Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: TheKnightVigilant on September 20, 2013, 05:22:18 AM
-
From "Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944: His Private Conversations"
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practises a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its key-note is intolerance. Without Christianity, we should not have had Islam. The Roman Empire, under Germanic influence, would have developed in the direction of world-domination, and humanity would not have extinguished fifteen centuries of civilisation at a single stroke. Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things."
"Originally war was nothing but a struggle for pasture grounds. Today war is nothing but a struggle for the riches of nature. By virtue of an inherent law, these riches belong to him who conquers them. The great migrations set out from the East. With us begins the ebb, from West to East. That's in accordance with the laws of nature. By means of the struggle, the elites are continually renewed.
The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."
"But for the coming of Christianity, who knows how the history of Europe would have developed? Rome would have conquered all Europe, and the onrush of the Huns would have been broken on the legions. It was Christianity that brought about the fall of Rome and not the Germans or the Huns."
"I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."
"Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity."
"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery. A negro with his tabus is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in Transubstantiation. "
"The fact that the Japanese have retained their political philosophy, which one of the essential reasons of their success, is due to having been saved in time from the views of Christianity. Just as in Islam, there is no kind of terrorism in the Japanese State religion, but on the contrary, a promise of happiness This terrorism in religion is the product, to put it briefly, of a Jєωιѕн dogma, which Christianity has universalised and whose effect is to sow trouble and confusion in men's minds."
This isn't all. Hitler's hatred for the Jews was only matched by his hatred for the the Christian civilization of Europe, the European nobility and the clergy of the Catholic Church. Read it.
-
Hitler stated very clearly "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
Has DavidJ or Ashmo joined the forum?
Cardinal von Faulhaber stated "Hitler was deeply religious" and 'The Reich Chancellor undoubtedly lives in belief in God..He recognises Christianity as the builder of Western culture"
-
Lots of people claim to be Catholic.
What do you think of Hitler's statements reproduced in the opening post of this thread?
-
Lots of people claim to be Catholic.
What do you think of Hitler's statements reproduced in the opening post of this thread?
Hitler was a great leader and I for one am not entertaining your rubbish. If reproducing material, reproduce the facts and truth.
-
You can read it all for yourself, if you can stomach the truth about the man. The book is "Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-1944: His Private Conversations"
-
Lots of people claim to be Catholic.
What do you think of Hitler's statements reproduced in the opening post of this thread?
Hitler was a great leader and I for one am not entertaining your rubbish. If reproducing material, reproduce the facts and truth.
Just to be clear, you are calling Knight Vigilant a liar, right? You are saying that nothing above can be attributed to Hitler, right?
-
So the starvation death of Fr. Maximilian Kolbe was just the result of a...mis-communication with his underlings?
Come on, man! Adolf Hitler ruined his own potential (and his future, as well as his legacy) when he apostatized. Sure, he opposed the Jews, but being half-right will get you nowhere. His whole mission in life was all about THIS world (including race) and he didn't care for the Catholic Faith.
Just because we want to oppose the Jєωιѕн replacement of Calvary with Auschwitz doesn't mean we have to knee-jerk all the way over to the opposite extreme and suggest that Hitler was a great Catholic!
I suppose if I had to live 4 years at a liberal university in California, I'd be pretty fed-up with all the Jєωιѕн race-worship and Hitler vilification to the point that I might... no. Still no.
Hitler wasn't the ultimate evil, the worst in history, or anything like that -- but he was still no role model (to take understatement to the extreme).
-
Hitler was an evil wacko. He murdered his own people. Stalin was worse then Hitler.
-
Hitler was an evil wacko.
Terrible nonsense and enemy propaganda. Hitler, a great man and leader went around in an open top car and walked among his people. There was nothing evil about Hitler. It's silly to say he was an "evil wacko". He was the elected leader of a great Nation.A Nation and people so wronged before and since WWII.
There will be disagreement but do oppose him based on facts and not enemy propaganda.
-
I hadn't even "opposition to Jews" in mind when making a reply. It's important to be accurate.
For example many in the pro-life movement often make reference to the Wannsee Conference of being a discussion to exterminate Jews. It was nothing of the sort. The Christian Solidarity Party in Ireland for example often have articles promoting lies and falsehood about Hitler and Germany. It's usually a load of old tosh.
You know, I am one of those who question the "historical fact" -- you know, the one that got Bishop Williamson in trouble.
Nevertheless, I refuse to knee-jerk the other direction and canonize Hitler, or even glorify him.
What purpose does it serve, anyhow? I can oppose the Jews seven ways from Sunday without needing a picture of Hitler on my wall.
Just like Catholic priests are forbidden from offering public Masses for non-Catholics, I'd say it's a bad idea for Catholic laymen to admire such men. Are we really that desperate for role models?
I can think of quite a few great role models in our own age who are still alive (Bishop Williamson, for one).
-
Hitler stated very clearly "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
I've heard many variations of that from Joe Biden and Nancy Peℓσѕι.
-
Hitler was an evil wacko.
Terrible nonsense and enemy propaganda. Hitler, a great man and leader went around in an open top car and walked among his people. There was nothing evil about Hitler. It's silly to say he was an "evil wacko".
He was the elected leader of a great Nation.
A Nation and people so wronged before and since WWII. ( I agree).
There will be disagreement but do oppose him based on facts and not enemy propaganda.
And Obama was elected to be leader of a great nation....
-
Lots of people claim to be Catholic.
What do you think of Hitler's statements reproduced in the opening post of this thread?
Hitler was a great leader and I for one am not entertaining your rubbish. If reproducing material, reproduce the facts and truth.
Well, just to touch on the most superficial complaint:
If you were a "great" and "devout Catholic" leader, would you have chosen, say the Holy Cross, or perhaps Our Lord's Monogram as your national standard?
Or would you have chosen a hindu idol that resembles nothing so much as a demonically twisted, misshapen cross?
-
I hadn't even "opposition to Jews" in mind when making a reply. It's important to be accurate.
For example many in the pro-life movement often make reference to the Wannsee Conference of being a discussion to exterminate Jews. It was nothing of the sort. The Christian Solidarity Party in Ireland for example often have articles promoting lies and falsehood about Hitler and Germany. It's usually a load of old tosh.
You know, I am one of those who question the "historical fact" -- you know, the one that got Bishop Williamson in trouble.
Nevertheless, I refuse to knee-jerk the other direction and canonize Hitler, or even glorify him.
What purpose does it serve, anyhow? I can oppose the Jews seven ways from Sunday without needing a picture of Hitler on my wall.
Just like Catholic priests are forbidden from offering public Masses for non-Catholics, I'd say it's a bad idea for Catholic laymen to admire such men. Are we really that desperate for role models?
I can think of quite a few great role models in our own age who are still alive (Bishop Williamson, for one).
Firstly, I don't have time for this thread.I decided to add a comment for accuracy and it is a topic discussed at length previously.
Secondly, I haven't canonized or glorified Hitler. My point really is if people are researching or discussing the topic, they should present facts.
Stating that Hitler was an "evil wacko" is utter nonsense.
-
Hitler was an evil wacko.
Terrible nonsense and enemy propaganda. Hitler, a great man and leader went around in an open top car and walked among his people. There was nothing evil about Hitler. It's silly to say he was an "evil wacko". He was the elected leader of a great Nation.A Nation and people so wronged before and since WWII.
There will be disagreement but do oppose him based on facts and not enemy propaganda.
I detect here the familiar strains of classic Irish anti-British schadenfreude (which I encountered in some members of the Irish side of my family), in which there is harbored a secret (or in this case not so secret) admiration for Hitler for doing to the Brits what the Irish themselves were powerless to do...
I might be wrong, but I don't think I am...
-
A book that was published a few years ago.
http://www.omahonys.ie/catalog/architects-of-the-resurrection-p-229704.html
Architects of the Resurrection
by R.M. Douglas
Irish, Irish History - Architects of the Resurrection
Paperback
Published: 01/05/09
In the early 1940s many people in Ireland expected nαzι Germany to win the Second World War. According to secret Irish government assessments, most wanted her to. After the fall of France and with Britain trembling on the brink of defeat, democracy seemed likely to disappear from Europe. But if this happened, how should newly-independent Ireland - a country that had remained neutral in the war - respond to what appeared to be an emerging post-democratic world order?
Gearoid Cuinneagain, a young pro-Axis activist, had an answer. In 1942 he founded Ailtiri na hAiseirghe ('Architects of the Resurrection'), a fascist movement that aimed to destroy the infant Irish democracy and replace it with a one-party totalitarian state. But Ailtiri na hAiseirghe was no nαzι imitator. Rather, it aimed at something far more ambitious: the fusion of totalitarianism and Christianity that would make Ireland a 'missionary-ideological state' wielding global influence in the postwar era.
Supported by idealistic youths and mainstream politicians like Ernest Blythe, Oliver J. Flanagan and Dan Breen - and scrutinized anxiously by British and American intelligence - Aiseirghe won several seats in the 1945 local government elections. But a devastating split, just as it seemed poised to make a political breakthrough, reversed its fortunes and put an end to Cuinneagain's once-promising career as a would-be Irish fuhrer.
Architects of the Resurrection casts an uncomfortable light on the popularity of anti-democratic, anti-Semitic and extremist ideas in wartime Ireland. Students of Irish history and of comparative fascism will find many new insights in this book.
-
In the early 1940s many people in Ireland expected nαzι Germany to win the Second World War. According to secret Irish government assessments, most wanted her to.
Not my great-grandfather. And I have the letters from home to my grandmother to prove that. His exact words: "Hittler (sic) is a madman, he is like Napoleon. He wants to rule all the world."
Though I suppose you'd suggest that this simple, saintly farmer from Tipperary was a crypto-Jew.
Other members of my family have expressed this sympathy for Hitler, but well after the fact. Nothing but anti-British schadenfreude that they did not have the luxury to express during the terrifying period of the war itself.
