Author Topic: Eleison Comments - White Identity I (no. 708) (Read 1052 times)

Matthew · « **on:** February 07, 2021, 03:46:49 PM »

Number DCCVIII (708)

February 6, 2021

White Identity – I
Let white men but to Jesus Christ come back,
Identity they never again will lack!

A young white couple that reads these “Comments” wants to come back to the Church, but it has a special difficulty which the 31-year old husband suspects is shared by many of his contemporaries: the present lack of an identity for whites. Both he and his wife have some German in their ancestry, and so in search of identity they have been seriously attracted by Germanic paganism. But they were both born Catholic and they suspect that their Catholic schooling was not all that it should have been. The questions that he asks certainly prove that this was the case, but they also show that he is seeking the truth, so that if he perseveres in his quest he can be sure that God will give him the answers he needs. He asks –
Is Germanic paganism our true identity?
Yes and no. A human being’s true identity is to go to Heaven to be blissfully happy with God for all eternity. That is why so many young people (and older people) are so deeply dissatisfied with their present materialistic way of life – they know that they are meant for something much more, but they do not know what. Now there is much that is noble in Germanic paganism, for instance in the operas of Richard Wagner, but it is wholly incapable of getting a man to Heaven because it has no supernatural grace in it. Grace alone can open God’s Heaven for us. And God’s grace is available to us only through God’s one true religion, which is the Roman Catholic religion. If I refuse it, I am refusing Heaven. This religion, for instance Charlemagne, made Europe, and forged the identity of all the white European nations. Hilaire Belloc (1870–1953) said, “Europe is the (Catholic) Faith and the Faith is Europe.”
But Christianity was invented by the Jєωs?
The Catholic religion was invented by no human being or beings. It was “invented” from eternity by God alone, and revealed to men through His Divine Son, Jesus Christ, who as a man was a Jєω, the son of Mary, and who was helped to found the Catholic Church by a small number of Jєωs. Hence John IV, 22. But it was also the Jєωs, leaders and people (Mt.XXVII, 20), who crucified Jesus, and the large majority of Jєωs have ever since hated Christ and done their best to go on crucifying Him in His Church. So the best of Israelites were incomparable friends of God, but the тαℓмυdists have been His incomparable enemies. It is essential to distinguish between Jєωs like St Paul, and Jєωs like Caiaphas. The huge difference is between those who accept Christ and those who reject Him. All turns on Christ.
But is not the New Testament still playing the Old Testament game, so to speak? Are not Christians worshipping Jєωs, and following the “design” and “rules” of Jєωs?
Christians are worshipping God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, the Holy Trinity as revealed by God, Jesus Christ, a revelation far surpassing that of all the rest of the Jєωs put together. He was and is God. They were and are mere men.
So why was God in the Old Testament so protective of Jєωs and yet so annoyed by them?
Because He had given them a great part to play, to prepare for the coming on earth of the Messiah, and they were not always faithful to the task. Our vile media and the mere word “anti-semitism” suggest that Jєωs can never be bad, but they can be very bad indeed. Then they deserve punishment, like anyone else.
But why did God choose the Jєωs? And why did He choose the Jєωs in particular?
He had to choose some people to provide the Messiah with a human Mother, family, village, people and religious practice. With Mary, Joseph, Nazareth, the Temple of Jerusalem and the Mosaic religion the Jєωs did finally provide the Messiah with His earthly framework, only to crucify Him out of their pride.
Why the Jєωs in particular? God’s mystery. Belloc again: “How odd of God to choose the Jєωs!”
Kyrie eleison.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #1 on:** February 07, 2021, 04:18:51 PM »

Incredulous · « **Reply #2 on:** February 07, 2021, 07:09:54 PM »

Okay Sean... here goes the first volley.

Britain's prolific "Catholic" writer appears to have been a high level, stealth Marrano.

Therefore, his comments on the Jҽωs will always be suspect.

The evidence came from Belloc's own book.

Here's the link to the 4-part series making the full case against Belloc: TIA LINK

Hillaire Belloc, the Liberal - Part I

‘Only Ill-Informed Catholics
Condemn the French ʀɛʋօʟutιօn’

Patrick Odou

This series will analyze Belloc’s position on the French ʀɛʋօʟutιօn and the Modern State. I based myself on several of his books, but principally on The French ʀɛʋօʟutιօn (New York: Henry Holt, 1911, 255 pp.)

The French ʀɛʋօʟutιօn, which Belloc wrote in 1911 when he was 41, is an apologia of that ʀɛʋօʟutιօn. He is a clear admirer of the French ʀɛʋօʟutιօn. I believe that there are many errors from a Catholic perspective in this book. Here I will address only one, which is the principle thesis and contention of his work. Belloc tries to convince his readers that there was no conflict between the ʀɛʋօʟutιօn’s concepts of State and Religion and those of the Catholic Church.

Hillaire Belloc supported the French ʀɛʋօʟutιօn's political theory

Speaking as a Catholic, Belloc openly affirms that he is a supporter of the French ʀɛʋօʟutιօn’s political theory. He states: “If a personal point may be noted, the fact that the writer of these pages is himself a Catholic and in political sympathy strongly attached to the political theory of the ʀɛʋօʟutιօn, should not be hidden from the reader” (p. vii).

He seems to grant the same degree of credence to the political theory of the French ʀɛʋօʟutιօn that a Catholic attributes to doctrine of Holy Mother Church herself: “The political theory upon which the ʀɛʋօʟutιօn proceeded … is universal, it is eternal, and it is true” (p. 13).

He repeatedly states that, on an ideological level, there was no reason for the fight between the ʀɛʋօʟutιօn and the Church. Indeed he affirms that there would be “no conflict demonstrable between the theology of the Catholic Church and the political theory of the ʀɛʋօʟutιօn” (p. 224), which seems to be the exact opposite of the truth, as I will prove later in this article.

Further, he states that one “cannot call the ʀɛʋօʟutιօn a necessary enemy of the Church” (p. 222). Again, he pretends that “there was no quarrel between the theology of the Catholic Church and the political theory of the ʀɛʋօʟutιօn” (pp. 225-226).

Belloc belittles those who affirm the contrary as being ignorant, not rational and ill-equipped to address the matter. Indeed, he affirms: “We must, then, approach our business by asking at the outset the most general question of all: ‘Was there a necessary and fundamental quarrel between the doctrines of the ʀɛʋօʟutιօn and those of the Catholic Church?’ Those ill-acquainted with either party [the French ʀɛʋօʟutιօn or the Church], and therefore ill-equipped to reply, commonly reply with assurance in the affirmative” (p. 221). Further, he qualifies this opposition as “non-rational” (p.254).

The guillotine took the lives of clergy and nobles faithful to the Church

The more competent observers, he pretends, “cannot call the ʀɛʋօʟutιօn a necessary enemy of the Church” (p. 222).

Trying to explain the historic conflict that took place between the ʀɛʋօʟutιօn and the Church, Belloc points to secondary factors, such as the decadence of the clergy, its close ties with the nobility, the presence of Huguenots in France who inspired the fights against the Church, mistakes in judgment by the ʀɛʋօʟutιօnaries, etc.

Then he affirms categorically that there is no opposition of principle between the Catholic Church and the French ʀɛʋօʟutιօn. There was just a “misunderstanding” that rose from coincidences and misconceptions:

“There was no quarrel between the theology of the Catholic Church and the political theory of the ʀɛʋօʟutιօn; but the folly of this statesman, the ill drafting of that law, the misconception of such and such an institution, the coincidence of war breaking out at such and such a moment and affecting men in such and such a fashion - all these material accidents bred a misunderstanding between the two great forces, led into conflict the human officers and the human organizations which directed them; and conflict once established feeds upon, and grows from, its own substance” (p. 225).

It is my opinion that in proposing such a thesis, Belloc falsifies reality, since the Catholic Church has always taught the opposite concerning the French ʀɛʋօʟutιօn, the philosophy that inspired it, the Enlightenment, and the religion that was behind it, Deism.

This I proceed to prove with docuмents of the pontifical Magisterium.

Pius VI: An uninterrupted sequence of impieties…

That the ʀɛʋօʟutιօnaries were enemies of the Catholic Religion – contrary to the claim of Belloc – is clear from the words of Pius VI, who reigned at the time of the French ʀɛʋօʟutιօn. He described it with the following words:

“The most Christian King Louis XVI was condemned to death by an impious cօռspιʀαcʏ, and this sentence was executed. We remind you in a few words the dispositions and reasons for that sentence. The National Convention had neither the right nor the authority to pronounce that sentence. Indeed, after having abolished the monarchical form of government, which is the best, it transferred all public power to the dominion of the people …

“Celebrating the fall of the Altar and the Throne as a triumph of Voltaire, one exalts the fame and glory of all impious writers who appear as generals of a victorious army. After using all kinds of ploys to draw a large number of the people to their party … the partisans [of the French ʀɛʋօʟutιօn] manipulated the specious word Liberty. They raised it up like a trophy and invited the multitudes to gather under their banners which were displayed everywhere.

