwise, that marrying with another's race is per se sinful?
-
Clare defends a woman civilly marrying an already married man.
She can brook no opposition to interracial marriage, and she is fanatical about it.
What it shows you is that she hold to liberal dogma, not Catholic dogma.
She doesn't value the sanctity of marriage, she values multiculturalism.
She cares about PC morality, not Catholic morality.
This has been her act for years now. I hope people understand she is in no way a legitimate traditionalist.
Legitimate traditionalists don't defend adultery.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=2557&min=120&num=5
-
People are not going to have to answer on Judgement Day for having mixed race children.
But people might have to answer for every idle thought and word they have had against them.
We are to love God and our neighbour as ourselves. We do not generally get to choose our neighbours. Divine Providence does that.
It's not that I have anything against people who are of mixed race, and I doubt others here do either. I think Bishop Williamson summed it up best by saying that it can create unnecessary problems/differences in marriage, and as a general rule it shouldn't be encouraged.
I hope that clarifies things. :)
-
It's not that I have anything against people who are of mixed race, and I doubt others here do either. I think Bishop Williamson summed it up best by saying that it can create unnecessary problems/differences in marriage, and as a general rule it shouldn't be encouraged.
I hope that clarifies things. :)
Her agenda SSS has nothing to do with her understanding things. She isn't interested in honest debate. She's hear to promote her left-wing agenda.
One method to do that is to start talking about "love" and "charity" and suggest anyone who doesn't go along with cultural marxist values lacks charity.
-
People are not going to have to answer on Judgement Day for having mixed race children.
But people might have to answer for every idle thought and word they have had against them.
We are to love God and our neighbour as ourselves. We do not generally get to choose our neighbours. Divine Providence does that.
It's not that I have anything against people who are of mixed race, and I doubt others here do either. I think Bishop Williamson summed it up best by saying that it can create unnecessary problems/differences in marriage, and as a general rule it shouldn't be encouraged.
I hope that clarifies things. :)
Yes, and I can understand that, SSS. I don't dispute that there can often be problems.
But some do seem to have a problem with people being mixed race if those people happen to be their own flesh and blood.
And that I find objectionable.
-
Clare defends a woman civilly marrying an already married man.
She can brook no opposition to interracial marriage, and she is fanatical about it.
What it shows you is that she hold to liberal dogma, not Catholic dogma.
She doesn't value the sanctity of marriage, she values multiculturalism.
She cares about PC morality, not Catholic morality.
This has been her act for years now. I hope people understand she is in no way a legitimate traditionalist.
Legitimate traditionalists don't defend adultery.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=2557&min=120&num=5
Thanks for finding that thread, Tele.
Here's my offending culturally Marxist post where I defended adultery:
Giving people the benefit of the doubt is hardly liberal.
"Charity believeth all things" - the liberal St Paul.
If I were being liberal, I'd have said it didn't matter whatever they were doing.
I fail to see how giving someone the benefit of the doubt is somehow a defence of adultery.
In giving them the benefit of the doubt, I was hoping that, as they had been counselled by a traditional priest, that somehow they were not committing adultery. That they had received sound advice and guidance.
That is not defending adultery at all. I would never defend adultery.
Can you not see the difference between giving the benefit of the doubt to someone and defending the thing you hope they are not doing??
Here's a bit more liberal, cultural Marxism for you, from Fr Faber:
...The standard of the last judgment is absolute. It is this — the measure which we have meted to others. Our present humour in judging others reveals to us what our sentence would be if we died now. Are we content to abide that issue? But, as it is impossible all at once to stop judging, and as it is also impossible to go on judging uncharitably, we must pass through the intermediate stage of kind interpretations. Few men have passed beyond this to a habit of perfect charity, which has blessedly stripped them of their judicial ermine and their deeply-rooted judicial habits of mind. We ought, therefore, to cultivate most sedulously the habit of kind interpretations.
...
-
Matthew,
Your criticism of those who thumbed you down (of which I am not a member) can easily and validly be applied to the some members who gave you a thumbs up.
Your original post in this thread disheartens me. I do not know whether or not anyone on this forum has ever made comments like the one you challenged your critics to find. However, posing this question draws the attention away from the fact that a vocal portion of the regularly posting members of CathInfo hold views so gross that one can only behold with wonderment that they have the audacity to post them in public for the world to view. Even if one may vaguely agree with some fundamental parts of their position, so violent is their expression of it and so abhorrent are the conclusions to which they take it, one cannot do less than shun them and wonder with helpless horror at how one could share anything in common with such men, much less share the same Holy, Catholic universal Faith, which unites all men and nations in the same bonds of Christian charity.
I say this as one who is among the likely few members of this forum that has any legitimate claim to "pure" racial ancestry, and one who does not have any particular desire or need to marry outside of his race. I have always offered words of caution and reservation to those who would violently and indiscriminately mix together diverse cultures with no regard for, or discernment of, the conflicting and volatile components of each respective culture. However, as I have elsewhere said, there are members who will seemingly espouse innocent views similar to mine and yet, because the premises on which they base them differ from my own intentions, will extrapolate these views and reach conclusions that I can only regard with revulsion. The most recent thread on the issue of mixed race marriages is too explicit of this point - even if I failed to sufficiently defend my position through a lack of eloquence and detailed argument on my part, it seems that the responses that my posts provoked were evidence enough of this principle.
I do not criticize this forum's management. I have always been fond of your rather "hands-off" approach to moderating this forum - I find therein many elements that echo ideals of Taoist philosophy of government, i.e., that of non-action. However, this forum has become a place that is seemingly hostile to "non-Aryan" (and I use this word with the utmost contempt and ridicule, since the idea of a unified "white race" is as absurd as a unified "Asian race") cultures and therefore, members. To such extent that I regard any future participation on this forum to be an affront to my own dignity and a disgrace to my ancestors. To continue to participate on this forum in good will while other members openly declare my culture and people to be inferior to their own is nothing short of silent acceptance of their debasement of my people and contempt for my culture. I consulted the advice of one of my fellow countrymen who, after reading the thread in question, agreed strongly with this sentiment, adding only that were he in my position, he would not have been so patient and polite when addressing those who held our culture in such contempt. Knowing now the opinions others on this forum, I regretfully regard as pearls cast before swine any part of my culture that I have shared on this forum, in so far as it has been received as nothing more than the unwanted, left-over refuse of pagan land as yet unenlightened by white men. If I could describe the pain and anger which some of the comments that there interjected by other members in between my posts in this last thread has caused me, I know not how to express such swelling emotions of indignation and sorrow in the English language. The closest anecdote that comes to mind is the defiance with which a Vietnamese general rejected the bribe of an invading Mongol ruler: "I would rather be made a devil of the South than a king in the North." Yet even this does not suffice. The English language, a tongue which my ancestors described as a language of foreign devils and barbarians, cannot do justice to fiery rage that courses through my veins when I see my culture put to such public shame. In the face of such indignation, my forefathers would have sworn on heaven and earth and carved it into their bones, not to rest nor allow anything to quench their rage or satiate their desire for retribution until they would snap and crush the bones and drink the blood of such offenders against their fatherland and ancestors.
I am well aware that only a portion of the forum's posting population espouses the views that I find objectionable in this area. However, so vocal are they and so unopposed is their support that I now feel utterly alone and voiceless on this forum when defending my culture. Even the one member who shares anything of a semblance of common heritage with me has been willfully entered into alliance with those very men who regard our ancestry with the utmost revilement. I can only sadly murmur with defeated resignation, "And you as well, Brutus?".
My people have often counseled the angry, "Persevere for a moment and the waves will die down and the wind will quiet. Take one step back and suddenly you will realize the spaciousness of the heavens and the sea."
Perhaps the time has come for me to take a step back.
My gosh, you're still going on about my one post saying that "Western civilization is superior to that of the East." :tinfoil:
I don't know how it is in the East but in the West a man who goes on and on about his feelings getting hurt would be seen as an embarassment to manhood in the West. Look just to calm you down let me say this: We're both nationalists so obviously we believe our nation, culture, and race is superior to the other and we are not going to agree.
Now I've been called socialist, nαzι, fascist, racist, αnтι-ѕємιтє, bigot, homophobe, sexist, xenophobe, nativist, etc. on this forum and in real life but you know what happens? I ignore it and move on, I don't bring this topic up in two threads and show "concern" at the "racism" on this forum.
Get over it already and move on.
Just for the record I admire Asians for being against immigration and I pointed that out in the thread.
-
It is not a case of promoting or "aggressively supporting" miscegenation.
It is a case of defending people who have done it, as they are not doing anything wrong.
Even its opponents have to affirm it is not a sin.
People are not going to have to answer on Judgement Day for having mixed race children.
But people might have to answer for every idle thought and word they have had against them.
We are to love God and our neighbour as ourselves. We do not generally get to choose our neighbours. Divine Providence does that.
We are to love what God loves.
We are to imitate Christ and the saints.
I can't see how you can do that and simultaneously employ a lot of the rhetoric employed against "race-mxers" and their defenders.
It is cognitive dissonance!
You seem sincere to me and I don't get the impression that you are out to destroy catholicism. I think you're trying to reconcile the commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself" with someone being opposed to mixing ethnicities/blood/race/significantly diverse ancestral lines and you can't, because you seem to think it is an all or nothing proposition and i don't think that's exactly right, even when talking about family.
I would not be inclined to "disown" a family member for any reason, even if they had an abortion, became a drug addict or married a liberal. Although, I might take some precautions with them.
-
Is race mixing a sin? Most people say, no. However, it would appear, that most people used to say, yes. Obviously, our sensibilities have changed. However, I'm always suspicious when someone says our morality has improved.
Pursuing a life of christian perfection is not necessary to gain heaven. But, it is my impression, that it will get you there quicker.
Exercising is not generally considered to be a virtue, nor is the lack of it, usually considered a sin. In fact, one might be considered rather uncharitable, if they chided someone for not exercising regularly. The same can be said for eating a healthy and balanced diet.
Is it a SIN to not eat right and exercise regularly? Most people would say, no. However, they would agree that sloth and gluttony are sins.
There is a difference between mortal sins and venial sins. There is also a difference between fearing God and wanting to please Him, because we love Him.
-
Try to find something from even the 1950's that uses the term "racist".
Catholic Herald, 11th June 1937:
...When Christianity ceased to be the leading cultural influence in Germany, the way for the new racism was open...
Catholic Herald, 25th February 1938:
In these days of racism run crazy, of nationalism erected into a faith, of Jєω baiting and anti-Semitism, it is a comfort to come across the life of a great and saintly Jєω, convert, priest and founder of a missionary congregation.
Catholic Herald, 22nd July 1938:
But in Italy more direct means may be expected, in view of the fact that Anti-Semitism has existed there for a considerable time, and after the publication, a few days ago, of a docuмent drawn up by a commission of University Professsors, and published in the Giornale d'Italia on the subject of Racism,...
Catholic Herald, 25th November 1938:
Cardinal van Roey, Primate of Belgium, has refuted the racist theories of the totalitarian states....
And there's plenty more in the Catholic Herald archive (search=racism) (http://archive.catholicherald.co.uk/search?term=racism&sort=date).
Care,
Bravo!
Alaric,
I would define white as someone of European descent.
Then why don't you refer to them as Europeans?
Do you refer to Asians as "yellows"?
That might actually make more sense. However, American English conventions dictate otherwise.
-
Is there any other reason to promote race-mixing? I really think it boils down to the individual being more attracted to another race, other than their own, and that is why they are such high supporters of it. Thats the only thing I can think of. I can't see any other reason to aggressively support it. Maybe they support wiping out an entire culture, and thats why.
It is not a case of promoting or "aggressively supporting" miscegenation.
It is a case of defending people who have done it, as they are not doing anything wrong.
Even its opponents have to affirm it is not a sin.
People are not going to have to answer on Judgement Day for having mixed race children.
But people might have to answer for every idle thought and word they have had against them.
We are to love God and our neighbour as ourselves. We do not generally get to choose our neighbours. Divine Providence does that.
We are to love what God loves.
We are to imitate Christ and the saints.
I can't see how you can do that and simultaneously employ a lot of the rhetoric employed against "race-mxers" and their defenders.
It is cognitive dissonance!
Im not sure exactly what you mean by "defending people who have done it". Are you referring to cases where people have done it but are no longer doing it? That would imply that the person was either fornicating or they got divorced. Both of which are mortal sins. You should be against mortal sin if you are a Catholic.
-
Plus I think easy access to other races causes people to become curious. And their curiosity leads to fornication. And fornication leads to unplanned pregnancies...
-
I fail to see how giving someone the benefit of the doubt is somehow a defence of adultery.
Giving the "benefit of the doubt" to an adulterous union is a defence of adultery.
In giving them the benefit of the doubt, I was hoping that, as they had been counselled by a traditional priest, that somehow they were not committing adultery. That they had received sound advice and guidance.
Only a dishonest subverter believes "trad" priests authorize civil marriage and cohabitation of a man who is already married.
That is not defending adultery at all. I would never defend adultery.
You're a liar Clare. You have defended it for the past 5 years and have never retracted your defense of it.
Can you not see the difference between giving the benefit of the doubt to someone and defending the thing you hope they are not doing??
Catholics believe cohabitation with someone, celebrating a "civil marriage" with someone when already married is scandalous and adulterous, and is gross impiety.
...The standard of the last judgment is absolute. It is this — the measure which we have meted to others. Our present humour in judging others reveals to us what our sentence would be if we died now. Are we content to abide that issue? But, as it is impossible all at once to stop judging, and as it is also impossible to go on judging uncharitably, we must pass through the intermediate stage of kind interpretations. Few men have passed beyond this to a habit of perfect charity, which has blessedly stripped them of their judicial ermine and their deeply-rooted judicial habits of mind. We ought, therefore, to cultivate most sedulously the habit of kind interpretations.
...
Clare, no matter how much you wrap up your defense of adultery in "charity" - the truth is you show absolute contempt for Catholic teaching on marriage, and defend your position with the deceit of a modernist.
You should have been perma-banned from here 5 years ago.
A woman who defends adultery should not be permitted to pass themselves off as a Catholic.
-
She has never shown the slightest inclination to retract her defense of that behavior, but she will bump posts to call people racist for weeks. This woman has contempt for Catholic teaching.
People who defend divorce and remarriage, while denying they defend adultery, do not hold the Catholic Faith.
-
Claire,
Nobody here is disputing that interracial marriage/relationships are morally OK. We have shown multiple, valid reasons to be against it however. I don't think you are willing to accept those reasons as you seem to neglect them when they pop up. You just keep babbling about how its OK, and you want to promote it as such.
Its clear that nobody is going to reach you on this one. Your position is well grounded and you aren't going to budge. The same applies to a few others here on Cath Info.
Its terrible that things have gone this way. I really firmly believe that women should never be in control of anything. I certainly would not want someone like you having a lot of power. You would let the trojan horse in. You lack the capacity to make logical decisions and allow your emotions to dictate you too much. Granted I think humans should have empathy and be emotional but not too much.
Recently I was reading something about the new Pope. His advice was for conservatives to love more, and liberals to think more. I totally agree with this. There has to be a healthy balance there. But you have to know when to put your foot down. This is one of those issues where we need to put our foot down. You will never see that though.
-
Sorry. I don't believe that you lack the ability to make logical decisions completely. Just in certain circuмstances.
-
That is not at all what multiculturalists ask for. They ask for people of European descent to surrender their identity. It's not peaceful at all. It's aggression, and it's aggression cloaked in sanctimony.
How do people of other races, I mean everyday people you encounter, not what some elitist may or not have planned, to which they are indifferent in any case, to whose views they have contributed nothing and may well not share, commit any sort of "aggression" against you, Telesphorus? Is it the fact that they exist? That they want to live normal lives, go to school, colleges and have jobs? That, God forbid, they want to marry and have children, and basically, that they want to be human, as they strive to work out their salvation with fear and trembling?
Is it the resentment created from government programs and policies? I can understand that one can reasonably have disagreements with such and think they may be unwise or excessive. But there is a limit to that and it in any case does not negate basic human and Christian duties.
I'm just trying to understand you here, because it seems to me that it is you who are being aggressive against them, for no fault whatsoever of their own, and want to treat them as second-class or as de facto lower or inferior and limit their freedom.
Just use one standard, Our Lord's - if you happened to reside in a land where your race was in the minority, would you think it acceptable and right if whatever you wanted to do to others was done to you?
Some passages of Sacred Scripture on kindness towards people of different nationalites and ethnicities than your own.
Exodus 22:21 Thou shalt not molest a stranger, nor afflict him: for yourselves also were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Deuteronomy 10:19 And do you therefore love strangers, because you also were strangers in the land of Egypt.
