Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: TheKnightVigilant on January 12, 2015, 02:52:30 AM
-
Indications that one is dealing with a Catholic Islamophile wannabe dhimmi.
-An almost pathological obsession with the idea that the Islamification of Europe is a "chastisement" which should not be resisted, because to resist would be to support the evils of the modern western world.
-The belief that Islamic aggression has been provoked by the evils of "the west" or "da Jєωs", rather than being an extension of the Islamic ideology or a continuation of the ceaseless Jihad that has been waged against Europe for 1400 years.
-A deep conviction that every Islamic terror attack is perpetrated by "da Jєωs" or is otherwise some kind of "inside job" or "fαℓѕє fℓαg". This serves to shift blame away from Islam.
-A belief that Europe "deserves" to be overrun by Muslims because Islam is somehow "better" than western Enlightenment liberalism.
-A belief that the Muslims are heroically resisting the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr agenda in the name of God and traditional morality.
-A propensity for accusing those who fear an Islamic takeover of being Neocons brainwashed by "da Jєωs", being "hysterical", or being "irrational" despite overwhelming demographic evidence supporting the reality of Islamification.
-The belief that anybody who sees the Muslims as a threat is somehow playing into the hands of "da Jєωs". "You fear the Muslim takeover? You want to fight back against them? Man, that's exactly what da Jєωs WANT you to do! Can't you see they're playing you like a fiddle?"
-The tendency to propose false dichotomies in debates about Islam in order to silence opposition. "You fear the Muslims? That's irrational. You must be a friend of the liberal, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, blaspheming, anti-Christian Jєωs. That's why you want to defend Europe. You think Muslims hate our freedoms."
-A tendency to denigrate any desire to defend or preserve Europe from Islamification for historical, cultural or racial reasons. "Why bother defending Europe from Islam? Europe isn't Christian any more! Might as well throw her to the dogs."
-A complete disregard for Europe's unique role in Christian history. "So what if Europe becomes Muslim? There will still be Christians in the jungles of Africa"
-An attitude of complete disregard for the deaths of other Europeans at the hands of Muslims, with no apparent concern for what this means for European Catholics. "Who cares if some liberal Europeans were killed in the streets by Muslims or in the two towers on 9/11? Doesn't bother me. Besides, it's a chastisement, man."
I'll update this list periodically. Should serve as a handy guide for those who suspect they might be dealing with an Islamophile.
-
How to spot a weak man.
They start threads bitching and whining like spoilt teenage girls when people disagree with them.
-
Excellent post, Knight Vigilant.
But I wonder if those you would term 'Catholic Islamophiles' actually relish the prospect of Europe suffering for her sins. They want Europe to be punished. The 'chastisement' they predict will be well-deserved, you see.
-
Even if there is no God Europe will be "punished". Just take a look at history to see what happens when societies degenerate and do things like legalise and promote sodomy. Eventually they become so corrupted that they stop working.
Has any civilisation ever legalised abortion?
I put an 18 year old into a job last year by calling a client and recommending him. They are paying him 40,000 USD per year and he works for the marketing department of a software company. He travels in from 1 hour away so his travel is around 6000 or 20 percent of his take home salary. At 19 that is a good opportunity for him.
I did him a favour and I thought they were doing him a favour. Last week I got an email from the boss of the company thanking me for a great recommendation, saying he had worked out really well and offering to take me to dinner.
The guy is basically willing and does his job. But in the world of employing young people that is now a rare thing. 30 years ago it was still relatively easy to hire reliable, keen, punctual young people. Now it is far from easy. Look at the behaviour of people on Youtube on in the typical town centre four nights per week. Look at the drug abuse and the breakdown of families and the psychologically damaged.
Society is CLEARLY breaking down and unchecked a system breakdown must be on the cards.
Now, sure, there might be a grumpy old man factor in there. I accept that. But do you really think you can have 80 or 90 percent of young people thinking sodomy is OK and perfectly natural and then bringing up the next generation as psychologically stable people?
I don't. I think that accepting those sorts of perversions as normal is going to have consequences on one's own moral choices.
-
"All the evils in the world are because of lukewarm Catholics". St. Pope Pius V
-
How to spot a weak man.
They start threads bitching and whining like spoilt teenage girls when people disagree with them.
Also a handy way to spot a particular kind of weak man - the Useful Goy Idiot; a creature with such a puffed-up sense of Providential Entitlement, he absolutely refuses to accept obvious Divine Chastisements against his own (and other) apostate nations as just, and who places such a premium on earthly life that he will gladly swallow the camel of spiritual and moral mass murder committed by the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan (which ancient mortal enemy of the Church he cavalierly dismisses as "da Jєωs") just so long as he can panickingly strain out the gnat of mere threats to the earthly body (a gnat he is blind enough to actually believe is a camel).
-
Even if there is no God Europe will be "punished".
:heretic:
-
Atheists talk like that.
-
Europe and USA took the silver and allowed these terrorists into our countries.
Our world leaders don't believe in God because they think they are gods.
-
"All the evils in the world are because of lukewarm Catholics". St. Pope Pius V
A man of his word if ever there was one, St. Pius V also dealt with Sodomites with utmost severity. He knew what God had done to Sodom and Gommorah, and he saw to it that Papal Territories, at least, would not similarly risk a just chastisement from Almighty God.
St. Pius V also ordered Jєωs out of his lands, and the stripping of all property and enslavement of any who remained.
Why, any Useful Goy Idiot worth his salt would have to conclude that St. Pius V was a "proto-Catholic-Islamophile."
If so, then count me a proud member of that group - I'd rather be in the company of Catholics like that giant among the sainted popes than the current crop of UGI neocaths like Jon Voight, Congressman Peter King, and (closer to home) the late, not-so-great Crossbro, and his idelogical successors who linger hereabouts.
-
Europe and USA took the silver and allowed these terrorists into our countries.
Our world leaders don't believe in God because they think they are gods.
Hear, hear.
What excuse is there that Chastisement is not richly deserved?
As to "relishing" that Chastisement - If the end of that Chastisement is Conversion, then, yes, I certainly do relish it.
-
I don't relish in the murder anyone. However, it is sickening that millions of people are holding " I love Charlie vigils" after the filth of satan that is being published in the name free speech.
-
Indications that one is dealing with a Catholic Islamophile wannabe dhimmi.
-An almost pathological obsession with the idea that the Islamification of Europe is a "chastisement" which should not be resisted, because to resist would be to support the evils of the modern western world.
-The belief that Islamic aggression has been provoked by the evils of "the west" or "da Jєωs", rather than being an extension of the Islamic ideology or a continuation of the ceaseless Jihad that has been waged against Europe for 1400 years.
-A deep conviction that every Islamic terror attack is perpetrated by "da Jєωs" or is otherwise some kind of "inside job" or "fαℓѕє fℓαg". This serves to shift blame away from Islam.
-A belief that Europe "deserves" to be overrun by Muslims because Islam is somehow "better" than western Enlightenment liberalism.
-A belief that the Muslims are heroically resisting the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr agenda in the name of God and traditional morality.
-A propensity for accusing those who fear an Islamic takeover of being Neocons brainwashed by "da Jєωs", being "hysterical", or being "irrational" despite overwhelming demographic evidence supporting the reality of Islamification.
-The belief that anybody who sees the Muslims as a threat is somehow playing into the hands of "da Jєωs". "You fear the Muslim takeover? You want to fight back against them? Man, that's exactly what da Jєωs WANT you to do! Can't you see they're playing you like a fiddle?"
-The tendency to propose false dichotomies in debates about Islam in order to silence opposition. "You fear the Muslims? That's irrational. You must be a friend of the liberal, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, blaspheming, anti-Christian Jєωs. That's why you want to defend Europe. You think Muslims hate our freedoms."
-A tendency to denigrate any desire to defend or preserve Europe from Islamification for historical, cultural or racial reasons. "Why bother defending Europe from Islam? Europe isn't Christian any more! Might as well throw her to the dogs."
-A complete disregard for Europe's unique role in Christian history. "So what if Europe becomes Muslim? There will still be Christians in the jungles of Africa"
-An attitude of complete disregard for the deaths of other Europeans at the hands of Muslims, with no apparent concern for what this means for European Catholics. "Who cares if some liberal Europeans were killed in the streets by Muslims or in the two towers on 9/11? Doesn't bother me. Besides, it's a chastisement, man."
I'll update this list periodically. Should serve as a handy guide for those who suspect they might be dealing with an Islamophile.
How to spot a neo-con.....they use irrational arguments built on false pretenses like these>>>>
-
Archbishop Lefebvre tried to warn France about allowing terrorists into the country.
Instead they persecuted him and fined him heavily for his "freedom of speech".
-
Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't lukewarm because he loved God, our Blessed Mother and the True Catholic Church.
-
Even if there is no God Europe will be "punished". Just take a look at history to see what happens when societies degenerate and do things like legalise and promote sodomy. Eventually they become so corrupted that they stop working.
Has any civilisation ever legalised abortion?
................ Look at the behaviour of people on Youtube on in the typical town centre four nights per week. Look at the drug abuse and the breakdown of families and the psychologically damaged.
Society is CLEARLY breaking down and unchecked a system breakdown must be on the cards.
Now, sure, there might be a grumpy old man factor in there. I accept that. But do you really think you can have 80 or 90 percent of young people thinking sodomy is OK and perfectly natural and then bringing up the next generation as psychologically stable people?
I don't. I think that accepting those sorts of perversions as normal is going to have consequences on one's own moral choices.
I agree that society is breaking down. But it makes me want to weep, rather than come out with all this talk about "chastisements" and "punishment". If Europe and the US crash economically and socially, and are also over-run by foreigners of whatever religion, it will be the end for both those societies. And they won't come back. There will be no conversion, no resurrection of Christendom. IMO.
But let's be more specific. It's very last remnants of Christendom that are being wiped out, never to return, in my opinion. So what's the good of punishing people if they don't know what they're being punished for. If Europe is destroyed, the survivors won't say - Oh, it's because we abandoned Catholicism! They'll say it's because we didn't stand up for our secular Enlightenment values.