“Here, in truth, is this philosophical liberty that tends to corrupt minds, degrade customs, and raze all laws and institutions …

“After that uninterrupted sequence of impieties which had their origin in France, what man could doubt that one should blame this hatred of Religion on the intrigues and plots that today disturb all of Europe? No one can deny that it was this same cause that provoked the tragic death of Louis XVI” (1).

Pius IX: Philosophers who reject the truths of Revelation…

Pius IX attacks the philosophy that inspired the French ʀɛʋօʟutιօn as well as its unbalanced cult of reason - not a simple misunderstanding as Belloc supposes. In his Encyclical Qui pluribus, he states:

Quote

“In order to more easily mislead the people into error, deceiving in particular the imprudent and the inexperienced, they [the ʀɛʋօʟutιօnaries] pretend that they alone possess the secret of prosperity. They claim for themselves without hesitation the name of philosophers, as if philosophy, which is wholly concerned with the search for truth in nature, should reject those truths which God Himself, the supreme and most clement Author of nature, has deigned to manifest to men by His singular goodness and mercy so that mankind may attain true happiness and salvation.

“Hence, by means of distorted and fallacious arguments, these enemies never stop invoking the power and excellence of human reason. They raise it up against the holy faith of Christ and spread everywhere with great foolhardiness that this faith is opposed to human reason. Without doubt, they could have devised nothing more senseless, impious, and opposed to reason itself. For although faith is above reason, there is no real opposition or discord whatsoever between them, since both proceed from the same greatest source of eternal and unchanging truth, God” (2).

Gregory XVI and Pius IX: Liberty of conscience is a delirium

Liberty of conscience and liberty of religion, demands introduced by the French ʀɛʋօʟutιօn, were also condemned by Pius IX in his Encyclical Quanta cura:

The Church opposed the ʀɛʋօʟutιօnary freedom for error to be printed and spread

“Departing from this totally false idea of social government [that the State should be indifferent regarding religion], its propagators fearlessly foment the erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, which our predecessor Gregory XVI .... called ‘a delirium’ (Mirari vos), that is, that ‘liberty of conscience and worship is an inalienable right of the individual, which should be legally proclaimed and established in all rightly constituted societies; and that citizens have a right to an absolute liberty which should be restrained by no ecclesiastical or civil law; whereby they may openly and publicly manifest and state any of their ideas whatsoever, either by word of mouth, by press, or in any other way.’

“But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not realize and consider that they are preaching ‘liberty of perdition’ (St. Augustine, Epistle 105, al. 166),and that ‘if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth and to trust in the verbosity of human wisdom. Whereas we know, from the very teaching of Our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious drivel’ (St. Leo, Epistle 14, a. 133)” (3).

Pius XII: FR and the modern world share the pride of Satan…

Mentioning the French ʀɛʋօʟutιօn indirectly, Pius XII also condemned it and its fruit - the Modern State - as a manifestation of pride which shares that of Lucifer. That is, he condemns the political theory the ʀɛʋօʟutιօn advocated - and Belloc supported - as being opposed to religious principles. He states:

A cartoonist shows Satan, bottom right, commanding the beheading of Louis XVI while the devils celebrate

“In the same way that it [the modern world] tried to throw off the suave yoke of God, it simultaneously repudiated the order He established and, with the same pride of the rebellious Angel at the beginning of Creation, tried to institute another order according to its own will. After almost two centuries of sad experiments and missteps, all who are still of upright heart and mind confess that any such dispositions and impositions – those which have the name but not the substance of order – did not give the results they promised and do not correspond to the natural hopes of man” (4).

Pius XII was most probably referring here to a well-known text of Cardinal Louis Billot, the intellectual adviser of St. Pius X, that qualified the French ʀɛʋօʟutιօn as satanic:

Quote

“The essentially anti-religious character and the impiety of the principle of Liberalism will be clear to the eyes of anyone who realizes that, properly speaking, this Liberalism is the source of the Great ʀɛʋօʟutιօn, which is rightly said to present so expressly and visibly a satanic character, so as to distinguish it from anything else seen in past times” (5).