That's an objective moral standard that's the same everywhere and binds all Christians - including for me in my own country where my race is in the majority, towards any and all foreigners or immigrants oo settlers from the colonial era of different ethnicity than my own.
Don't you find it strange that no one practiced your idea of "Christianity" until the 1960's?
I would if it were the case, but as it stands, "my idea of Christianity" is not only based on the Gospels and epistles, the Mosaic Law and the explicit teaching of the Church, but is confirmed by patristic Tradition and the writings of theologians and Saints.
On the contrary, yours is novel and directly opposed to it. What you've done is taken a prevalent social more of one era, and without so much as pausing for a moment and considering it in the light of timeless Catholic social doctrine, without making due allowance for the fact that sometimes people genuinely make mistakes in their attitude toward others, have rashly exalted that into an infallible and unquestionable truth.
I can cite any number of traditional Catholic priests, theologians and other writers who say exactly what I've said - rather I say exactly what they say since I get my "idea of Christianity" from them - long before 1960.
Fr. Charles Callan for example, writing in 1940, in his commentary on the parable of the Good Samaritan.
The last time we discussed something similar, PaxRomanum, if I remember right, you started to have a go at Pope Pius XII.
I can certainly see why, Summi Pontificatus - 1939 begun in a slightly different form under Pope Pius XI, On the unity of human society.
42. In the light of this unity of all mankind, which exists in law and in fact, individuals do not feel themselves isolated units, like grains of sand, but united by the very force of their nature and by their internal destiny, into an organic, harmonious mutual relationship which varies with the changing of times.
43. And the nations, despite a difference of development due to diverse conditions of life and of culture, are not destined to break the unity of the human race, but rather to enrich and embellish it by the sharing of their own peculiar gifts and by that reciprocal interchange of goods which can be possible and efficacious only when a mutual love and a lively sense of charity unite all the sons of the same Father and all those redeemed by the same Divine Blood.
44. The Church of Christ, the faithful depository of the teaching of Divine Wisdom, cannot and does not think of deprecating or disdaining the particular characteristics which each people, with jealous and intelligible pride, cherishes and retains as a precious heritage. Her aim is a supernatural union in all-embracing love, deeply felt and practiced, and not the unity which is exclusively external and superficial and by that very fact weak.
...
51. Venerable Brethren, forgetfulness of the law of universal charity - of that charity which alone can consolidate peace by extinguishing hatred and softening envies and dissensions - is the source of very grave evils for peaceful relations between nations.
You want to divide, the Church seeks to unite. You wish for dissension, the Church wants concord. You seek strife, the Church works for harmony. You foster xenophobia, the Church strives for understanding.
What the enemies of civil society really want is to engender racial strife - and so to fall into that oneself on the pretext of opposing them is really only to be a puppet in their hands.
That's what happens when one derides the teaching of Christ and His Church as "impractical" and "idealistic", something unfortunately common to "liberal" and "conservative" alike.
-
commit any sort of "aggression" against you, Telesphorus?
When foreigners migrate into a country against the wishes of the ethnic majority, often illegally, and then after cajoling for citizenship, vote against the interests of the ethnic majority, that is a form of aggression. Particularly when they then insist that the native population has no right to complain about it.
-
I fail to see how giving someone the benefit of the doubt is somehow a defence of adultery.
Giving the "benefit of the doubt" to an adulterous union is a defence of adultery.
No, I was hoping that the union was not adulterous. And giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Charity believeth all things.
You're a liar Clare. You have defended it for the past 5 years and have never retracted your defense of it.
I've not mentioned it at all for the last few years as far as I recall. You keep bringing it up.
Let me explain the difference.
This is a defence of adultery:
They are committing adultery, and that is fine.
This is giving the benefit of the doubt:
I hope they're not committing adultery, and I will give them the benefit of the doubt, on the assumption that the priest who has counselled them knows their situation better than I do.
Clare, no matter how much you wrap up your defense of adultery in "charity" - the truth is you show absolute contempt for Catholic teaching on marriage, and defend your position with the deceit of a modernist.
You should have been perma-banned from here 5 years ago.
A woman who defends adultery should not be permitted to pass themselves off as a Catholic.
I have nowhere defended adultery.
I have defended people whom you judge to have been committing adultery.
Men's actions are very difficult to judge. Their real character depends in a great measure on the motives which prompt them, and those motives are invisible to us. Appearances are often against what we afterwards discover to have been deeds of virtue. Moreover, a line of conduct is, in its look at least, very little like a logical process. It is complicated with all manner of inconsistencies, and often deformed by what is in reality a hidden consistency. Nobody can judge men but God, and we can hardly obtain a higher or more reverent view of God than that which represents Him to us as judging men wdth perfect knowledge, unperplexed certainty, and undisturbed compassion. Now, kind interpretations are imitations of the merciful ingenuity of the Creator finding excuses for His creatures.
You are being totally dishonest in misrepresenting my position. I did not defend adultery.
And I am not going to retract my "defence of adultery", because I have never defended adultery.
-
She has never shown the slightest inclination to retract her defense of that behavior, but she will bump posts to call people racist for weeks.
Actually, I don't. If a thread drops significantly down the page, I leave it alone. Someone else usually bumps it, and then I might reacquaint myself with it.
People who defend divorce and remarriage, while denying they defend adultery, do not hold the Catholic Faith.
I do not defend divorce and remarriage, which is itself adultery.
-
You seem sincere to me and I don't get the impression that you are out to destroy catholicism.
Thank you, Renzo.
-
I do not defend divorce and remarriage, which is itself adultery.
You did. "Giving the benefit of the doubt" to civil marriage and cohabitation of a married man with another woman.
When flagrant, unapologetic disregard for the sanctity of marriage vows is shown by internet forum moderators who purport to be traditional Catholics, that should send up red flags about what their real agenda is.
-
No, I was hoping that the union was not adulterous. And giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Celebrating a civil marriage of a married man to another isn't adulterous?
Charity believeth all things.
If we don't believe Clare's lies in favor of adultery, we lack charity!
I've not mentioned it at all for the last few years as far as I recall. You keep bringing it up.
Because you've never retracted it.
This is a defence of adultery:
They are committing adultery, and that is fine.
This is giving the benefit of the doubt:
I hope they're not committing adultery, and I will give them the benefit of the doubt, on the assumption that the priest who has counselled them knows their situation better than I do.
Wrong Clare, that is not charity. They engage in publicly scandalous behavior which you defend as being something you can't judge, because you disregard Church teachings on marriage.
You should have been perma-banned from here 5 years ago.
I have nowhere defended adultery.
Yes you have, what they were doing was adulterous, whether they engaged in the act or not.
I have defended people whom you judge to have been committing adultery.
You defended their scandalous behavior.
If you're too stupid to post on the internet, you should stop Clare.
But I don't think that even you're that stupid. I think you post to undermine Tradition.
You are being totally dishonest in misrepresenting my position. I did not defend adultery.
Sure you do. You say one cannot judge the conduct of those who commit bigamy!
You're a joke!
And I am not going to retract my "defence of adultery", because I have never defended adultery.
Clare will give the "benefit of the doubt" to someone who leaves his spouse, cohabits with, and civilly marries another who publicly celebrates it, while running a traditional Catholic internet forum!
Clare is an apologist for adultery.
-
Im not sure exactly what you mean by "defending people who have done it". Are you referring to cases where people have done it but are no longer doing it? That would imply that the person was either fornicating or they got divorced. Both of which are mortal sins. You should be against mortal sin if you are a Catholic.
That wasn't the best tense, I know. I should have included "are doing it". And by "doing it" and "have done it", I mean contracting marriages. I suppose my original past tense was because I probably had Sigismund in mind (who, I believe, is a widower).
But then, I don't object to the existence of people, pure or mixed, who have been conceived in sinful circuмstances.
I mean, St Martin de Porres was mixed race and illegitimate!
-
I'm not sure that I understand the double standard -
Why do whites have a right to get angry when minorities try to marry their daughters (as evidenced by the recent +200 page thread on this very topic!) but Oriental men have no right to get angry when whites try to marry their women?
Telephorus - you seem to have a lot of experience chatting with and dating foreign women.
QuoVadisPetre - I'm not aware of ever saying that inter-racial marriage is a "norm". Of course marrying within your race has been, is, and will always be the norm. That's the whole point - you don't even need to argue for it. Sedetrad has already mentioned that statistical studies confirm that inter-racial marriage isn't even significant "problem". Ultimately, geographic location, family connections, surrounding community, and an urge to satisfy the carnal appetites are going to play a much, much larger part in deciding who you marry than any ideological arguments. And that means, that most people will end up marrying within their ethnic group simply out of convenience!
Also, don't call yourself Asian. You're what we call a "banana". Yellow on the outside, white on the inside. Your physical properties mean nothing without a connection to your own culture.
-
But then, I don't object to the existence of people, pure or mixed, who have been conceived in sinful circuмstances.
No one here has objected to anyone's existence, Straw Queen.
Objecting to the behavior of those who spawn bastards is not objecting to anyone's existence, you hag.
-
No, I was hoping that the union was not adulterous. And giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Celebrating a civil marriage of a married man to another isn't adulterous?
He was getting an annulment, which, as you know, is a declaration that his previous union was not a valid marriage.
I agree the embarking on a civil union before the annulment was through was jumping the gun, but I was not then, and am not now, in possession of all the facts about their situation, and their priest was. So, I gave the benefit of the doubt.
-
Telephorus - you seem to have a lot of experience chatting with and dating foreign women.
Did I say a father isn't permitted to desire his daughter to marry within his race? Or that it's wrong for foreigners to want their women to marry their own?
I find it highly ironic I can chat with and call on the phone a veiled young woman in Persia (who was 18 when I first started chatting with her in 2010) considering the way I've been treated by so-called "Catholics."
Also, don't call yourself Asian. You're what we call a "banana". Yellow on the outside, white on the inside. Your physical properties mean nothing without a connection to your own culture.
Haha, as was said before, you're more racist than we are Vladimir.
-
But then, I don't object to the existence of people, pure or mixed, who have been conceived in sinful circuмstances.
No one here has objected to anyone's existence, Straw Queen.
Objecting to the behavior of those who spawn bastards is not objecting to anyone's existence, you hag.
Your rhetoric has more potential to sanctify me than it does to sanctify yourself.
(Potential, that is; not necessarily successful!)
Anyhow, some mixed race people are conceived in lawful marriage, and some racially pure people are not.
So, stop equating miscegenation with fornication.
-
He was getting an annulment,
He didn't have an annulment.
which, as you know, is a declaration that his previous union was not a valid marriage.
And in Clare's modernist religion people are allowed to declare that they never really married the people they married, and then commit bigamy.
I agree the embarking on a civil union before the annulment was through was jumping the gun, but I was not then, and am not now, in possession of all the facts about their situation, and their priest was. So, I gave the benefit of the doubt.
You and the priest both, having no regard for the sanctity of marriage, made apology for their conduct.
-
[Your rhetoric has more potential to sanctify me than it does to sanctify yourself.
That's the point Clare.
(Potential, that is; not necessarily successful!)
Right, it's highly unlikely, because you don't care about the truth.
Anyhow, some mixed race people are conceived in lawful marriage, and some racially pure people are not.
So, stop equating miscegenation with fornication.
I never equated the two.
It's possible to be against miscegenation without objecting to the existence of mixed race people.
Just as it's possible to be against bringing children into the world out of wedlock without objecting to their existence.
Logic, reason, facts, Church teachings make no impression on you. Is it just because you're dumb?
I have a hard time believing that even you're that dumb.
-
Haha, as was said before, you're more racist than we are Vladimir.
Quick, quick! He said the word "racist"! This clearly shows that he is a sympathizer with the ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic-Marxist establishment and opposed to the interests of the Aryan master race!
-
Quick, quick! He said the word "racist"! This clearly shows that he is a sympathizer with the ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic-Marxist establishment and opposed to the interests of the Aryan master race!
Oh get out of here. It is plain as day in reality that minorities always stick with their own race. There is one thing all minorities can agree on though, and that is getting more money out of "whitey."
-
Quick, quick! He said the word "racist"!
Nice try to change the subject from your racial chauvinism.
This clearly shows that he is a sympathizer with the ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic-Marxist establishment
When used to smear people for holding legitimate views about human differences it shows a mind that has accepted one of the tenets of the cultural left, there is no doubt
and opposed to the interests of the Aryan master race!
There are people who cloak their hostility to whites (often to other, non-leftist whites) in the sanctimony of racial egalitarianism.
That you call "Quo Vadis Pretre" a "banana" for not siding with you says a lot about you.
-
Haha, as was said before, you're more racist than we are Vladimir.
Quick, quick! He said the word "racist"! This clearly shows that he is a sympathizer with the ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic-Marxist establishment and opposed to the interests of the Aryan master race!
I assume you're referring to the Perisans, the originial and only true "Aryan" race....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJbdGvjnSpQ
As for yourself, I believe you're either full or part Chinese or other Oriental ethnic.
Surely you Asians can tell us Westerners all about ethnic and race "hatred", you have quite a history of it over there in the East and all your countries are almost entirely made up of the same homogenous makeup. What's a matter, afraid to let a few Africans within your borders and enjoy all the glories of "multiculturalism" amd "diversity" like us evil ol "nαzιs" here in the West?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiNo5Nbn-TI
-
Somalis in Sweden evicted, demand free housing and more money.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IDBxPLp3i0
Hey Vladmir or any other Asians or Hispanics or "nonwhite" Europeans on here bitc#ing about "white" racism on here and everywhere else.......I demand your nations of origin like China or Mexico or Korea or anywhere else outside of Europe start taking in all these Muslim Somalis and every other third world denizen from African and Asian nation and provide them free housing, medical, food, education and everything else AT THE EXPENSE OF IT'S OWN TAXPAYING CITIZENS while they deny you anything and create laws making you helpless while they force your own extinction within your own country.
Let's stop playing games here about "racism" amongst "whites" and start talking about what's really going on. No one and I mean NO ONE has gone out of their way to help the rest of the planet more than Christian (and even nonChristian) whites to help the rest of humanity ,but now, they're literally treating out kindness as weakness and are attempting to rape and loot our own nations and people out of existence while the libs and bible-toting, do-gooders sit there and try to shame us into not defending ourselves and it's our CHRISTIAN DUTY to accept our fate and die a good and noble genocide because after all, that's what Jesus and his Church expects out of us. Just go along like good white sheep with the program if not, you will be deemed a "racist" and spend an eternity burning in hell for your "racist" sins.
Well you can count me out if me fighting against my demise is wrong and evil, I don't want to be right. I will die like a man, fighting for what is true and noble, I can't for the life of me see anything "unCatholic" about that. Prove me wrong.
-
When foreigners migrate into a country against the wishes of the ethnic majority, often illegally, and then after cajoling for citizenship, vote against the interests of the ethnic majority, that is a form of aggression. Particularly when they then insist that the native population has no right to complain about it.
So this comes down to the way people vote, is it, possibly that they don't vote Republican? I think you'd do better to castigate your ineffectual politicians on that one!
Anyway, if I had reasons to think that say, my country's immigration policy or entitlement program or the like was ill-advised and wrongheaded, then I'd be justified in working to change that with my vote or in other ways. But in the meanwhile, that doesn't give me the right to harbor ill will or resentment towards other people who've done nothing other than legally emigrate to my country and exercise their voting right upon becoming citizens according to the laws in force at the time. They are not "aggressors" for doing so.
So my question is, how is the average person of another race in your country responsible for possibly misguided policies your government follows? If you have a reasonable problem with the latter, by all means work to change it.
But I would be an aggressor if I tried to treat them as blameworthy for this and I'd be responsible for the division that would come about if I resented them, derogatively dismissed them or perpetuated xenophobic and stereotypical prejudices against them, all contrary to the law of God and the Gospel precepts. How do you think people will react to such treatment, won't they themselves become all the more embittered and resentful against you, even if they had no such feelings at all before? Forget about breaking a cycle, this is starting one.
By the way, I think most of your entitlement programs are seriously unsustainable over the long term, by themselves. But minorities have little or nothing to do with most of it.
I don't say anyone is racist for opposing government policies or programs, not at all, provided only that that opposition is based on impartial, reasonable and not one-sided grounds, meaning you would be willing to submit to similar regulations were you to emigrate to a foreign country.
And no, I have no problem with people of any race coming legally to live in my country. Why should or would I? I don't judge people by the color of their skin. People of low character, people who are vile and vulgar, dishonest and the like turn me off. People of another nationality or ethnicity do not in the least, and if they did simply for the fact that they exist, that would be my fault and not theirs.
-
Haha, as was said before, you're more racist than we are Vladimir.
Quick, quick! He said the word "racist"! This clearly shows that he is a sympathizer with the ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic-Marxist establishment and opposed to the interests of the Aryan master race!