You asked if any civilisation has legalised abortion. No, but plenty have practiced infanticide as a way of limiting their families. And had no problem with sodomy either. The Romans tolerated both and their empire lasted 1000 years.
-
Europe and USA took the silver and allowed these terrorists into our countries.
Our world leaders don't believe in God because they think they are gods.
Hear, hear.
What excuse is there that Chastisement is not richly deserved?
As to "relishing" that Chastisement - If the end of that Chastisement is Conversion, then, yes, I certainly do relish it.
But it won't be. And when it finally dies, it will probably take you with it.
But hey, bring it on.
-
But it won't be.
With what degree of certainty do you make this prognostication?
And when it finally dies, it will probably take you with it.
If it happens within my lifetime, yes, that goes without saying. As long as I die in a state of Grace, it matters little to me when or how I die.
But hey, bring it on.
Yes, that's right. "Fiat Voluntas Tua," not "mea."
-
Even if there is no God Europe will be "punished". Just take a look at history to see what happens when societies degenerate and do things like legalise and promote sodomy. Eventually they become so corrupted that they stop working.
Has any civilisation ever legalised abortion?
................ Look at the behaviour of people on Youtube on in the typical town centre four nights per week. Look at the drug abuse and the breakdown of families and the psychologically damaged.
Society is CLEARLY breaking down and unchecked a system breakdown must be on the cards.
Now, sure, there might be a grumpy old man factor in there. I accept that. But do you really think you can have 80 or 90 percent of young people thinking sodomy is OK and perfectly natural and then bringing up the next generation as psychologically stable people?
I don't. I think that accepting those sorts of perversions as normal is going to have consequences on one's own moral choices.
I agree that society is breaking down. But it makes me want to weep, rather than come out with all this talk about "chastisements" and "punishment". If Europe and the US crash economically and socially, and are also over-run by foreigners of whatever religion, it will be the end for both those societies. And they won't come back. There will be no conversion, no resurrection of Christendom. IMO.
But let's be more specific. It's very last remnants of Christendom that are being wiped out, never to return, in my opinion. So what's the good of punishing people if they don't know what they're being punished for. If Europe is destroyed, the survivors won't say - Oh, it's because we abandoned Catholicism! They'll say it's because we didn't stand up for our secular Enlightenment values.
You asked if any civilisation has legalised abortion. No, but plenty have practiced infanticide as a way of limiting their families. And had no problem with sodomy either. The Romans tolerated both and their empire lasted 1000 years.
Well the sooner we get it over with, the sooner we can rebuild from whatever is left.
-
But it won't be.
With what degree of certainty do you make this prognostication?
And when it finally dies, it will probably take you with it.
If it happens within my lifetime, yes, that goes without saying. As long as I die in a state of Grace, it matters little to me when or how I die.
But hey, bring it on.
Yes, that's right. "Fiat Voluntas Tua," not "mea."
About 90 per cent. I think we're witnessing the revolt that St Paul warns about in 2Thessalonians.
As for your other comments - I agree entirely.
-
How to spot a weak man.
They start threads bitching and whining like spoilt teenage girls when people disagree with them.
No, they sit around like cowards waiting indifferently for the day when their sons will be murdered and their daughters raped, and tell others to do the same.
Examples: ggreg and BTNYC. Loyal dhimmis.
-
Personally if a group of Muslims raped a daughter of mine I would have no problem torturing them and using my bare hands to choke the life out of them.
Be that as it may however the greatest harm to any young girl is not rape but being lost in the moral swamp called "culture" these days which promotes sex and the single career girl. That is the greatest harm to the West which has refused to have children and is dying.
-
Notice how loyal dhimmi BTNYC is already resorting to the Islamophile tactics outlined in this thread - he is accusing me of being allied with the Jєωs because I oppose the Muslims. This smear tactic serves to discredit my criticism of his favoured group. In fact, even a cursory look through my posting history will show that I am very aware on the Jєωs. For example my post at the bottom of the page here, submitted August 2014 :
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=33131&min=24&num=3
Just shows you the kind of dishonesty these dhimmis will employ in their efforts to bend over as far as possible for Mohammed.
-
How to spot a neo-con.....they use irrational arguments built on false pretenses like these>>>>
I am not defending Vigilant here but with respect in Europe Arabs and Turks are a far greater threat than in America, whose real threat lies to the southern border. In Europe Arabs and Africans have repeatedly rioted and committed violence in full-scale race riots, something we have not really seen in America (amongst Arabs at least, since blacks have rioted quite a bit the last 50 years). So yes there is a reason why people on the European continent like Vigilant fear Muslims more.
And please don't throw labels out like "neo-con" since it destroys the real meaning the word had. Real neoconservatives like Kagan, Wolfowitz, Perle, etc. were mostly Jєωιѕн who were former Trotskyists and leftists who migrated to the Republican Party after the counter-culture took hold in the Democratic Party.
-
How to spot a neo-con.....they use irrational arguments built on false pretenses like these>>>>
I am not defending Vigilant here but with respect in Europe Arabs and Turks are a far greater threat than in America, whose real threat lies to the southern border. In Europe Arabs and Africans have repeatedly rioted and committed violence in full-scale race riots, something we have not really seen in America (amongst Arabs at least, since blacks have rioted quite a bit the last 50 years). So yes there is a reason why people on the European continent like Vigilant fear Muslims more.
And please don't throw labels out like "neo-con" since it destroys the real meaning the word had. Real neoconservatives like Kagan, Wolfowitz, Perle, etc. were mostly Jєωιѕн who were former Trotskyists and leftists who migrated to the Republican Party after the counter-culture took hold in the Democratic Party.
Exactly right. I have first-hand experience of Islamification, since I grew up in one of the most Islamified areas of the entire country, which I might add is the most dangerous place the country.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/forget-home-office-crime-mapping-1695400
Pics of where I grew up:
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/74686000/jpg/_74686822_74686821.jpg)
(http://statics.192.com/estreet/original/large/1241/12416344.jpg)
(http://legacymedia.localworld.co.uk/275775/Article/images/16160878/3804597.png)
(http://statics.192.com/estreet/original/large/1257/12571053.jpg)
These guys are the members of a pedophile sex gang from the area, taken down last year. They abused and raped white children and forced them into prostitution. All of them are Muslim Somalians.
(http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276268/Article/images/24817770/8421563-large.jpg)
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Somali-gang-groomed-raped-schoolgirls-Bristol/story-24817770-detail/story.html
A mainly Muslim/immigrant drug dealing gang taken down in the area recently.
(http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276268/Article/images/19990302/5424236-large.jpg)
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Untouchable-Bristol-drug-dealers-brought-police/story-19990302-detail/story.html#ixzz3Odrz2CMb
-
Atheists, Jєωs, and Muslims are all enemies of Christianity. They all have the same goal. Why even argue about it?
-
Excellent post, Knight Vigilant.
But I wonder if those you would term 'Catholic Islamophiles' actually relish the prospect of Europe suffering for her sins. They want Europe to be punished. The 'chastisement' they predict will be well-deserved, you see.
That's the scary thing - they seem to want Islamification. They want to see Minarets on every European skyline. They want our Churches turned into Mosques. They want to see their sons murdered and their daughters raped! It's insane and suicidal. And they think you are a "weak man" if you dare to even speak of fighting back. They call you a "neocon" or "useful Goy idiot" for wanting to avert disaster. Yet these deluded fools act as if they are the spiritual successors of the brave men who fought the Muslims to defend Europe in the past. It's nuts.
One thing these people share in common with the liberals they supposedly despise is the shared desire for racial and cultural ѕυιcιdє via Islamification. The liberals call it "progress", the Catholic Islamophiles like ggreg and BTNYC call it a "chastisement" which shouldn't be resisted. They make for strange bedfellows. It's frightening how blind these people are. They're dupes for the devil.
-
Personally if a group of Muslims raped a daughter of mine I would have no problem torturing them and using my bare hands to choke the life out of them.
That's right. Loyal dhimmis like ggreg and BTNYC on the other hand would probably shake the rapists hands and thank them for the chastisement.
-
How to spot a neo-con.....they use irrational arguments built on false pretenses like these>>>>
I am not defending Vigilant here but with respect in Europe Arabs and Turks are a far greater threat than in America, whose real threat lies to the southern border. In Europe Arabs and Africans have repeatedly rioted and committed violence in full-scale race riots, something we have not really seen in America (amongst Arabs at least, since blacks have rioted quite a bit the last 50 years). So yes there is a reason why people on the European continent like Vigilant fear Muslims more.
And please don't throw labels out like "neo-con" since it destroys the real meaning the word had. Real neoconservatives like Kagan, Wolfowitz, Perle, etc. were mostly Jєωιѕн who were former Trotskyists and leftists who migrated to the Republican Party after the counter-culture took hold in the Democratic Party.
I think Traditional Guy has hit the nail on the head here.
-
How to spot a neo-con.....they use irrational arguments built on false pretenses like these>>>>
I am not defending Vigilant here but with respect in Europe Arabs and Turks are a far greater threat than in America, whose real threat lies to the southern border. In Europe Arabs and Africans have repeatedly rioted and committed violence in full-scale race riots, something we have not really seen in America (amongst Arabs at least, since blacks have rioted quite a bit the last 50 years). So yes there is a reason why people on the European continent like Vigilant fear Muslims more.
And please don't throw labels out like "neo-con" since it destroys the real meaning the word had. Real neoconservatives like Kagan, Wolfowitz, Perle, etc. were mostly Jєωιѕн who were former Trotskyists and leftists who migrated to the Republican Party after the counter-culture took hold in the Democratic Party.
Xenophobes don't care if it is Catholic immigrants invading protestant countries or muslims invading atheist countries, which is a certain characteristic neo-cons share.
-
Atheists, Jєωs, and Muslims are all enemies of Christianity. They all have the same goal. Why even argue about it?