-
In the early 1940s many people in Ireland expected nαzι Germany to win the Second World War. According to secret Irish government assessments, most wanted her to.
Not my great-grandfather. And I have the letters from home to my grandmother to prove that. His exact words: "Hittler (sic) is a madman, he is like Napoleon. He wants to rule all the world."
Though I suppose you'd suggest that this simple, saintly farmer from Tipperary was a crypto-Jew.
Other members of my family have expressed this sympathy for Hitler, but well after the fact. Nothing but anti-British schadenfreude that they did not have the luxury to express during the terrifying period of the war itself.
In the interest of accuracy I did actually cite a website from a bookshop and it is their description. You have just attributed the quote to me.
-
I fixed it to be a bit more accurate. "John Grace's quoted passage".
-
I hadn't even "opposition to Jews" in mind when making a reply. It's important to be accurate.
For example many in the pro-life movement often make reference to the Wannsee Conference of being a discussion to exterminate Jews. It was nothing of the sort. The Christian Solidarity Party in Ireland for example often have articles promoting lies and falsehood about Hitler and Germany. It's usually a load of old tosh.
You know, I am one of those who question the "historical fact" -- you know, the one that got Bishop Williamson in trouble.
Nevertheless, I refuse to knee-jerk the other direction and canonize Hitler, or even glorify him.
What purpose does it serve, anyhow? I can oppose the Jews seven ways from Sunday without needing a picture of Hitler on my wall.
Just like Catholic priests are forbidden from offering public Masses for non-Catholics, I'd say it's a bad idea for Catholic laymen to admire such men. Are we really that desperate for role models?
I can think of quite a few great role models in our own age who are still alive (Bishop Williamson, for one).
Firstly, I don't have time for this thread.I decided to add a comment for accuracy and it is a topic discussed at length previously.
Secondly, I haven't canonized or glorified Hitler. My point really is if people are researching or discussing the topic, they should present facts.
Stating that Hitler was an "evil wacko" is utter nonsense.
Then prove that Hitler was a devout Catholic who never actually said any of these things, who never persecuted Catholic clergy or laity, that Maximilian Kolbe and Edith Stein didn't actually dies in cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρs ( in particular that St. Maximilian was not given a lethal injection, along with 9 other innocent men).
-
And Obama was elected to be leader of a great nation....
Obama was elected to be leader of the United States. When was he elected to be leader of a great nation ?
-
Firstly, I don't have time for this thread.I decided to add a comment for accuracy and it is a topic discussed at length previously.
Secondly, I haven't canonized or glorified Hitler. My point really is if people are researching or discussing the topic, they should present facts.
Stating that Hitler was an "evil wacko" is utter nonsense.
Considering the complete lack of credibility you established for yourself by your ridiculous defence and evasions in threads regarding Michael Hoffman's blasphemies of the saints and schismatic and heretical statements, nobody should take you at your word. If you want to defend Adolf Hitler, you need to be very specific and provide evidence. Calling anything with which you disagree "rubbish" or "tosh" or "nonsense" is insufficient.
As for your claim to not have glorified Hitler, in this very thread, on the first page, you wrote, "Hitler was a great leader." How is that not a glorification ?
-
PereJoseph
Considering the complete lack of credibility you established for yourself by your ridiculous defence and evasions in threads regarding Michael Hoffman's blasphemies of the saints and schismatic and heretical statements, nobody should take you at your word
Nobody is obliged to take me at my word and the thread you refer to, I did state to send a PM or indeed an email if one wished to. I did state clearly, I was joking. It was based on a joke a few of us have but, you were not to know.
I didn't receive any PM or email from you on indeed Matthew. I would happily have discussed the matter. I wasn't aware you could 'report' a thread nor was it my intention to report a thread. Until Matthew mentioned reporting a thread, I had not heard of it. Matthew suggested I perhaps 'report' a thread. It wasn't necessary
I am not interested in seeking credibility.
-
Matthew,
Firstly, I don't have time for this thread.I decided to add a comment for accuracy and it is a topic discussed at length previously.
Secondly, I haven't canonized or glorified Hitler. My point really is if people are researching or discussing the topic, they should present facts.
Stating that Hitler was an "evil wacko" is utter nonsense.
Absolutely, that is my sentiment as well. Simply presenting facts which are true but oppose the established narrative in no way lionizes Hitler or the National Socialists. The truth has no allegiance and correcting the inaccuracies of false history should be welcomed by men of good will.
-
Matthew,
Firstly, I don't have time for this thread.I decided to add a comment for accuracy and it is a topic discussed at length previously.
Secondly, I haven't canonized or glorified Hitler. My point really is if people are researching or discussing the topic, they should present facts.
Stating that Hitler was an "evil wacko" is utter nonsense.
Absolutely, that is my sentiment as well. Simply presenting facts which are true but oppose the established narrative in no way lionizes Hitler or the National Socialists. The truth has no allegiance and correcting the inaccuracies of false history should be welcomed by men of good will.
I wrote that and not Matthew.
-
Matthew,
Firstly, I don't have time for this thread.I decided to add a comment for accuracy and it is a topic discussed at length previously.
Secondly, I haven't canonized or glorified Hitler. My point really is if people are researching or discussing the topic, they should present facts.
Stating that Hitler was an "evil wacko" is utter nonsense.
Absolutely, that is my sentiment as well. Simply presenting facts which are true but oppose the established narrative in no way lionizes Hitler or the National Socialists. The truth has no allegiance and correcting the inaccuracies of false history should be welcomed by men of good will.
I wrote that and not Matthew.
Well, then it applies to you then, thank you John Grace.
-
Lots of people claim to be Catholic.
What do you think of Hitler's statements reproduced in the opening post of this thread?
Hitler was a great leader and I for one am not entertaining your rubbish. If reproducing material, reproduce the facts and truth.
Just to be clear, you are calling Knight Vigilant a liar, right? You are saying that nothing above can be attributed to Hitler, right?
Give it a rest mith. Table talk is a fraud.
-
Since we are talking about Hitler and Christianity I think it would be a good idea to explore what the official head of the Catholic Church had to say about his movement. Here isa link to Pope Pius XI's encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge;
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/index.htm
-
Matthew,
Firstly, I don't have time for this thread.I decided to add a comment for accuracy and it is a topic discussed at length previously.
Secondly, I haven't canonized or glorified Hitler. My point really is if people are researching or discussing the topic, they should present facts.
Stating that Hitler was an "evil wacko" is utter nonsense.
Absolutely, that is my sentiment as well. Simply presenting facts which are true but oppose the established narrative in no way lionizes Hitler or the National Socialists. The truth has no allegiance and correcting the inaccuracies of false history should be welcomed by men of good will.
You're talking to the wrong guy. That quote was by John Grace.
-
In the early 1940s many people in Ireland expected nαzι Germany to win the Second World War. According to secret Irish government assessments, most wanted her to.
Not my great-grandfather. And I have the letters from home to my grandmother to prove that. His exact words: "Hittler (sic) is a madman, he is like Napoleon. He wants to rule all the world."
Though I suppose you'd suggest that this simple, saintly farmer from Tipperary was a crypto-Jew.
Other members of my family have expressed this sympathy for Hitler, but well after the fact. Nothing but anti-British schadenfreude that they did not have the luxury to express during the terrifying period of the war itself.
Your great grandfather was probably reading newspaper publications owned by crypto jews.
-
Lots of people claim to be Catholic.
What do you think of Hitler's statements reproduced in the opening post of this thread?
Hitler was a great leader and I for one am not entertaining your rubbish. If reproducing material, reproduce the facts and truth.
Just to be clear, you are calling Knight Vigilant a liar, right? You are saying that nothing above can be attributed to Hitler, right?
Give it a rest mith. Table talk is a fraud.
:laugh1: :laugh2: :facepalm: :roll-laugh2:
Any proof?
-
Lots of people claim to be Catholic.
What do you think of Hitler's statements reproduced in the opening post of this thread?
Hitler was a great leader and I for one am not entertaining your rubbish. If reproducing material, reproduce the facts and truth.
Just to be clear, you are calling Knight Vigilant a liar, right? You are saying that nothing above can be attributed to Hitler, right?
Give it a rest mith. Table talk is a fraud.
Even if it was, it's not like it's the last and final obstacle keeping traditional Catholics from venerating Hitler, you've got a lot of work to do before you can get most of us to your level of enlightenment. I'll await the proof that supports your claim.
-
Table Talk is authentic. No serious scholar doubts this, regardless of his political leanings.
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/Hitler/Law200603.html
"David Irving replies:
HITLER'S Table Talk comes from the original Bormann Vermerke which the late François Genoud purchased from Bormann's widow Gerda Bormann. They were actually typed from notes taken by the stenographer Heinrich Heim, whom I interviewed and who confirmed the procedure in detail. Each day's entry was initialled by Bormann at the end. They are genuine, in the first person, and highly reliable."
-
Hitler stated very clearly "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
Has DavidJ or Ashmo joined the forum?
Cardinal von Faulhaber stated "Hitler was deeply religious" and 'The Reich Chancellor undoubtedly lives in belief in God..He recognises Christianity as the builder of Western culture"
Sure, and Hitler can be trusted to NEVER say anything that wasn't true. I like you, John, but if you are pro Hitler you are Anti-Catholic. It's that simple.
-
Matthew,
Firstly, I don't have time for this thread.I decided to add a comment for accuracy and it is a topic discussed at length previously.
Secondly, I haven't canonized or glorified Hitler. My point really is if people are researching or discussing the topic, they should present facts.
Stating that Hitler was an "evil wacko" is utter nonsense.
Absolutely, that is my sentiment as well. Simply presenting facts which are true but oppose the established narrative in no way lionizes Hitler or the National Socialists. The truth has no allegiance and correcting the inaccuracies of false history should be welcomed by men of good will.