I assume you're referring to the Perisans, the originial and only true "Aryan" race....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJbdGvjnSpQ
As for yourself, I believe you're either full or part Chinese or other Oriental ethnic.
Surely you Asians can tell us Westerners all about ethnic and race "hatred", you have quite a history of it over there in the East and all your countries are almost entirely made up of the same homogenous makeup. What's a matter, afraid to let a few Africans within your borders and enjoy all the glories of "multiculturalism" amd "diversity" like us evil ol "nαzιs" here in the West?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiNo5Nbn-TI
My friend, I'm quite aware of the errors in describing the whole of the various white races as a single "Aryan" race. Perhaps you're not aware that a white poster on CathInfo has actually used that term to describe exactly that though.
I have also never (within my memory) used the term "nαzι" in a derogatory fashion and, were you familiar with my posting history, you would know that I have posted with some regularity on issues concerning the demonization of Germans and various white groups in general as an essential part to the continued peddling of a "h0Ɩ0cαųst"-religion. I've simply refrained from discussing these issues in the recent months. Apparently the memory of many of my critics is very short, as they cannot remember that I have been vocal in opposing such tenets like universal racial egalitarianism, racial mixing as a "norm", etc in the past.
My complaints of bigotry do not primarily concern Africans or American Negroes, although I think that several members of overstepped the bounds of civility and reason when generalizing both groups (they are not even one and the same).
If you read my recent posts, both in this thread and in the inter-racial marriage thread, you will find that I am primarily concerned with whites on this forum denigrating my own culture, which they put on the same level as that of ghetto blacks and border jumping Mexicans.
Also, it's worth noting that many immigrants have the ability to live in America largely because they are willing to do jobs that the whites are not able or willing to do. I'm don't deny that the liberal government is doing all that they can to support many of these groups on programs such as Welfare, etc. But, to give an example, if a large enough percent of the white population was able to work as manual laborers demanding little pay and completing their work efficiently and effectively, what need would there be to hire Mexican laborers with whom you can't even give clear directions? Is an industrious Chinaman who moves to the States and opens up a laundromat and dry cleaning business and ends up making a six-figure salary somehow stealing job opportunity from whites?
For the record, I don't recall ever complaining about any sort of "racial hatred" from the general population towards me. In fact, despite the fact that I briefly mentioned early in this thread of some light discriminatory behavior directed at me during my youth, I turned around and said that despite those experiences, I do not generalize and project those negative experiences onto the rest of the white population. What I have been raising issue with is the fact that many on this forum have been denigrating my culture under the guise of "traditional Catholic" values which apparently concedes the superiority of European culture, Catholic or not, over mine.
I've never demanded a penny from white Americans, and never have I felt that they would be obliged to give me one even if I were so inclined. I too am angered by the fact that your government harbors unskilled illegals at MY expense while at the same time making immigration an arduous process for law-abiding, skilled, contributors to society such as many of my countrymen. Or do you forget that I also have to pay to support the same illegal immigrants of whom you complain? But the above remains true - if natives were willing to fill in the place of these immigrants, there would be no need to import unskilled labor. Another point remains equally valid - the white races are becoming the minority in America not because of inter-racial marriage, but because it is reproducing at slower rates than the non-white races. So the issue with your supposed "genocide" or "extermination" really lies in a refusal to abide by the natural law in regards to procreation. Bishop Williamson makes this point in his talk at the London Forum. Quite frankly, immigrant populations are overtaking whites not through violence or inter-racial marriage, but by abiding by the nature in their marriages!
In fact, just to stop you mid-sentence, I've already posted numerous times in the past that Oriental people are extremely ethnocentric and in many cases, bigoted. That's not news to anyone.
-
Recently I was reading something about the new Pope. His advice was for . . . liberals to think more. I totally agree with this.
This doesn't sound very charitable. They may hurt themselves.
-
Recently I was reading something about the new Pope. His advice was for . . . liberals to think more. I totally agree with this.
This doesn't sound very charitable. They may hurt themselves.
:scratchchin: :laugh1:
-
I have no problem at all with people of any race who come to this country legally, work hard and pay the tax. It's not even the "miscegenation" or the illegals slipping in here in order to get a chance to "make it" here in the land of milk and honey.
It's more of our govt's insane, open borders, entitilement programs and forced intergration programs that are the source of all the difficulties and problems that have arisen in the process.
And it's a few "chosen" few within this govt stirring the pot. That's the problem in and of itself. We're all clawing and scratching at each other in order to make this insanity work and it could without the interference of a small, malevolent, enitity that pollutes the natural order of things.
These issue that face us concerning race, ethnicity, borders, language, religion, etc. are a little more than "black and white", it's actually an attack and destruction of all of them together.
The Church has historically been protector of these things taken in context, she is certainly not a destroyer of them, well, not until recently.
-
alaric, I gave your post a thumbs down by accident. Sorry.
-
I certainly have a problem with those who come here to exploit the systematic dispossession of the native population (who are losing sovereignty over their own land) that is being carried out, whether legally or illegally. Now do I have personal enmity to most of them? No, but that doesn't mean their aggregate actions aren't helping to bring about the ruin of the country.
Someone made light of resenting their votes. It's not that they don't vote for Republicans. It's that they vote for the party which receives half its money from the Jєωs. You can be sure if they didn't have the power to vote keep supporting the government largesse bringing them to these shores that they would raise quite a fit.
These aliens cannot live in their own countries, so they have come here and are helping to bring about the third-worldization of this country.
They are not true citizens. They are, de facto allies of the culture destroyers who have helped to ensure their migration here.
-
alaric, I gave your post a thumbs down by accident. Sorry.
I'm ok with it, no problem.
I try and stick as close to the truth and what the Church teaches the best I can.
If this gets me a lot of downwards thumbs, so be it.
A little downward thumb never hurt anyone.......well, usually. :wink:
(http://cinemafanatic.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/2000_joaquin_phoenix_gladiator.jpg)
-
I certainly have a problem with those who come here to exploit the systematic dispossession of the native population...
... Native american's? :cowboy:
-
I certainly have a problem with those who come here to exploit the systematic dispossession of the native population (who are losing sovereignty over their own land) that is being carried out, whether legally or illegally. Now do I have personal enmity to most of them? No, but that doesn't mean their aggregate actions aren't helping to bring about the ruin of the country.
Someone made light of resenting their votes. It's not that they don't vote for Republicans. It's that they vote for the party which receives half its money from the Jєωs. You can be sure if they didn't have the power to vote keep supporting the government largesse bringing them to these shores that they would raise quite a fit.
These aliens cannot live in their own countries, so they have come here and are helping to bring about the third-worldization of this country.
They are not true citizens. They are, de facto allies of the culture destroyers who have helped to ensure their migration here.
Oh they will certainly will vote racially cohesive, the last election proved that beyond the shadow of a doubt. But we wouldn't be in this pickle to begin with if the system wasn't set up for them to do just that.
Still, me personally, I don't have a problem with people who work.
But you are correct in your observation to a point.
-
I certainly have a problem with those who come here to exploit the systematic dispossession of the native population...
... Native american's? :cowboy:
Kennewick Man?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68EzpmHZFAo
-
... Native american's? :cowboy:
It's not their country. They have their own lands and nations within the country. White Americans built this country.
The despicable attitude of these migrants towards white Americans, their willingness to destroy the reputations as "racist" of anyone who speaks of the rights of the rightful possessors of this country, their proclivity to vote for abortion advocating scuм who open the borders to them, shows that they are unworthy of citizenship.
-
But you are correct in your observation to a point.
It's not hatred to say "enough is enough" - but these unwelcome guests will never admit that, on the contrary, they will start vituperating against their hosts. Which shows they are, to a large extent, a hostile presence.
-
I have no problem at all with people of any race who come to this country legally, work hard and pay the tax. It's not even the "miscegenation" or the illegals slipping in here in order to get a chance to "make it" here in the land of milk and honey.
It's more of our govt's insane, open borders, entitilement programs and forced intergration programs that are the source of all the difficulties and problems that have arisen in the process.
And it's a few "chosen" few within this govt stirring the pot. That's the problem in and of itself. We're all clawing and scratching at each other in order to make this insanity work and it could without the interference of a small, malevolent, enitity that pollutes the natural order of things.
These issue that face us concerning race, ethnicity, borders, language, religion, etc. are a little more than "black and white", it's actually an attack and destruction of all of them together.
The Church has historically been protector of these things taken in context, she is certainly not a destroyer of them, well, not until recently.
I totally agree with this post, and I'll take it a step further - often time, at least in public schools and academia, I've noticed that the non-whites that get the most riled up about "racism" and "discrimination" are the ones that are the least connected to their native cultures - in other words, you have a bunch of totally Americanized people complaining that they are being targeted for being a part of a race of which they can claim no cultural connection beyond very superficial ones such as physical properties, an affinity for some of the more Americanized, accessible cuisine, and very artificial and stereotyped values that they learned their race is supposed to hold based on what Wikipedia and the West has told them.
I'll give you an example. A few months ago at some prestigious college a large portion of the "Asian" students were in total outrage and starting online campaigns because some other students organized a party where there were supposedly "racist" posters and costumes. From the material posted online, the offending material consisted of a few "memes" with bad English translations, one of the party-goers wearing a conical hat, and a cartoon picture of Kim Jong-il.
I personally found the memes hilarious - I've even posted similar pictures here in the past.
To make it clear, yes these are a bunch of people that have been programmed to lash out at every instance of "racism", real or, more often, imagined. And on top of it, their self-righteous anger isn't even logical considering that they have fully embraced Western culture and only identify with their ancestral one when it is advantageous. And yes, many of these people have a sense of victim-hood ingrained into their thinking and will always see the whites as racist oppressors.
(As an aside, I am annoyed, but to a lesser degree, by Americans who claim to be discriminated against in the 21st century for their European racial heritage with which they have no more connection aside from perhaps an Americanized last name. If you are of German descent, but grew up in America, only speak American English, only have an inorganic knowledge of German culture - i.e., one acquired through books and not passed down generation to generation, and would not be recognized as a German by native Germans, don't complain of being discriminated against for being German! This phenomenon is infinitely worse when it's coming from visibly non-white people though....)
I have never associated with these people and I do not support their views and reasoning.
I think it's because a lot of my critics are grouping me with this lot that I'm receiving so much flak even when I agree with many of their (my critics's that is) opinions in principle.
I've always cautioned against marrying outside one's culture while conceding that here the commonly shared American popular culture removes many of the cultural obstacles that would otherwise accompany an inter-racial marriage.
I don't deny that many minorities abuse "entitlement programs" that probably shouldn't even exist in the first place! At least not to the extent that they do. But just to be clear - there are plenty of whites that abuse the same systems. Ask any cashier at a grocery store, etc. He'll tell you that plenty of whites come in and spend hundreds of dollars worth in food stamps, etc buying junk food, cigarettes, and make-up. What I have an issue with is posters here rightly complaining about ills and difficulties that face the white races today in America, but when it comes time to diagnose the problems and propose solutions dump all the blame on minorities and don't examine themselves! I'm not going to deny that there is a media-supported anti-white atmosphere here in America. I'm not going to deny that there are many cases of discrimination against whites, whether it be in hiring workers or cases of street violence. But in this face of this troubling atmosphere, white posters here on CathInfo jump to the opposite extreme, generalize about non-whites, and idolize their own race to the extent that it becomes a "victim-race", just like the Jєωs, that is being unjustly attacked despite being totally innocent.
And you are correct, the Church has always defended those things which you mentioned - some users here would like to see otherwise. They would like to see the Church become an instrument of Westernization, and thus become a destroyer of other cultures. The Church never presumed to take the role of civilizing the Orient of her own accord, and when secular authorities pushed her to do so, it produced disastrous results. I don't disagree that the Church did and needed to play the role of bringing civilization to the Native American Indians or the Aztecs. But never in the Orient. That's what I am getting worked up about - people disgruntled, some justly others excessively, with other non-whites and then grouping all non-whites in one huge category in response. All that I've been saying is that the Church never regarded my culture as one in need of being civilized by the West. Other members have insisted that my culture is inferior to Western culture and this is what upsets me. They are not even willing to admit that my culture stands on an equal level with theirs in many respects, excels it in others, and perhaps is behind it in a few others. Is that too much to admit? They seem to act as though to give admission to that statement would be tantamount to saying that their culture is on the same level of that as cannibal bushmen in New Guinea!
-
If you grant asylum to so many refugees, your house may be sacked sooner by the soldiers; I see that clearly. The question is, however, whether, because of this danger, you should refuse to practice such a beautiful virtue as charity.
St Vincent De Paul
-
If you grant asylum to so many refugees, your house may be sacked sooner by the soldiers; I see that clearly. The question is, however, whether, because of this danger, you should refuse to practice such a beautiful virtue as charity.
St Vincent De Paul
Context Clare?
Catholics have a right in justice to what is theirs.
The Catholic religion doesn't command submission to leftist hags crowing about other people's forbearance (or supposed lack thereof) and charity.
-
Leftists, whenever Christian peoples are under assault, start talking about turning the other cheek, permitting Catholics to be despoiled, speak as though Christianity were primarily about material equality. This has nothing to do with their charity, it has to do with their malice. The same malice that causes them to support other social evils - such as the de facto abolition of binding marriage.
-
I have no problem at all with people of any race who come to this country legally, work hard and pay the tax. It's not even the "miscegenation" or the illegals slipping in here in order to get a chance to "make it" here in the land of milk and honey.
It's more of our govt's insane, open borders, entitilement programs and forced intergration programs that are the source of all the difficulties and problems that have arisen in the process.
Ok, I think that is somewhat more reasonable on the whole.
These aliens cannot live in their own countries, so they have come here and are helping to bring about the third-worldization of this country.
They are not true citizens. They are, de facto allies of the culture destroyers who have helped to ensure their migration here.
But this, this is just monumental absurdity! You have a xenophobic mentality, Telesphorus, I say frankly, that inclines you to believe the worst of other people, even of those who've done no wrong at all to you or to anyone. People who've emigrated legally, worked hard and honestly and earned their citizenship are no less citizens than you are, and you probably won't ever realize it unless circuмstances mandate your own emigration to a foreign country.
And the Republicans, are you kidding me. They put up Romney, they don't care about abortion or anything else. People may well have preferred an open liberal to an effective liberal who masquerades as a conservative, why shouldn't they.
What if the Holy Family happened to emigrate to your ideal country with you forming the policy, as once they did to Egypt? Chances are they'd be turned down since they wouldn't fit the required profile.
I grant there may be some unwise policies and reasonable corrections to be made, some limitations that can be imposed on immigration, checks on entitlement programs and the like, but the irrational and prejudiced view you espouse above is absurd and, pardon the pun, simply foreign to a Christian mindset.
Don't take my word for it.
The natural law itself, no less than devotion to humanity, urges that ways of migration be opened to these people. For the Creator of the universe made all good things primarily for the good of all. Since land everywhere offers the possibility of supporting a large number of people, the sovereignty of the State, although it must be respected, cannot be exaggerated to the point that access to this land is, for inadequate or unjustified reasons, denied to needy and decent people from other nations, provided of course, that the public wealth, considered very carefully, does not forbid this.
...
In these addresses and in our radio talks, we have condemned severely the ideas of the totalitarian and the imperialistic state, as well as that of exaggerated nationalism. On one hand, in fact they arbitrarily restrict the natural rights of people to migrate or to colonize while on the other hand, they compel entire populations to migrate into other lands, deporting inhabitants against their wills, disgracefully tearing individuals from their families, their homes and their countries.
In that address to the Diplomatic Corps, in the presence of a solemn gathering, we again affirmed our desire, often previously expressed, for a just and lasting peace. We pointed out another way of attaining this peace, a way that promotes friendly relations between nations; that is, to allow exiles and refugess to return finally to their homes and to allow those in need, whose own lands lack the necessities of life, to emigrate to other countries.
-
in fact they arbitrarily restrict the natural rights of people to migrate
I'm guessing this is in reference to East Bloc countries forbidding emigration, and later on in the passage to the mass resettlements carried out in Russian and behind the Iron curtain.
There is no natural right to settle in a foreign country
-
But then, I don't object to the existence of people, pure or mixed, who have been conceived in sinful circuмstances.
No one here has objected to anyone's existence, Straw Queen.
Objecting to the behavior of those who spawn bastards is not objecting to anyone's existence, you hag.
Don't hold back! Feel free to express your thoughts! LOL
-
But this, this is just monumental absurdity! You have a xenophobic mentality, Telesphorus, I say frankly, that inclines you to believe the worst of other people, even of those who've done no wrong at all to you or to anyone. People who've emigrated legally, worked hard and honestly and earned their citizenship are no less citizens than you are, and you probably won't ever realize it unless circuмstances mandate your own emigration to a foreign country.
