Telesphorus,

I stated in my previous post that defending nation and kin is a duty that stems from natural law. What I am against is attaching the label of 'nationalism' to the exercise of this duty, because that is not what it is. Most people on this forum are aware of the tyrannical regime that the globalist agenda seeks to establish on an international scale, but my point is that we should not seek help from Egypt, that broken reed, to repel the attacks of Assur.

You don't want to call it nationalism.  In itself that would fine, but then turning around and condemning nationalism causes problems when dealing with people who identify as nationalists and do not necessarily hold excessively nationalistic views.

"Right" and "Left wing" is modernist terminology,

Indeed. People are looking beyond left v right politics. Recently in Ireland Ben Gilroy was in an election and was 'neither left or right'.

Yet groups like the Irish Nationalists

On Easter Monday in 1916, Dublin was seeing plenty of action.

http://www.easter1916.net/

At about 11.00 am on Easter Monday, Patrick Pearse and the Volunteers, along with James Connolly and the Irish Citizen Army, assembled at various prearranged meeting points in Dublin, and before noon set out to occupy a number of imposing buildings in the inner city area. These had been selected to command the main routes into the capital, and also because of their strategic position in relation to the major military barracks. They included the General Post Office, the Four Courts, Jacob’s Factory, Boland’s Bakery, the South Dublin Union, St. Stephen’s Green and later the College of Surgeons. Photos  There was little fighting on the first day since British intelligence had failed hopelessly, the properties targeted were taken virtually without resistance and immediately the rebels set about making them defensible. The GPO was the nerve center of the rebellion. It served as the rebels’ headquarters and the seat of the provisional government which they declared. Five of its members served there – Pearse, Clarke, Connolly, MacDermott and Plunkett.

The British military onslaught, which the rebels had anticipated, did not at first materialize. When the Rising began the authorities had just 400 troops to confront roughly 1,000 insurgents. Their immediate priorities were therefore to amass reinforcements, gather information on volunteer strength and locations and protect strategic positions, including the seat of government, Dublin Castle, which had initially been virtually undefended.  On Tuesday, a British force of 4,500 men with artillery attacked and secured the Castle. Photos

"As the week progressed, the fighting in some areas did become intense, characterized by prolonged, fiercely contested hand to hand street battles. Military casualties were highest at Mount Street Bridge. There, newly arrived troops made successive, tactically inept, frontal attacks on determined and disciplined volunteers occupying several strongly fortified outposts. They lost 234 men, dead or wounded while just 5 rebels died. In some instances, lapses in military discipline occurred. Soldiers were alleged to have killed 15 unarmed men in North King Street near the Four Courts during intense gun battles there on 28th and 29th April. The pacifist Francis Sheehy-Skeffington was the best- known civilian victim of the ιnѕυrrєcтισn. He was arrested in Dublin on 25th April, taken to Portobello Barracks and shot by firing squad next morning without trial.

Overall the British authorities responded competently to the Rising. Reinforcements were speedily drafted into the capital and by Friday 28th April, the 1,600 rebels (more had joined during the week) were facing 18-20,000 soldiers. From Thursday the GPO was entirely cut off from other rebel garrisons. Next day it came under a ferocious artillery attack which also devastated much of central Dublin. Having learnt the lessons of Mount Street Bridge, the troops did not attempt a mass infantry attack. Their strategy was effective. It compelled the insurgent leaders, based at the Post Office, first to evacuate the building and later to accept the only terms on offer – unconditional surrender. Their decision was then made known to and accepted sometimes reluctantly, by all the rebel garrisons still fighting both in the capital and in the provinces." http://www.bbc.co.uk/

Hearing the voice of God to invade Iraq or "I stand with Israel" never did appeal to me. It's amazing so many yanks believe it or how freedom was attacked on 9/11. Them nasty arabs when in reality Mossad were behind the attacks on the Twin Towers but the main thing is you are "free" in America. Amerika ist wunderbar. Ye have a "choice" between Pepsi and Coca Cola.

Anyone who heard the "voice of God" while invading Iraq obviously confused God with the neoconservatives. The ironic thing is that Bin Laden hated Saddam and he and his Islamic warriors volunteered to fight him in 1991 if only the Saudis wouldn't bring the Americans in. And of course the invasion of Iraq has lead to utter chaos in Iraq.

Lame rebuttal. First, you do not offer any solutions to your thesis, which is the last sentence (paragraph) of your comment ----> "... but in a different form" ...... Well, at least give one form (solution) that can be effected.