You're talking to the wrong guy. That quote was by John Grace.
Yes, I got that. Sorry Matthew.
-
Hitler stated very clearly "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
Has DavidJ or Ashmo joined the forum?
Cardinal von Faulhaber stated "Hitler was deeply religious" and 'The Reich Chancellor undoubtedly lives in belief in God..He recognises Christianity as the builder of Western culture"
Sure, and Hitler can be trusted to NEVER say anything that wasn't true. I like you, John, but if you are pro Hitler you are Anti-Catholic. It's that simple.
The issue isn't that he's pro-Hitler. But he's pro-Hitler to the point of irrationality. How odd....
I've got to say, I appreciate The Knight Valiant posting on these issues. Its really sad to see how enveloped some are with the man. I do not say that Hitler was the bogey man the Jew-controlled media made him out to be. But some persons take the opposite extreme, which is equally wrong.
-
Matthew:
Hitler wasn't the ultimate evil, the worst in history, or anything like that -- but he was still no role model (to take understatement to the extreme).
No, he wasn't the ultimate evil, but I think the initiator of this thread may think he was.
Viva Cristo Rey
Stalin was worse then Hitler
Yes, he was. But I doubt that you'll get the knight to start a similar thread on Stalin. :cool:
-
Yes, he was. But I doubt that you'll get the knight to start a similar thread on Stalin. :cool:
Actually usually everyone knows that Stalin was evil, I would like a thread on the evils of Trotsky, Lenin, and Marx. :wink:
-
s2srea,
I do not say that Hitler was the bogey man the Jew-controlled media made him out to be. But some persons take the opposite extreme, which is equally wrong.
To say but one thing positive about him or his accomplishments is immediately considered to be the "opposite extreme" by the socially conditioned majority.
It must be unconditional and visceral condemnation, or you are cloaked with the form of eternal evil.
Judah will have it no other way, and have well trained the masses to execute this desire.
-
How do you fine folk infer that I am a supporter of Stalin, Lenin, Marx or Trotsky? And what do they have to do with the topic at hand? We could start a discussion about any one of these men, I suppose, but the thing is, nobody is under the delusion that any of them were Catholic. On the other hand, many falsely believe that Hitler was a Catholic despite the enormity of evidence against this position.
I see alot of unsupported and slanderous accusations being thrown around by the nαzι crowd ("Jew lover", "brainwashed by Jew media", "Jєωιѕн infiltrator", "Communist agent") but what's really funny is that I haven't seen a single one of you chaps attempt to address the statements reproduced in the opening post of this thread, statements which demonstrate that the man you so admire was not only not a Catholic, but a bitter enemy of the Catholic Church, who declared, and I quote "A negro with his tabus is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in Transubstantiation. "
You tirelessly promote Adolf Hitler and his beliefs, you attack his detractors, but when faced with the evidence that he was an anti-Catholic pagan apostate, you neither defend nor renounce him, instead lashing out with baseless accusations against the individuals who highlight the facts about the man, and pitifully attempting to divert the discussion to Stalin, Lenin, Marx and Trotsky as a form of damage-control.
-
How do you fine folk infer that I am a supporter of Stalin, Lenin, Marx or Trotsky? And what do they have to do with the topic at hand? We could start a discussion about any one of these men, I suppose, but the thing is, nobody is under the delusion that any of them were Catholic. On the other hand, many falsely believe that Hitler was a Catholic despite the enormity of evidence against this position.
I see alot of unsupported and slanderous accusations being thrown around by the nαzι crowd ("Jew lover", "brainwashed by Jew media", "Jєωιѕн infiltrator", "Communist agent") but what's really funny is that I haven't seen a single one of you chaps attempt to address the statements reproduced in the opening post of this thread, statements which demonstrate that the man you so admire was not only not a Catholic, but a bitter enemy of the Catholic Church, who declared, and I quote "A negro with his tabus is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in Transubstantiation. "
You tirelessly promote Adolf Hitler and his beliefs, you attack his detractors, but when faced with the evidence that he was an anti-Catholic pagan apostate, you neither defend nor renounce him, instead lashing out with baseless accusations against the individuals who highlight the facts about the man, and pitifully attempting to divert the discussion to Stalin, Lenin, Marx and Trotsky as a form of damage-control.
If your going to list a quote like that, please provide the source and author. Before 1945.
-
Lots of people claim to be Catholic.
What do you think of Hitler's statements reproduced in the opening post of this thread?
Hitler was a great leader and I for one am not entertaining your rubbish. If reproducing material, reproduce the facts and truth.
Just to be clear, you are calling Knight Vigilant a liar, right? You are saying that nothing above can be attributed to Hitler, right?
Give it a rest mith. Table talk is a fraud.
Even if it was, it's not like it's the last and final obstacle keeping traditional Catholics from venerating Hitler, you've got a lot of work to do before you can get most of us to your level of enlightenment. I'll await the proof that supports your claim.
Hitler never wrote Table Talk. It was written by other people who said they were repeating what Hitler said. That is called hearsay. The texts also went through at least two known ediors who altered the texts: Matin Bormann at the end of the war, and Francois Genoud after the war. Borman was well know for his anti-Christian beliefs. David Irving even admitted that Genoud forged some of it. Is that a credible source?
To judge Hitler by Table Talk, rather than what Hitler said himself, is like judging a pope based on the words of someone who says "I personally talked to the Pope, and he privately told me this...", rather than judging the pope on his own words.
-
Hitler never wrote Table Talk. It was written by other people who said they were repeating what Hitler said. That is called hearsay. The texts also went through at least two known ediors who altered the texts: Matin Bormann at the end of the war, and Francois Genoud after the war. Borman was well know for his anti-Christian beliefs. David Irving even admitted that Genoud forged some of it. Is that a credible source?
To judge Hitler by Table Talk, rather than what Hitler said himself, is like judging a pope based on the words of someone who says "I personally talked to the Pope, and he privately told me this...", rather than judging the pope on his own words.
Hitler's Table Talks are considered to provide among the best insight into the man's personal character and beliefs and are viewed as authentic by every serious scholar, including David Irving (who specifically references Hitler's statements on Christianity in the Table Talks and makes no mention of any supposed "forgery"). The only people who seriously doubt the authenticity of the Table Talks are atheists seeking to "prove" that Hitler was a Catholic. Your definition of "credible sources" appears to be "anything I don't want Hitler to have said". :laugh1:
Ever wondered why Hitler surrounded himself with people like Martin Bormann?
-
Correction: Your definition of "credible sources" appears to exclude sources that contain anything you don't want Hitler to have said.
-
Hitler never wrote Table Talk. It was written by other people who said they were repeating what Hitler said. That is called hearsay. The texts also went through at least two known ediors who altered the texts: Matin Bormann at the end of the war, and Francois Genoud after the war. Borman was well know for his anti-Christian beliefs. David Irving even admitted that Genoud forged some of it. Is that a credible source?
To judge Hitler by Table Talk, rather than what Hitler said himself, is like judging a pope based on the words of someone who says "I personally talked to the Pope, and he privately told me this...", rather than judging the pope on his own words.
Hitler's Table Talks are considered to provide among the best insight into the man's personal character and beliefs and are viewed as authentic by every serious scholar, including David Irving (who specifically references Hitler's statements on Christianity in the Table Talks and makes no mention of any supposed "forgery"). The only people who seriously doubt the authenticity of the Table Talks are atheists seeking to "prove" that Hitler was a Catholic. Your definition of "credible sources" appears to be "anything I don't want Hitler to have said". :laugh1:
Ever wondered why Hitler surrounded himself with people like Martin Bormann?
Hitler also surrounded himself with people like Alban Schachleiter and Msgr. Jozef Tiso. Ever wonder why Pius XII surrounded himself with people like Bugnini, Montini, and Augustin Bea?
-
Hitler also surrounded himself by people like Alban Schachleiter and Msgr. Jozef Tiso. Ever wonder why Pius XII surrounded himself by people like Bugnini and Augustin Bea?
Oh, but there's a key difference here: The upper echelon of Hitler's regime was comprised of Pagan apostates and anti-Catholics almost in it's entirety. Goebbels, Himmler, Heydrich, Bormann, Eichmann... Come on, man. This is well known and you embarass yourself by arguing otherwise.
-
Hitler was an evil wacko. He murdered his own people. Stalin was worse then Hitler.
I think that Hitler had his reasons for doing some of the things he did. I have read that 7 million jews dying in cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρs was a huge exaggeration. I just read Elie Wiesel's "Night" which was about a young teenager (Elie himself) who went through cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρs during the h0Ɩ0cαųst. I have to give Elie at least some credit because he didn't just come out and slander the nαzιs every chance he got. He actually talked about some of the bad things that other jews were doing while in these camps as well. They would steal from each other, and wouldn't take care of each other. The fact that some jews would actually not only steal from each other but steal from the nαzιs said something to me. If conditions were really that bad, then why would they even think about stealing? Perhaps some of the turmoil that most of the jews went through was a result of what a few other jews decided to do. I'm sure conditions were bad, but at the same time exaggerated. I'm not trying to say that Hitler was in the right for what was done to the jews, but he did have reasons.
I like to revert to the private revelation of Brother John Cleft of the Rock when considering Hitler and World War II...
“All kingdoms will have to unite in the fight since the Cock (France?), the Leopard (England?), and the White Eagle (Russia?) will not be able to overcome the Black Eagle (Germany), unless aided by the prayers and vows of all mankind. The Black Eagle will attack the Cock which will lose many of his feathers, but will strike heroically with its spurs - it would soon be exhausted were it not for the help of the Leopard and its claws. The Black Eagle from the land of Luther will surprise the Cock from another side and will invade half of the land of the Cock. The White Eagle coming from the North will attack the Black Eagle; and the other Eagle will invade his land from one end to the other…” 3
“The Black Eagle will find himself compelled to let the Cock go in order to fight the White Eagle, but the White Eagle and the Cock will pursue the Black Eagle into his own land, thus helping the White Eagle. The battles waged until then will be trifling to those that will take place in the land of Luther because the seven angels simultaneously pour fire from their censors on the impious land of Luther…” 4
“When the Beast sees that he is lost he will become furious - it is ordained that for several months the beak of the White Eagle, the claws of the Leopard, and the spurs of the Cock must tear his vitals. Rivers will be forded over masses of dead bodies: in some places this will change the course of waters - only the great will receive burial for the carnage caused by firearms will but be added to the numberless dead due to famine and plague….” 5
“The Black Eagle will ask for peace again and again, but the seven angels who preceded the three animals have declared that victory must involve the absolute crushing of the Black Eagle. As a consequence, the executors of the justice of the Lamb cannot stop the fighting as long as the Black Eagle has a soldier left to defend him. This ruthless sentence of the Lamb against the Black Eagle is because he has claimed to be a Christian and to be acting in the name of God - hence if he did not perish the fruit of the Redemption would be lost and the gates of Hell prevail against the Saviour….” 6
“It is obvious that this combat, which will be fought where the Black Eagle forges his arms is no human contest…” 7
“The three animals will exterminate the Black Eagle's last army, but the battlefield will become a funeral pyre larger than the greatest cities with the corpses changing the very landscape. The Black Eagle will lose his crown and will die abandoned and insane - his Empire will be divided into twenty two states with neither fortifications, army nor navy…” 8
-
Although the veracity of the Table Talk books, especially the
English translation, less so than the French, are certainly disputable,
I do not think there is much question at all that Adolf Hitler, at least
publicly, seemed to consider Christianity in utilitarian terms.
Utilitarian in terms as to its effects on society, effects which he
sought to mold into a benefit for his plans.
-
The problem here is discerning authenticity. The Barnes Review push Table talk because it advances a Protestant anti-Catholic agenda. But no one knows whether those statements are factual or contrived.
-
To: Infinitefaith -- Elie Wiesel has been caught in numerous lies. If you are seeking the truth about the h0Ɩ0cαųst read Dissecting the h0Ɩ0cαųst by Germar Rudolf. It is the best book on the subject, it is balanced and w/o bias.
-
"You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"
-
Goebbels, nαzι Minister of Propaganda, noted:
"The Fuhrer is deeply religous, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jєωιѕн race... Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed."
-
"National Socialist and Christian concepts are incompatible. The Christian Churches build upon the ignorance of men and strive to keep large portions of the people in ignorance because only in this way can the Christian Churches maintain their power. On the other hand, National Socialism is based on scientific foundations. Christianity's immutable principles, which were laid down almost two thousand years ago, have increasingly stiffened into life-alien dogmas. National Socialism, however, if it wants to fulfill its task further, must always guide itself according to the newest data of scientific researches.
"The Christian Churches have long been aware that exact scientific knowledge poses a threat to their existence. Therefore, by means of such pseudo-sciences as theology, they take great pains to suppress or falsify scientific research...No one would know anything about Christianity if pastors had not crammed it down his throat in his childhood. The so-called loving God by no means reveals the knowledge of His existence to young people, but amazingly enough, and despite His omnipotence, He leaves this to the efforts of a pastor. When in the future our youth no longer hear anything about this Christianity, whose doctrine is far below our own, Christianity will automatically disappear.
"[...] When we National Socialists speak of a belief in God...[we mean] [t]he force which moves all these bodies in the universe, in accordance with natural law, is what we call the Almighty or God. The assertion that this world-force can worry about the fate of every individual, every bacillus on earth, and that it can be influenced by so-called prayer or other astonishing things, is based either on a suitable dose of naivete or on outright commercial effrontery."
"Any influence that would impair or damage the leadership of the people exercised by the Fuhrer with the aid of the NSDAP has to be eliminated. To an ever increasing degree the people must be wrested from Churches and their agents, the pastors...Only the Reich leadership, together with the party and the organs and associations connected with it, has a right to lead the people. Just as the harmful influence of astrologists, soothsayers, and other swindlers has been suppressed by the state, so it must be absolutely impossible for the Church to exercise its old influence."
(Martin Bormann, Reich Leader, 1942, 'National Socialist and Christian Concepts are Incompatible', From Kirchliches Jahrbuch fur die evangelische Kirche in Deutschland, 1933-1944, pp. 470-472, quoted pp. 245-247, George L. Mosse, nαzι Culture: A Docuмentary History).
-
"You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"
The "meekness and flabbiness" that launched the Crusades, the Reconquista, the conquest of the new world, the resistance against the Ottoman Turks... What have the Japanese achieved that compares? What have the Mohammedans achieved?
This fool was an enemy of Christendom and was an embarassment to Europe and our people.
-
Cardinal Clemens von Galen Speech - Against nαzι Euthanasia
This is an excerpt of the sermon by Catholic Cardinal Clemens von Galen, delivered on Sunday, August 3, 1941, in Münster Cathedral, in which he risked his life by openly condemning the nαzι euthanasia program.
Code named "Aktion T4," the nαzι program to eliminate "life unworthy of life" began on Hitler's order in October 1939. The program at first focused on newborns and very young children. Midwives and doctors were required to register children up to age three that showed symptoms of mental retardation, physical deformity, or other symptoms included on a questionnaire from the Reich Health Ministry.
A decision on whether to allow the child to live was then made by three medical experts solely on the basis of the questionnaire, without any examination and without reading any medical records.
Each expert placed a + mark in red pencil or – mark in blue pencil under the term "treatment" on a special form. A red plus mark meant a decision to kill the child. A blue minus sign meant meant a decision against killing. Three +++ symbols resulted in a euthanasia warrant being issued and the transfer of the child to a 'Children's Specialty Department' for death by injection or gradual starvation.
The decision had to be unanimous. In cases where the decision was not unanimous the child was kept under observation and another attempt would be made to get a unanimous decision.
The nαzι euthanasia program soon expanded to include older disabled children and adults. Hitler granted "the authority of certain physicians to be designated by name in such manner, that persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable, can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death."
Questionnaires were then distributed to mental institutions, hospitals and other institutions caring for the chronically ill. A total of six killing centers were established including the well-known psychiatric clinic at Hadamar. The euthanasia program was eventually headed by an SS officer named Christian Wirth, a notorious brute with the nickname 'the Savage Christian.'
At Brandenburg, a former prison was converted into a killing center where the first experimental gassings took place. The gas chambers were disguised as shower rooms, but were actually hermetically sealed chambers connected by pipes to cylinders of carbon monoxide. Each killing center also had a crematorium where the bodies were taken for disposal. Families were then falsely informed the cause of death was medical such as heart failure or pneumonia.
Fellow Christians! In the pastoral letter of the German bishops of June 26, 1941, which was read out in all the Catholic churches in Germany on July 6, 1941, it states among other things: It is true that there are definite commandments in Catholic moral doctrine which are no longer applicable if their fulfillment involves too many difficulties.
However, there are sacred obligations of conscience from which no one has the power to release us and which we must fulfil even if it costs us our lives. Never under any circuмstances may a human being kill an innocent person apart from war and legitimate self-defense. On July 6, I already had cause to add to the pastoral letter the following explanation: for some months we have been hearing reports that, on the orders of Berlin, patients from mental asylums who have been ill for a long time and may appear incurable, are being compulsorily removed. Then, after a short time, the relatives are regularly informed that the corpse has been burnt and the ashes can be delivered. There is a general suspicion verging on certainty, that these numerous unexpected deaths of mentally ill people do not occur of themselves but are deliberately brought about, that the doctrine is being followed, according to which one may destroy so-called 'worthless life,' that is, kill innocent people if one considers that their lives are of no further value for the nation and the state.
I am reliably informed that lists are also being drawn up in the asylums of the province of Westphalia as well of those patients who are to be taken away as so-called 'unproductive national comrades' and shortly to be killed. The first transport left the Marienthal institution near Münster during this past week.
German men and women, section 211 of the Reich Penal Code is still valid. It states: 'He who deliberately kills another person will be punished by death for murder if the killing is premeditated.'
Those patients who are destined to be killed are transported away from home to a distant asylum presumably in order to protect those who deliberately kill those poor people, members of our families, from this legal punishment. Some illness is then given as the cause of death. Since the corpse has been burnt straight away, the relatives and also the criminal police are unable to establish whether the illness really occurred and what the cause of death was.
However, I have been assured that the Reich Interior Ministry and the office of the Reich Doctors' Leader, Dr. Conti, make no bones about the fact that in reality a large number of mentally ill people in Germany have been deliberately killed and more will be killed in the future.
The Penal Code lays down in section 139: 'He who receives credible information concerning the intention to commit a crime against life and neglects to alert the authorities or the person who is threatened in time...will be punished.'
When I learned of the intention to transport patients from Marienthal in order to kill them, I brought a formal charge at the State Court in Münster and with the Police President in Münster by means of a registered letter which read as follows: "According to information which I have received, in the course of this week a large number of patients from the Marienthal Provincial Asylum near Münster are to be transported to the Eichberg asylum as so-called 'unproductive national comrades' and will then soon be deliberately killed, as is generally believed has occurred with such transports from other asylums. Since such an action is not only contrary to the moral laws of God and Nature but also is punishable with death as murder under section 211 of the Penal Code, I hereby bring a charge in accordance with my duty under section 139 of the Penal Code, and request you to provide immediate protection for the national comrades threatened in this way by taking action against those agencies who are intending their removal and murder, and that you inform me of the steps that have been taken."
I have received no news concerning intervention by the Prosecutor's Office or by the police...Thus we must assume that the poor helpless patients will soon be killed.
For what reason?
Not because they have committed a crime worthy of death. Not because they attacked their nurses or orderlies so that the latter had no other choice but to use legitimate force to defend their lives against their attackers. Those are cases where, in addition to the killing of an armed enemy in a just war, the use of force to the point of killing is allowed and is often required.
No, it is not for such reasons that these unfortunate patients must die but rather because, in the opinion of some department, on the testimony of some commission, they have become 'worthless life' because according to this testimony they are 'unproductive national comrades.' The argument goes: they can no longer produce commodities, they are like an old machine that no longer works, they are like an old horse which has become incurably lame, they are like a cow which no longer gives milk.
What does one do with such an old machine? It is thrown on the scrap heap. What does one do with a lame horse, with such an unproductive cow?
No, I do not want to continue the comparison to the end--however fearful the justification for it and the symbolic force of it are. We are not dealing with machines, horses and cows whose only function is to serve mankind, to produce goods for man. One may smash them, one may slaughter them as soon as they no longer fulfil this function.
No, we are dealing with human beings, our fellow human beings, our brothers and sisters. With poor people, sick people, if you like unproductive people.
But have they for that reason forfeited the right to life?
Have you, have I the right to live only so long as we are productive, so long as we are recognized by others as productive?
If you establish and apply the principle that you can kill 'unproductive' fellow human beings then woe betide us all when we become old and frail! If one is allowed to kill the unproductive people then woe betide the invalids who have used up, sacrificed and lost their health and strength in the productive process. If one is allowed forcibly to remove one's unproductive fellow human beings then woe betide loyal soldiers who return to the homeland seriously disabled, as cripples, as invalids. If it is once accepted that people have the right to kill 'unproductive' fellow humans--and even if initially it only affects the poor defenseless mentally ill--then as a matter of principle murder is permitted for all unproductive people, in other words for the incurably sick, the people who have become invalids through labor and war, for us all when we become old, frail and therefore unproductive.
Then, it is only necessary for some secret edict to order that the method developed for the mentally ill should be extended to other 'unproductive' people, that it should be applied to those suffering from incurable lung disease, to the elderly who are frail or invalids, to the severely disabled soldiers. Then none of our lives will be safe any more. Some commission can put us on the list of the 'unproductive,' who in their opinion have become worthless life. And no police force will protect us and no court will investigate our murder and give the murderer the punishment he deserves.
Who will be able to trust his doctor any more?
He may report his patient as 'unproductive' and receive instructions to kill him. It is impossible to imagine the degree of moral depravity, of general mistrust that would then spread even through families if this dreadful doctrine is tolerated, accepted and followed.
Woe to mankind, woe to our German nation if God's Holy Commandment 'Thou shalt not kill,' which God proclaimed on Mount Sinai amidst thunder and lightning, which God our Creator inscribed in the conscience of mankind from the very beginning, is not only broken, but if this transgression is actually tolerated and permitted to go unpunished.
Cardinal Clemens von Galen - August 3, 1941
Post-note: The sermon sent a shockwave through the nαzι leadership all the way up to Hitler. As a result, on August 23, 1941, Hitler suspended Aktion T4 which had accounted for nearly a hundred thousand deaths by this time.
The nαzιs pondered what to do about the Cardinal. They eventually retaliated by arresting and then beheading three parish priests who had distributed his sermon, but left the Cardinal unharmed to avoid making him into a martyr
-
Hitler's Table Talks excerpts--
The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practises a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its key-note is intolerance. Without Christianity, we should not have had Islam. The Roman Empire, under Germanic influence, would have developed in the direction of world-domination, and humanity would not have extinguished fifteen centuries of civilisation at a single stroke. Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (Night of July 11-12, 1941, p. 7 in Table Talk)
Originally war was nothing but a struggle for pasture grounds. Today war is nothing but a struggle for the riches of nature. By virtue of an inherent law, these riches belong to him who conquers them. The great migrations set out from the East. With us begins the ebb, from West to East. That's in accordance with the laws of nature. By means of the struggle, the elites are continually renewed.
The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (October 10, 1941, p.51)
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism the destroyer. Nevertheless, the Galilean, who later was called the Christ, intended something quite different. He must be regarded as a popular leader who took up His position against Jewry. Galilee was a colony where the Romans had probably installed Gallic legionaries, and items certain that Jesus was not a Jew. The Jews, by the way, regarded Him as the son of a whore and a Roman soldier. The decisive falsification of Jesus's doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work with subtlety and for purposes of personal exploitation. For the Galilean's object was to liberate His country from Jєωιѕн oppression. He set Himself against Jєωιѕн capitalism, and that's why the Jews liquidated Him.
Paul of Tarsus (his name was Saul, before the road to Damascus) was one of those who persecuted Jesus most savagely.When he learnt that Jesus's supporters let their throats be cut for His ideas, he realised that, by making intelligent use of the Galilean's teaching, it would be possible to overthrow this Roman State which the Jews hated. It's in this context that we must understand the famous "illumination". Think of it, the Romans were daring to confiscate the most sacred thing the Jews possessed, the gold piled up in their temples! At that time, as now, money was their god.
On the road to Damascus, St. Paul discovered that he could succeed in ruining the Roman State by causing the principle to triumph of the equality of all men before a single God, and by putting beyond the reach of the laws his private notions, which he alleged to be divinely inspired. If, into the bargain, one succeeded in imposing one man as the representative on earth of the only God, that man would possess boundless power. (October 21, 1941, p. 76-77.)
But for the coming of Christianity, who knows how the history of Europe would have developed? Rome would have conquered all Europe, and the onrush of the Huns would have been broken on the legions. It was Christianity that brought about the fall of Rome and not the Germans or the Huns. (January 27, 1942, p. 253)
I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. (27 February, 1942 , p.343)
Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity. (February 27, 1942 , p.343)
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery. A negro with his tabus is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in Transubstantiation. (December 13, 1941, p. 144)
The fact that the Japanese have retained their political philosophy, which one of the essential reasons of their success, is due to having been saved in time from the views of Christianity. Just as in Islam, there is no kind of terrorism in the Japanese State religion, but on the contrary, a promise of happiness This terrorism in religion is the product, to put it briefly, of a Jєωιѕн dogma, which Christianity has universalised and whose effect is to sow trouble and confusion in men's minds. (April 4, 1942, p393)
[About the religiosity of the Finns]
It is a great pity that this tendency towards religious thought can find no better outlet than the Jєωιѕн pettifoggery of the Old Testament. For religious people who, in the solitude of winter, continually seek ultimate light on their religious problems with the assistance of the Bible, must eventually become spiritually deformed. The wretched people strive to extract truths from these Jєωιѕн chicaneries, where in fact no truths exist. As a result they become embedded in some rut of thought or other and, unless they possess an exceptionally commonsense mind, degenerate into religious maniacs. It is deplorable that the Bible should have been translated into German, and that the whole of the German people should have thus become exposed to the whole of this Jєωιѕн mumbo-jumbo. So long as the wisdom, particularly of the Old Testament, remained exclusively in the Latin of the Church, there was little danger that sensible people would become the victims of illusions as the result of studying the Bible. But since the Bible became common property, a whole heap of people have found opened to them lines of religious thought which, particularly in conjunction with the German characteristic of persistent and somewhat melancholy meditation, as often as not turned them into religious maniacs. When one recollects further that the Catholic Church has elevated to the status of Saints a whole number of madmen, one realizes why movements such as that of the Flagellants came inevitably into existence in the Middle Ages in Germany.
As a sane German, one is flabbergasted to think that German human beings could have let themselves be brought to such a pass by Jєωιѕн filth and priestly twaddle, that they were little different from the howling dervish of the Turks and the negroes, at whom we laugh so scornfully. (June 5, 1942, p. 513)
During the years of our struggle, Rosenberg once submitted to me the draft of a leading article he proposed publishing in reply to the attacks of the Catholic Church. I forbade him to publish it; and I still think it was a great mistake that Rosenberg ever let himself be drawn into a battle of words with the Church. He had absolutely nothing to gain from it; the hesitant Catholics of their own free will regarded the Church with a critical eye, and from the truly devout not only could he expect no fair hearing for his "heretical outpourings", but he must also have realized that the opposition propaganda would condemn him for his meddling in matters of faith and successfully point to him as a man guilty of mortal sin.
The fact that I remain silent in public over Church affairs is not in the least misunderstood by the sly foxes of the Catholic Church, and I am quite sure that a man like the Bishop von Galen knows full well that after the war I shall extract retribution to the last farthing. And, if he does not succeed in getting himself transferred in the meanwhile to the Collegium Germanicuм in Rome, he may rest assured that in the balancing of our accounts, no "T" will remain uncrossed, no "I" undotted! (July 4, 1942, P. 555)
The Church of to-day is nothing more than a hereditary joint stock company for the exploitation of human stupidity. (August 1, 1942, p. 607)
Jesus was most certainly not a Jew. The Jews would never have handed one of their own people to the Roman courts; they would have condemned Him themselves. It is quite probable that a large number of the descendants of the Roman legionaries, mostly Gauls, were living in Galilee, and Jesus was probably one of them. His mother may well have been a Jewess. Jesus fought against the materialism of His age, and, therefore, against the Jews.
Paul of Tarsus, who was originally one of the most stubborn enemies of the Christians, suddenly realised the immense possibilities of using, intelligently and for other ends, an idea which was exercising such great powers of fascination. He realised that the judicious exploitation of this idea among non-Jews would give him far greater power in the world than would the promise of material profit to the Jews themselves. It was then that the future St. Paul distorted with diabolical cunning the Christian idea. Out of this idea, which was a declaration of war on the golden calf, on the egotism and the materialism of the Jews, he created a rallying point for slaves of all kinds against the elite, the masters and those in dominant authority. The religion fabricated by Paul of Tarsus, which was later called Christianity, is nothing but the Communism of today. (Night of November 29-30, 1944, p. 721-722)
-
The "meekness and flabbiness" that launched the Crusades, the Reconquista, the conquest of the new world, the resistance against the Ottoman Turks... What have the Japanese achieved that compares? What have the Mohammedans achieved?
This fool was an enemy of Christendom and was an embarassment to Europe and our people.
Islam had a superior culture than Christian Europe from the time of Mohammed's death to the discovery of the Americas by Columbus.
-
Hitler stated very clearly "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
Has DavidJ or Ashmo joined the forum?
Cardinal von Faulhaber stated "Hitler was deeply religious" and 'The Reich Chancellor undoubtedly lives in belief in God..He recognises Christianity as the builder of Western culture"
Sure, and Hitler can be trusted to NEVER say anything that wasn't true. I like you, John, but if you are pro Hitler you are Anti-Catholic. It's that simple.
The issue isn't that he's pro-Hitler. But he's pro-Hitler to the point of irrationality. How odd....
I've got to say, I appreciate The Knight Valiant posting on these issues. Its really sad to see how enveloped some are with the man. I do not say that Hitler was the bogey man the Jew-controlled media made him out to be. But some persons take the opposite extreme, which is equally wrong.
There is no rational degree to which someone who wishes to be Catholic can be pro-Hitler, any more that one could rationally be pro-Stalin.
-
Yes, he was. But I doubt that you'll get the knight to start a similar thread on Stalin. :cool:
Actually usually everyone knows that Stalin was evil, I would like a thread on the evils of Trotsky, Lenin, and Marx. :wink:
:smile:
-
The "meekness and flabbiness" that launched the Crusades, the Reconquista, the conquest of the new world, the resistance against the Ottoman Turks... What have the Japanese achieved that compares? What have the Mohammedans achieved?
This fool was an enemy of Christendom and was an embarassment to Europe and our people.
Islam had a superior culture than Christian Europe from the time of Mohammed's death to the discovery of the Americas by Columbus.
Islamic culture was superior to Christendom at it's climax, in the most Catholic age? The age of the Gothic cathedrals that far outstrip the greatest mosques in beauty, grandeur, and technical excellence? The age of St. Bernard, St. Dominic, St. Francis, St. Thomas Aquinas? The age of St. Louis IX, St. Fernando III, Richard the Lionheart, Charlemagne? The age of the glorious heroics of the crusades and the reconquista? The age of Dante Alighieri? The age of the Pope as judge of kings and the social reign of Christianity?
The Islamic infidels had a "superior culture" to this? In what sense? You must be joking. That's a delusion that has been largely promoted by post-enlightenment anti-Catholics and swallowed hook, line and sinker by self-loathing Europeans ever since. Sad.
-
[
He actually talked about some of the bad things that other jews were doing while in these camps as well. They would steal from each other, and wouldn't take care of each other. The fact that some jews would actually not only steal from each other but steal from the nαzιs said something to me. If conditions were really that bad, then why would they even think about stealing? [/quote]
You are kidding, right? It doesn't occur to you that people might steal in a cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ becasue they are starving? Are you really that stupid?
-
The "meekness and flabbiness" that launched the Crusades, the Reconquista, the conquest of the new world, the resistance against the Ottoman Turks... What have the Japanese achieved that compares? What have the Mohammedans achieved?
This fool was an enemy of Christendom and was an embarassment to Europe and our people.
Islam had a superior culture than Christian Europe from the time of Mohammed's death to the discovery of the Americas by Columbus.
If you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, as is clearly the case, you should not comment. You have never specified what standard of evaluation you use when you discuss "superior" cultures. Superior at what ? How ? If you are talking about technology or access to and learned appreciation of pagan learning or complex civil and economic organisation, on all scores you are wrong to suppose that the Mohammedans were generally superior to Christian countries at any time period. Even if it were the case (which, affirming so is incredibly controversial and contentious, by the way, since you appear to be entirely ignorant of the background of the issue), it would by no means be something that could be attributed to the religion founded by Mohammed.
After all, the Arabs came across large and complex Graeco-Roman Christian and Persian Zoroastrian cities and institutions that were originally built and developed according to principles that are found and accessible in nature and which were further developed and perfected with the coming of Christianity (where applicable, especially in the West, where Christianity flourished). The Mohammedans have ruined the vestiges of order and excellence in the East that they stumbled upon like the grave robbers they are. Outside of mathematics and perhaps calligraphy, they have not developed or perfected any of the arts or accomplishments that they found in the Mediterranean or Central Asia after their tribal religion left the Arabian peninsula. Where they have succeeded, they have done so not because of anything uniquely Islamic but largely in spite of their religion's spirit and vision and usually because of a reliance on pre-Islamic cultural traditions, the copying of foreign accomplishments (from China and Christendom), and largely with the assistance of non-Mohammedan artisans and professionals under their rule.
-
The "meekness and flabbiness" that launched the Crusades, the Reconquista, the conquest of the new world, the resistance against the Ottoman Turks... What have the Japanese achieved that compares? What have the Mohammedans achieved?
This fool was an enemy of Christendom and was an embarassment to Europe and our people.
Islam had a superior culture than Christian Europe from the time of Mohammed's death to the discovery of the Americas by Columbus.
If you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, as is clearly the case, you should not comment. You have never specified what standard of evaluation you use when you discuss "superior" cultures. Superior at what ? How ? If you are talking about technology or access to and learned appreciation of pagan learning or complex civil and economic organisation, on all scores you are wrong to suppose that the Mohammedans were generally superior to Christian countries at any time period. Even if it were the case (which, affirming so is incredibly controversial and contentious, by the way, since you appear to be entirely ignorant of the background of the issue), it would by no means be something that could be attributed to the religion founded by Mohammed.
After all, the Arabs came across large and complex Graeco-Roman Christian and Persian Zoroastrian cities and institutions that were originally built and developed according to principles that are found and accessible in nature and which were further developed and perfected with the coming of Christianity (where applicable, especially in the West, where Christianity flourished). The Mohammedans have ruined the vestiges of order and excellence in the East that they stumbled upon like the grave robbers they are. Outside of mathematics and perhaps calligraphy, they have not developed or perfected any of the arts or accomplishments that they found in the Mediterranean or Central Asia after their tribal religion left the Arabian peninsula. Where they have succeeded, they have done so not because of anything uniquely Islamic but largely in spite of their religion's spirit and vision and usually because of a reliance on pre-Islamic cultural traditions, the copying of foreign accomplishments (from China and Christendom), and largely with the assistance of non-Mohammedan artisans and professionals under their rule.
I must say, mounsiuer, this is one of those rare posts that tempts me to set up a few dummy accounts to give it as many thumbs ups as it deserves.
-
The "meekness and flabbiness" that launched the Crusades, the Reconquista, the conquest of the new world, the resistance against the Ottoman Turks... What have the Japanese achieved that compares? What have the Mohammedans achieved?
This fool was an enemy of Christendom and was an embarassment to Europe and our people.
Islam had a superior culture than Christian Europe from the time of Mohammed's death to the discovery of the Americas by Columbus.
If you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, as is clearly the case, you should not comment. You have never specified what standard of evaluation you use when you discuss "superior" cultures. Superior at what ? How ? If you are talking about technology or access to and learned appreciation of pagan learning or complex civil and economic organisation, on all scores you are wrong to suppose that the Mohammedans were generally superior to Christian countries at any time period. Even if it were the case (which, affirming so is incredibly controversial and contentious, by the way, since you appear to be entirely ignorant of the background of the issue), it would by no means be something that could be attributed to the religion founded by Mohammed.
After all, the Arabs came across large and complex Graeco-Roman Christian and Persian Zoroastrian cities and institutions that were originally built and developed according to principles that are found and accessible in nature and which were further developed and perfected with the coming of Christianity (where applicable, especially in the West, where Christianity flourished). The Mohammedans have ruined the vestiges of order and excellence in the East that they stumbled upon like the grave robbers they are. Outside of mathematics and perhaps calligraphy, they have not developed or perfected any of the arts or accomplishments that they found in the Mediterranean or Central Asia after their tribal religion left the Arabian peninsula. Where they have succeeded, they have done so not because of anything uniquely Islamic but largely in spite of their religion's spirit and vision and usually because of a reliance on pre-Islamic cultural traditions, the copying of foreign accomplishments (from China and Christendom), and largely with the assistance of non-Mohammedan artisans and professionals under their rule.
THANK YOU!
-
Just in case you weren't sure, Traditional Guy 20, you just got your ass kicked by the most intelligent poster on Cathinfo.
-
Islamic culture was superior to Christendom at it's climax, in the most Catholic age? The age of the Gothic cathedrals that far outstrip the greatest mosques in beauty, grandeur, and technical excellence? The age of St. Bernard, St. Dominic, St. Francis, St. Thomas Aquinas? The age of St. Louis IX, St. Fernando III, Richard the Lionheart, Charlemagne? The age of the glorious heroics of the crusades and the reconquista? The age of Dante Alighieri? The age of the Pope as judge of kings and the social reign of Christianity?
The Islamic infidels had a "superior culture" to this? In what sense? You must be joking. That's a delusion that has been largely promoted by post-enlightenment anti-Catholics and swallowed hook, line and sinker by self-loathing Europeans ever since. Sad.
I am not a self-loathing European or whatever. Hell even Belloc admitted an Islamic culture, "For what the scholars of Baghdad did soon became the common property of their confreres at Cordova." I think Islam is barbaric and inferior to Christianity and I don't support any apology for the Crusades however these are historical truths that even Catholic authors like Belloc and Warren Caroll admit.
-
Just in case you weren't sure, Traditional Guy 20, you just got your ass kicked by the most intelligent poster on Cathinfo.
Really? I think that's quite an over-estimation and sign of intellectual pride don't you? Remember the sin that you always keep harping me about? Well pride is a deadly sin. By the way I'm still awaiting your response on the other thread or did "you just get your ass handed to you" there?
-
If you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, as is clearly the case, you should not comment. You have never specified what standard of evaluation you use when you discuss "superior" cultures. Superior at what ? How ? If you are talking about technology or access to and learned appreciation of pagan learning or complex civil and economic organisation, on all scores you are wrong to suppose that the Mohammedans were generally superior to Christian countries at any time period. Even if it were the case (which, affirming so is incredibly controversial and contentious, by the way, since you appear to be entirely ignorant of the background of the issue), it would by no means be something that could be attributed to the religion founded by Mohammed.
Well one can definitely say that Muslim countries have fallen backwards now but I can borrow from Carroll, "Islam spread for seven hundred years until it had mastered the Balkans and the Hungarian plain, and all but occupied Europe itself through its early material and intellectual superiority." Meanwhile Europe was largely illiterate.
After all, the Arabs came across large and complex Graeco-Roman Christian and Persian Zoroastrian cities and institutions that were originally built and developed according to principles that are found and accessible in nature and which were further developed and perfected with the coming of Christianity (where applicable, especially in the West, where Christianity flourished). The Mohammedans have ruined the vestiges of order and excellence in the East that they stumbled upon like the grave robbers they are. Outside of mathematics and perhaps calligraphy, they have not developed or perfected any of the arts or accomplishments that they found in the Mediterranean or Central Asia after their tribal religion left the Arabian peninsula. Where they have succeeded, they have done so not because of anything uniquely Islamic but largely in spite of their religion's spirit and vision and usually because of a reliance on pre-Islamic cultural traditions, the copying of foreign accomplishments (from China and Christendom), and largely with the assistance of non-Mohammedan artisans and professionals under their rule.
See even with this passage here you give credit to one of the world's oldest civilizations, China and even with the pagan accomplishments of the Romans and Greeks. By the way Rome persecuted Christians from the time of Christ's death to Constantine and was hardly an unsuccessful society either.
-
And the Muslim world wasn't mostly illiterate?
I own the first five instalments of Carrol's History of Christendom series, as well as several of his other books. His work is valuable and very interesting, but it is not infallible.
In what respect was the Muslim world culturally "superior" to medieval Christendom? You have not elaborated upon this assertion. You mark the Age of Discovery as the end of Mohammedanism's "superiority" over Christendom, but the Age of Discovery was made possible only by the foundations laid for it in Medieval Christendom. The renaissance did not emerge out of a void.
-
This again? I and others have already pointed out how Table Talks is about as plausible as the h0Ɩ0cαųst.
-
You can read it all for yourself, if you can stomach the truth about the man. The book is "Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-1944: His Private Conversations"
Someone could make a book after you have died and say you wrote it. It is not that hard. It reminds me of the diary of Anne Frank.
-
This again? I and others have already pointed out how Table Talks is about as plausible as the h0Ɩ0cαųst.
Funny how you all say this, but none of you provide the slightest shred of evidence. :laugh1:
-
So the starvation death of Fr. Maximilian Kolbe was just the result of a...mis-communication with his underlings?
Come on, man! Adolf Hitler ruined his own potential (and his future, as well as his legacy) when he apostatized. Sure, he opposed the Jews, but being half-right will get you nowhere. His whole mission in life was all about THIS world (including race) and he didn't care for the Catholic Faith.
Just because we want to oppose the Jєωιѕн replacement of Calvary with Auschwitz doesn't mean we have to knee-jerk all the way over to the opposite extreme and suggest that Hitler was a great Catholic!
I suppose if I had to live 4 years at a liberal university in California, I'd be pretty fed-up with all the Jєωιѕн race-worship and Hitler vilification to the point that I might... no. Still no.
Hitler wasn't the ultimate evil, the worst in history, or anything like that -- but he was still no role model (to take understatement to the extreme).
Maximilian Kolbe was diagnosed with tuberculosis and was unhealthy for much of his life. Yet you believe he was starved to death in some nαzι execution? The people who gave us this story are the same ones who claim Jews were gassed in gas chambers.
-
From "Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944: His Private Conversations"
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practises a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its key-note is intolerance. Without Christianity, we should not have had Islam. The Roman Empire, under Germanic influence, would have developed in the direction of world-domination, and humanity would not have extinguished fifteen centuries of civilisation at a single stroke. Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things."
"Originally war was nothing but a struggle for pasture grounds. Today war is nothing but a struggle for the riches of nature. By virtue of an inherent law, these riches belong to him who conquers them. The great migrations set out from the East. With us begins the ebb, from West to East. That's in accordance with the laws of nature. By means of the struggle, the elites are continually renewed.
The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."
"But for the coming of Christianity, who knows how the history of Europe would have developed? Rome would have conquered all Europe, and the onrush of the Huns would have been broken on the legions. It was Christianity that brought about the fall of Rome and not the Germans or the Huns."
"I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."
"Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity."
"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery. A negro with his tabus is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in Transubstantiation. "
"The fact that the Japanese have retained their political philosophy, which one of the essential reasons of their success, is due to having been saved in time from the views of Christianity. Just as in Islam, there is no kind of terrorism in the Japanese State religion, but on the contrary, a promise of happiness This terrorism in religion is the product, to put it briefly, of a Jєωιѕн dogma, which Christianity has universalised and whose effect is to sow trouble and confusion in men's minds."
This isn't all. Hitler's hatred for the Jews was only matched by his hatred for the the Christian civilization of Europe, the European nobility and the clergy of the Catholic Church. Read it.
Please, come up with first hand sources for once. I have quotes from books and speeches. You have something that came out after the war. I wonder what is more trustworthy. The same people who lie about Hitler are the same who worship Israel, lie about Iran, Palestine, Libya, Syria, etc.
-
Please, come up with first hand sources for once. I have quotes from books and speeches. You have something that came out after the war. I wonder what is more trustworthy. The same people who lie about Hitler are the same who worship Israel, lie about Iran, Palestine, Libya, Syria, etc.
OK, does Mein Kampf qualify as a legitimate source in your approximation?
The two Christian denominations look on with indifference at the profanation and destruction of a noble and unique creature who was given to the world as a gift of God's grace. For the future of the world, however, it does not matter which of the two triumphs over the other, the Catholic or the Protestant. But it does matter whether Aryan humanity survives or perishes.
-
This again? I and others have already pointed out how Table Talks is about as plausible as the h0Ɩ0cαųst.
Funny how you all say this, but none of you provide the slightest shred of evidence. :laugh1:
The evidence lies on you. How can you prove Hitler said that? We know it was not written by Hitler. The text of Table Talks is what other people claim Hitler said. I posted stuff in the last thread. You must have ignored it.
-
What about the above quote from Mein Kampf, where Hitler states that it does not matter whether Catholicism perishes? Is that fabricated too?
-
Please, come up with first hand sources for once. I have quotes from books and speeches. You have something that came out after the war. I wonder what is more trustworthy. The same people who lie about Hitler are the same who worship Israel, lie about Iran, Palestine, Libya, Syria, etc.
OK, does Mein Kampf qualify as a legitimate source in your approximation?
The two Christian denominations look on with indifference at the profanation and destruction of a noble and unique creature who was given to the world as a gift of God's grace. For the future of the world, however, it does not matter which of the two triumphs over the other, the Catholic or the Protestant. But it does matter whether Aryan humanity survives or perishes.
A few comments: First, this was taken from wikipedia, not Mein Kampf. Second, this doesn't even demonstrate that he's anti-Christian. Third, this disproves the idea that he was an atheist. Fourth, they cut the paragraph off short and don't post everything he said. It's talking about how the two religions are doing the work of the Jews by attacking each other while the Jews rule over them both. And its talking about the future existence of the German people.
I would say it is a legitimate source since it is at least known to have been written by Hitler unlike Table Talks.
-
What about the above quote from Mein Kampf, where Hitler states that it does not matter whether Catholicism perishes? Is that fabricated too?
If you bothered to read the whole text, you would see he's speaking about the future existence of the German people. That whether or not Protestantism triumphs over Catholicism or Catholicism triumphs over Protestantism, it won't have any bearing on whether Germans survive in future generations, since the Jews are ruling and trying to destroy them.
-
It's not from wikipedia. It's from Mein Kampf Chapter X. The context does not effect it's meaning. The statement means what it appears to mean. For evidence of that, one can read the relevant portion online.
http://www.std.com/obi/Adolph.Hitler/unpacked/mkv2ch10.html
It certainly demonstrates that he was not a Catholic in any sense. Would any Catholic argue that it does not matter whether Catholicism perishes? Would any Catholic argue that the importance of the survival of the Aryan people trumps the importance of the survival of the Catholic Church?
Apostasy straight from the horse's mouth. How can you defend this statement?
-
It's not from wikipedia. It's from Mein Kampf Chapter X. The context does not effect it's meaning. The statement means what it appears to mean. For evidence of that, one can read the relevant portion online.
http://www.std.com/obi/Adolph.Hitler/unpacked/mkv2ch10.html
It certainly demonstrates that he was not a Catholic in any sense. Would any Catholic argue that it does not matter whether Catholicism perishes? Would any Catholic argue that the importance of the survival of the Aryan people trumps the importance of the survival of the Catholic Church?
Apostasy straight from the horse's mouth. How can you defend this statement?
It does come from Mein Kampf, yes. I meant that it is in the Wikipedia article on Hitler's religion. Also, the Murphy translation of the passage is bad.
-
From the Manheim translation: "Both, yes, both Christian denominations look on indifferently at this desecration and destruction of a noble and unique living creature, given to the earth by God's grace. The significance of this for the future of the earth does not lie in whether the Protestants defeat the Catholics or the Catholics the Protestants, but in whether the Aryan man is preserved for the earth or dies out."
It's clearer from this translation. He's not saying religion doesn't matter at all. He's saying, in the context of whether 'Aryans' survive, that which denomination will have no bearing on their survival or extinction.