I agree with Tele about illegal immigrants. That's part of the reason the US is in the mess it's in. All these so-called "Catholic" Latinos come here illegally and vote for Obama just so the government will cater to them.
You don't live in the US, so you can't understand how bad things are here. Of course, the elite would have made sure their NWO conman Obama got re-elected without aliens voting for them, but still, it's annoying that people from other countries can come here and play such a significant role in our elections.
And the Republicans, are you kidding me. They put up Romney, they don't care about abortion or anything else. People may well have preferred an open liberal to an effective liberal who masquerades as a conservative, why shouldn't they.
Romney wasn't a great choice by any means, he would have just slowed the elite's agenda down a little. Obama is this country's worst nightmare, though.
I grant there may be some unwise policies and reasonable corrections to be made, some limitations that can be imposed on immigration, checks on entitlement programs and the like, but the irrational and prejudiced view you espouse above is absurd and, pardon the pun, simply foreign to a Christian mindset.
If a bunch of liberal aliens were flooding your country and voting for a dictator who is a tool of the ʝʊdɛօ-Masons, I think you'd be ticked off as well.
-
All this trying to guilt people for wanting to live among their own kind is bologna. There's nothing catholic/Christ-like about selling out your own country. That's really a sick and twisted picture of our religion.
-
In regards to "race mixing," that seems to be about doing what's best. In other words, your best family and children, will be people of your own race and hopefully ethnicity and even coming from your own chapel. In that way, the ties that bind you together are so much greater. Of course, our culture is destroying all those ties that bind us together. So, it is very hard to do and getting tougher everyday.
-
But this, this is just monumental absurdity! You have a xenophobic mentality, Telesphorus, I say frankly, that inclines you to believe the worst of other people, even of those who've done no wrong at all to you or to anyone. People who've emigrated legally, worked hard and honestly and earned their citizenship are no less citizens than you are, and you probably won't ever realize it unless circuмstances mandate your own emigration to a foreign country.
I agree with Tele about illegal immigrants. That's part of the reason the US is in the mess it's in. All these so-called "Catholic" Latinos come here illegally and vote for Obama just so the government will cater to them.
You don't live in the US, so you can't understand how bad things are here. Of course, the elite would have made sure their NWO conman Obama got re-elected without aliens voting for them, but still, it's annoying that people from other countries can come here and play such a significant role in our elections.
And the Republicans, are you kidding me. They put up Romney, they don't care about abortion or anything else. People may well have preferred an open liberal to an effective liberal who masquerades as a conservative, why shouldn't they.
Romney wasn't a great choice by any means, he would have just slowed the elite's agenda down a little. Obama is this country's worst nightmare, though.
I grant there may be some unwise policies and reasonable corrections to be made, some limitations that can be imposed on immigration, checks on entitlement programs and the like, but the irrational and prejudiced view you espouse above is absurd and, pardon the pun, simply foreign to a Christian mindset.
If a bunch of liberal aliens were flooding your country and voting for a dictator who is a tool of the ʝʊdɛօ-Masons, I think you'd be ticked off as well.
Ok--how could anybody other than a raging liberal have down-thumbed this?!?! I have thought the same thing about a few other posts in this thread. But there was a squeak-by room for benefit of the doubt. But I don't see any doubt as to liberalism in down-thumbing this post.
-
The "U.S.A." does not have real sovereignty or even a legitimate historical government any more.
That crown is broken.
What rules the "U.S.A." is none other than the mob and the Federal Reserve. I'm not exaggerating either, in my view.
The ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic NWO is here, and it is in the backyard and on the TV every day. The "U.S.A." is a circus act to actualize the NWO agenda.
Some people have said life is a carnival. Indeed.
-
But this, this is just monumental absurdity! You have a xenophobic mentality, Telesphorus, I say frankly, that inclines you to believe the worst of other people, even of those who've done no wrong at all to you or to anyone. People who've emigrated legally, worked hard and honestly and earned their citizenship are no less citizens than you are, and you probably won't ever realize it unless circuмstances mandate your own emigration to a foreign country.
I agree with Tele about illegal immigrants. That's part of the reason the US is in the mess it's in. All these so-called "Catholic" Latinos come here illegally and vote for Obama just so the government will cater to them.
You don't live in the US, so you can't understand how bad things are here. Of course, the elite would have made sure their NWO conman Obama got re-elected without aliens voting for them, but still, it's annoying that people from other countries can come here and play such a significant role in our elections.
And the Republicans, are you kidding me. They put up Romney, they don't care about abortion or anything else. People may well have preferred an open liberal to an effective liberal who masquerades as a conservative, why shouldn't they.
Romney wasn't a great choice by any means, he would have just slowed the elite's agenda down a little. Obama is this country's worst nightmare, though.
I grant there may be some unwise policies and reasonable corrections to be made, some limitations that can be imposed on immigration, checks on entitlement programs and the like, but the irrational and prejudiced view you espouse above is absurd and, pardon the pun, simply foreign to a Christian mindset.
If a bunch of liberal aliens were flooding your country and voting for a dictator who is a tool of the ʝʊdɛօ-Masons, I think you'd be ticked off as well.
Ok--how could anybody other than a raging liberal have down-thumbed this?!?! I have thought the same thing about a few other posts in this thread. But there was a squeak-by room for benefit of the doubt. But I don't see any doubt as to liberalism in down-thumbing this post.
The person who downrated it probably thought my post sounded "racist" because of what I said about Latinos who come here illegally and vote for Obama.
However, I didn't say anything negative about them as a race. My anger was towards them coming here illegally and influencing our elections.
-
Im not sure exactly what you mean by "defending people who have done it". Are you referring to cases where people have done it but are no longer doing it? That would imply that the person was either fornicating or they got divorced. Both of which are mortal sins. You should be against mortal sin if you are a Catholic.
That wasn't the best tense, I know. I should have included "are doing it". And by "doing it" and "have done it", I mean contracting marriages. I suppose my original past tense was because I probably had Sigismund in mind (who, I believe, is a widower).
But then, I don't object to the existence of people, pure or mixed, who have been conceived in sinful circuмstances.
I mean, St Martin de Porres was mixed race and illegitimate!
Your argument is based off of how interracial marriages/relationships are not morally wrong. Which I agree. But do you think that interracial marriages at high rates can be a bad thing? If not, why?
-
But this, this is just monumental absurdity! You have a xenophobic mentality, Telesphorus, I say frankly, that inclines you to believe the worst of other people, even of those who've done no wrong at all to you or to anyone. People who've emigrated legally, worked hard and honestly and earned their citizenship are no less citizens than you are, and you probably won't ever realize it unless circuмstances mandate your own emigration to a foreign country.
I agree with Tele about illegal immigrants. That's part of the reason the US is in the mess it's in. All these so-called "Catholic" Latinos come here illegally and vote for Obama just so the government will cater to them.
You don't live in the US, so you can't understand how bad things are here. Of course, the elite would have made sure their NWO conman Obama got re-elected without aliens voting for them, but still, it's annoying that people from other countries can come here and play such a significant role in our elections.
And the Republicans, are you kidding me. They put up Romney, they don't care about abortion or anything else. People may well have preferred an open liberal to an effective liberal who masquerades as a conservative, why shouldn't they.
Romney wasn't a great choice by any means, he would have just slowed the elite's agenda down a little. Obama is this country's worst nightmare, though.
I grant there may be some unwise policies and reasonable corrections to be made, some limitations that can be imposed on immigration, checks on entitlement programs and the like, but the irrational and prejudiced view you espouse above is absurd and, pardon the pun, simply foreign to a Christian mindset.
If a bunch of liberal aliens were flooding your country and voting for a dictator who is a tool of the ʝʊdɛօ-Masons, I think you'd be ticked off as well.
Ok--how could anybody other than a raging liberal have down-thumbed this?!?! I have thought the same thing about a few other posts in this thread. But there was a squeak-by room for benefit of the doubt. But I don't see any doubt as to liberalism in down-thumbing this post.
The person who downrated it probably thought my post sounded "racist" because of what I said about Latinos who come here illegally and vote for Obama.
However, I didn't say anything negative about them as a race. My anger was towards them coming here illegally and influencing our elections.
Not that anyone has said it was, but the down thumb was not from me. I have down thumbed a lot of posts on this tread, but I take no great issue with this one.
-
Racial/ethnic homogeneity is so obviously about group unity, I don't know why it even has to be explained. Just look at this thread. Sigismund hates the topic, because he's married to someone of another race. Vladimir hates it, because he is of another race. Clare hates it, apparently, because she's stuck in "color blind land." How much do you want to bet, that most of the people here who don't hate this thread, are white guys? And it doesn't end with topics like this. Look at the workplace. How's the multicultural wonderland working out? How do you think it compares to a homogeneous workplace? (hint: in the homogeneous one, there's a lot less hate).
Not only is group homogeneity conducive to good feelings towards other group members, but it is extremely conducive to group unity. Not surprisingly, groups that are heterogeneous appear weak and easily broken up, if they don't just fly apart on their own animosity towards each other.
It's the lesson from The Tower of Babel: we aren't meant to "all just get along." And, it would appear, that the first coming of Christ, did nothing to change that and, by the way, neither has 50 years of "racial re-education."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvM3RHLyzOo
-
Good post, Renzo.
Yeah I don't trust anyone that has a problem with whites promoting their own racial interests. To have a problem with this is a sign of hypocrisy at best.
I have 3 litmus tests I use to size people up:
The Jєω test. Is this person anti-Jєωιѕн? If not, then I don't trust them. Period. I've never encountered anyone who is even indifferent to the Jєωs that wasn't infected with all sorts of errors.
The Feminism test. Does this person have a problem with the role of women in Catholic nations of the past?
And the race test: Does this person think whites should not have their own nations and neighborhoods? Does this person think that all the races are equal in intelligence? Does this person think Martin Luther King was a great man? Does this person think that whites owe something to nonwhites? Does this person use terms like "vanilla" to derisively refer to groupings of whites, as if an all-white environment is somehow defective? Does this person say that there's no such thing as the white race?
These 3 tests are a great way to quickly figure people out.
I often encounter people who pass 1 of the 3 tests, sometimes even 2 of the 3 tests, but I rarely find people who pass all three tests.
That's one reason I like this forum so much. There's an unusual number of people on this forum who pass all 3 tests.
-
I have no problem at all with people of any race who come to this country legally, work hard and pay the tax. It's not even the "miscegenation" or the illegals slipping in here in order to get a chance to "make it" here in the land of milk and honey.
It's more of our govt's insane, open borders, entitilement programs and forced intergration programs that are the source of all the difficulties and problems that have arisen in the process.
And it's a few "chosen" few within this govt stirring the pot. That's the problem in and of itself. We're all clawing and scratching at each other in order to make this insanity work and it could without the interference of a small, malevolent, enitity that pollutes the natural order of things.
These issue that face us concerning race, ethnicity, borders, language, religion, etc. are a little more than "black and white", it's actually an attack and destruction of all of them together.
The Church has historically been protector of these things taken in context, she is certainly not a destroyer of them, well, not until recently.
I actually have to disagree with you alaric. I agree with the main point but I am not just concerned about illegal immigration but also legal immigration which is drowning this country out into the United States of Brazil.
-
... Native american's? :cowboy:
Um isn't there a theory about the American Indian crossing the Bering Strait to get into America. I don't think that makes them "native." :wink:
-
Also, it's worth noting that many immigrants have the ability to live in America largely because they are willing to do jobs that the whites are not able or willing to do.
Ah yes the old George W. Bush "immigrants are doing jobs Americans won't do" defense. :wink:
Actually that was disproven by Paul Krugman of all people, showing that American workers do want to do manual labor, farm work, construction etc. that immigrants do, but they aren't hired because businesses like the cheap labor.
-
All that your post proves is that whites aren't willing to work for cheap pay like immigrants. Now who are the ones feeling entitled?
Hatchc, perhaps you can show me where I've failed any of the three points on your litmus test.
Renzo, I've never said a thing against "racial homogeny". Please do tell, if my mere presence in your society is a threat to you, is my presence as a non-white on this forum equally a thorn in your eye?
-
All that your post proves is that whites aren't willing to work for cheap pay like immigrants. Now who are the ones feeling entitled?
Who are the ones sucking up the welfare programs? Oh yes Blacks and Hispanics. I'm sorry I don't work like a slave, how selfish of me.
-
By the way Vladimir are you a Democrat, since Asians vote 75% Democratic. :wink:
-
Vladamir,
That is so untrue about how illegal immigrants are willing to do jobs that Americans are not willing to do. Before illegal immigrants came here, a construction job was a pretty good job to have. You could make $20/hour which isn't bad at all. Now illegal immigrants are coming here and doing the same work for $10/hour. They are severely undercutting wages in certain industries. For the Americans who were doing those jobs beforehand...they can no longer support a family doing the same type of work.
Not to mention, there is a guest worker program where people can come here legally and do certain jobs if we can't find anyone. So for the jobs that people are not willing to do...there is a process for bringing people here legally to do those jobs.
We should not reward people for coming here illegally. Especially when people are waiting in line to come here legally.
-
That is so untrue about how illegal immigrants are willing to do jobs that Americans are not willing to do.
Yeah, I know for a fact that generally isn't true.
-
I agree with the main point but I am not just concerned about illegal immigration but also legal immigration which is drowning this country out into the United States of Brazil.
Despite the economy in Brazilian being good many Brazilians are still arriving in Ireland. Meat factories in Ireland wanted cheap foreign labour so Brazil was targeted. Many of the meat factories are now closed, the Capitalist made his money but Ireland is left with the illegal Brazilians. Whilst many opted for voluntary repatriation, many Brazilians in Ireland have not enough money to go home. Many are able to get social welfare, others seek odd jobs and hope for "better days". The social welfare in Ireland is very attractive and a reason why many Eastern Europeans remain here. The money is sent back to Poland weekly.Also many receiving social welfare are not actually even residing in Ireland.
The number of Brazilian women working in prostitution in Ireland is quite high.
Brazilians opting for the legal route here are arriving via the English language schools.
-
That is so untrue about how illegal immigrants are willing to do jobs that Americans are not willing to do
I agree. This liberal mantra was/is bleated out in Ireland. As I mentioned in the other post, meat factory owners went to Brazil specifically to get cheap foreign labour despite local men being available to work.
Despite high unemployment among Irish people, you still have people here who not only renew existing work permits for foreign workers but also seek new work permits. They are traitors and a major adversary of our people.
I do my best not to frequent a business that puts immigrant workers ahead of Irish workers. I believe firmly in Irish jobs for Irish workers.
-
It makes no difference whether or not the pay is fair - the bottom line is this - if you want to stay in business you better be doing one of several things: 1) Charging lower prices or 2) Providing better service so that a higher price will not deter potential customers.
Sorry, but race has nothing to do with it. If I can hire 2 Mexicans to do the same quality job and in the same amount of time for a lower price than I could with 2 white, 2 Chinese, or fill in the blank _____ workers than I'm going to go with the cheaper price.
Unless a white worker can do a significantly better job, if he charges more than the Mexican than I'm not going to hire him. It would be better just to higher the cheaper laborer and then add some finishing touches myself.
Who wouldn't prefer to hire someone that they can communicate clearly with in their own language - I'd rather hire someone that will understand my instructions rather than someone with whom I need to point, wave my arms, and demonstrate every little thing. But in the end, my wallet dictates my decisions when I'm hiring people. Not my eyes or convenience.
Sorry, but those are just the basic rules of making a living when facing hard competition. Adapt or get left behind in the dust. This attitude reminds me strongly of spoiled children that graduate college with this and that degree and want to demand high paying jobs in their fields immediately and get disgruntled when they are put on the factory floor to gain experience about how the system actually works.
My question for you is this - if immigrants, illegal or not, can support their families here in the States AND send money overseas to support their family in their native countries on these low wages, why can't white people support their nuclear families, which are often substantially smaller, on the same wages? And no, welfare does not explain it all, because I personally know many legal immigrants that make an honest living with small wages that get by comfortably here in the States, send home money to their families, and have enough to donate to the Church.
There were also many points in time where immigrants had it working against them as well! Just think about the anti-Irish discrimination and the anti-Chinese discrimination (during and after the Gold Rush and construction of the railroad). It's not as though immigrant life has always been a piece of cake here in America! Don't let other people's hard work become a thorn in your eye because you aren't willing to do it. My relatives, none of whom were physically fit for the job, had to do menial and physical labor to support their families when they relocated here to the States. Others had to work minimum wage jobs such as the night shift at gas stations to bring in additional income for the family WHILE saving every other penny to pay for college. I have a relative who did not speak a word of English before moving here when he was in placed in 8th grade and graduated as the valedictorian of his high school four years later. Yeah, many immigrants abuse entitlement programs - a whole lot of them don't and rely on their own hard work to establish themselves in a foreign land.