Because there is a subset of traditional Catholics who are Islamophiles who believe that Islamification of the West would be a good thing and that it should not be resisted. They want to be raped by Islam. They want their children and their children's children to be Muslims. They want to see Europe wiped out by the religion and culture they fetishize.
As they work tirelessly toward this goal, they will try anything to divert people's attention away from the Muslim threat - typically, they will attempt to distract people by diverting discussion of Islamic aggression to discussion of western evils which supposedly provoked the Islamists to violence. Or they might argue that the terror attacks were an "inside job", "fαℓѕє fℓαg" or "mossad operation". They do this in order to delude observers into believing that it is not the Muslims, but some other party or faction, which poses the threat. This ensures that the observer remains ignorant of the reality of Islamification, permitting Islamification to continue unimpeded as desired by the Islamophiles.
-
Indications that one is dealing with a Catholic Islamophile wannabe dhimmi.
-An almost pathological obsession with the idea that the Islamification of Europe is a "chastisement" which should not be resisted, because to resist would be to support the evils of the modern western world.
-The belief that Islamic aggression has been provoked by the evils of "the west" or "da Jєωs", rather than being an extension of the Islamic ideology or a continuation of the ceaseless Jihad that has been waged against Europe for 1400 years.
-A deep conviction that every Islamic terror attack is perpetrated by "da Jєωs" or is otherwise some kind of "inside job" or "fαℓѕє fℓαg". This serves to shift blame away from Islam.
-A belief that Europe "deserves" to be overrun by Muslims because Islam is somehow "better" than western Enlightenment liberalism.
-A belief that the Muslims are heroically resisting the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr agenda in the name of God and traditional morality.
-A propensity for accusing those who fear an Islamic takeover of being Neocons brainwashed by "da Jєωs", being "hysterical", or being "irrational" despite overwhelming demographic evidence supporting the reality of Islamification.
-The belief that anybody who sees the Muslims as a threat is somehow playing into the hands of "da Jєωs". "You fear the Muslim takeover? You want to fight back against them? Man, that's exactly what da Jєωs WANT you to do! Can't you see they're playing you like a fiddle?"
-The tendency to propose false dichotomies in debates about Islam in order to silence opposition. "You fear the Muslims? That's irrational. You must be a friend of the liberal, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, blaspheming, anti-Christian Jєωs. That's why you want to defend Europe. You think Muslims hate our freedoms."
-A tendency to denigrate any desire to defend or preserve Europe from Islamification for historical, cultural or racial reasons. "Why bother defending Europe from Islam? Europe isn't Christian any more! Might as well throw her to the dogs."
-A complete disregard for Europe's unique role in Christian history. "So what if Europe becomes Muslim? There will still be Christians in the jungles of Africa"
-An attitude of complete disregard for the deaths of other Europeans at the hands of Muslims, with no apparent concern for what this means for European Catholics. "Who cares if some liberal Europeans were killed in the streets by Muslims or in the two towers on 9/11? Doesn't bother me. Besides, it's a chastisement, man."
I'll update this list periodically. Should serve as a handy guide for those who suspect they might be dealing with an Islamophile.
What do you propose for the evangelization of the Moslems?
-
I've never met such people.
Everyone I know thinks that Islam is a foolish religion which has delivered very little for it adherents over the last 1000 years.
Read what you wrote above and ask yourself whether you don't appear to be a little mentally unhinged?
"A subset of Traditionalist Catholics who want to be raped by Islam"? Really?
You are insane. You've lost the plot.
-
You think it's insane that any person would desire racial or cultural ѕυιcιdє via Islamification, but you've said yourself that you think Europe deserves Islamification, and that Islamification would somehow be some kind of improvement over the liberal society of today.
You're the one who has lost the plot. You think I'm nuts for believing that there are people who believe what you yourself believe! :laugh1:
-
As the forum's recently outed and castigated resident Dhimmi and Islamophile, I thought now might be a good time to take a stroll down memory lane and look at some of my greatest hits... The flagrantly Islamophilic posts that, over the years, have earned me this richly deserved anathema:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=26451&min=3&num=3
What, no Chasidic ladies' fashions?
Sorry for being sardonic, but Catholic praise of Mohammedan "virtues" never fails to depress me.
Mohammedans and "orthodox" Jєωs cover their women not from any genuine understanding of modesty, but from a warped and depraved view of human nature.
As bad as things are in our post-Catholic West, it is not yet so bad that me must flee for refuge in the culture of our enemies (just because they happen to also be our enemies' enemies).
There are still modest women's clothes to be found, and in Western fashions (I know, my wife wears it). One need only be resourceful and persistent.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=30366&min=33&num=3
These threads always depress me, whether it's a conserva-prot lovefest like this one or that one from last year where some of the women here were praising Mohammedan women's fashions...
It's a sad and sorry state of affairs for trads in this country... Many of us have suffered too long from "Charge of the Light Brigade" Syndrome.... and living in this pluralistic mess, we succuмb to the temptation to seek allies where we think we find them. But it's an illusion. There is no more possibility of alliance with an anti-Marian, anti-papal, anti-sacramental proddie heretic than there is with a Trinity-hating, moon-worshipping Mohammedan blasphemer...
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=26161&min=6&num=3
The Blessed Mother is the Mother of God. If she's not being honored as such, she's not being "honored" at all. Just as a protestant fails to adore Christ by refusing to venerate His Mother, Mohammedans fail to venerate His Mother by refusing to adore Christ.
The answer to your "Challenge" is the same as it is to the "challenge" of getting, say, the Jehovah's Witnesses to recognize the Incarnation: Conversion.
If you meant to ask "how do we evangelize to the Mohammedans" then why not just post that question? Why frame this in such a falsely ecuмenical manner?
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=33052&min=24&num=3
As an aside, I've always enjoyed the stories I've heard about the Mohammedan traders from Tunisia who would set up shop in Malta for a few weeks out of the year. The Mohammedans would occasionally mock the Maltese when seeing them makle the Sign of the Cross, following this mockery with their usual all-purpose exclamation "Allahu Ackbar" (God is great). The Maltese, not missing a beat (and taking full advantage of their language's similarity to Arabic) would invariably reply with the following catchy rhyme:
"Alla hu kbir, Mawmettu hu l-hanzir!" ("God is great, but Mahomet is a pig!")
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=26161&min=39&num=3
The notion that Our Lord was not truly sacrificed probably came to Mahomet by way of lingering gnostic sects in Arabia. I believe he befriended an heretical priest at some point.
The crucifixion is a scandal to them for the same reason it is a scandal to the Jєωs - it flies in the face of the violent, sensual, militaristic Messiah they expect and want. The first Moslems were Arabs. Arabs, like Jєωs (the Jєωs of antiquity anyway) are Semites, and they share many of the cultural touchstones peculiar to that race - materialism, militarism, legalism, pragmatism, etc.
You are correct that Jєωιѕн blasphemies against Our Lord and His blessed Mother are worse than the errors of the Mohammedans. Islam is merely a barbaric heresy, whereas "Judaism's" raison d'etre is rejection of Christ, making it, of all the world's false religions, the most profoundly Satanic.
But we would all do well to remember that the enemy of our enemy is not our friend.
In response to the bolded - Islamic cowardice is codified into their religion, Christian cowardice is not. The Taqiya is a codified dispensation from a death that would be martyrdom for a Catholic. The preferred form of "martyrdom" for a Mohammedan is dying whilst in the process of murdering as many "infidels" as possible. A Catholic is called to choose death over apostasy, and all the priestly, episcopal, and papal scandals in the world do not change that.
"The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not." St Matthew 23:2-3
Jєωs are the primary (human) enemy of the Faith, on that I think (I hope) we all agree. But Mohammedans are enemies of the Faith as well. One need not praise the latter to castigate the former. This is the one bone of contention I have with the otherwise consistently excellent E. Michael Jones. For example, he praises Iran's "morality," specifically, their sɛҳuąƖ morality, yet overlooks (or is ignorant of) the fact that Iran, thanks to an islamic fatwah, is the number 2 sex change capital of the world.
The enemy of our enemy is not our friend. We should look to our own glorious Catholic past for encouragement, not to anything incidentally or superficially "good" in a false religion or its adherents.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=33433&min=15&num=5
Who are "we?"
"We" are Traditional Catholics, aren't "we?" That's who we are to say we're right and they're wrong. We also reject those modern evils. The difference is, we reject them as Catholics, not as Mohammedan infidels.
And, as a Catholic, you ought to know that any group that adovcates polygamy most certainly does not have a proper view of womanhood.
The Moslems have a view of women that is essentially pagan, or perhaps Gnostic. They view women as little more than cattle, and less human than men, a concept which is abominable for any Catholic who accepts that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the highest of God's creatures, higher than even the angels.
This is yet another example of Trads looking for a friend in the enemy of their enemy. This is a perilous trap. There is no siding with Moslems simply because they oppose Jєωs, or, in this case, because they show a modicuм of adherence to the Natural Law, though corrupted by their false religion.
There are plenty of weak milquetoast Catholics, I'll grant you that. But the Catholic Faith is strong and militant. And Catholic strength and militancy doesn't always mean fighting... it also means dying. In fact, as the Blood of the Martyrs testifies, it is dying for the Faith - over and above fighting for it - that is our primary duty and highest calling. And as there are no more Catholic states or armies left on earth, militancy in the literal sense is pretty much completely off the table for Catholics (as serving in the armed forces of a godless masonic State like ours is no option at all).
But our Faith itself is indeed militant and uncompromising. We have no need to fawn over the barbaric Mohammedans because of their incidental opposition to some of the Post-Christian West's evils, any more than there is any need to praise a stopped clock for being right twice a day.
We have the proper view of womanhood, and no one else. We needn't resort to the woman-hating barbarism of the Moslems any more than we should to the false chivalry of the crypto-feminists among us who deny that women naturally owe men their obedience.