It's like saying "Whether the people are Catholic or Protestant has no bearing on the survival of Europeans so long as the birth rates are under 1.
Whether you're Catholic or Prot, if the birth rates are under 1 then you're going to perish, regardless what religion you are.
-
"The significance of this for the future of the earth does not lie in whether the Protestants defeat the Catholics or the Catholics the Protestants, but in whether the Aryan man is preserved for the earth or dies out."
With all due respect, the meaning of this passage is unambiguous. He firstly states that it is insignificant whether the Catholic Church triumphs or dies. He secondly states that the survival of the "aryan man" is more important than the survival of Christ's Church. He is unambiguously writing that the survival of "aryan man" is of greater significance for earth and mankind than anything else. This is heresy and apostasy.
-
He is unambiguously writing that the survival of "aryan man" is of greater significance for earth and mankind than anything else.
I don't see how this reading of what he wrote could be disputed. The meaning is clear.
-
Well one can definitely say that Muslim countries have fallen backwards now but I can borrow from Carroll, "Islam spread for seven hundred years until it had mastered the Balkans and the Hungarian plain, and all but occupied Europe itself through its early material and intellectual superiority." Meanwhile Europe was largely illiterate.
I simply don't agree with what Dr Carroll says here. It is absurd to claim that Islamic culture has ever been "intellectually superior" to Catholic or even Greek Orthodox culture. How would one evaluate "intellectual superiority" any way ? In the Western monasteries, you had most of the great classical Latin authors preserved and many Greek texts as well, and in Constantinople you had the same, as well as almost all of the classical Greek texts. In any case, the Church Fathers were of course known and read extensively during the nadir of learning in Western Christendom, including the Greek Fathers, the Latin Fathers (including, above all, St Augustine), and then the Late Antique and Early Medieval theologians : Boethius, St Isidore of Seville, St Gregory the Great, Johannes Scotus Eriugena, etc. While it is true that the obscure Arabian Mohammedans, having conquered Graeco-Roman and Sassanid Persia, found for themselves a world of learning, craftsmanship, engineering, art, and music, it is false to say that the conquest of these cities coincided with their Islamification.
It took many centuries for these cities to become Mohammedan, and many resisted until the modern period and some even still resist. Within even the Ottoman Empire, there were millions of Christian Greeks, Armenians, Copts, Lebanese Maronites, Melkites, Catholics, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and so forth. Indeed, most of the great architects in the Ottoman period were first-generation Armenian and Greek converts. The Turks were not capable of developing or applying these things themselves; rather, they borrowed and robbed from those they conquered. This being said, there certainly were some learned Mohammedan men during the Abbasid Caliphate, namely Avicenna and Averroës, who commented on Aristotle. They had some true mathematicians, too. But certainly the few accomplishments from the Abbasid period are nothing compared to the glory of the Middle Ages from the time of Charlemagne onwards (a time that coincided with the Abbasid period). Intellectually and culturally, there was no equal on earth to (Catholic) Christendom when it came to the developments, rigour, and quality in philosophy, theology, mathematics, engineering, architecture, painting, music, and all the other practical arts and sciences, especially the legal science. There is no equal -- and I am referring here to the human level -- from the Mohammedan world or from the Far East or anywhere else to the intellectual prowess of Saint Thomas Aquinas. The only other people in his league of natural philosophical genius would be Plato, Aristotle, St Augustine, and perhaps Plotinus.
This time, from the 1100s onward, marks the unquestioned intellectual pre-eminence of Catholic countries over all others. And that is only if we are discussing the organisation of social institutions, that is, if we are speaking of learning from some stand point of intellectual rigour and logically presented argumentation. If intellectual superiority is judged by whether or not what one's mind produces is actually true and sound, then the Catholic countries of the world have never been equalled. And I do not mean this lightly. The subtlety of the Church's doctrinal theology, moral philosophy, and legal reasoning is far and away the most beautiful and profound intellectual corpus the human race has ever produced and ever will. As much as it were possible, I mean to say this not as a pious comment but with strict attention to its merits as an intellectually defensible point.
Now, I have actually studied Mohammedan culture at an advanced level in a University and with a Turkish professor, and I can assure you that Islam has never created an "intellectually superior" culture. Indeed, the age of Mohammedan intellectual accomplishment ended when that religion finally completed the conversion process of its host countries. When the light of Christian and pre-Christian natural accomplishments was dimmed by the Mohammedan veil, we no longer can speak of Mohammedan "intellectual accomplishments." Where they were created, they, once again, were borrowed from strangers to the Mohammedan religion. The Ottoman Turks organised some advances in weaponry, shipbuilding, and mathematics, but not in isolation. Most of their models and the rigorous precedent work came from Catholic and Greek Orthodox countries and people.
See even with this passage here you give credit to one of the world's oldest civilizations, China and even with the pagan accomplishments of the Romans and Greeks. By the way Rome persecuted Christians from the time of Christ's death to Constantine and was hardly an unsuccessful society either.
I don't see what you are trying to prove. You do not seem to be arguing against a position that I have expressed. I have never denied the truly impressive accomplishments of the Chinese and certainly would never dismiss or deny the amazing accomplishments of the great Greeks and Romans, upon which the Church's own articulation of Her Faith was made by God to depend (and happily so) as a model. What I dispute is your assertion that Christian culture was ever "inferior" to some other culture. The Church embraces and blesses all that is good in nature and aims to incorporate whatever it finds there into the lives of Christians where doing so is profitable. This is because the same one God Who gives us Divine Revelation and grace is the One Who created the world and sustains it in the law of the natural order, according to His own Reason. He is also the One Who gave man his rational faculties and his natural end. Thus, there is no conflict between the natural accomplishments of non-Christian societies and the Catholic Faith. Protestants and neo-Modernists might think so, but the theologians of the Church have affirmed otherwise.
As for your last point about the Romans, I really don't see what relevance your comment has. Perhaps you could explain what you mean. The Church is Hebrew and Graeco-Roman in government, language, and culture.
-
CORRECTION : "While it is true that the obscure Arabian Mohammedans, having conquered many great Graeco-Roman cities and Sassanid Persia, found for themselves a world of learning, craftsmanship, engineering, art, and music, it is false to say that the conquest of these cities coincided with their Islamification."
-
Excellent post, PereJoseph. People need to wake up and realise that the common characterisation of the middle-ages as a dark age, or as developmentally inferior to it's non-Catholic neighbours, is nothing more than anti-Catholic propaganda cooked up by enemies of the faith like Voltaire. Anybody think it's a coincidence that this supposed "dark age" coincides precisely with the period in which the Catholic Church was at the peak of it's influence?
-
From the Manheim translation: "Both, yes, both Christian denominations look on indifferently at this desecration and destruction of a noble and unique living creature, given to the earth by God's grace. The significance of this for the future of the earth does not lie in whether the Protestants defeat the Catholics or the Catholics the Protestants, but in whether the Aryan man is preserved for the earth or dies out."
It's clearer from this translation. He's not saying religion doesn't matter at all. He's saying, in the context of whether 'Aryans' survive, that which denomination will have no bearing on their survival or extinction.
It's like saying "Whether the people are Catholic or Protestant has no bearing on the survival of Europeans so long as the birth rates are under 1.
Whether you're Catholic or Prot, if the birth rates are under 1 then you're going to perish, regardless what religion you are.
The leaps of logic you are making here are quite comical. It is funny, the emotional need of "nαzι Catholics", (as Traditional Guy 20 described himself and his friends) to try and "interpret" Adolf Hitler as a good Catholic.
The meaning of the quote is quite clear, as PereJoseph said. Adolf Hitler was a heretic and an apostate.
-
The leaps of logic you are making here are quite comical. It is funny, the emotional need of "nαzι Catholics", (as Traditional Guy 20 described himself and his friends) to try and "interpret" Adolf Hitler as a good Catholic.
The meaning of the quote is quite clear, as PereJoseph said. Adolf Hitler was a heretic and an apostate.
That is your own words bg2. The leaps of logic you are willing to go to prove that I am some kind of evil nαzι and fascist is just so obsessive I have to wonder if you are mentally well.
-
People need to wake up and realise that the common characterisation of the middle-ages as a dark age...
I don't see the Middle Ages as a dark age. Obviously there was a time of true art that honored God like the Chartes Cathedral and literature like St. Thomas Aquinas.
-
Nobody in the Vatican had any problems with that passage or Mein Kampf in general because they must have understood it like I and others do, others who are not blind with hate against Germans. The Vatican even celebrated Hitler's birthday every year. Hitler even says in the book that Jews are the enemies of Christianity.
-
Nobody in the Vatican had any problems with that passage or Mein Kampf in general because they must have understood it like I and others do, others who are not blind with hate against Germans.
So now anybody who doesn't agree with your reading is blind with hatred for Germans ? I wasn't aware that reading comprehension and logic were dependent on such strong emotions one way or another. Here I though I was soberly analysing the meaning of a sentence; little did I know, I was actually being overcome by a storm of intense emotion. :rolleyes:
Anybody who doesn't support German nationalism and believe that the future of the world relies in some crucial way on the survival of the German race hates the Germans -- i.e., wishes them evil ? I don't see how somebody could hold either of those positions without being moved by a truly extreme and un-Catholic obsession with his German ethnicity. Some people are not fixated on German pretensions and Germany because they simply don't buy into German claims to global importance. I, for one, reject as silliness the German claim to unique importance and therefore neither hate Germans nor am a German nationalist. Firstly, I am not German, so that is the first reason for me to not be overly concerned with what typically concerns Germans. Secondly, Germany to me seems to be a country like any other country that does not descend from the Roman Empire. It is notable for many of its accomplishments and many of its problems, but then again so is Russia, so is Turkey, so is China, so is Japan, so is Iran.