Once again, no one is saying that there is not a pro-immigrant bias in many fields, and no one is saying that there aren't many entitlement programs that minorities (and whites) abuse. But you can only put the blame on those so far before you have to take responsibility, toughen up, and face the competition. If you don't you run the risk of becoming like the very people you are criticizing - just like nαzιs who obsessed over Jєωιѕн women. The risk here is becoming exactly like the minorities who justify their abuse of entitlement programs, etc by saying that "the man" is out to get them.
-
It makes no difference whether or not the pay is fair - the bottom line is this - if you want to stay in business you better be doing one of several things: 1) Charging lower prices or 2) Providing better service so that a higher price will not deter potential customers.
Sorry, but race has nothing to do with it. If I can hire 2 Mexicans to do the same quality job and in the same amount of time for a lower price than I could with 2 white, 2 Chinese, or fill in the blank _____ workers than I'm going to go with the cheaper price.
Unless a white worker can do a significantly better job, if he charges more than the Mexican than I'm not going to hire him. It would be better just to higher the cheaper laborer and then add some finishing touches myself
I can't say shame on you but you are no patriot. I regard you as a traitor.
A just and fixed price is a different topic.
-
It's considered an "entitlement" to expect one's nation to protect the jobs and wages of citizens from bidding wars caused by mass migrations of non-citizens.
This kind of thinking is a real problem. It's a form of liberalism that which allows no opposition to the position we should have eventually have the same wages as the Chinese. As though we shouldn't protect the advantages the US has for the benefit of its own citizens.
It's an internationalist view, and anti-white European (ethnically Christian) view.
-
It's considered an "entitlement" to expect one's nation to protect the jobs and wages of citizens from bidding wars caused by mass migrations of non-citizens.
This kind of thinking is a real problem. It's a form of liberalism that which allows no opposition to the position we should have eventually have the same wages as the Chinese. As though we shouldn't protect the advantages the US has for the benefit of its own citizens.
It's an internationalist view, and anti-white European (ethnically Christian) view.
I never said it was a good system that is in place, but it IS the one that is currently in place, and barring major changes that need to begin at the top - it isn't going to change anytime soon.
The solution is to play along with it temporarily until the appropriate time to react positively to a future government that wakes up and changes its course.
But instead of sitting around twiddling our thumbs waiting for the "Three Days of Darkness" to take care of our problems, we might as well "join 'em" since we obviously can't "beat 'em".
The decision of an individual to hire a white worker no matter how outrageous the cost over a Mexican worker is not going to make any difference when an entire country is importing Mexican workers for cheap labor.
In any event, the quality of the work produced combined with financial considerations seems to be the most sound criterion for deciding who to hire.
And actually the Chinese and Vietnamese know very well that they are being virtually enslaved when they enter into factory work, etc. But their need to make a living, however small, is greater than their distaste for such demanding and degrading work. It's that industriousness combined with a sense of duty to provide for one's family that gives them the strength to work through such grueling conditions.
-
Good post, Renzo.
Yeah I don't trust anyone that has a problem with whites promoting their own racial interests. To have a problem with this is a sign of hypocrisy at best.
I have 3 litmus tests I use to size people up:
The Jєω test. Is this person anti-Jєωιѕн? If not, then I don't trust them. Period. I've never encountered anyone who is even indifferent to the Jєωs that wasn't infected with all sorts of errors.
The Feminism test. Does this person have a problem with the role of women in Catholic nations of the past?
And the race test: Does this person think whites should not have their own nations and neighborhoods? Does this person think that all the races are equal in intelligence? Does this person think Martin Luther King was a great man? Does this person think that whites owe something to nonwhites? Does this person use terms like "vanilla" to derisively refer to groupings of whites, as if an all-white environment is somehow defective? Does this person say that there's no such thing as the white race?
These 3 tests are a great way to quickly figure people out.
I often encounter people who pass 1 of the 3 tests, sometimes even 2 of the 3 tests, but I rarely find people who pass all three tests.
That's one reason I like this forum so much. There's an unusual number of people on this forum who pass all 3 tests.
Yeah, and the best part about it is, they're all traditional catholics!
-
All that your post proves is that whites aren't willing to work for cheap pay like immigrants. Now who are the ones feeling entitled?
Hatchc, perhaps you can show me where I've failed any of the three points on your litmus test.
Renzo, I've never said a thing against "racial homogeny". Please do tell, if my mere presence in your society is a threat to you, is my presence as a non-white on this forum equally a thorn in your eye?
Of course not! Why do you even ask questions like that; they are offensive.
-
There is no doubt about it: our global economic system is taking advantage of virtually everyone and as a result, the global birthrate has plummeted from around 6.0 in the kennedy years to around 2.5 today. Puerto Rico, for example, that had large numbers of its people immigrate to the u.s., now has a below replacement birthrate. Mexico's is falling very rapidly and will soon be below replacement. China's is far below replacement, as is Taiwan's and Japan's. Many so called muslim countries are already below replacement levels and they are all declining all over the muslim world. Of course, there is a reaction to all this. But, as vladimir pointed out, the bad guys are winning and the good guys are losing. So for the time being, we are all sort of faced with the decision of what to do about this crisis.
I think some of us are accepting the situation and dying out (but trying to do that with grace and virtue), while others are fighting it and some of them, no doubt, will make it. It is disheartening to see someone make a grand effort, only to see their kids wind up childless/kind of wrecked, after being caught up in the culture/taken advantage of. On the other hand, there are success stories out there. I think there is a duty to try and succeed, but at some point performing that duty, seems to me to become an issue of heroism and perhaps perfection, but not necessary to be a catholic in good standing.
-
But instead of sitting around twiddling our thumbs waiting for the "Three Days of Darkness" to take care of our problems, we might as well "join 'em" since we obviously can't "beat 'em".
You don't live in the US, correct?
If not, you don't understand how bad it is to have illegal immigrants coming into one's country and negatively influencing elections.
And trust me, the immigrants who are coming into this country aren't as willing to work as you think.
-
There are some horrible stories about the wreckage done to places like el salvador, by our global economy. If i understand the story correctly, it goes something like this. A feudal type economy was set up by the spanish hundreds of years ago. So, a typical man might have supported a family on a piece of land that he worked. Then during the green revolution he got cheap seeds and fertilizer, which enabled him to be more prosperous, than he had been. In time however, the economy became dependent on the new ways and eventually the small farmer, in order to survive, was forced to seek work off the "family farm." So, he went to work in a foreign factory set up someplace in his country, where guys like him could go work in it, for some pathetic wage like 40 dollars a month. As time went on and the economic transformation "progressed," he became unable to survive even with the factory job and his farm duties (no doubt, many of those fell on his wife, who would then be inclined to have less children, because of her ever growing workload and perhaps the need for her to get a factory job too). So, he finds out he can go to america and get a job that pays four times as much money and even includes "room and board." So, he makes the journey to america. Of course, he is not unique; there are millions, if not billions, of people like him and his stressed out family, all over the world.
-
Good post, Renzo.
Yeah I don't trust anyone that has a problem with whites promoting their own racial interests. To have a problem with this is a sign of hypocrisy at best.
I have 3 litmus tests I use to size people up:
The Jєω test. Is this person anti-Jєωιѕн? If not, then I don't trust them. Period. I've never encountered anyone who is even indifferent to the Jєωs that wasn't infected with all sorts of errors.
The Feminism test. Does this person have a problem with the role of women in Catholic nations of the past?
And the race test: Does this person think whites should not have their own nations and neighborhoods? Does this person think that all the races are equal in intelligence? Does this person think Martin Luther King was a great man? Does this person think that whites owe something to nonwhites? Does this person use terms like "vanilla" to derisively refer to groupings of whites, as if an all-white environment is somehow defective? Does this person say that there's no such thing as the white race?
These 3 tests are a great way to quickly figure people out.
I often encounter people who pass 1 of the 3 tests, sometimes even 2 of the 3 tests, but I rarely find people who pass all three tests.
That's one reason I like this forum so much. There's an unusual number of people on this forum who pass all 3 tests.
Well, you certainly don't want to trust me.
-
It makes no difference whether or not the pay is fair - the bottom line is this - if you want to stay in business you better be doing one of several things: 1) Charging lower prices or 2) Providing better service so that a higher price will not deter potential customers.
Sorry, but race has nothing to do with it. If I can hire 2 Mexicans to do the same quality job and in the same amount of time for a lower price than I could with 2 white, 2 Chinese, or fill in the blank _____ workers than I'm going to go with the cheaper price.
Unless a white worker can do a significantly better job, if he charges more than the Mexican than I'm not going to hire him. It would be better just to higher the cheaper laborer and then add some finishing touches myself
I can't say shame on you but you are no patriot. I regard you as a traitor.
A just and fixed price is a different topic.
A traitor to what?
-
Not everyone is going to agree on every little thing; that's where I think is a good place for catholic charity to take over.
-
In one of my posts I said I thought Clare was stuck in "color blind land." I think I misjudged her, when I said that. I think Clare is concerned about not hurting people's feelings and being as fair as she possibly can, especially to people who are accused of any wrongdoing. That is not a bad trait to have. Although, I don't always agree with her.
-
I can't say shame on you but you are no patriot. I regard you as a traitor.
Your speaking of traitors to Ireland, Mr. Grace, makes me think of Alan Shatter. Why has this man who hates both the Cross and the native Irish people been allowed to remain in government? Is there a popular movement of any sort to get rid of him—preferably forever?
-
It makes no difference whether or not the pay is fair - the bottom line is this - if you want to stay in business you better be doing one of several things: 1) Charging lower prices or 2) Providing better service so that a higher price will not deter potential customers.
Sorry, but race has nothing to do with it. If I can hire 2 Mexicans to do the same quality job and in the same amount of time for a lower price than I could with 2 white, 2 Chinese, or fill in the blank _____ workers than I'm going to go with the cheaper price.
Unless a white worker can do a significantly better job, if he charges more than the Mexican than I'm not going to hire him. It would be better just to higher the cheaper laborer and then add some finishing touches myself.
Who wouldn't prefer to hire someone that they can communicate clearly with in their own language - I'd rather hire someone that will understand my instructions rather than someone with whom I need to point, wave my arms, and demonstrate every little thing. But in the end, my wallet dictates my decisions when I'm hiring people. Not my eyes or convenience.
Sorry, but those are just the basic rules of making a living when facing hard competition. Adapt or get left behind in the dust. This attitude reminds me strongly of spoiled children that graduate college with this and that degree and want to demand high paying jobs in their fields immediately and get disgruntled when they are put on the factory floor to gain experience about how the system actually works.
My question for you is this - if immigrants, illegal or not, can support their families here in the States AND send money overseas to support their family in their native countries on these low wages, why can't white people support their nuclear families, which are often substantially smaller, on the same wages? And no, welfare does not explain it all, because I personally know many legal immigrants that make an honest living with small wages that get by comfortably here in the States, send home money to their families, and have enough to donate to the Church.
There were also many points in time where immigrants had it working against them as well! Just think about the anti-Irish discrimination and the anti-Chinese discrimination (during and after the Gold Rush and construction of the railroad). It's not as though immigrant life has always been a piece of cake here in America! Don't let other people's hard work become a thorn in your eye because you aren't willing to do it. My relatives, none of whom were physically fit for the job, had to do menial and physical labor to support their families when they relocated here to the States. Others had to work minimum wage jobs such as the night shift at gas stations to bring in additional income for the family WHILE saving every other penny to pay for college. I have a relative who did not speak a word of English before moving here when he was in placed in 8th grade and graduated as the valedictorian of his high school four years later. Yeah, many immigrants abuse entitlement programs - a whole lot of them don't and rely on their own hard work to establish themselves in a foreign land.
Once again, no one is saying that there is not a pro-immigrant bias in many fields, and no one is saying that there aren't many entitlement programs that minorities (and whites) abuse. But you can only put the blame on those so far before you have to take responsibility, toughen up, and face the competition. If you don't you run the risk of becoming like the very people you are criticizing - just like nαzιs who obsessed over Jєωιѕн women. The risk here is becoming exactly like the minorities who justify their abuse of entitlement programs, etc by saying that "the man" is out to get them.
Business owners/companies who hire illegal immigrants should be heavily fined. People like you are the reason why people are coming to my country illegally. You hire these illegal immigrants because labor is cheaper and you don't have to give them employee benefits. While at the same time, it is taking jobs away from legal citizens. It is also illegal. Do you generally advocate breaking the law? You certainly are in this case.
Your right. Race doesn't have anything to do with illegal aliens. All of them need to return to their respective countries. Regardless of what race they are.
Yes it does have to do with welfare. American taxpayers are forking out a little more than $30,000 per immigrant family per year. They come here...collect welfare, use our medical facilities, collect financial aid, etc. and work under the table at the same time. In 2010, American taxpayers forked out over $109 billion dollars to support illegal immigrants alone. That is 8-9% of our federal spending budget. I highly doubt there are many of these immigrants that you speak of who don't utilize these types of government benefits. Yes, I realize that there are whites who abuse the system. Thats why we don't need anymore people doing it.
Spoiled college student? Anyone can do what I am doing. I have earned the privlage to go back to school.
Why don't you go start telling your Mexican government the same things you are telling me. As we speak Guatemalans are trying to cross the border to get into Mexico. Only Mexico uses its military to stop illegal immigrants. Thats exactly what we should be doing!!!! But oh no....that would be racist if the white man did something like that. Either that or we are supposed to toughen up and let it happen without putting our foot down.
Mexico's economy is actually pretty good. They are in the top 33% percentile. There is no excuse for Mexicans to come to the USA illegally. they should be able to make ends meet in Mexico. They come here because they know they can collect all kinds of welfare benefits and work under the table at the same time. While knocking up stupid, young white girls then not taking care of the kid. They also have been known to cause car accidents intentionally. The list goes on.
-
...just like nαzιs who obsessed over Jєωιѕн women. The risk here is becoming exactly like the minorities who justify their abuse of entitlement programs, etc by saying that "the man" is out to get them.
Vladimir Jєωιѕн women started feminism. Also the State has a moral duty to support social justice for the worker.
As for the "anti-Chinese" legaislation and "anti-Irish" legislation there was an actual point for that legislation besides just "bigotry." Because of the immigratrion rollback after the Great Wave of Immigration from the 1840s-1920's America became more united after immigration was rollbacked.
Speaking of the Irish the Nativists and Know-Nothings had a legitimate concern for them because the Irish were known for crime, gangsterism, alcoholism, being loyal to the Pope and Catholicism instead of America, anti-British sentiment, etc.
Also around 65% of Asians vote Democratic. The Republicans lost the Asian vote after the Cold War with the new Asian generation turning to the Democratic Party.
-
makes me think of Alan Shatter. Why has this man who hates both the Cross and the native Irish people been allowed to remain in government? Is there a popular movement of any sort to get rid of him—preferably forever?
You are correct about him. He has no loyalty to Ireland and is anti Catholic for certain. A few months ago, pro-life activists had a campaign in his constituency of Dublin South. Their "“Every child matters except to Alan Shatter” posters featured in newspapers and it angered Shatter.
Shatter is angering many people. Even the Gardai, the police in Ireland are sick of him. Morale in that organisation is very low. They have stopped issuing fines for motoring offences and refuse to work overtime.
He is doing everything to "Shatter the Nation" as one activist stated. He has had several citizenship ceremonies since becoming Minister. Ceremonies where immigrants become Irish citizens, he is agitating for abortion, he was campaigning for divorce, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, he was great for campaigning for family planning.
For St. Patrick's Day he was in Israel. As you are well aware he is a Jєω.
A liberal rat.
-
Hatchc, perhaps you can show me where I've failed any of the three points on your litmus test.
I don't know if you have. If your only beef is with people who consider Chinese culture inferior to Western culture then I don't really have a problem with that. I suppose Western culture isn't necessarily a synonym for Catholic culture. It's good for people to have pride in their culture and their ancestors. I've always found Asian cultures very interesting.
-
Hatchc, perhaps you can show me where I've failed any of the three points on your litmus test.
I don't know if you have. If your only beef is with people who consider Chinese culture inferior to Western culture then I don't really have a problem with that. I suppose Western culture isn't necessarily a synonym for Catholic culture. It's good for people to have pride in their culture and their ancestors. I've always found Asian cultures very interesting.
I find it odd to be offended at someone having a more favorable view of their own group than of the groups of others.
When the Chinese or Japanese consider themselves superior, it really isn't all that offensive. Chinese ethnic chauvinism, in particular, tends to be rather comical.
So when someone takes grave offense as Vladimir does, it is clearly rooted in a kind of pride that westerners don't typically have about their civilization.
-
Hatchc, perhaps you can show me where I've failed any of the three points on your litmus test.