Conclusion of Part I

It seems to me quite difficult to assert that these four Popes, along with Cardinal Billot are all ill-informed about the French ʀɛʋօʟutιօn, as Hillaire Belloc pretended.

Instead, it is much easier for me to conclude that Belloc’s general acceptance of the French ʀɛʋօʟutιօn qualifies him as a liberal. Such general acceptance is included in the mentioned papal condemnations.

Quote

1. Pius VI, Allocution to the Consistory of June 17, 1793, Rome: Typis S. Congreg Propaganda Fidei, 1871, vol. 2, pp. 17, 25-26, 29-30;
2. Pius IX, Qui pluribus, November 9, 1846, Recueil des Allocutions..., Paris: Adrien le Clere, 1865, pp. 175-177.
3. Pius IX, Quanta cura, December 8, 1864, Recueil... pp. 5-7.
4. Pius XII, Radio-message of Christmas 1949, Petropolis: Vozes, 1952, p. 28.
5. Louis Billot, Les principes de 89 et leurs consequences, Paris: Tequi, p. 30.

Posted

Seraphina · « **Reply #3 on:** February 08, 2021, 11:03:26 AM »

I don’t feel any need for an “identity” other than that of being Catholic. Very secondarily, my family came to the USA from Poland, Russia, Germany, (depending upon who owned the area!), and Ireland. There are no known family in any of these places because it was too long ago. We do eat Polish/Russian foods, but out of habit more than anything. Dirt poor Irish Catholic cuisine was boiled potatoes. Both sides were poor, peasants, tenant farmers. Nobody was responsible for European high culture like music or the arts. I certainly don’t have a need to present myself to others as “White.”
Anyone else feel a need to have an “identity” based upon race or skin color?

Matto · « **Reply #4 on:** February 08, 2021, 11:08:40 AM »

I disagree with Dr. Jones in that he seems to think race is not important. But I agree that the identity of "white" is new and inferior at least for Catholics in America. I prefer to older identities of German or Irish of Italian or Polish, all Catholic, which largely ended with the death of most of the ethnic ghettos in the cities. I think those were real identities with real culture. Now there is no "culture" anymore. All there is is entertainment consumed by watching television or netflix or youtube. And white is just the color of our skin, with no substance.

Incredulous · « **Reply #5 on:** February 08, 2021, 01:13:13 PM »

In response to HE's closing question:

With Mary, Joseph, Nazareth, the Temple of Jerusalem and the Mosaic religion the Jҽωs did finally provide the Messiah with His earthly framework, only to crucify Him out of their pride. Why the Jҽωs in particular? God’s mystery. Belloc again: “How odd of God to choose the Jҽωs!”
Kyrie eleison.

Perhaps, rejection and deicide from His own, "chosen people", represented the ultimate human betrayal?

But make no mistake, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity has identified them:

1. "And seeing many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them:
Ye brood of vipers, who hath shewed you to flee from the wrath to come?" [Matthew 3:7]

clarkaim · « **Reply #6 on:** February 10, 2021, 04:12:01 PM »

Quote from: Seraphina on February 08, 2021, 11:03:26 AM

I don’t feel any need for an “identity” other than that of being Catholic. Very secondarily, my family came to the USA from Poland, Russia, Germany, (depending upon who owned the area!), and Ireland. There are no known family in any of these places because it was too long ago. We do eat Polish/Russian foods, but out of habit more than anything. Dirt poor Irish Catholic cuisine was boiled potatoes. Both sides were poor, peasants, tenant farmers. Nobody was responsible for European high culture like music or the arts. I certainly don’t have a need to present myself to others as “White.”
Anyone else feel a need to have an “identity” based upon race or skin color?

While your point is well taken, certainly most of us tend to identify with our Ethnic heritage ( I am Sicilian, German, Irish, and American Indian btw) and tend to not be conscious of ourselves as "white", it is clear that others certainly perceive us as some monolithic entity of racist enemies. I even work with a guy (hispanic American, they are pretty much white btw, whatever that t means) who gives me a pass, says I am not "white" since I'm "italian" f i have blue eyes and don't fit that stereotype. We may not be conscious but my point is they ae conscious of it as well as their own minority identity, which they see as their victimhood to, kyou guessed it, US. Thing is it may not r the most rational of perspectives, but it is real. this mentality is already resulting in retaliation against us. Maybe it's time we should develop some sort of awareness of ourselves. it's coming ur way whether we like it or not

rum · « **Reply #7 on:** February 10, 2021, 10:27:53 PM »