And, for old time's sake, the post that got be banned from CAF, as docuмented on this thread: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=26021&min=3&num=3
"There is no god but God" is not the First Commandment. It is the Islamic "Shahada," their declaration of faith, and it is immediately followed by "and Mohammed is his prophet." The first commandment is "I am the LORD thy God; thou shalt not have strange gods before Me." They are not the same, despite containing a superficial similarity. As Chesterton, the "apostle of common sense" pointed out, to say a thing is "like" another thing is as much a statement of difference as it is of similarity. The mere fact you so blithely conflated the two redounds to my point - there is a danger in laymen playing with private syncretism willy-nilly, not the least of which being indifferentism.
The First Commandment is a declaration by God Almighty Himself that we are not to adore anything other than (or in addition to) Himself. The shahada is an Islamic formula required to be recited by converts to the Mohammedan religion, which was formulated by men in direct opposition of the Dogma of the Trinity, which is particularly abhorrent to Mohammedans. And this is what makes Christian use of this phrase so inadvisable - the shahada is an Islamic formulation of the uniqueness and oneness of God in the Islamic sense which is uttered by Mohammedans as a repudiation not only of polytheism but also of the Trinity. Why on earth would a Christian want to flirt with a formulation that is so tainted - especially when there is nothing at all lacking in Catholic theology, mysticism, devotion and dogma that you would need to do it???
And where does one draw the line? Because some American and western European Catholics use Advent wreaths, should we take to quoting the Hadiths and reciting Mohammedan prayers because of some incidental, superficial truth they may express? Why stop there? The OP seems to think borrowing from the Mormons is beyond the pale because they're polytheists. But why? Why is that error sufficient to poison the well, but not Islamic anti-Trinitarian, anti-Incarnation, and anti-Crucifixion errors? Seems awfully arbitrary to me.
And let me take it a bit further and play "devil's advocate" in a more literal sense than I'm ordinarily comfortable with: According to their Wikipedia article, the "church of satan" condemns, among other things: pretentiousness, solipsism, and "harming little children." That seems like good advice. Should I therefore praise the church of satan and incorporate their writings and practices into my own Catholic life because I see occasional, superficial, incidental truths in their cult?
The answer, of course, is "no." And that is all the point I'm making here: Don't wander off to poisonous springs when you have an endless reservoir of pure water at your disposal. I think the metaphor is very apt. The OP attempted to answer it by saying that he would filter the poison out. Of course, this fails to address why anyone with limitless access to clean water would feel the need to drink filtered poison in the first place.
Well, on second thought all of the above kind of makes me seem like not such a Crypto-Musselman after all, doesn't it? Ah, but no matter. I had the temerity to express agreement with blessed Marco d'Aviano's outrageous teachings that God chastises Christian nations with Mohammedan scourges, and that public reparation to Almighty God and lively horror of the spiritual cancers that proliferate in the former nations of Christendom are absolute necessities for any hope of defeating the Mohammedans to exist, and which therefore must be placed before any panicky, reactionary outrage that (tacitly or explicitly) ignores the punitive aspect of the Mohammedan scourge... So yes, by any rational, evenly measured, and entirely hyperbole-free standard (of the kind which we've seen on such ample display in this thread), yes of course I'm a great big "wannabe dhimmi," 'Catholic Islamophie" bogeyman.
So don't lose any time lighting the torches and hanging up the effigies.
-
Doesn't matter how many posts you dig up - you've made it clear that you want Islamification to take place. You desire and "relish" (your own words) Islamification. You believe it should not be resisted. You believe Islamic aggression is the fault of the west, not Islam. You believe we deserve Islamification. You believe Sharia would be preferable to liberalism. You believe that those who resist Islam are playing into the hands of the Jєωs. You think those who want to resist the spread of Islam are "irrational" or "hysterical". etc. The Muslims want you to keep believing this stuff, that's for sure. It serves their purpose well.
-An almost pathological obsession with the idea that the Islamification of Europe is a "chastisement" which should not be resisted, because to resist would be to support the evils of the modern western world. - Check
-The belief that Islamic aggression has been provoked by the evils of "the west" or "da Jєωs", rather than being an extension of the Islamic ideology or a continuation of the ceaseless Jihad that has been waged against Europe for 1400 years. - Check
-A deep conviction that every Islamic terror attack is perpetrated by "da Jєωs" or is otherwise some kind of "inside job" or "fαℓѕє fℓαg". This serves to shift blame away from Islam.
-A belief that Europe "deserves" to be overrun by Muslims because Islam is somehow "better" than western Enlightenment liberalism. - Check
-A belief that the Muslims are heroically resisting the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr agenda in the name of God and traditional morality. - Check
-A propensity for accusing those who fear an Islamic takeover of being Neocons brainwashed by "da Jєωs", being "hysterical", or being "irrational" despite overwhelming demographic evidence supporting the reality of Islamification. - Check
-The belief that anybody who sees the Muslims as a threat is somehow playing into the hands of "da Jєωs". "You fear the Muslim takeover? You want to fight back against them? Man, that's exactly what da Jєωs WANT you to do! Can't you see they're playing you like a fiddle?" - Check
-The tendency to propose false dichotomies in debates about Islam in order to silence opposition. "You fear the Muslims? That's irrational. You must be a friend of the liberal, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, blaspheming, anti-Christian Jєωs. That's why you want to defend Europe. You think Muslims hate our freedoms." - Check
-A tendency to denigrate any desire to defend or preserve Europe from Islamification for historical, cultural or racial reasons. "Why bother defending Europe from Islam? Europe isn't Christian any more! Might as well throw her to the dogs." - Check
-A complete disregard for Europe's unique role in Christian history. "So what if Europe becomes Muslim? There will still be Christians in the jungles of Africa"
-An attitude of complete disregard for the deaths of other Europeans at the hands of Muslims, with no apparent concern for what this means for European Catholics. "Who cares if some liberal Europeans were killed in the streets by Muslims or in the two towers on 9/11? Doesn't bother me. Besides, it's a chastisement, man." - Check
-
Doesn't matter how many posts you dig up - you've made it clear that you want Islamification to take place.
Of course it matters. It is evidence that he like neither Jєωs nor Muslims.
He does not want Islamification to take place, but, if it were to, he can see that it would not be undeserved by the Western world and may have the silver lining that, facing a real and present threat, people would rediscover their Christian roots.
Seems possible to me. They have to unite around something.
Personally, I don't think Western Europe is going to be taken over by Islam. I think people will simply move to the right wing and various Islamic states will be crushed as soon as the threat becomes real enough.
That will take more than the odd nutter doing a shooting or bombing now and then.
A small but dirty terrorist nuke would do it I would think. Though it is also possible that the west will just carry on over the next 20 years the way they have carried on over the last 20.
911 looked like a turning point. I thought at the time that America's response would be FAR more violent than it was. If Muslims did that to Russia I think Putin would nuke them.
-
There was another guy who shared a remarkably similar of Islamification and the chastisement as ggreg and BTNYC do. He only changed his mind when the Turks were practically kicking down his door. You might have heard of him. His name was Martin Luther.
In 1518, Luther denounced the Crusades, on the grounds that “to fight against the Turk is the same thing as resisting God, who visits our sin upon us with this rod.”
http://catholicdefense.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/celebrating-lepanto-in-age-of-isis.html
Initially, in his 1518 Explanation of the Ninety-five Theses, Luther had argued against resisting the Turks, whom he presented as a scourge intentionally sent by God to sinning Christians, and that resisting it would have been equivalent to resisting the will of God.[2] This position had been initially shared by Erasmus as well, but was strongly criticized by authors such as Thomas More:
"It is a gentle holiness to abstain for devotion from resisting the Turk, and in the meanwhile to rise up in routs and fight against Christian men, and destroy as that sect has done, many a good religious house, spoiled, maimed and slain many a good virtuous man, robbed, polluted, and pulled down many a goodly church of Christ."
—Thomas More.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_War_Against_the_Turk
You're in fine company, chaps!
-
You think it's insane that any person would desire racial or cultural ѕυιcιdє via Islamification, but you've said yourself that you think Europe deserves Islamification, and that Islamification would somehow be some kind of improvement over the liberal society of today.
You're the one who has lost the plot. You think I'm nuts for believing that there are people who believe what you yourself believe! :laugh1:
I say that the presence of the Islamic people presents a challenge for the Church in Europe. We should be evangelizing the Moslems.
-
It is a shame that people were murdered. However, their cartoons depicting the a Holy Trinity in perverse way was pure evil. We all want Europe to be Catholic.
-
Personally, I don't think Western Europe is going to be taken over by Islam. I think people will simply move to the right wing and various Islamic states will be crushed as soon as the threat becomes real enough.
That will take more than the odd nutter doing a shooting or bombing now and then.
Although Europe is not in danger of a violent take over by Islam, and the muslims won't attempt such violent takeover on a macro scale because they know they would get their own arses handed to themselves much like the Crusaders whooped them of yore, however, the muslims are implementing a different tactic of taking over Europe, such as that of cockroach reproduction (having as many babies as possible) in Europe after Jєω-orchestrated immigration policies of muslims are effected, while knowing nominal "christians" and secular European natives are complicit in their own decline by aborting their own babies and refusing to bear children through contraception. The muslims and Jєωs know that it's only a matter of time when Europeans will be outnumbered and taken over, thus they can finalize white European genocide and the eradication of what little remains of Christendom in Europe.
911 looked like a turning point. I thought at the time that America's response would be FAR more violent than it was. If Muslims did that to Russia I think Putin would nuke them.