I don't know if you have. If your only beef is with people who consider Chinese culture inferior to Western culture then I don't really have a problem with that. I suppose Western culture isn't necessarily a synonym for Catholic culture. It's good for people to have pride in their culture and their ancestors. I've always found Asian cultures very interesting.
I find it odd to be offended at someone having a more favorable view of their own group than of the groups of others.
When the Chinese or Japanese consider themselves superior, it really isn't all that offensive. Chinese ethnic chauvinism, in particular, tends to be rather comical.
So when someone takes grave offense as Vladimir does, it is clearly rooted in a kind of pride that westerners don't typically have about their civilization.
The only thing that annoys me is when people try to rig the game, so that whites have to play by separate rules to everybody else. If I'm not mistaken, Vladimir isn't saying this. He may be exhibiting chauvenism, but that doesn't really bother me.
-
Hatchc, perhaps you can show me where I've failed any of the three points on your litmus test.
I don't know if you have. If your only beef is with people who consider Chinese culture inferior to Western culture then I don't really have a problem with that. I suppose Western culture isn't necessarily a synonym for Catholic culture. It's good for people to have pride in their culture and their ancestors. I've always found Asian cultures very interesting.
I find it odd to be offended at someone having a more favorable view of their own group than of the groups of others.
When the Chinese or Japanese consider themselves superior, it really isn't all that offensive. Chinese ethnic chauvinism, in particular, tends to be rather comical.
So when someone takes grave offense as Vladimir does, it is clearly rooted in a kind of pride that westerners don't typically have about their civilization.
The only thing that annoys me is when people try to rig the game, so that whites have to play by separate rules to everybody else. If I'm not mistaken, Vladimir isn't saying this. He may be exhibiting chauvenism, but that doesn't really bother me.
Well if that's the case, when they seem to have the need to "handicap" whites in an argument, that by it's very nature means they're admitting whites are superior.
The only time you rig a game against a competitor is when you know he's better than you.
-
Hatchc, perhaps you can show me where I've failed any of the three points on your litmus test.
I don't know if you have. If your only beef is with people who consider Chinese culture inferior to Western culture then I don't really have a problem with that. I suppose Western culture isn't necessarily a synonym for Catholic culture. It's good for people to have pride in their culture and their ancestors. I've always found Asian cultures very interesting.
I find it odd to be offended at someone having a more favorable view of their own group than of the groups of others.
When the Chinese or Japanese consider themselves superior, it really isn't all that offensive. Chinese ethnic chauvinism, in particular, tends to be rather comical.
So when someone takes grave offense as Vladimir does, it is clearly rooted in a kind of pride that westerners don't typically have about their civilization.
The only thing that annoys me is when people try to rig the game, so that whites have to play by separate rules to everybody else. If I'm not mistaken, Vladimir isn't saying this. He may be exhibiting chauvenism, but that doesn't really bother me.
Yeah only if it benefits them somehow huh?
-
:smoke-pot:
-
There is no natural right to settle in a foreign country
This is directly contradicted by Pope Pius XII. Do you deny his teaching, then?
The just and legitimate considerations when framing a policy are as indicated earlier, first whether the public wealth allows it, second, if yes, then the right to emigrate must not be denied to decent or needy people as the case may be.
This isn't limited to one country or one place and time, this is the teaching of the Church based on natural law which applies to all people everywhere.
It is only when one of these is not satisfied that any country should deny immigration.
On the fiftieth anniversary of the Encyclical Rerum Novarum, we did speak of the right of people to migrate, which right is founded in the very nature of land.
Our planet, with all its extent of oceans and was and lakes, with mountains and plains covered with eternal snows and ice, with great deserts and traceless lands, is not, at the same time, without habitable regions and living spaces now abandoned to wild natural vegetation and well suited to be cultivated by man to satisfy his needs and civil activities: and more than once, it is inevitable that some families migrating from one spot to another should go elsewhere in search of a new home-land.
Then,—according to the teaching of “Rerum Novarum,” —the right of the family to a living space is recognized. When this happens, migration attains its natural scope as experience often shows. We mean, the more favorable distribution of men on the earth's surface suitable to colonies of agricultural workers; that surface which God created and prepared for the use of all.
-
This is directly contradicted by Pope Pius XII.
That is nonsense. Obviously you have trouble reading.
Do I have a natural right to pick a country on the map and demand the right to live in that country?
-
On the fiftieth anniversary of the Encyclical Rerum Novarum, we did speak of the right of people to migrate, which right is founded in the very nature of land.
This says nothing about having the right to insist that foreign countries accept immigrants from abroad.
To claim this means that borders must be opened to foreigners is simply preposterous.
-
I quoted the relevant portion in the previous post. Read carefully the conditions stipulated.
We wrote specifically on this subject in a letter of December 24, 1948 to the American Bishops:
You know indeed how preoccupied we have been and with what anxiety we have followed those who have been forced by revolutions in their own countries, or by unemployment or hunger to leave their homes and live in foreign lands.
The natural law itself, no less than devotion to humanity, urges that ways of migration be opened to these people. For the Creator of the universe made all good things primarily for the good of all. Since land everywhere offers the possibility of supporting a large number of people, the sovereignty of the State, although it must be respected, cannot be exaggerated to the point that access to this land is, for inadequate or unjustified reasons, denied to needy and decent people from other nations, provided of course, that the public wealth, considered very carefully, does not forbid this.
Informed of our intentions, you recently strove for legislation to allow many refugees to enter your land. Through your persistence, a provident law was enacted, a law that we hope will be followed by others of broader scope. In addition, you have, with the aid of chosen men, cared for the emigrants as they left their homes and as they arrived in your land, thus admirably putting into practice the precept of priestly charity: "The priest is to injure no one; he will desire rather to aid all." (St. Ambrose, "De Officiis ministrorum," lib. 3, c. IX).
As to your question, the answer is yes, of course, provided you meet the reasonable qualifications (financial stability, other background checks etc), that come under "decent and needy" in a country which can permit it, which comes under "public wealth" of that country not forbidding your emigration.
-
the sovereignty of the State, although it must be respected, cannot be exaggerated to the point that access to this land is, for inadequate or unjustified reasons, denied to needy and decent people from other nations, provided of course, that the public wealth, considered very carefully, does not forbid this.
The reasons for forbidding migration are completely justified.
Many states and the US are headed towards bankruptcy. Migration is used to undercut the wages of the native population.
Pope Pius XII is talking about open lands. Access to land, in particular, agricultural land. Not to demand entry into a foreign nation which one has no right to do.
It's clear that the state has the right to forbid the entry of foreigners.
The church of the UN and conciliarism is not the Catholic Church.
-
I already granted the public wealth was the key factor in taking a just decision of limiting, or in certain cases if it is truly necessary, even stopping immigration entirely. You are now arguing on that basis, above, when you say "Many states and the US are headed towards bankruptcy. Migration is used to undercut the wages of the native population."
But earlier you were claiming the same thing on the basis of other superfluous and xenophobic reasons which were insufficient and even specious when you repeated some prejudices about people from other countries.
-
I quoted the relevant portion in the previous post. Read carefully the conditions stipulated.
We wrote specifically on this subject in a letter of December 24, 1948 to the American Bishops:
You know indeed how preoccupied we have been and with what anxiety we have followed those who have been forced by revolutions in their own countries, or by unemployment or hunger to leave their homes and live in foreign lands.
The natural law itself, no less than devotion to humanity, urges that ways of migration be opened to these people. For the Creator of the universe made all good things primarily for the good of all. Since land everywhere offers the possibility of supporting a large number of people, the sovereignty of the State, although it must be respected, cannot be exaggerated to the point that access to this land is, for inadequate or unjustified reasons, denied to needy and decent people from other nations, provided of course, that the public wealth, considered very carefully, does not forbid this.
Informed of our intentions, you recently strove for legislation to allow many refugees to enter your land. Through your persistence, a provident law was enacted, a law that we hope will be followed by others of broader scope. In addition, you have, with the aid of chosen men, cared for the emigrants as they left their homes and as they arrived in your land, thus admirably putting into practice the precept of priestly charity: "The priest is to injure no one; he will desire rather to aid all." (St. Ambrose, "De Officiis ministrorum," lib. 3, c. IX).
As to your question, the answer is yes, of course, provided you meet the reasonable qualifications (financial stability, other background checks etc), that come under "decent and needy" in a country which can permit it, which comes under "public wealth" of that country not forbidding your emigration.
What is meant by public wealth?
-
But earlier you were claiming the same thing on the basis of other superfluous and xenophobic reasons which were insufficient and even specious when you repeated some prejudices about people from other countries.
The reasons for forbidding migration have always been valid.
We're not talking about a relatively empty country like Northern Mexico of the early 19th Century.
There is nothing xenophobic about the struggles of a nation to maintain its own land and people.
Neither does settling in another land give rights of citizenship.
There is absolutely no right to migrate en masse into the territory of another nation.
To say that there is to deny the right of nationhood.
-
What is meant by public wealth?
Nishant says Pius XII's teachings means that states don't have the right to decide who their citizens should be.
It's obvious that mass migration into welfare states means the dilution of the wealth of the country.
-
The way these people talk a state is required to accept endless streams of migrants, regardless of their race, religion, ideology etc. Until such point as the osmotic process reaches equilibrium. that is, until people have as much reason to flee this land as the land they came from.
That is simply a prescription for national ѕυιcιdє.
-
On the fiftieth anniversary of the Encyclical Rerum Novarum, we did speak of the right of people to migrate, which right is founded in the very nature of land.
This says nothing about having the right to insist that foreign countries accept immigrants from abroad.
To claim this means that borders must be opened to foreigners is simply preposterous.
If it doesn't mean that, then what does it mean?
-
Telesphorus,
If I had read the whole thread before posting the question above. I would have seen that you had responded to it already. Never mind.
-
If it doesn't mean that, then what does it mean?
It means that people have a right to move. To leave where they are to find a better place.
It doesn't mean they have a right to settle wherever they like.
-
To claim the Catholic religion demands we permit a rootless, cosmopolitan anti-national class to destroy the ethnic homogeneity of western states and drive them towards eventual ruin has nothing to do with anything Pius XII was talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVt0dnwZMCo
-
I think if catholic charity was at the heart of america's policies in regards to immigration for example, there would be a heavy emphasis on supporting a high domestic birthrate, as well as lots of automation, in order to prevent wages from skyrocketing, as a result of women staying home to bear and raise their children.
Furthermore, things like segregation would be encouraged, because they significantly reduce stress on families, by encouraging life revolving around the local community, instead of commuting everywhere and spending lots of time and money doing that, as well as alienating folks from their neighbors and neighborhood. This could also go a long way in helping us solve some of our infastructure problems as well as stablizing the housing market.
As far as misery in places like el salvador, for example. The u.s. probably had a hand in causing that, through its policy of encouraging dependence of the general public there, on things that multination corporations would provide, but then remove whenever they could make the tiniest profit by doing so, leaving the labor force there destitute and hence, eager to emigrate for work. If america had a catholic sense of justice it would never have allowed and encouraged such predatory and irresponsible practices by american multinational corporations.
On the other hand, setting up porto potties and water stations in the desert, because all these poor people are dying out there, seems like a pretty nice thing to do. And of course, if they've come down with the plague/leprosy or something, it would be nice if our health services would treat them, particularly since our border is in fact open to virtually anyone and they might sneeze/drip on the produce in the grocery store, before i buy it! :ready-to-eat:
-
There is a line between the obligation to help people and the demand that people let themselves and their lands be despoiled.
It's also pretty clear that economics is not the only thing to consider when dealing with immigration.
Migrants - especially when they come in large numbers, tend to have political objectives going far beyond establishing a homestead somewhere.
One of their main objectives tends to be to tell the white Christian citizenry that they are obligated according to their religion to permit endless migration until the demographics of the nation are fundamentally altered. That in itself is hostility, which alone would justify exclusion.
These things are obviously not Christian duties. To take the post-war message of Pius XII and apply it to the ʝʊdɛօ-marxist war on the European ethnicities is - well, it's what you expect from conciliarists. (conciliarists are of the Left)
-
Once the leftists in this country have rock solid electoral support (it's clear the minorities all kinds are overwhelmingly behind them now) from the plurality of left-leaning migrants, then there will be absolutely no protections for Christianity.
The same left-wing war against Christianity that was prosecuted South of the border can be prosecuted here, not just by cultural means but by political means.
Do these people really expect the migrants to care if whites are disarmed?
If whites are forbidden from homeschooling?
If the mass of whites are economically ruined?
These migrants do not have the same values as the native white population, they do not respect the country and its people, they don't even admit that the country has a people, a nationality with rights.
They are - to a large extent - in cooperation with those who wish to subjugate the the American people in their own country
-
The way these people talk a state is required to accept endless streams of migrants, regardless of their race, religion, ideology etc. Until such point as the osmotic process reaches equilibrium. that is, until people have as much reason to flee this land as the land they came from.
That is simply a prescription for national ѕυιcιdє.
They are probably only saying that because they are illegal immigrants themselves or they were a product of illegal immigrants.
The problem is that our country has allowed too many illegal immigrants. I think it becomes morally acceptable to prevent more illegal immigrants from coming, and deport some of the existing ones, as soon as it becomes problematic to the existing citizens of a country.
I highly doubt that it is OK for illegal immigrants to migrate at high rates and take jobs away from people in a certain country. Its one thing if you only get a hand full of these immigrants and can accommodate them. Its another when they abuse a system, and harm existing citizens in any kind of way (taking jobs).
Common Sense tells me that this is not a picture perfect world and we cannot just have open borders to anyone who wants to come here. They could very well be a wolf in sheep's clothing and there is not way of telling until it is too late.
-
Nishant says Pius XII's teachings means that states don't have the right to decide who their citizens should be.
Did I say that?
It's obvious that mass migration into welfare states means the dilution of the wealth of the country.
An immigrant who is employed or involved in productive labor, who pays his taxes, may in fact increase the public wealth. Businesses in any country have and will continue to hire talent from abroad. Are you saying they should be prevented from doing so?
A country may form just policies on things like the path to citizenship it offers however long or short, or may offer tax or other incentives to businesses who give some preference to indigenous rather than foreign employees.
It means that people have a right to move. To leave where they are to find a better place.
If people have a natural right to emigrate, then countries that can receive such immigrants have a duty to do so, provided the reasonable qualifications laid out by Pope Pius XII are met both on the part of the host country and the immigrant himself.
Yes, obviously, there is a limit - each State should consider carefully what number of immigrants it can and is prepared to accept. The implicit idea you seem to be suggesting that immigration is always and invariably harmful to the host nation is rather unsubstantiated on your part.
Like I said, in any case you are thinking about the US alone, the Church is laying down a general principle for all time.
Many countries may be at a stage where they have need of productive or skilled workers above all else, for their economy, and if their native population cannot satisfy that need, their arbitrary denial of citizenship to people from abroad that businesses are willing to hire and who emigrate legally would only harm the potential public wealth.
Beside this, there is also the humanitarian aspect that can be more pronounced in particular points of time, like immediately after a war, or when there are massive numbers deported from their homes or are refugees, and other countries that can do so can have a reasonable duty of charity to provide for a reasonable number of migrants. This is clearly a more or less exceptional situation, but here too the teaching of the Church is clear.
What Holy Writ says of individuals "And hospitality do not forget; for by this some, being not aware of it, have entertained angels." also applies to nations. And who can forget, again, that Our Lord's family, The Infant Jesus, The Blessed Mother and St. Joseph themselves emigrated to Egypt in the face of the tyrant Herod? Did Egypt have no reasonable duty to receive them?
I understand many situations are complex and involve careful thought in applying Catholic teaching, but the dispute over how best it is to be applied is one thing, dissenting from the teaching itself is another. I say only that societies and individuals who profess to love the sweet reign of Christ the King over us all cannot cherry pick and choose what aspects of Catholic social teaching we will accept and which we will simply reject or pass over without consideration but must accept it all in any and every area of social, economic or moral thought as an integral whole.
-
Nishant, in general I agree with you on this, since you are only presenting Pius XII's teaching regarding a moral precept of the natural law. I think, though, that the "public wealth carefully considered" is the consideration wherein differing interpretations can be offered. Say, for instance, that a certain culture is considered to not be decent because of their being infected with bad customs, or that the public wealth is considered to immediately rely upon the stability of certain political institutions, such as great country estates that are major employers and devolved centers of power, maintaining local schools, collecting fees, and running a militia.
