Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: Telesphorus on August 21, 2011, 07:50:11 PM
-
Have you ever noticed, that most conservatives seem to be much more tolerant of people to the left of them than to those to the right of them?
There is an old expression among leftists:
pas d'ennemi à gauche - and it was that expression that helped to explain the "Popular Front" governments, the manner in which liberals would show sympathy for the aims and acts of Communists. Whether we want to talk about "fellow travellers" President Wilson or FDR, and the "outrage" over McCarthyism, we see this pattern over and over again - it is a phenomenon that reflects the internal organization of the opposition to Catholicism. The lower levels of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ seem like fairly ordinary people - some even purporting to being religious. And yet - at the top there is the most virulent anti-Christianity.
Yet this phenemonon on the Left has a kind of inverse symmetry on the right.
The rightists do not show tolerance to those right of them. They loudly denounce those to the right of them. They are afraid to be associated with them. Why are they afraid? Is it not also because of this secret organization of society, that punishes all authentic resistance?
The abject betrayal of Bishop Williamson is a good example of this phenomenon within the ranks of Trads.
Cultural marxist and neo-con subversion of the Right-wing operates in this manner - the vehement denunciation and isolation of those who remain stalwart in defending their traditional views is the tactic by which they subvert all genuine resistance.
Whether you're talking about a web forum like fisheaters, or the bishops of the Catholic Church, we see the same phenomena over and over again.
How was it that truly serious opposition to abortion was thwarted?
Why is it that we seem to see a constant drift leftwards?
Perhaps it is because we lack the will to punish those who betray us. We are afraid to be associated with anyone who might get us in trouble, even if we agree with him.
-
The rightists do not show tolerance to those right of them. They loudly denounce those to the right of them.
Why are you even asking why this happens? As you know, this "right" has nothing to do with supernatural Catholicism but is a human construct. Therefore, it is susceptible to human respect as well as to the fame-seeking of those politicians who embrace it, and who can alter it or water it down as necessary in order to get the necessary votes... Even by using their terms "right" and "left," you are playing their game.
Democracy, like Marxism, preys on the naivete of the masses, just like the snake telling Eve she can be like God, making them think they can have power, in this case, true representation. Instead, what ends up being represented are the most powerful and rich lobbyists. In an anti-Catholic world, the Catholic Church has no clout whatsoever, it is the Jєωιѕн, gαy and "humanitarian" lobbies that have the juice. Therefore, the real enemy of all these people, left and right combined, is Catholicism. Even their purported hatred of the "far right," represented by perhaps Marine Le Pen in politics, or Bishop Williamson in religious matters, is part of the Hegelian trap. These figures give the "moderates" a nice target to shoot at, as well as giving a voice to the fringe groups, but even they aren't really holding the Catholic truth, not all the way. So they are also part of a false right, though called "extreme right."
As I've written elsewhere, if even the "extreme right wing" does not hold all the Catholic truth, this is a perfect way to marginalize us. Because that makes us even more extreme than the extreme right wing, and thus so loony that we are not worthy of mention at all. That is why SSPX, a false Hegelian opposition of the false right, are treated to "talks" in Rome, while the sedes are marginalized and treated as extremist backwater loonies, so far out to lunch that it would be beneath this heretic usurper in Rome to even mention us... The SSPX is flattered, however, by the semblance of power they get in being taken seriously by these FRAUDS who are NOTHING, playing the game, having their "excommunications" lifted, arguing back and forth pointlessly, and so on. For those who see it clearly, that it is all a game, it is SICKENING. The devil's game is to totally marginalize those who could do true damage to him, while using flattery and human respect to cajole others into going halfway.
Sorry if this sounds arrogant, but put me on TV for a while instead of Michael Voris. See what happens. Of course, that won't happen. Because they will let someone who tells 80% of the truth through, but not someone who has the whole truth. Such a person is way too dangerous. But today, we aren't martyred, we are just kept on the fringes and treated as kind of harmless loonbags. And what is worse -- we are becoming comfortable with this situation. It is ingenious, what the devil is doing.
There should be no "right" or "left" just Catholic or non-Catholic. I can't remember hearing about "right-wingers" in medieval Europe. Right away, that opens the door to deceit. Once you replace the truth with a political approximation of truth, human respect will do the rest of the work of destruction.
Everything becomes relative and based on convenience. You can only be as "right" as the culture allows you to be at a given time. See: Marine Le Pen defending abortion as a secular value of the Republic, yet tagged as "extreme right wing."
Of course, this was all part of the Hegelian design of the Masons, to control both sides. The devil knows very well that people don't like to feel they are dupes, so he has to give them the illusion of choice.