Quote from: clarkaim on February 10, 2021, 04:12:01 PM

While your point is well taken, certainly most of us tend to identify with our Ethnic heritage ( I am Sicilian, German, Irish, and American Indian btw) and tend to not be conscious of ourselves as "white", it is clear that others certainly perceive us as some monolithic entity of racist enemies. I even work with a guy (hispanic American, they are pretty much white btw, whatever that t means) who gives me a pass, says I am not "white" since I'm "italian" f i have blue eyes and don't fit that stereotype. We may not be conscious but my point is they ae conscious of it as well as their own minority identity, which they see as their victimhood to, kyou guessed it, US. Thing is it may not r the most rational of perspectives, but it is real. this mentality is already resulting in retaliation against us. Maybe it's time we should develop some sort of awareness of ourselves. it's coming ur way whether we like it or not

White is just lingo for those who are members of the various caucasian peoples. If whites don't exist, then Jҽωs, arabs, asians, blacks, native americans don't exist either. There are many types of Jҽωs, genetically speaking. In Israel mizrahi, sephardic, and αѕнкenαzι Jҽωs self-segregate, just as the various white peoples do.

Non-whites know whites exist. They know who to root against, by sight. The polar bear game, and countless other examples. And they don't have any problem with the Jєωιѕн mєdια's policy of downplaying racial identity in non-white on white crime. They don't have a problem with affirmative action. They don't have a problem with the Jєωιѕн version of history taught in schools and universities, painting the caucasian peoples as devils. Non-whites vote democrat because they view it as in their racial interests to do so. How very racist of them.

rum · « **Reply #8 on:** February 10, 2021, 10:45:58 PM »

According to this source Belloc rejected The Protocols as bunk . . . and he dedicated his book The Jєωs to his Jєωιѕн private secretary.

After having read The Protocols 15 or so years ago I thought that either it was written by a Jєω or cabal of Jєωs, or by one of the great gentile seers in history.

Some flattering words were written about Belloc here.

Oddly, I just noticed in searching The Point that there is no mention of The Protocols.

Incredulous · « **Reply #9 on:** February 11, 2021, 06:54:34 AM »

Quote from: rum on February 10, 2021, 10:45:58 PM

According to this source Belloc rejected The Protocols as bunk . . . and he dedicated his book The Jҽωs to his Jєωιѕн private secretary.

After having read The Protocols 15 or so years ago I thought that either it was written by a Jєω or cabal of Jҽωs, or by one of the great gentile seers in history.

Some flattering words were written about Belloc here.

Oddly, I just noticed in searching The Point that there is no mention of The Protocols.

Thank you for finding this treasure Rum!

Belloc's dedication of his book to his private Jєωess....sounds so... un-Catholic!

I loved this kernel of truth from Klein's article: "... Jєωs are a foreign and destructive element in any Christian state"

Matthew · « **Reply #10 on:** February 11, 2021, 07:34:48 AM »

Quote from: clarkaim on February 10, 2021, 04:12:01 PM

We may not be conscious but my point is they are conscious of it as well as their own minority identity, which they see as their victimhood to, you guessed it, US. Thing is it may not be the most rational of perspectives, but it is real. This mentality is already resulting in retaliation against us. Maybe it's time we should develop some sort of awareness of ourselves. It's coming our way whether we like it or not.

I agree.

To quote another down-to-earth, grounded, "call a spade a spade" CathInfo member of Irish extraction, "Deal with Reality, or Reality will deal with thee!"

Reality is your friend. Always has been, always will be. Ignoring or trying to escape it *never* in any case does one any good.

Author Topic: Eleison Comments - White Identity I (no. 708) (Read 1052 times)

Matthew

Eleison Comments - White Identity I (no. 708)

SeanJohnson

Re: Eleison Comments - White Identity I (no. 708)

Incredulous

Re: Eleison Comments - White Identity I (no. 708)

Seraphina

Re: Eleison Comments - White Identity I (no. 708)

Matto

Re: Eleison Comments - White Identity I (no. 708)

Incredulous

Re: Eleison Comments - White Identity I (no. 708)

clarkaim

Re: Eleison Comments - White Identity I (no. 708)

rum

Re: Eleison Comments - White Identity I (no. 708)

rum

Re: Eleison Comments - White Identity I (no. 708)

Incredulous

Re: Eleison Comments - White Identity I (no. 708)

Matthew

Re: Eleison Comments - White Identity I (no. 708)