Furthermore, let's say that this is heritable, and these delicate social institutions depend on the public mores that have been established and inherited over the course of prolonged struggles during many generations. The Romans, for instance, would establish colonies of military veterans throughout their territory as a means of spreading the mos maiorum -- the mores of the Roman traditionalism upon which the continuation of the res publica immediately depended. Now, the maintenance of the public wealth depended upon safeguarding the Roman mores upon which the political process was founded, etc. Thus, citizenship was only very selectively and very slowly granted, just as free movement was likewise generally inhibited by the difficulty whereby full enfranchisement was procured. Christian authors, however, have praised the Romans for their prudence and their attention to the natural law in the mos maiorum and the organisation of the res publica. Christian princes and the Church itself in the Sacred Canons, indeed, borrowed most of the conceptual legal principles, theory, and vocabulary, as well entire codices of law (Codex Justinianus) directly from the Romans. Thus, it seems to me that the "public wealth" can be considered broadly, thus Pius XII's injunction to "carefully consider" it.
And what about the Jєωs, who -- because of their perpetual enmity to the progress of the Gospel and their tendency to promote the wealth of their own people at the expense of their host country, especially in Christian lands -- have often been forbidden from the sale of anything necessary for human life or have been restricted to their own walled-in areas of inhabitation or else have been outright expelled from Christian countries ? Because they were apparently not considered to be "decent" and their interests were considered to be contrary to the public wealth as such. Thus, there are apparently just reasons -- including the established relationship between the Church and certain well-known groups -- for applying the natural law principle in a very reserved manner. Some just reasons seem to be immediate, others seem to be broader considerations that involve several steps of logic. In any case, this seems to be what Pius XII meant when he prescribed that the general availability of the public wealth needs to be "carefully considered."
-
I doubt that anyone here is opposed to immigration, by anyone, at anytime, for any reason and forever.
-
All that's need for many things today is bumper sticker sloganeering.
"Londonistan and world communism, forward"!
"Warren Beatty, transgendered Hollywood kids, and the Reds, forward"!
"Bottom rail on top, forward"!
"Kenya ia Hawaii and Hawaii is Kenya, forward"!
"Joe Biden takes V2 communion as a 21st century marrano Zionist and he stayed at a Holiday Inn, forward"!
"The public discussion of western civ. today is destroyed, forward"!
"The Federal Reserve, the people's bank, forward"!
"Wall Street and the stock market are Mom and Pop, forward"!
-
I agree that immigrants, as a group, do vote majority democrat, because they see that party as representing their interests, even though like blacks, they tend to be "culturally conservative." In fact, the only group that consistently votes republican by majority in every election is white catholic and protestant males, according to pat buchanan's latest book, "ѕυιcιdє of a superpower." He seems to think that democrats will be dominating politics in the future, because of changing demographics and republican failures to make strong enough appeals to their base. Republican strategy for the future will probably be more outreach to groups that tend to alienate their base. Thus, rendering the republican party impotent. Of course, republican party leaders are aware of this problem, but will no doubt pursue this course anyway. As i recall, it was under the bush administration that guns were confiscated from new orleans residents, during katrina.
-
All that's need for many things today is bumper sticker sloganeering.
"Londonistan and world communism, forward"!
"Warren Beatty, transgendered Hollywood kids, and the Reds, forward"!
"Bottom rail on top, forward"!
"Kenya ia Hawaii and Hawaii is Kenya, forward"!
"Joe Biden takes V2 communion as a 21st century marrano Zionist and he stayed at a Holiday Inn, forward"!
"The public discussion of western civ. today is destroyed, forward"!
"The Federal Reserve, the people's bank, forward"!
"Wall Street and the stock market are Mom and Pop, forward"!
thanks for the laugh :laugh2:
-
If people have a natural right to emigrate, then countries that can receive such immigrants have a duty to do so,
There is never a duty to commit national ѕυιcιdє. The duty to help displaced people in the post-war era does not equal a right to mass migration into a foreign country. Countries do have the right to stop people at the border. It is very clear that multi-cultural mass migration is economically and socially damaging.
provided the reasonable qualifications laid out by Pope Pius XII
And yet nowhere he mentions religion or the rights of nationality, he only discusses economic reasons. This is very problematic. Many of Pius XII's post-war statements sound as though they are moving in the direction of Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, etc.
The Pope is not an authority on geography. When he says things about nations opening their borders to relieve "overpopulation" of foreign countries, that is really an absurd statement, presupposing some sort of global government. I mean really - the idea that states like Russia or Australia should open their borders as though by accepting hordes of migration they could relieve the overpopulation of countries like China and India - this is preposterous. Taking a couple percentage points of the Chinese population would do nothing serious about overpopulation and would cause the rest of the population to be swamped by them.
He also speaks of these things in an agrarian context. That is, in his mind, he seems to think of migration being a matter of farmers finding homesteads on empty land to cultivate. These views are pretty far removed from the economics of today, his ideas of geography seem stuck in the late 19th Century. He said the homesteads could become truly native soil. This is totally different than what is happening today.
The fact that the religion or ideology of the migrants as determining whether or not they should be welcomed is very distressing. The more one examines the pontificate of Pius XII the more one sees very distressing tendencies that obviously culminated in the catastrophe of Vatican II.
The idea of secular global governance is totally contrary to the Social Reign of Christ the King, and yet in the post-war period, we see him show a distressing degree of support for the UN and for a United Europe. Surely Catholics are not bound to agree with such ideas.
are met both on the part of the host country and the immigrant himself.
Migrants must first of all respect the rights of the nation whose territory they enter. What has happened in the past 50 years with respect to migrants undermining their host nations in cooperation with leftists would be more than enough to justify a permanent moratorium on immigration. (with some humanitarian exceptions)
-
then countries that can receive such immigrants have a duty to do so
No, just having the physical capacity to receive someone does not give one a duty to receive another!
Having a right to move from country a to country b of one's choice - that does not exist.
If it did, countries would have to permit people to enter indiscriminately.
A right to emigrate can only refer to the general right of people to move to a better place when a better place is available. It cannot mean that other nations are forever open by right.
-
I agree that immigrants, as a group, do vote majority democrat, because they see that party as representing their interests, even though like blacks, they tend to be "culturally conservative."
That's correct. Claims that they are "culturally conservative" should be treated with skepticism. Yes, in some respects they will seem to show agreement with more traditional views. However, in practice, they will side with leftists against the native people of the country.
It's very clear that accepting these people has threatened not only the wealth of the country, but the very future of the country.
These "Catholics" from South of border are bringing with them the same way of thinking and acting that has led to the endless revolutionary turmoil in their own lands.
National preservation is not "xenophobia"
Really, true Catholics cannot accept any supposed interpretation of Catholic teaching that serves to bring about the ruin of their countries and peoples.
No country is ever required to accept hostile people.
-
Unfortunately I spent a lot of time editing the post above and the "cement dried" before I could finish it
correction:
The fact that the religion or ideology of the migrants seems to be given no role in determining whether or not they should be welcomed is very distressing.
Pope Pius XII apparently did not protest the expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe at the end of WWII.
The political weakness of his pontificate, as well as the political weakness of Pius XI, were ominous. There was clearly a transition taking place leading to the doctrinal weakness of Vatican II.
-
One of the goals of worldwide comunism is to permanently undermine and debase all traditional and moral forms of sovereignty. That way the communists are the King of the Hill, aftter expropriating or killing off (rubbing out) all competing groups.
It is a very deceptive process. For example, Mike Huckabee (R) Arkansas and Lindsey Graham (R) SC, don't realize how communist in sympathy and action they really are. Neither do a lot of other people.
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm
For example, 9-11 was a criminal and homicidal inside job, but at least it wasn't "racist". Bloomberg, Silverstein, the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds and New York New York insiders are "racist"? Of course not.
They just have an agenda.
-
When reading Pius XII, there are many things said that are clearly not binding on Catholics yet seem to be a foreshadowing of the disasters of Vatican II:
19. If, then, we consider the extent and nature of the sacrifices demanded of all the citizens, especially in our day when the activity of the state is so vast and decisive, the democratic form of government appears to many as a postulate of nature imposed by reason itself.
62. The decisions already published by international commissions permit one to conclude that an essential point in any future international arrangement would be the formation of an organ for the maintenance of peace, of an organ invested by common consent with supreme power to whose office it would also pertain to smother in its germinal state any threat of isolated or collective aggression.
-
if immigrants, illegal or not, can support their families here in the States AND send money overseas to support their family in their native countries on these low wages, why can't white people support their nuclear families, which are often substantially smaller, on the same wages?
I noticed this post by Vladimir, and it really undercuts the point he's trying to make.
When foreigners come here and live in very cheap accommodations, availing themselves of medical care at public expense, and saving money and sending money home - they are able to do this because of the debased currencies of their home countries.
Their home countries have far cheaper living expenses.
So they are literally able to undercut the ability of the native population to provide for families, because they can take the US currency home and live much cheaper.
Let's consider an ethnically neutral scenario -
Consider the oil fields in Bakken.
If a man was native to that area trying to find a place to live to house and support a family he might find it very difficult to afford to take care of his family.
This is because the price of food and accommodations are extremely high. Gas stations now have lodgings for their workers because it is too expensive for a gas attendant to live in his own place.
The men who live in man camps and earn good wages can spend the money later or elsewhere. However, for men who want to live near their families, the cost of living has become exorbitant.
-
if immigrants, illegal or not, can support their families here in the States AND send money overseas to support their family in their native countries on these low wages, why can't white people support their nuclear families, which are often substantially smaller, on the same wages?
I noticed this post by Vladimir, and it really undercuts the point he's trying to make.
When foreigners come here and live in very cheap accommodations, availing themselves of medical care at public expense, and saving money and sending money home - they are able to do this because of the debased currencies of their home countries.
Their home countries have far cheaper living expenses.
So they are literally able to undercut the ability of the native population to provide for families, because they can take the US currency home and live much cheaper.
Let's consider an ethnically neutral scenario -
Consider the oil fields in Bakken.
If a man was native to that area trying to find a place to live to house and support a family he might find it very difficult to afford to take care of his family.
This is because the price of food and accommodations are extremely high. Gas stations now have lodgings for their workers because it is too expensive for a gas attendant to live in his own place.
The men who live in man camps and earn good wages can spend the money later or elsewhere. However, for men who want to live near their families, the cost of living has become exorbitant.
That's a good point. A global economy where men have to leave their families, in order to support them, sounds anti-catholic to me. It seems as if it would tear at the very fabric of traditional human culture and produce lots of social problems. I don't think it is a pro-human policy, let alone a pro-catholic one.
-
One of the goals of worldwide comunism is to permanently undermine and debase all traditional and moral forms of sovereignty. That way the communists are the King of the Hill, aftter expropriating or killing off (rubbing out) all competing groups.
It is a very deceptive process. For example, Mike Huckabee (R) Arkansas and Lindsey Graham (R) SC, don't realize how communist in sympathy and action they really are. Neither do a lot of other people.
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm
For example, 9-11 was a criminal and homicidal inside job, but at least it wasn't "racist". Bloomberg, Silverstein, the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds and New York New York insiders are "racist"? Of course not.
They just have an agenda.
:laugh2:
-
The fact that you get called racist for not supporting this stuff is laughable. What they really mean (wether they know it or not) is that you're pro-family.
-
The fact that you get called racist for not supporting this stuff is laughable. What they really mean (wether they know it or not) is that you're pro-family.
People for centuries have fought terrible wars to protect their lands.
And we're being told that the Church teaches that all the effort all that sacrifice- the effort of one's ancestors to build and protect a homeland, is something that must be given away, that others have a right to settle.
Pius XII was talking about open lands.
-
My question for you is this - if immigrants, illegal or not, can support their families here in the States AND send money overseas to support their family in their native countries on these low wages, why can't white people support their nuclear families, which are often substantially smaller, on the same wages?
How would one of the little white people answer your question?
This is sort of a broad question of property and casualty insurance. You would have to put together some complex actuarial tables and write a sociological and psychological study with it as well.
It's like a battlefield communist Chinese infantry assessment in process. Pop goes the weasel, and what's going on with the worldwide proletariat?
Why is Oprah Winfrey a multi-billionaire? and Ellen Degeneres so famous, rich, and popular?
What is the "U.S.A.", and why is it the way it is, and why is the type of garbage on TV that's on TV?
Is the "U.S.A." not sick? Where do people go when they disappear? Where does the truth go when people lie all day?
A communist Jєω would ask, "where did the apostles hide the body? Because we know we killed Jesus, and he stayed down."
Communists today and MSNBC financial analysts, even "Mad Money Cramer", ask the same sort of economic and marketplace questions, in view of what would be the proper exercise of appropriate infernal and inferior authority over the comings and goings of the proletariat.
-
in view of what would be the proper exercise of appropriate infernal and inferior authority over the comings and goings of the proletariat.
-
The political weakness of his pontificate, as well as the political weakness of Pius XI, were ominous. There was clearly a transition taking place leading to the doctrinal weakness of Vatican II.
Thank you!
It didn't all abruptly begin with John XXIII (couldn't have!)
-
The political weakness of his pontificate, as well as the political weakness of Pius XI, were ominous. There was clearly a transition taking place leading to the doctrinal weakness of Vatican II.
I agree that it didn't all begin with John XXIII, but I'm not sure I agree that Pope Pius XI was "politically weak". Can you please give some examples of this?
-
I agree that it didn't all begin with John XXIII, but I'm not sure I agree that Pope Pius XI was "politically weak". Can you please give some examples of this?
His actions regarding the Cristeros. Also read regarding Msgr. Le Floch and Cardinal Billot.
Pope Pius XI himself fell under the influence of the progressives who were already present in Rome. For we see a distinct difference from the Popes before and after. But nevertheless Pope Pius XI at the same time wrote some magnificent encyclicals. He was not a liberal. "Divini Redemptoris," his encyclical against Communism was magnificent. So also was his encyclical on Christ the King, which established the feast of Christ The King and proclaimed the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. His encyclical on Christian Education is absolutely admirable and remains today a fundamental docuмent for those who defend Catholic schools.
If on the level of doctrine Pope Pius XI was an admirable man, he was weak in the order of practical action. He was easily influenced. It is thus that he was very strongly influenced at the time of the Mexican cινιℓ ωαr and gave the Cristeros, who were in the process of defending the Catholic religion and combating for Christ the King, the order to have confidence in the government and to put down their arms. As soon as they had put down their arms they were all massacred. This horrifying massacre is still remembered today in Mexico. Pope Pius XI placed confidence in the government who deceived him. Afterwards, he was visibly very upset. He could not imagine how a government, which had promised to treat with honor those who defended their Faith, could have then gone on to massacre them. Thus thousands of Mexicans were killed on account of their Faith.
Already at the beginning of this century we find certain situations, which announce a division in the Church. Slowly we arrived at it, but the division was very definite just before the council.
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/The-Infiltration-of-Modernism-in-the-Church.htm
-
Ok, thanks Tele.
-
I cannot now remember where I read it, but I distinctly remember once reading an account of Pius XI (probably in some academic history article), that he had "no patience" for those who spoke in the Catholic counter-revolutionary political language of Pius IX and St Pius X. That is vague, of course, and one cannot draw very firm conclusions from it. I think, however, that one can see the spirit of it in Pius XI's public diplomatic actions, including those regarding Mexico and the Soviet Union. Pius XI continued and expanded Benedict XV's policy of Ostpolitik, refraining from condemning the Soviet government as such in the hopes that, through diplomacy and signs of good will, the Holy See would be able to secure religious freedom for Catholics under the domination of the Kremlin.
The Holy See's policy at this time was based on the idea that the Russian Tsar was the great enemy of the Faith in the world; now that he was removed, the followers of Ostpolitik hoped that they would be able to work better with Lenin than with Nicholas II. Here is a chapter taken from the excellent book "The Whole Truth of Fatima, Vol. II (http://www.catholicvoice.co.uk/fatima2/)" by Frère Michel de la Sainte Trinité of the Little Brothers of the Sacred Heart of Jesus (the order of the late Abbé de Nantes) on the subject of Ostpolitik under Pius XI :
http://www.catholicvoice.co.uk/fatima2/ch2-8.htm
-
I'm glad to see a Moderator address the racist posts in this forum. All those threads about the dangers of interracial marriage and white pride were very ugly.
-
I'm glad to see a Moderator address the racist posts in this forum. All those threads about the dangers of interracial marriage and white pride were very ugly.
Not as ugly as the ghetto or an integrated public school.
Not nearly as ugly as the disgusting propaganda on TV and in magazines promoting moral corruption as the complement to the multicultural society.
A balkanized, third-worldized, thoroughly corrupt Zionist dominated society.
One standard for gentiles, another for Jєωs.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/20/israel-netanyahu-african-immigrants-Jєωιѕн
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiaMKUL-GSY
-
I'm glad to see a Moderator address the racist posts in this forum. All those threads about the dangers of interracial marriage and white pride were very ugly.
For one I don't think anybody has made any racist posts. If there were then I must have glanced over them. Please point out a racist post, and maybe I will take your claim more seriously. If you are going to point out a supposed racist post then please explain why it is racist as well.