Another ingenious scam is that the devil, knowing that desperate Catholics will adhere to whatever calls itself "right," can associate the poltical right-wing with non-Catholic ideas, such as the war in Iraq or economic liberalism. People forget that Catholics at one time were almost all Democrats precisely because the Church taught that the welfare state, unions, and so on, were better than nothing ( though ideally it is Christian charity that should put people on their feet, rather than government intervention ). American Catholics of today now think this is "socialism," though in reality it is the teaching of Leo XIII and Pius XI! They have become defenders of rapacious psychotic corporations, or they defend the Iraq war, or even the state of Israel. Just because the right claims to be against abortion -- without ever doing anything about it -- they think they have to go along with the whole program. They don't see the snare. Their minds slowly get infected and you can see a slippage in the love of truth.
-
Brilliant Essays Roul76, and Telephorus. 100% in agreement.
-
In Politics, The Neo-Conservative Movement was founded by a socialist. Neo-Conservatives are liberals that swung to the right economically. But not socially.
It is the Neo-Conservative movements belief that Religion should be USED to procure morality. But they do not believe.
I would hope there are no Neo-Cons in the SSPX.
I mention this because you are using these political terms. Traditional Conservatives(AKA Tory's) are religious and monarchists. However even within these branches there are sub-divisions and probably diversions between people.
The biggest trap someone can fall into however is the neo-conservative one, the call themselves conservative but they are merely socialists in disguise.
Does this help?
-
Why are you even asking why this happens? As you know, this "right" has nothing to do with supernatural Catholicism but is a human construct. Therefore, it is susceptible to human respect as well as to the fame-seeking of those politicians who embrace it, and who can alter it or water it down as necessary in order to get the necessary votes... Even by using their terms "right" and "left," you are playing their game.
No, I'm not. The "Right" represents the defenders of the social order, of natural morality, and Catholicism. The "Right" absolutely does have to do with supernatural Catholicism, just as the "Left" is all about destroying Catholicism. The nαzιs were "national socialists" to make it clear they weren't a purely right-wing phenomenon - to separate themselves from Christianity and change it to "positive Christianity"
Democracy, like Marxism, preys on the naivete of the masses, just like the snake telling Eve she can be like God, making them think they can have power, in this case, true representation. Instead, what ends up being represented are the most powerful and rich lobbyists. In an anti-Catholic world, the Catholic Church has no clout whatsoever, it is the Jєωιѕн, gαy and "humanitarian" lobbies that have the juice. Therefore, the real enemy of all these people, left and right combined, is Catholicism. Even their purported hatred of the "far right," represented by perhaps Marine Le Pen in politics, or Bishop Williamson in religious matters, is part of the Hegelian trap. These figures give the "moderates" a nice target to shoot at, as well as giving a voice to the fringe groups, but even they aren't really holding the Catholic truth, not all the way. So they are also part of a false right, though called "extreme right."
Marine Le Pen is a moderate, and Bishop Williamson is a Catholic. And they do hate him. That's why Bishop Fellay spoke treacherously about him.
You want to rashly judge Bishop Williamson as being part of a "Hegelian trap" because if someone isn't you (mind you, whether they agree with you or not is immaterial - if they are simply someone other than you) then you have to find some sort of fault with their position - try to show that they aren't the "real" opposition - you are obsessed with considering yourself the "real opposition." I was going to mention that the contempt shown towards the sedes is part of this phenomenon, perhaps I left it out while typing it out. You are clearly disagreeing just to disagree, since I don't see anything substantive in what you've said.
As I've written elsewhere, if even the "extreme right wing" does not hold all the Catholic truth, this is a perfect way to marginalize us. Because that makes us even more extreme than the extreme right wing, and thus so loony that we are not worthy of mention at all.
So you are falling into their trap - by saying that being "extreme right" marginalizes people. I say it only marginalizes people because of the way ostensible Catholics hold to this self-defeating procedure of constantly strafing their allies. I say again, you have a compulsion to disagree for the sake of disagreeing, convinced of your own sanctity and the uniqueness of your insight.
That is why SSPX, a false Hegelian opposition of the false right, are treated to "talks" in Rome, while the sedes are marginalized and treated as extremist backwater loonies, so far out to lunch that it would be beneath this heretic usurper in Rome to even mention us... The SSPX is flattered, however, by the semblance of power they get in being taken seriously by these FRAUDS who are NOTHING, playing the game, having their "excommunications" lifted, arguing back and forth pointlessly, and so on. For those who see it clearly, that it is all a game, it is SICKENING. The devil's game is to totally marginalize those who could do true damage to him, while using flattery and human respect to cajole others into going halfway.
So then the SSPX is falling into the pattern I described, isn't it? The fact of the matter is there is a left-right continuum, and the sedes do fall onto it, whether you like it or not. And they are vilified by the Catholics to the "left" of them - this is exactly the phenomenon I'm describing.