I thought the exact same thing, but only if the media & govt reports were true, thereby putting my initial suspicions to rest. However, my immediate suspicions weren't quelled, for in the wake of the attacks, the evidence of an inside job by, and a cover-up from, dual Israeli-American citizens and Israeli nationals, which have been systematically blacklisted by the U.S. media & government, was confirmation for me that we were being deceived. I was suspicious of 9/11 from the very start. I didn't believe the official media reports that peculiarly had keen evidence on the 19 hijackers' involvement in al-Qaeda just hours after the attacks. In fact, about 2 am in the morning just prior to the 9/11 attacks, my roommate and I were up late and talking about Jєωs being a threat to the West, and the occurrence of Islamic terrorism threatening the West. He put more emphasis on muslims being more of the threat, while I retained the position that Jєωs cause more harm. He mentioned muslims were more of the aggressors towards Jєωs in Palestine / "Israel", and I vividly remember thinking that the Jєωs, at times, probably orchestrated attacks against "Israel" while framing muslims in order to sway public opinion to support of "Israel". This conversation took place only about 4 hours ahead of the 9/11 attacks. Alas, the same fαℓѕє fℓαg attack, but on a much larger scale, was directed at the U.S. And I never even heard of the term "fαℓѕє fℓαg" at the time.
Anyway, redounding back to "I thought the same thing but only if...". The fact that the U.S. response was not much more violent and acutely expansive, hence atomic at the very least, proves that the U.S. never had any intention of eliminating this disease known as "Islamic radicalism & terrorism". Such disease is needed to continue justifying U.S.-British-Israeli imperialism in central Asia, north Africa & the Middle East. Moreover, the military industrial complex could never have reached its mammoth profits if the U.S. had administered a "1 pill cure" such as an atomic or nuclear bomb eliminating the purported sources of the 9/11 attacks, and further dissuading any muslim sub-monkies from remotely entertaining the idea of attacking the U.S. again. This is no different than existing diseases that actually benefit researchers, doctors & Big Pharma. They want those diseases to continue because it sustains their livelihoods. Their real enemy is a cure, despite them posturing themselves as "fighting for a cure".
-
Doesn't matter how many posts you dig up - you've made it clear that you want Islamification to take place. You desire and "relish" (your own words) Islamification. You believe it should not be resisted. You believe Islamic aggression is the fault of the west, not Islam. You believe we deserve Islamification. You believe Sharia would be preferable to liberalism. You believe that those who resist Islam are playing into the hands of the Jєωs. You think those who want to resist the spread of Islam are "irrational" or "hysterical". etc. The Muslims want you to keep believing this stuff, that's for sure. It serves their purpose well.
-An almost pathological obsession with the idea that the Islamification of Europe is a "chastisement" which should not be resisted, because to resist would be to support the evils of the modern western world. - Check
-The belief that Islamic aggression has been provoked by the evils of "the west" or "da Jєωs", rather than being an extension of the Islamic ideology or a continuation of the ceaseless Jihad that has been waged against Europe for 1400 years. - Check
-A deep conviction that every Islamic terror attack is perpetrated by "da Jєωs" or is otherwise some kind of "inside job" or "fαℓѕє fℓαg". This serves to shift blame away from Islam.
-A belief that Europe "deserves" to be overrun by Muslims because Islam is somehow "better" than western Enlightenment liberalism. - Check
-A belief that the Muslims are heroically resisting the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr agenda in the name of God and traditional morality. - Check
-A propensity for accusing those who fear an Islamic takeover of being Neocons brainwashed by "da Jєωs", being "hysterical", or being "irrational" despite overwhelming demographic evidence supporting the reality of Islamification. - Check
-The belief that anybody who sees the Muslims as a threat is somehow playing into the hands of "da Jєωs". "You fear the Muslim takeover? You want to fight back against them? Man, that's exactly what da Jєωs WANT you to do! Can't you see they're playing you like a fiddle?" - Check
-The tendency to propose false dichotomies in debates about Islam in order to silence opposition. "You fear the Muslims? That's irrational. You must be a friend of the liberal, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, blaspheming, anti-Christian Jєωs. That's why you want to defend Europe. You think Muslims hate our freedoms." - Check
-A tendency to denigrate any desire to defend or preserve Europe from Islamification for historical, cultural or racial reasons. "Why bother defending Europe from Islam? Europe isn't Christian any more! Might as well throw her to the dogs." - Check
-A complete disregard for Europe's unique role in Christian history. "So what if Europe becomes Muslim? There will still be Christians in the jungles of Africa"
-An attitude of complete disregard for the deaths of other Europeans at the hands of Muslims, with no apparent concern for what this means for European Catholics. "Who cares if some liberal Europeans were killed in the streets by Muslims or in the two towers on 9/11? Doesn't bother me. Besides, it's a chastisement, man." - Check
I'm bowing out now because arguing with you has become a lot more like arguing with a petulant bitch of a woman than any discourse with a man ought to be.
I stand by my words over and against your distortion of them. I stand by the likes of Blessed Marco over and above the likes of Jon Voight, Peter King, Crossbro, and you.
Which of us was the more rational? Which of us the more effeminately churlish, shrill and hysterical? Let the reader read and decide.
-
Xenophobes don't care if it is Catholic immigrants invading protestant countries or muslims invading atheist countries, which is a certain characteristic neo-cons share.
Well I guess I am a xenophobe and nativist then since I am against both. Mexicans are hardly "Catholic immigrants" by the way. South of the border Mexico has become pretty close to Marxism and drug gangs and the Mexican Mafia has run rampant. Mexican immigrants here also suck up the government services to the extreme, only superseded by blacks. Mexico does not let Guatemalans enter their country but we are supposed to let immigrants enter ours? What hypocrisy. Mexicans are also of a different race being full-blooded Indians or mestizos.
As for Europe Arabs and Africans are making a mess out of the continent and especially in Britain rape amongst black males has become an epidemic. In France Arabs and Africans racially rioted in Paris a few years ago and trashed the whole city. In Spain Arabs and Africans repeatedly have been trying to cross the Strait to enter Spain. In Italy Arabs, Gypsies, and Africans are close to taking over the country. In Germany Turks are close to making Turkish garb the national dress of the country.
Also neoconservatives are all for open borders and immigration by the way while on the other hand support bombing the Middle East which is hypocrisy of itself.
-
Doesn't matter how many posts you dig up - you've made it clear that you want Islamification to take place. You desire and "relish" (your own words) Islamification. You believe it should not be resisted. You believe Islamic aggression is the fault of the west, not Islam. You believe we deserve Islamification. You believe Sharia would be preferable to liberalism. You believe that those who resist Islam are playing into the hands of the Jєωs. You think those who want to resist the spread of Islam are "irrational" or "hysterical". etc. The Muslims want you to keep believing this stuff, that's for sure. It serves their purpose well.
-An almost pathological obsession with the idea that the Islamification of Europe is a "chastisement" which should not be resisted, because to resist would be to support the evils of the modern western world. - Check
-The belief that Islamic aggression has been provoked by the evils of "the west" or "da Jєωs", rather than being an extension of the Islamic ideology or a continuation of the ceaseless Jihad that has been waged against Europe for 1400 years. - Check
-A deep conviction that every Islamic terror attack is perpetrated by "da Jєωs" or is otherwise some kind of "inside job" or "fαℓѕє fℓαg". This serves to shift blame away from Islam.
-A belief that Europe "deserves" to be overrun by Muslims because Islam is somehow "better" than western Enlightenment liberalism. - Check
-A belief that the Muslims are heroically resisting the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr agenda in the name of God and traditional morality. - Check
-A propensity for accusing those who fear an Islamic takeover of being Neocons brainwashed by "da Jєωs", being "hysterical", or being "irrational" despite overwhelming demographic evidence supporting the reality of Islamification. - Check
-The belief that anybody who sees the Muslims as a threat is somehow playing into the hands of "da Jєωs". "You fear the Muslim takeover? You want to fight back against them? Man, that's exactly what da Jєωs WANT you to do! Can't you see they're playing you like a fiddle?" - Check
-The tendency to propose false dichotomies in debates about Islam in order to silence opposition. "You fear the Muslims? That's irrational. You must be a friend of the liberal, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, blaspheming, anti-Christian Jєωs. That's why you want to defend Europe. You think Muslims hate our freedoms." - Check
-A tendency to denigrate any desire to defend or preserve Europe from Islamification for historical, cultural or racial reasons. "Why bother defending Europe from Islam? Europe isn't Christian any more! Might as well throw her to the dogs." - Check
-A complete disregard for Europe's unique role in Christian history. "So what if Europe becomes Muslim? There will still be Christians in the jungles of Africa"
-An attitude of complete disregard for the deaths of other Europeans at the hands of Muslims, with no apparent concern for what this means for European Catholics. "Who cares if some liberal Europeans were killed in the streets by Muslims or in the two towers on 9/11? Doesn't bother me. Besides, it's a chastisement, man." - Check
I'm bowing out now because arguing with you has become a lot more like arguing with a petulant bitch of a woman than any discourse with a man ought to be.
I stand by my words over and against your distortion of them. I stand by the likes of Blessed Marco over and above the likes of Jon Voight, Peter King, Crossbro, and you.
Which of us was the more rational? Which of us the more effeminately churlish, shrill and hysterical? Let the reader read and decide.
You, BTNYC. Definitely you.
Tell me, would you say these words to Knight Vigilant if he were standing in front of you?
.... arguing with you has become a lot more like arguing with a petulant bitch of a woman than any discourse with a man ought to be.
You wouldn't dare, would you.
-
Xenophobes don't care if it is Catholic immigrants invading protestant countries
But the Mexican "catholics" crossing the border are, at best, heretical novus ordo "catholics", many of whom are nominal in their actual "faith" and practice; while others have been proselytized into mormonism and protestantism; and others are heathens and violent criminals who commit idolatry and apostasy by praying to a pagan, demonic "saint" known as "Santa Muerte". These same immigrants are a danger, moreover, for de facto supporting a party of death - the Democrats - who promote murders of unborn babies and cultural Marxism, because this same party advocates welfare, entitlements and amnesty to illegals and their family members. Not that the Republicans are any better, for they're the other wing of the same demonically possessed bird.
If these same Mexicans and central Americans crossing the borders were devout traditional Catholics, then no way would the Jєωs be supporting their amnesty and pushing for their immigration, nor would Obama try to give them amnesty.