Nobody can really correct themselves if they can't tell how something is racist. Just calling someone that is not enough. Its like being convicted without a trial.
If you don't start showing why you are making such an accusation then i'm going to have to assume that you are the true racist. You are only saying that because you know that chances are I am a conservative white man.
-
I'm glad to see a Moderator address the racist posts in this forum. All those threads about the dangers of interracial marriage and white pride were very ugly.
Non-Jєωιѕн whites made the USA into what it is today. Because of that, the white man and his offspring are entitled to it. It is too risky to allow too many non-whites into positions of power where they can start "making a difference" or changing things. It is not wise to change what is already working. It will only get worse.
If you want to reap the benefits of a free-market capitalist society then perhaps you should convince whatever country you came from to adopt this style. Foreign economies will not become what the USA is until they do so. It is not our fault that your government has not made the necessary changes resulting in the suffering of its people.
Until then, we can donate to your people if you are starving. Allowing your people to migrate to our country illegally is not going to solve the problems of billions of other people in this world. As a matter of fact, allowing non-whites from other countries to migrate to our country, start playing the race card, and achieving positions of power in our government so that they can change things is only hurting other countries. Changing things when things don't need to be changed is only going to make us weaker. The weaker the US economy becomes, the less we can donate to other countries. Leading to more poor people to deal with and more mouths that go hungry.
Socialism/Communism leads to famine. Take your beliefs else where please. Thank you. The end.
-
I'm glad to see a Moderator address the racist posts in this forum. All those threads about the dangers of interracial marriage and white pride were very ugly.
For one I don't think anybody has made any racist posts. If there were then I must have glanced over them. Please point out a racist post, and maybe I will take your claim more seriously.
This is precisely the problem in these race threads on the forum recently. Racism is extremely hard to define. I feel as though traditionalists could go round and round in circles on the subject. Until we can get a clear definition of what racism is, which will probably be never, there will always be contention. What is racist to one, is not racist to another.
Frustrating, that.
Though there have been some lapses in charity in some race threads here, some interesting points have been made that I had not considered before on both sides of the argument.
-
After all the word racist was invented by a communist revolutionist by
the name of Leon Trotsky in the 1920's to be primarily used against
Europeans. You cannot find the word "racist" in a pre 1950 dictionary,
and did not come into broad use until the 1960's during the Civil
Rights Movement.
The use of the word "racist" is a lethal weapon to stripe and disarmed
Europeans and Whites of any ethnic pride, any paralyze and resistance
to left wing and communist goals of a one world globalist government
that will be in controlled by anti Christians and atheists.
In this one world so called anti racists, there will just be three classes
of people, the very wealthy that will control 99% of the worlds wealth,
and resources, the very poor whom will struggle to find enough food to
survive the day., and a small middle glass whom will be your police, and
soldiers whom job is to keep the rich and poor apart.
In other words, the return to the feudal system of the middle ages.
Except, it will have nothing to do with Christianity.
-
I'm glad to see a Moderator address the racist posts in this forum. All those threads about the dangers of interracial marriage and white pride were very ugly.
For one I don't think anybody has made any racist posts. If there were then I must have glanced over them. Please point out a racist post, and maybe I will take your claim more seriously.
This is precisely the problem in these race threads on the forum recently. Racism is extremely hard to define. I feel as though traditionalists could go round and round in circles on the subject. Until we can get a clear definition of what racism is, which will probably be never, there will always be contention. What is racist to one, is not racist to another.
Frustrating, that.
Though there have been some lapses in charity in some race threads here, some interesting points have been made that I had not considered before on both sides of the argument.
I tell you what racism is, it's being beaten, robbed, raped or murdered simply for the color of your skin or being "in the wrong place at the wrong time".
And all you have to do is read the papers, listen to the radio or watch the news and you will clearly see just who the "racists" are in this country and everywhere else. All you have to do is look up DOJ statistics and see just who are the majority of victims of violent crimes and who are perpetrators.
This is very fundamental folks, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see what's going on here it's as plain as day and the issue is black and white.
Racism is all around us but those that control the flow of information have everything upside-down and everything they peddle out there is a total polar opposite of reality, of course, this is not by mistake.
-
Lots of good posts on this thread. The generation that fought wwii was, by modern standards, racist, sexist, anti-semitic, homophobic and fanatically nativistic. Basically, they had what the modern era has come to consider, "the fascist mindset."
BabyBoomers, on the other hand, were taught very different things, than their parents and hence, they came to view their own parents as bigots/nαzιs in plain clothes.
What always strikes me as odd is how these attacks are often described as separate from each other, when in fact they all seem to spring from the same sources. It's all just an attack on the basic rank between people; it is an attempt to establish "material equality." The catholic church has always taught "spiritual equality," but it has never taught (except maybe novus) that people are "materially equal." So, a king could be superior to a peasant, by virtue of their "rank" at birth. However, they both were essentially spiritually equal in the eyes of the church.
An atheist has no interest in spiritual equality and it seems that revolutions in the west have been anti-catholic in nature. So, it perhaps isn't surprising that we would become obsessed with material forms of equality, like class, race, religion/culture, gender, ect, ect.
-
I'm glad to see a Moderator address the racist posts in this forum. All those threads about the dangers of interracial marriage and white pride were very ugly.
For one I don't think anybody has made any racist posts. If there were then I must have glanced over them. Please point out a racist post, and maybe I will take your claim more seriously.
This is precisely the problem in these race threads on the forum recently. Racism is extremely hard to define. I feel as though traditionalists could go round and round in circles on the subject. Until we can get a clear definition of what racism is, which will probably be never, there will always be contention. What is racist to one, is not racist to another.
Frustrating, that.
Though there have been some lapses in charity in some race threads here, some interesting points have been made that I had not considered before on both sides of the argument.
Racism has already been defined. The only thing you have to do is type "Racism" into your google search bar and you should be able to find the definition of the word. If whatever it is does not fall into that category then it is not racism.
If people live by what you are saying then one can pretty much slap the racist label on anything.
Are you suggesting we should redefine the word? That would imply that we should redefine the word so that it best suites whoever it is that is so adamant about using it. If we start redefining words in one area then people are going to start redefining words in other areas. That would not be a good thing. Take marriage for example.
-
Other than in the post Vatican II "magisterium", has "racism" ever been condemned in so many words?
If not, why should Catholics be concerned with it's definition? If someone calls me "racist", and "racism", whatever it means, has never been condemned, then why should I care?
What is condemned is idolatry and divinization of race, and specific Folkish errors which ensue. Correct me if I'm wrong.
-
I'm glad to see a Moderator address the racist posts in this forum. All those threads about the dangers of interracial marriage and white pride were very ugly.
For one I don't think anybody has made any racist posts. If there were then I must have glanced over them. Please point out a racist post, and maybe I will take your claim more seriously.
This is precisely the problem in these race threads on the forum recently. Racism is extremely hard to define. I feel as though traditionalists could go round and round in circles on the subject. Until we can get a clear definition of what racism is, which will probably be never, there will always be contention. What is racist to one, is not racist to another.
Frustrating, that.
Though there have been some lapses in charity in some race threads here, some interesting points have been made that I had not considered before on both sides of the argument.
I tell you what racism is, it's being beaten, robbed, raped or murdered simply for the color of your skin or being "in the wrong place at the wrong time".
And all you have to do is read the papers, listen to the radio or watch the news and you will clearly see just who the "racists" are in this country and everywhere else. All you have to do is look up DOJ statistics and see just who are the majority of victims of violent crimes and who are perpetrators.
This is very fundamental folks, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see what's going on here it's as plain as day and the issue is black and white.
Racism is all around us but those that control the flow of information have everything upside-down and everything they peddle out there is a total polar opposite of reality, of course, this is not by mistake.
Yes, the white guy who gets beaten up or killed because he is white and in a black neighbourhood, he is suffering from racism. Yes, the white person who loses a job or suffers a loss in property value because of a state defined minority is suffering from racism. I didn't imply that racism only goes one way. In fact I'll agree with you that "white" people are, as a whole, the least racist of folks.
Now when you get racially defensive and "circle the wagons" then that is racism. When you strive to keep your bloodline "pure" by encouraging white people to only marry white people or other vengeful, exclusionary rhetoric, you are falling into a deep hole. Do you think you'll be doing that in heaven? Will Jesus let you set up a "white neighbourhood?" Or, do you think there won't be any non "whites" in paradise?
-
I'm glad to see a Moderator address the racist posts in this forum. All those threads about the dangers of interracial marriage and white pride were very ugly.
For one I don't think anybody has made any racist posts. If there were then I must have glanced over them. Please point out a racist post, and maybe I will take your claim more seriously.
This is precisely the problem in these race threads on the forum recently. Racism is extremely hard to define. I feel as though traditionalists could go round and round in circles on the subject. Until we can get a clear definition of what racism is, which will probably be never, there will always be contention. What is racist to one, is not racist to another.
Frustrating, that.
Though there have been some lapses in charity in some race threads here, some interesting points have been made that I had not considered before on both sides of the argument.
I tell you what racism is, it's being beaten, robbed, raped or murdered simply for the color of your skin or being "in the wrong place at the wrong time".
And all you have to do is read the papers, listen to the radio or watch the news and you will clearly see just who the "racists" are in this country and everywhere else. All you have to do is look up DOJ statistics and see just who are the majority of victims of violent crimes and who are perpetrators.
This is very fundamental folks, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see what's going on here it's as plain as day and the issue is black and white.
Racism is all around us but those that control the flow of information have everything upside-down and everything they peddle out there is a total polar opposite of reality, of course, this is not by mistake.
Yes, the white guy who gets beaten up or killed because he is white and in a black neighbourhood, he is suffering from racism. Yes, the white person who loses a job or suffers a loss in property value because of a state defined minority is suffering from racism. I didn't imply that racism only goes one way. In fact I'll agree with you that "white" people are, as a whole, the least racist of folks.
Now when you get racially defensive and "circle the wagons" then that is racism. When you strive to keep your bloodline "pure" by encouraging white people to only marry white people or other vengeful, exclusionary rhetoric, you are falling into a deep hole. Do you think you'll be doing that in heaven? Will Jesus let you set up a "white neighbourhood?" Or, do you think there won't be any non "whites" in paradise?
What you are talking about is racial discrimination. Not racism. Those are 2 separate things. I agree that racial discrimination is usually wrong. However, there is nothing wrong with encouraging white people to only marry within their race.
At this point, I believe that racial discrimination is something that we should be doing as a matter of fact. Reason being, is that there are too many minorities and foreigners in our country at the moment. If we did not racially/culturally prevent them from rising to positions of power then there would be a lot at stake.
They would bring their false views into positions of power and influence people that they have power over. Plus, it is too much of a threat to our culture and way of life. If there were, lets say, more like 5-10% of the population that was minorities with the remaining population being non-Jєωιѕн caucasian then I would not see a need to racially/culturally discriminate at all.
I also want to note that I am not implying that we should completely prevent other races/ethnicities/cultural views from having positions of power in our society. There needs to be some representation there. Just not too much.
I also believe that we need to reduce the amount of minorities in our country by deporting illegal immigrants. This would increase the threat that our culture and values currently face. There would be no need to racially discriminate at that point.
I think this is going to be my last post. I am getting tired of these kinds of debates. It is pointless to go on.
-
Now when you get racially defensive and "circle the wagons" then that is racism. When you strive to keep your bloodline "pure" by encouraging white people to only marry white people or other vengeful, exclusionary rhetoric, you are falling into a deep hole. Do you think you'll be doing that in heaven? Will Jesus let you set up a "white neighbourhood?" Or, do you think there won't be any non "whites" in paradise?
I have a question for you.
That top hat and suit in your avatar, do you wear that in real life, living like a rich man, not putting yourself in a situation where you would deal with Blacks and Hispanics?
-
Other than in the post Vatican II "magisterium", has "racism" ever been condemned in so many words?
If not, why should Catholics be concerned with it's definition? If someone calls me "racist", and "racism", whatever it means, has never been condemned, then why should I care?
What is condemned is idolatry and divinization of race, and specific Folkish errors which ensue. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I've no arguments there. I would tend to agree with you. You are right on principle- why should we care? Ideally, we wouldn't need to define it, but I guess what I'm getting at is that right or wrong, the words assosciated with race carry a lot of weight in modern culture, and even we as devout Catholics are heavily influenced by the mainstream. Because of this, people do care. This is evidenced by the countless amount of accusations and rebuttals we see on these race threads.
I was simply pointing out that even among trads, race is hot-button issue that causes a lot of contention. Wether it should or should not be is another subject.
I'll come clean and admit that my earlier post was born out of an emotional reaction to the disagreements surrounding this issue.... which is why I should not have posted anything. I'm not sure what I was thinking.
At any rate, this is the last post you'll see from me on this thread. I'm going back to lurking, where I should have stayed.
-
Now when you get racially defensive and "circle the wagons" then that is racism. When you strive to keep your bloodline "pure" by encouraging white people to only marry white people or other vengeful, exclusionary rhetoric, you are falling into a deep hole. Do you think you'll be doing that in heaven? Will Jesus let you set up a "white neighbourhood?" Or, do you think there won't be any non "whites" in paradise?
I have a question for you.
That top hat and suit in your avatar, do you wear that in real life, living like a rich man, not putting yourself in a situation where you would deal with Blacks and Hispanics?
It is racist to prejudge ALL Blacks and Hispanics as wicked. The Blacks and Hispanics (and whites for that matter) who are wicked are that way because of socio economic status/culture; not because of some genetic predisposition or curse of God.
Trad Guy, perhaps you live too close to poor and poorly raised Blacks and Hispanics; you have to leave the ghetto. Then you will get a better perspective on all God's children.
-
Now when you get racially defensive and "circle the wagons" then that is racism. When you strive to keep your bloodline "pure" by encouraging white people to only marry white people or other vengeful, exclusionary rhetoric, you are falling into a deep hole. Do you think you'll be doing that in heaven? Will Jesus let you set up a "white neighbourhood?" Or, do you think there won't be any non "whites" in paradise?
I have a question for you.
That top hat and suit in your avatar, do you wear that in real life, living like a rich man, not putting yourself in a situation where you would deal with Blacks and Hispanics?
It is racist to prejudge ALL Blacks and Hispanics as wicked. The Blacks and Hispanics (and whites for that matter) who are wicked are that way because of socio economic status/culture; not because of some genetic predisposition or curse of God.
Trad Guy, perhaps you live too close to poor and poorly raised Blacks and Hispanics; you have to leave the ghetto. Then you will get a better perspective on all God's children.
Cato, I am pretty much on your side here, but I can't help pointing out that you didn't really answer Trad Guy's question.
-
Now when you get racially defensive and "circle the wagons" then that is racism. When you strive to keep your bloodline "pure" by encouraging white people to only marry white people or other vengeful, exclusionary rhetoric, you are falling into a deep hole. Do you think you'll be doing that in heaven? Will Jesus let you set up a "white neighbourhood?" Or, do you think there won't be any non "whites" in paradise?
I have a question for you.
That top hat and suit in your avatar, do you wear that in real life, living like a rich man, not putting yourself in a situation where you would deal with Blacks and Hispanics?
It is racist to prejudge ALL Blacks and Hispanics as wicked. The Blacks and Hispanics (and whites for that matter) who are wicked are that way because of socio economic status/culture; not because of some genetic predisposition or curse of God.
Trad Guy, perhaps you live too close to poor and poorly raised Blacks and Hispanics; you have to leave the ghetto. Then you will get a better perspective on all God's children.
Cato, I am pretty much on your side here, but I can't help pointing out that you didn't really answer Trad Guy's question.
Well if it's that important, I'm not a rich man. I do have plenty of experience with Hispanics growing up and living in Southern California. I work with a few Blacks; and when I was in the military I served with many Blacks. I think I have a very fair and charitable understanding of their situation. Now I do earn enough so that I don't have to live in a ghetto. That's my economic choice. I chose to earn enough so I don't have to live in Compton, Detroit, New Orleans, or East LA. Even if you're of modest means, no one MAKES you live in a ghetto. A man can be economically poor anywhere. Now the fellow across the street is some sort of Hispanic (Mexican or Cuban, I think). He has made the choice in life to work, save, and invest so he doesn't have to live in a ghetto too.
I'm surprised that my avatar has created so much class tension. As long as wealth is honestly earned, it should be celebrated, not looked on with suspicion. There are men out there who are making fortunes out there everyday. Until the end of this world, men will rise from nothing to build great economic fortunes. Anyone of us here has that opportunity; some will take that opportunity, and others will simply fester.
-
Are you from The Cato Institute?
-
Clouseau vs Cato Compilation, in italian
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&NR=1&v=jw1f94dx4xo