Sorry if this sounds arrogant, but put me on TV for a while instead of Michael Voris. See what happens. Of course, that won't happen. Because they will let someone who tells 80% of the truth through, but not someone who has the whole truth. Such a person is way too dangerous. But today, we aren't martyred, we are just kept on the fringes and treated as kind of harmless loonbags. And what is worse -- we are becoming comfortable with this situation. It is ingenious, what the devil is doing.
Right, your disagreement with my posts comes down to your self-perceived unique insight - not into what I'm actually saying.
There should be no "right" or "left"
There is a left and right. Politics is a battlefield, and there are people resisting our enemies who do not belong to the Catholic camp. What I'm pointing out is how many Catholics are willing to betray those who they perceive to be farther to the Right than makes them comfortable. The same thing is to be found among sedes - the tendency for Americanism among sedes is well-known.
just Catholic or non-Catholic. I can't remember hearing about "right-wingers" in medieval Europe.
That's because liberal revolution hadn't been created yet.
Right away, that opens the door to deceit. Once you replace the truth with a political approximation of truth, human respect will do the rest of the work of destruction.
So don't ever talk about left and right because if people think you're too right wing they won't like you? That's just silly.
Everything becomes relative and based on convenience. You can only be as "right" as the culture allows you to be at a given time. See: Marine Le Pen defending abortion as a secular value of the Republic, yet tagged as "extreme right wing."
Yes, that's exactly my point - the point is that right-wingers are always being betrayed by those to the Left of them. This is because of the masonic organization of society. But you are disagreeing just to disagree, because you're Raoul and you should be on TV.
Of course, this was all part of the Hegelian design of the Masons, to control both sides. The devil knows very well that people don't like to feel they are dupes, so he has to give them the illusion of choice.
Raoul whether you like it or not there are two sides and some of the people who are not with us are not the ones trying to destroy us, and are willing to help us in some ways. The question I am posing is why do Catholics have more tolerance in practice for people to the Left of them than for people to the Right of them?
Another ingenious scam is that the devil, knowing that desperate Catholics will adhere to whatever calls itself "right," can associate the poltical right-wing with non-Catholic ideas, such as the war in Iraq or economic liberalism. People forget that Catholics at one time were almost all Democrats precisely because the Church taught that the welfare state, unions, and so on, were better than nothing ( though ideally it is Christian charity that should put people on their feet, rather than government intervention ). American Catholics of today now think this is "socialism," though in reality it is the teaching of Leo XIII and Pius XI! They have become defenders of rapacious psychotic corporations, or they defend the Iraq war, or even the state of Israel. Just because the right claims to be against abortion -- without ever doing anything about it -- they think they have to go along with the whole program. They don't see the snare. Their minds slowly get infected and you can see a slippage in the love of truth.
Yes, but that's because they think the "Old Right" the "paleoconservatives" are too "out there." What did you say Bishop Piravunas told that altar boy about people who don't support Republicans?
-
In Politics, The Neo-Conservative Movement was founded by a socialist. Neo-Conservatives are liberals that swung to the right economically. But not socially.
It is the Neo-Conservative movements belief that Religion should be USED to procure morality. But they do not believe.
I would hope there are no Neo-Cons in the SSPX.
I mention this because you are using these political terms. Traditional Conservatives(AKA Tory's) are religious and monarchists. However even within these branches there are sub-divisions and probably diversions between people.
The biggest trap someone can fall into however is the neo-conservative one, the call themselves conservative but they are merely socialists in disguise.
Does this help?
I believe Krah had Donald Rumsfeld as one of the people he admired.
-
In Politics, The Neo-Conservative Movement was founded by a socialist. Neo-Conservatives are liberals that swung to the right economically. But not socially.
It is the Neo-Conservative movements belief that Religion should be USED to procure morality. But they do not believe.
I would hope there are no Neo-Cons in the SSPX.
I mention this because you are using these political terms. Traditional Conservatives(AKA Tory's) are religious and monarchists. However even within these branches there are sub-divisions and probably diversions between people.
The biggest trap someone can fall into however is the neo-conservative one, the call themselves conservative but they are merely socialists in disguise.
Does this help?
I believe Krah had Donald Rumsfeld as one of the people he admired.
I'm a supporter of Bishop Williamson, I can believe Krah is a neo-con. I meant normal members :P
-
Telesphorus,
What does "pas d'ennemi à gauche " mean? My French is pretty bad. ( A comment that will be rendered really funny if the saying is not in French.
And I agreed with the post above that both you and Raoul expressed your positions thoughtfully and insightfully.
-
Telesphorus,
What does "pas d'ennemi à gauche " mean? My French is pretty bad. ( A comment that will be rendered really funny if the saying is not in French.
And I agreed with the post above that both you and Raoul expressed your positions thoughtfully and insightfully.