-
Not that the Republicans are any better, for they're the other wing of the same demonically possessed bird.
"The two parties are the same wing of the same bird of prey."
-
911 looked like a turning point. I thought at the time that America's response would be FAR more violent than it was.
[...] hence atomic at the very least, [...]
EDIT: *hence void of atomic energy at the very least
-
But the Mexican "catholics" crossing the border are, at best, heretical novus ordo "catholics", many of whom are nominal in their actual "faith" and practice; while others have been proselytized into mormonism and protestantism; and others are heathens and violent criminals who commit idolatry and apostasy by praying to a pagan, demonic "saint" known as "Santa Muerte". These same immigrants are a danger, moreover, for de facto supporting a party of death - the Democrats - who promote murders of unborn babies and cultural Marxism, because this same party advocates welfare, entitlements and amnesty to illegals and their family members. Not that the Republicans are any better, for they're the other wing of the same demonically possessed bird.
During the Bush era five homeless men in New York City killed a woman's boyfriend by bashing him over the head and than preceeded to rape her for five hours. All of these men were from Mexico and Gautemala.
Also I have a soft spot for animals and the environment. The U.S./Mexican border is the most polluted area on Earth with thousands of pounds of trash littering the whole landscape. This trash is swallowed by hundreds of cows every year who then have to be put down because it enters their stomach and blocks their digestive process. I feel greater sympathy for these poor cows than these criminal thugs and welfare parasites crossing the border.
-
The muslims and Jєωs know that it's only a matter of time when Europeans will be outnumbered and taken over, thus they can finalize white European genocide and the eradication of what little remains of Christendom in Europe.
Rather a long time. I'll be long dead by then.
Moreover, it is not ONLY a matter of time. It is also a matter of the white birthrate not increasing during that "matter of time". Straight line extrapolations over decades usually don't predict anything useful. Like the global average temperture birthrates can go up as well as down.
For 70 years in Russia under communism the birthrate was very low. When I met my wife she had only ever heard of families of 1 or 2 children. 3 was really rare, she remotely knew of one such family and 4 was practically unheard of. Today in Russia after just 20 years of the collapse of Soviet Communism that birthrate is picking up. 3 and 4 child families today is FAR more common and lots of our friends have those sorts of numbers. Especially the middle class and wealthier Russians. They set the trend and larger families are seen as aspirational.
It only takes a government to change tax policy and people start having more children very often.
-
Doesn't matter how many posts you dig up - you've made it clear that you want Islamification to take place. You desire and "relish" (your own words) Islamification. You believe it should not be resisted. You believe Islamic aggression is the fault of the west, not Islam. You believe we deserve Islamification. You believe Sharia would be preferable to liberalism. You believe that those who resist Islam are playing into the hands of the Jєωs. You think those who want to resist the spread of Islam are "irrational" or "hysterical". etc. The Muslims want you to keep believing this stuff, that's for sure. It serves their purpose well.
-An almost pathological obsession with the idea that the Islamification of Europe is a "chastisement" which should not be resisted, because to resist would be to support the evils of the modern western world. - Check
-The belief that Islamic aggression has been provoked by the evils of "the west" or "da Jєωs", rather than being an extension of the Islamic ideology or a continuation of the ceaseless Jihad that has been waged against Europe for 1400 years. - Check
-A deep conviction that every Islamic terror attack is perpetrated by "da Jєωs" or is otherwise some kind of "inside job" or "fαℓѕє fℓαg". This serves to shift blame away from Islam.
-A belief that Europe "deserves" to be overrun by Muslims because Islam is somehow "better" than western Enlightenment liberalism. - Check
-A belief that the Muslims are heroically resisting the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr agenda in the name of God and traditional morality. - Check
-A propensity for accusing those who fear an Islamic takeover of being Neocons brainwashed by "da Jєωs", being "hysterical", or being "irrational" despite overwhelming demographic evidence supporting the reality of Islamification. - Check
-The belief that anybody who sees the Muslims as a threat is somehow playing into the hands of "da Jєωs". "You fear the Muslim takeover? You want to fight back against them? Man, that's exactly what da Jєωs WANT you to do! Can't you see they're playing you like a fiddle?" - Check
-The tendency to propose false dichotomies in debates about Islam in order to silence opposition. "You fear the Muslims? That's irrational. You must be a friend of the liberal, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, blaspheming, anti-Christian Jєωs. That's why you want to defend Europe. You think Muslims hate our freedoms." - Check
-A tendency to denigrate any desire to defend or preserve Europe from Islamification for historical, cultural or racial reasons. "Why bother defending Europe from Islam? Europe isn't Christian any more! Might as well throw her to the dogs." - Check
-A complete disregard for Europe's unique role in Christian history. "So what if Europe becomes Muslim? There will still be Christians in the jungles of Africa"
-An attitude of complete disregard for the deaths of other Europeans at the hands of Muslims, with no apparent concern for what this means for European Catholics. "Who cares if some liberal Europeans were killed in the streets by Muslims or in the two towers on 9/11? Doesn't bother me. Besides, it's a chastisement, man." - Check
I'm bowing out now because arguing with you has become a lot more like arguing with a petulant bitch of a woman than any discourse with a man ought to be.
I stand by my words over and against your distortion of them. I stand by the likes of Blessed Marco over and above the likes of Jon Voight, Peter King, Crossbro, and you.
Which of us was the more rational? Which of us the more effeminately churlish, shrill and hysterical? Let the reader read and decide.
You, BTNYC. Definitely you.
Tell me, would you say these words to Knight Vigilant if he were standing in front of you?
.... arguing with you has become a lot more like arguing with a petulant bitch of a woman than any discourse with a man ought to be.
You wouldn't dare, would you.
Madam, I'm six foot two, two hundred pounds, and entirely able to handle myself.
I stand by my words online and in person.
Now why don't you look to stir trouble somewhere else.
-
"All the evils in the world are because of lukewarm Catholics". St. Pope Pius V
Few truer words have ever been spoken.
-
Doesn't matter how many posts you dig up - you've made it clear that you want Islamification to take place. You desire and "relish" (your own words) Islamification. You believe it should not be resisted. You believe Islamic aggression is the fault of the west, not Islam. You believe we deserve Islamification. You believe Sharia would be preferable to liberalism. You believe that those who resist Islam are playing into the hands of the Jєωs. You think those who want to resist the spread of Islam are "irrational" or "hysterical". etc. The Muslims want you to keep believing this stuff, that's for sure. It serves their purpose well.
-An almost pathological obsession with the idea that the Islamification of Europe is a "chastisement" which should not be resisted, because to resist would be to support the evils of the modern western world. - Check
-The belief that Islamic aggression has been provoked by the evils of "the west" or "da Jєωs", rather than being an extension of the Islamic ideology or a continuation of the ceaseless Jihad that has been waged against Europe for 1400 years. - Check
-A deep conviction that every Islamic terror attack is perpetrated by "da Jєωs" or is otherwise some kind of "inside job" or "fαℓѕє fℓαg". This serves to shift blame away from Islam.
-A belief that Europe "deserves" to be overrun by Muslims because Islam is somehow "better" than western Enlightenment liberalism. - Check
-A belief that the Muslims are heroically resisting the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr agenda in the name of God and traditional morality. - Check
-A propensity for accusing those who fear an Islamic takeover of being Neocons brainwashed by "da Jєωs", being "hysterical", or being "irrational" despite overwhelming demographic evidence supporting the reality of Islamification. - Check
-The belief that anybody who sees the Muslims as a threat is somehow playing into the hands of "da Jєωs". "You fear the Muslim takeover? You want to fight back against them? Man, that's exactly what da Jєωs WANT you to do! Can't you see they're playing you like a fiddle?" - Check
-The tendency to propose false dichotomies in debates about Islam in order to silence opposition. "You fear the Muslims? That's irrational. You must be a friend of the liberal, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, blaspheming, anti-Christian Jєωs. That's why you want to defend Europe. You think Muslims hate our freedoms." - Check
-A tendency to denigrate any desire to defend or preserve Europe from Islamification for historical, cultural or racial reasons. "Why bother defending Europe from Islam? Europe isn't Christian any more! Might as well throw her to the dogs." - Check
-A complete disregard for Europe's unique role in Christian history. "So what if Europe becomes Muslim? There will still be Christians in the jungles of Africa"
-An attitude of complete disregard for the deaths of other Europeans at the hands of Muslims, with no apparent concern for what this means for European Catholics. "Who cares if some liberal Europeans were killed in the streets by Muslims or in the two towers on 9/11? Doesn't bother me. Besides, it's a chastisement, man." - Check
I'm bowing out now because arguing with you has become a lot more like arguing with a petulant bitch of a woman than any discourse with a man ought to be.
I stand by my words over and against your distortion of them. I stand by the likes of Blessed Marco over and above the likes of Jon Voight, Peter King, Crossbro, and you.
Which of us was the more rational? Which of us the more effeminately churlish, shrill and hysterical? Let the reader read and decide.
You, BTNYC. Definitely you.
Tell me, would you say these words to Knight Vigilant if he were standing in front of you?
.... arguing with you has become a lot more like arguing with a petulant bitch of a woman than any discourse with a man ought to be.
You wouldn't dare, would you.
Madam, I'm six foot two, two hundred pounds, and entirely able to handle myself.
I stand by my words online and in person.
Now why don't you look to stir trouble somewhere else.
Perhaps you should have your butler bring you some tea and take a break. The 15 decades usually work well.
-
Doesn't matter how many posts you dig up - you've made it clear that you want Islamification to take place. You desire and "relish" (your own words) Islamification. You believe it should not be resisted. You believe Islamic aggression is the fault of the west, not Islam. You believe we deserve Islamification. You believe Sharia would be preferable to liberalism. You believe that those who resist Islam are playing into the hands of the Jєωs. You think those who want to resist the spread of Islam are "irrational" or "hysterical". etc. The Muslims want you to keep believing this stuff, that's for sure. It serves their purpose well.
-An almost pathological obsession with the idea that the Islamification of Europe is a "chastisement" which should not be resisted, because to resist would be to support the evils of the modern western world. - Check
-The belief that Islamic aggression has been provoked by the evils of "the west" or "da Jєωs", rather than being an extension of the Islamic ideology or a continuation of the ceaseless Jihad that has been waged against Europe for 1400 years. - Check
-A deep conviction that every Islamic terror attack is perpetrated by "da Jєωs" or is otherwise some kind of "inside job" or "fαℓѕє fℓαg". This serves to shift blame away from Islam.
-A belief that Europe "deserves" to be overrun by Muslims because Islam is somehow "better" than western Enlightenment liberalism. - Check
-A belief that the Muslims are heroically resisting the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr agenda in the name of God and traditional morality. - Check
-A propensity for accusing those who fear an Islamic takeover of being Neocons brainwashed by "da Jєωs", being "hysterical", or being "irrational" despite overwhelming demographic evidence supporting the reality of Islamification. - Check
-The belief that anybody who sees the Muslims as a threat is somehow playing into the hands of "da Jєωs". "You fear the Muslim takeover? You want to fight back against them? Man, that's exactly what da Jєωs WANT you to do! Can't you see they're playing you like a fiddle?" - Check
-The tendency to propose false dichotomies in debates about Islam in order to silence opposition. "You fear the Muslims? That's irrational. You must be a friend of the liberal, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, blaspheming, anti-Christian Jєωs. That's why you want to defend Europe. You think Muslims hate our freedoms." - Check
-A tendency to denigrate any desire to defend or preserve Europe from Islamification for historical, cultural or racial reasons. "Why bother defending Europe from Islam? Europe isn't Christian any more! Might as well throw her to the dogs." - Check
-A complete disregard for Europe's unique role in Christian history. "So what if Europe becomes Muslim? There will still be Christians in the jungles of Africa"
-An attitude of complete disregard for the deaths of other Europeans at the hands of Muslims, with no apparent concern for what this means for European Catholics. "Who cares if some liberal Europeans were killed in the streets by Muslims or in the two towers on 9/11? Doesn't bother me. Besides, it's a chastisement, man." - Check
I'm bowing out now because arguing with you has become a lot more like arguing with a petulant bitch of a woman than any discourse with a man ought to be.
I stand by my words over and against your distortion of them. I stand by the likes of Blessed Marco over and above the likes of Jon Voight, Peter King, Crossbro, and you.
Which of us was the more rational? Which of us the more effeminately churlish, shrill and hysterical? Let the reader read and decide.
You, BTNYC. Definitely you.
Tell me, would you say these words to Knight Vigilant if he were standing in front of you?
.... arguing with you has become a lot more like arguing with a petulant bitch of a woman than any discourse with a man ought to be.
You wouldn't dare, would you.
Madam, I'm six foot two, two hundred pounds, and entirely able to handle myself.
I stand by my words online and in person.
Now why don't you look to stir trouble somewhere else.
Perhaps you should have your butler bring you some tea and take a break. The 15 decades usually work well.
No tengo un mayordomo, mi amigo; pero gracias por el consejo bueno.
-
Doesn't matter how many posts you dig up - you've made it clear that you want Islamification to take place. You desire and "relish" (your own words) Islamification. You believe it should not be resisted. You believe Islamic aggression is the fault of the west, not Islam. You believe we deserve Islamification. You believe Sharia would be preferable to liberalism. You believe that those who resist Islam are playing into the hands of the Jєωs. You think those who want to resist the spread of Islam are "irrational" or "hysterical". etc. The Muslims want you to keep believing this stuff, that's for sure. It serves their purpose well.
-An almost pathological obsession with the idea that the Islamification of Europe is a "chastisement" which should not be resisted, because to resist would be to support the evils of the modern western world. - Check
-The belief that Islamic aggression has been provoked by the evils of "the west" or "da Jєωs", rather than being an extension of the Islamic ideology or a continuation of the ceaseless Jihad that has been waged against Europe for 1400 years. - Check
-A deep conviction that every Islamic terror attack is perpetrated by "da Jєωs" or is otherwise some kind of "inside job" or "fαℓѕє fℓαg". This serves to shift blame away from Islam.
-A belief that Europe "deserves" to be overrun by Muslims because Islam is somehow "better" than western Enlightenment liberalism. - Check
-A belief that the Muslims are heroically resisting the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr agenda in the name of God and traditional morality. - Check
-A propensity for accusing those who fear an Islamic takeover of being Neocons brainwashed by "da Jєωs", being "hysterical", or being "irrational" despite overwhelming demographic evidence supporting the reality of Islamification. - Check
-The belief that anybody who sees the Muslims as a threat is somehow playing into the hands of "da Jєωs". "You fear the Muslim takeover? You want to fight back against them? Man, that's exactly what da Jєωs WANT you to do! Can't you see they're playing you like a fiddle?" - Check
-The tendency to propose false dichotomies in debates about Islam in order to silence opposition. "You fear the Muslims? That's irrational. You must be a friend of the liberal, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, blaspheming, anti-Christian Jєωs. That's why you want to defend Europe. You think Muslims hate our freedoms." - Check
-A tendency to denigrate any desire to defend or preserve Europe from Islamification for historical, cultural or racial reasons. "Why bother defending Europe from Islam? Europe isn't Christian any more! Might as well throw her to the dogs." - Check
-A complete disregard for Europe's unique role in Christian history. "So what if Europe becomes Muslim? There will still be Christians in the jungles of Africa"
-An attitude of complete disregard for the deaths of other Europeans at the hands of Muslims, with no apparent concern for what this means for European Catholics. "Who cares if some liberal Europeans were killed in the streets by Muslims or in the two towers on 9/11? Doesn't bother me. Besides, it's a chastisement, man." - Check
I'm bowing out now because arguing with you has become a lot more like arguing with a petulant bitch of a woman than any discourse with a man ought to be.
I stand by my words over and against your distortion of them. I stand by the likes of Blessed Marco over and above the likes of Jon Voight, Peter King, Crossbro, and you.
Which of us was the more rational? Which of us the more effeminately churlish, shrill and hysterical? Let the reader read and decide.
You, BTNYC. Definitely you.
Tell me, would you say these words to Knight Vigilant if he were standing in front of you?
.... arguing with you has become a lot more like arguing with a petulant bitch of a woman than any discourse with a man ought to be.
You wouldn't dare, would you.
Madam, I'm six foot two, two hundred pounds, and entirely able to handle myself.
I stand by my words online and in person.
Now why don't you look to stir trouble somewhere else.
Perhaps you should have your butler bring you some tea and take a break. The 15 decades usually work well.
No tengo un mayordomo, mi amigo; pero gracias por el consejo bueno.
Your physical prowess or lack of it is not the point.
I find it difficult to believe that you would speak to another human being face to face in the way that you have here to the Knight Vigilant. Especially if others were present. Would you really allow yourself to be publicly identified using such insulting and uncharitable language?
I could, of course, ask the same question of a number of others on this forum.
Remember, without charity you are nothing.
-
Down-votes for reporting Islamification. Why don't the Islamophiles who negged this post show themselves? :laugh1:
Exactly right. I have first-hand experience of Islamification, since I grew up in one of the most Islamified areas of the entire country, which I might add is the most dangerous place in the country.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/forget-home-office-crime-mapping-1695400
Pics of where I grew up:
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/74686000/jpg/_74686822_74686821.jpg)
(http://statics.192.com/estreet/original/large/1241/12416344.jpg)
(http://legacymedia.localworld.co.uk/275775/Article/images/16160878/3804597.png)
(http://statics.192.com/estreet/original/large/1257/12571053.jpg)
These guys are the members of a pedophile sex gang from the area, taken down last year. They abused and raped white children and forced them into prostitution. All of them are Muslim Somalians.
(http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276268/Article/images/24817770/8421563-large.jpg)
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Somali-gang-groomed-raped-schoolgirls-Bristol/story-24817770-detail/story.html
A mainly Muslim/immigrant drug dealing gang taken down in the area recently.
(http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276268/Article/images/19990302/5424236-large.jpg)
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Untouchable-Bristol-drug-dealers-brought-police/story-19990302-detail/story.html#ixzz3Odrz2CMb
-
We prayed the Rosary tonight.
-
This is how the Muslims will take over the world...It won't be by the gun or sword...and it will happen within a lot of our lifetime...
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/Ccmlr7i4fVE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ccmlr7i4fVE
-
Well that is exactly right. Islamic demographics are near sky-high against the Western sterility.
-
Who cares if some liberal Europeans were killed in the streets by Muslims
The way I see it, with the assasinations of the anti-Catholic,liberal, multicult fruitcakes at Charlie Heeb-do the idiot muzzies accomplished two things.
1.Began rallying more anti-islamic/anti immigration sentiment amongst native Europeans. and more support for the Nationalist Right.
2. Encourage the more radical jihadists to keep the pressure on the radical, multiculuralists anarchists, sɛҳuąƖ deviants and anti-Christ тαℓмυdic Jєωs who love to blapsheme religion, especially the desert pedophile prophet.
And now the Synagouges and the Mosques are at each others throat in Europe.
In the end, this is sort of a win-win for European Catholics or at least those who still believe in both Europe and the Church.
Probably not a good thing for "islamophiles" though.
-
or in the two towers on 9/11?
And right after 911 we went after the very people who had nothing to do with it. Actually we invaded and killed the very man who held the jihadists in check in a large part of the ME in Saddam Hussein. Now Iraq is even less Christian than it ever was and has become a cesspool and breeding ground for all kinds of militant al queda wanna-bees.
Or CIA/Mossad black ops to whip up frenzy for support of their next "terrorist" org that becomes a cash cow for us to fight.
Interesting that they never seem to attack Israel though.
-
Besides, it's a chastisement, man."
The Jєωs are our misfortune
Not retarded muslims..
-
or in the two towers on 9/11?