You have misunderstood that last part of my sentence. I meant that many political philosophies, to which some Catholics are adhering, are in fact subversions of the order willed by God, though in another form than the marxism which they, rightfully, wish to see destroyed.

Third, you are implying true faithful Catholics should abstain from the political process, and just leave everything to God's will; however, His will is RARELY done on earth, which is why this world is severely wounded in the first place; and He gave us a mind and body to serve Him and help effect "on earth as it is in Heaven". By not being involved in ensuring your own sovereignty, you waive your rights to fools and malevolent people to rule over you. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with nationalism when it's the correct nationalism with true Christian virtue as its nucleus. It would behoove America to follow the example of Serbia (albeit, they are Orthodox Christian) - a nation that is protective of its land, culture, identity, people and faith in Christ.

Firstly, I do not imply that Catholics should abstain from politics, but the effort that some are putting into serving the ambitions of heathens and apostates who are interested in using Christians to establish their expression of the revolution instead of the one that is popular today, should be placed into bringing more organisation among scattered Catholics, to then eventually create formally Christian political entities in the nations where they live. "That would be very difficult to accomplish!" you say? Life on earth is a warfare, but that did not stop the Saints. Christ has won the war; if His sons fail to win a particular battle, they may be content to have died trying.

By refusing to quench evil by evil, I am not handing over the religion and the land of my fathers, who have lived upon this soil for more centuries than yours have been living in America, to the enemies of my God and kindred. My country is being swarmed by Arab mahometans, and in our cities, people are already suffering much under the yoke of their presence. If you wear a Christian symbol, they call you names that I will not repeat here, they harass elderly people, they 'punish' the nudism of liberalist women by violating them, and they live like kings while we have to go through a bureaucratic and usurious maze to get anything done. So, there is no need for you to educate me about what is happening here in Europe. I know what is happening. The nationalist party here has some Christians in it... together with atheists and neo-pagans who worship either Wodan, 'nature spirits' or whatever it is that they adore. The party publically rejects "irregular" maçonnerie, while accepting "the regular form" (a farcical distinction). This is an example of nationalism in contrast with Christian politics. How on earth can anyone think that supporting such a political body will bring about the reign of Christ in the country?

Christians fighting for God, their land and kindred are not nationalists, and should not be content to have that label pressed upon their foreheads. If you wish to know what nationalism is, then study the history of the Italian revolution. The Popes were considered traitors of the fatherland, and that slanderous assertion was nourished by romanticist publications exalting "the glorious Italy of old". PèreJoseph has rightfully insisted upon the study of the historical origins of the various political doctrines in order to be able to gain a better understanding of what they are and what distinctions must be kept in mind.

In revolutionary France, peasants were compelled under violence to shout "Vive la nation!", which of course did not really mean desiring the good of the nation, but treason against their king. The peasants preferred to shout "Vive le roi!" and faced death heroically. To support the various nationalist parties who simply seek to replace the presently established expression of revolutionary society with their own nationalist expression of it, may ultimately lead to a regime which will devour Christians who will not burn incense to cæsar. When a nationalist regime will have been established, it will no longer notice the Christians whom it misled into helping it arise, because it will have attained to what it wanted, and this can lead to the sons of Christ being led before the courts as they refuse to shout "vive la nation-dieu", and to being put to death as "betrayers of the nation". Cardinal Pie of Poitiers also saw this, and execrated it as nothing less than the spirit of anti-christ.

I will not look at an Eastern schismatic sect to be taught how to defend the religion and heritage of my fathers. There lie enough bones at rest in our own soil of those who gave their lives for the triumph of Catholicism (instead of the ambitions of some schismatic 'patriarch'), awaiting the glorious resurrection. Schismatic sects have nothing to do with Catholicism, and, ironically, they are the ones who separated from the Apostolic See, favouring their national identity before the authority of the Roman Pontiff. So yes, they are nationalists, and the real welfare of their nation and people has nothing to do with it.

Also in accordnace with the "union-busting" you do realize of course unions are needed to safeguard a worker's livelihood?

I agree... I support unions before traitorous, money-worshiping, job-killing, corporate plutocratic shareholders and CEOs any day. However, under nationalist libertarianism, a corporation has a right to move a factory from Michigan, where it pays its union workers $30 an hour, to Mississippi and pay NON-union workers $15 an hour if the company chooses to make this move. I believe they have a right to it, but I do NOT believe they have a right to move over-seas to pay slave labor wages, effectively eliminating American jobs. Nationalist Libertariansim would hold this view, too.