It means, there are "no enemies to the Left"
-
SV's aren't to the "right" of non-SV's, they are simply Catholics who have formed an opinion regarding the legal membership of the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops in the Catholic Church. As Mike said, the "right-left" paradigm is a novel, intellectual construct that stems from the notion of "extremes." An opinion is either true or false, and as such is not susceptible of directions, except maybe up for heaven and down for hell. Such language always implies the orator who uses such language to be in the perfect center, the standard-bearer, the firm column in the middle of two poles, which of course, in the end, is always "moving." It is ridiculous terminology unfit for Catholic usage.
-
SV's aren't to the "right" of non-SV's, they are simply Catholics who have formed an opinion regarding the legal membership of the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops in the Catholic Church.
They are considered to be to the Right. The Right/Left paradigm is a way in which people orient themselves in relation to others. There is no doubt in my mind that sedes are considered generally "to the right" of non-sedes, and it is legitimate in that sedes stand for more coherent and traditional view of the papacy than non-sedes.
As Mike said, the "right-left" paradigm is a novel, intellectual construct that stems from the notion of "extremes."
No, it has to do with political orientation. Whether you like it or not, you are oriented politically because of your religious convictions. It's quite evident that SSPXers tend to be more "moderate" (open to liberal/"conservative" clerics) than sedes.
An opinion is either true or false, and as such is not susceptible of directions, except maybe up for heaven and down for hell.
That's certainly true, but it's false to say that therefore there is no political spectrum. The positions can act as political coordinates - and one dimension is undoubtedly whether one is "pro-revolution" or "counter-revolution." Pro-Christian or Anti-Christian.
The existence of a spectrum of opinions "pro" or "contra" is to be expected in all contests where politics comes into play.
Such language always implies the orator who uses such language to be in the perfect center, the standard-bearer, the firm column in the middle of two poles, which of course, in the end, is always "moving."
No, it doesn't imply that at all.
It is ridiculous terminology unfit for Catholic usage.
So we should never use the political spectrum in discussions? That seems like a rash conclusion.
-
Have you ever thought about the origin of the left-right continuum?
-
Have you ever thought about the origin of the left-right continuum?
Well the Jacobins formed the "mountain" on the Left side of the French National Assembly.
For myself left/right is no different than saying revolutionary/counter-revolutionary.
There is a revolutionary assault on the traditional society - the Right wing resists and attempts to counteract to various degrees that assault.
-
Have you ever thought about the origin of the left-right continuum?
Well the Jacobins formed the "mountain" on the Left side of the French National Assembly.
For myself left/right is no different than saying revolutionary/counter-revolutionary.
There is a revolutionary assault on the traditional society - the Right wing resists and attempts to counteract to various degrees that assault.
Not sure what is so controversial about what you wrote, but anyway.
I'm not sure that which side of the National Assembly you sit on should be much of an indication of a legitimate political persuasion.
It's always struck me as obvious that the whole left-right continuum was arbitrary and not meant for my own good or that of any other person, but certainly helped give the air of objectivity to the progressives and other liberals on the "right" who were intent on destroying the Church.
Either you are right, or you are wrong, but this left-right thing doesn't seem to fit a useful purpose from what I can see. Possibly it does more harm than good?
I say this primarily because there are a lot of people supposedly out there on the "Right" who are just progressives and heretic.
But what about that? No enemies on the Right?
-
That being said, I think "SVs" are just dead wrong, and they can also be politically progressive as well or unwittingly embrace positions that have always been hostile to the Catholic one.
-
and they can also be politically progressive as well or unwittingly embrace positions that have always been hostile to the Catholic one.
Yes, that's true, if you notice I mentioned they have a tendency towards Americanism, the Republican party, etc.
-
Ultimately it's analogous to the law of gravity. Without the 'bouyancy' afforded by divine breath, we sink into the waters and drown.
On a more precise psychological and ideological plane, it can only be because ‘conservatives’ have tacitly accepted the principle at the heart of revolution, namely egalitarianism. Thus they have no principled reason to oppose the left, only pragmatic and often basely economic arguments about avoiding ‘too much of a good thing’ or ‘too much, too fast’. Those to the left are viewed as good-hearted if perhaps a bit rash. On the other hand, such ‘conservatives’ do have a principled reason to oppose people to their right, whether or not those people really believe in hierarchy or not: since they stand further from the central principle of universal equality, they are therefore bad people.
-
That being said, I think "SVs" are just dead wrong, and they can also be politically progressive as well or unwittingly embrace positions that have always been hostile to the Catholic one.
I have never encountered a sedevacantist, in person or on line, who struck me as anything resembling a political progressive.
-
Here is what an NO Catholic I know said after the recent death of a Canadian leftist politician: “I’m not quite brave enough for his politics, but he was a good man who cared about the people.” A good example of how an unprincipled 'conservative' works after having tacitly accepted the age-old premise behind revolutionary politics.