And right after 911 we went after the very people who had nothing to do with it. Actually we invaded and killed the very man who held the jihadists in check in a large part of the ME in Saddam Hussein. Now Iraq is even less Christian than it ever was and has become a cesspool and breeding ground for all kinds of militant al queda wanna-bees.
Or CIA/Mossad black ops to whip up frenzy for support of their next "terrorist" org that becomes a cash cow for us to fight.
Interesting that they never seem to attack Israel though.
Apparently you've missed the thousands of missile strikes the muzzrats lob at Israel almost daily. You've also missed the ѕυιcιdє bombers that go into Israel and kill innocent women and children. The difference is, Israel knows how to keep the muzzrats out of their country for the most part and they aren't politically correct in not profiling muzzrats. I'm not a fan of the Jєωs, but the rest of the world could learn a thing or two from them on how to deal with the muzzrats.
-
Apparently you've missed the thousands of missile strikes the muzzrats lob at Israel almost daily.
Thousands? Daily? Where do you get your statistics? Israel would annihilate ANYONE who dare even try that. And at any rate, I think you're thinking of Hamas or Hizbullah, not CIA/Mossad operatives like "ISIL" or Al queda. Thos are the muzzrats I'm talking about. There is genuine oppostion to the Zionists from Muslim countries, like Iran, but they wouldn't dare bomb Izzy daily or not even once. they know the consequence of that. But Israel is desperately trying to get them nuked or wiped off the map, bascially for nothing other than not letting the Jєωs eat their country from the inside out. Like Syria, like Iran or like the Egyptians.
You've also missed the ѕυιcιdє bombers that go into Israel and kill innocent women and children.
Israel kills hundreds of "innocent" civlian Arab woman and children for every one Jєω the Arabs kill, which is usually an IDF soldier.
The difference is, Israel knows how to keep the muzzrats out of their country for the most part and they aren't politically correct in not profiling muzzrats
That's great, we should do that. But you who would cry the loudest? Yea, the all-knowing, liberty-loving, altruistic Jєωs. It's ok for Jєωs to do whatever it takes to protect their own, but the goyim are not afforded the same rights. why? Because there are always different rules for Jєωz.
Why their god's special little chosen pets, of course they need special little rules.
But Christian nations can disappear tomorrow and no one would miss a beat.
. I'm not a fan of the Jєωs, but the rest of the world could learn a thing or two from them on how to deal with the muzzrats
. We already know how to handle muzzies, we've been kicking the crap out of them since the pedophile and his horde tried to breach Europe for the last 1400 yrs. We don't need to learn a thing from anti-Christ Jєωs who continually usurp us from within and are every bit a danger to us as the their semitic cousins. We need to get rid of both of them out of our respective cultures.
-
Who cares if some liberal Europeans were killed in the streets by Muslims
The way I see it, with the assasinations of the anti-Catholic,liberal, multicult fruitcakes at Charlie Heeb-do the idiot muzzies accomplished two things.
1.Began rallying more anti-islamic/anti immigration sentiment amongst native Europeans. and more support for the Nationalist Right.
2. Encourage the more radical jihadists to keep the pressure on the radical, multiculuralists anarchists, sɛҳuąƖ deviants and anti-Christ тαℓмυdic Jєωs who love to blapsheme religion, especially the desert pedophile prophet.
And now the Synagouges and the Mosques are at each others throat in Europe.
In the end, this is sort of a win-win for European Catholics or at least those who still believe in both Europe and the Church.
Probably not a good thing for "islamophiles" though.
I don't disagree with you.
Sadly, most of the posters here don't seem to think Europe is worth fighting for. They view these Islamic attacks as a chastisement and not a call to defend the west. They are in fact a chastisement AND a call to action. That's what a divine chastisement is supposed to accomplish.
-
Apparently you've missed the thousands of missile strikes the muzzrats lob at Israel almost daily. You've also missed the ѕυιcιdє bombers that go into Israel and kill innocent women and children. The difference is, Israel knows how to keep the muzzrats out of their country for the most part and they aren't politically correct in not profiling muzzrats. I'm not a fan of the Jєωs, but the rest of the world could learn a thing or two from them on how to deal with the muzzrats.
Okay petey now lie back down and let me give you your medicine...
Um yes Israel "knows" how to deal with the Palestinians alright. They commit destruction of human rights by ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and locking them up as cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ inmates.
Woops silly me I used the term "cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ" when I should know that term is meant for Jєωs alone. :rolleyes:
-
Apparently you've missed the thousands of missile strikes the muzzrats lob at Israel almost daily. You've also missed the ѕυιcιdє bombers that go into Israel and kill innocent women and children. The difference is, Israel knows how to keep the muzzrats out of their country for the most part and they aren't politically correct in not profiling muzzrats. I'm not a fan of the Jєωs, but the rest of the world could learn a thing or two from them on how to deal with the muzzrats.
Okay petey now lie back down and let me give you your medicine...
Um yes Israel "knows" how to deal with the Palestinians alright. They commit destruction of human rights by ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and locking them up as cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ inmates.
Woops silly me I used the term "cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ" when I should know that term is meant for Jєωs alone. :rolleyes:
'cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ' is an understated description of Palestine.
As I note in other threads, it's very difficult to debate with neocons. They struggle with objectivity; thus, their paradigm cannot be moved. That any trad catholic is fooled by Jєω controlled media brainwashing is still surprising to me. I expect these discussions in a Fauxnews forum, not here.
-
Well I wouldn't call peter a neo-con but as usual with Americans, brain-washed and uninformed.
-
I apologize. I meant the term in a broad based sense. But yes, as an American and former sickeningly staunch neocon, I recognize the straightjacket thinking and the why of it. Once I came to traditional Catholicism, all that fell away.
-
Besides, it's a chastisement, man."
The Jєωs are our misfortune
Not retarded muslims..
I don't understand why this dichotomy is so frequently brought up amongst traditional Catholics. Both are obviously a problem. The Jєωs are primarily an internal enemy, while the Mohammedans are primarily an external enemy ; but they are problematic not because of the power of their militaries but because they are taking over Christendom through immigration and reproduction -- at the behest of the Jєωs, of course. Liberals are responsible for the power of both. And bad Catholics are responsible for the strength of the liberals, which is obviously a problem that cannot be solved so long as the sect that controls the Vatican peacefully enjoys its power over the Church's patrimony. One needs to defeat the liberals in order to defeat the Jєωs in order to defeat the Mohammedans. I don't see why it has to be one or the other.
-
Besides, it's a chastisement, man."
The Jєωs are our misfortune
Not retarded muslims..
I don't understand why this dichotomy is so frequently brought up amongst traditional Catholics. Both are obviously a problem. The Jєωs are primarily an internal enemy, while the Mohammedans are primarily an external enemy ; but they are problematic not because of the power of their militaries but because they are taking over Christendom through immigration and reproduction -- at the behest of the Jєωs, of course. Liberals are responsible for the power of both. And bad Catholics are responsible for the strength of the liberals, which is obviously a problem that cannot be solved so long as the sect that controls the Vatican peacefully enjoys its power over the Church's patrimony. One needs to defeat the liberals in order to defeat the Jєωs in order to defeat the Mohammedans. I don't see why it has to be one or the other.
It's a tactic used to discredit those who are opposed to Islam. Islam apologists have already made use of this tactic repeatedly in this thread. I'm a "useful goy idiot" and a "neo-con" for opposing the Islamization of Europe.
-
This should make some of the posters here very happy indeed. Projected growth of Muslim populations in Europe.
(https://themuslimissue.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/demograp_pew2.jpg?w=610)
-
A message the Islamophiles here will agree with:
(http://www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/article-1055422-02A2A62600000578-550_468x319_popup1.jpg)
Bring on the chastisement, maaaan! With our combined strength Catholics and Muslims will break the power of da Jєωs.
-
Islamophilia is like a drug for self-hating Europeans who are ultimately ashamed of their Christian heritage - I can name Nietzsche, Hitler, Mussolini, Tolstoy, Napoleon just off the top of my head. Islam also had a bizarre pull for Calvinists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turco-Calvinism
-
Besides, it's a chastisement, man."
The Jєωs are our misfortune
Not retarded muslims..
I don't understand why this dichotomy is so frequently brought up amongst traditional Catholics. Both are obviously a problem. The Jєωs are primarily an internal enemy, while the Mohammedans are primarily an external enemy ; but they are problematic not because of the power of their militaries but because they are taking over Christendom through immigration and reproduction -- at the behest of the Jєωs, of course. Liberals are responsible for the power of both. And bad Catholics are responsible for the strength of the liberals, which is obviously a problem that cannot be solved so long as the sect that controls the Vatican peacefully enjoys its power over the Church's patrimony. One needs to defeat the liberals in order to defeat the Jєωs in order to defeat the Mohammedans. I don't see why it has to be one or the other.
It's a tactic used to discredit those who are opposed to Islam. Islam apologists have already made use of this tactic repeatedly in this thread. I'm a "useful goy idiot" and a "neo-con" for opposing the Islamization of Europe.
What are you talking about Islam "apologists"?
I stated clearly now just like I always have in the past.
Moslems are only a symptom of the disease of the multiculturalism force-fed down our throats by anti-Christ, culture-destroying, тαℓмυdist Jєωs.
And their lackey goy liberals.
No one here is apologizing for moslem cavemen. Who can be round up and sent packing right back to the Levant where they belong for all I care.
Stop with the strawman already.
-
A message the Islamophiles here will agree with:
(http://www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/article-1055422-02A2A62600000578-550_468x319_popup1.jpg)
Bring on the chastisement, maaaan! With our combined strength Catholics and Muslims will break the power of da Jєωs.
Here is your chastisement.
This witch and her ilk are for more dangerous than any of your moslem boogeymen. Actually, without witches like this, there are no moslem boogeymen in white Christian countries;
(http://whitemanmarch.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Barbara-Spectre-quote.jpg)
The witch speaks here;
.Barbara Lerner Spectre calls for destruction of Christian European ethnic societies .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