NAFTA is not real free trade, rather, it is managed trade that benefit special interests of mega-corporations involved...  This is why real libertarians and Ron Paul do NOT support it.

Who says (economic) libertarianism cannot exist only in the confines of American economic policy, while being nationalist and protectionist to external forces? I would say Pat Buchanan is an ECONOMIC libertarian nationalist, too. He believes in unregulated free markets INSIDE the U.S. and keeping jobs/factories HERE, by mandate if necessary, while using tariffs and embargoes on foreign nations who try to engage in a trade war with us.

Also America's values pretty much extend to freedom, individualism, hedonism, and consumerism

Only consumerism and hedonism, but NOT freedom and individualism. Did you miss the memo about NDAA-indefinite detention; "Patriot" Act; TSA molesting Americans at airports and radiation emitting scanners; HR 347; drones in U.S. skies spying on citizens; NSA data-mining American citizens; warrantless wiretapping; regulations making it difficult for small businesses to get started; capital gains taxes; inheritance tax; needing a permit or license to do the most trivial of tasks; etc.??

I agree... I support unions before traitorous, money-worshiping, job-killing, corporate plutocratic shareholders and CEOs any day. However, under nationalist libertarianism, a corporation has a right to move a factory from Michigan, where it pays its union workers $30 an hour, to Mississippi and pay NON-union workers $15 an hour if the company chooses to make this move. I believe they have a right to it, but I do NOT believe they have a right to move over-seas to pay slave labor wages, effectively eliminating American jobs. Nationalist Libertariansim would hold this view, too.

Obviously I believe in a national free-trade system amongst the states, however I do not support international free trade. Obviously I do not support the closed shop either where workers are forced to pay union dues. I also find it a betrayal of the working-class that the unions have sided with immigration. However I do agree with the unions when it comes to trade policy. I think the jobs moving south to the right-to-work states has been one reason unions are dying.

NAFTA is not real free trade, rather, it is managed trade that benefit special interests of mega-corporations involved...  This is why real libertarians and Ron Paul do NOT support it.

Oh come on NAFTA is definitely free trade, along with the MFN with China. I of course have been a strong opponent of NAFTA since not only did it move jobs south to Mexico but it brought Mexicans and drugs up north to America. Also Bush did not preside over a "jobless recovery" since under the MFN he created millions of jobs in China by his free trade policy. I will admit that a few libertarians were against NAFTA however libetarians support open borders and social liberalism when it comes to the social issues.

Who says (economic) libertarianism cannot exist only in the confines of American economic policy, while being nationalist and protectionist to external forces? I would say Pat Buchanan is an ECONOMIC libertarian nationalist, too. He believes in unregulated free markets INSIDE the U.S. and keeping jobs/factories HERE, by mandate if necessary, while using tariffs and embargoes on foreign nations who try to engage in a trade war with us.

I agree with raising tariffs high enough to provide the federal government revenue but not high enough where foreign countries won't trade with us. I also oppose embargos because they always hurt the people of the country instead of the dictators, and it harms American farmers who try to sell their crops to foreign countries. Obviously the GOP is just like FDR when it comes to trade policy since it supports free trade. Also we must consider morality more important than economics. I despise this obsession with economics, when pioliticians should be talking about the sickness of Hollywood and putting Disney out of business.

Only consumerism and hedonism, but NOT freedom and individualism. Did you miss the memo about NDAA-indefinite detention; "Patriot" Act; TSA molesting Americans at airports and radiation emitting scanners; HR 347; drones in U.S. skies spying on citizens; NSA data-mining American citizens; warrantless wiretapping; regulations making it difficult for small businesses to get started; capital gains taxes; inheritance tax; needing a permit or license to do the most trivial of tasks; etc.??

Obviously individualism is an American value, which by the way is very liberal. Historically liberalism argued for the good of the individual over the community. I opposed the airport scans and the Patriot Act, along with the assasination of Americans by executive order since it seemed like Big Brother Government but let's face it compared to other countries America has an obsession with freedom, espeically when it comes to freedom of filth and degeneracy. I support stopping the burden of regulations on small businesses and lowering the capital gains tax and inheritance tax but I do not support unregulated capitalism.

By the way this freedom obsession sounds to me like the Bush Doctrine when it comes to making the whole world more free and democratic. Of course Bush showed how much sense he had when he made this comment, "Is we learning?" I guess to the freedom-lovers out there all of the monarchies and dictatorships throughout history were "unsuccessful socities." As for me I am very authoritarian, I am a right-wing tyrant. :wink: