I want to make this my sig, but it's a bit long.

It really is just this simple.  Joan of Arc, who freed France from the English yoke -- back when England was still Catholic, mind you -- was only a prefiguration of the time, which is coming soon, when the Virgin Mary, through the Great Monarch, will rout the entire Protestant / Masonic / Jєωιѕн Anglo-American world-system and restore Catholic Europe.

Yet Tele would have us believe that to be against certain shibboleths of the Anglo-American-Jєωιѕн system is to be enslaved to the Jews.   :confused1:

Exactly.  It really is about as simple as that.

Telesphorus said:  

Saying that American whites have a legitimate reason to hear their sermons in English, that's all I said, and I see the way these people come after me, and it's very clear what sort of mentality these types adopt when they want to settle perceived scores with whites, who would never have let them act this way 50 years ago.

So you are looking backward with nostalgia to Protestant mistreatment of minorities?  You think lynching was a good thing?  You are the one who is using extra-ecclesial shibboleths to form your thinking.  Those shibboleths stem from Protestant backwoods Americanized mountain-man white-powerish attitudes.

Why is it you seem to forget that American Catholics were clearly infected with Americanism?

The French have a national inferiority complex, the non-whites have a racial inferiority complex, so they are incapable of discussing the matter in objective terms.

You haven't even come close to proving that the French have a national inferiority complex -- it is only through Masonic skulduggery that France has lost the glory it once had, but that glory is undeniable, so is its status as eldest daughter of the Church. Actually even AFTER the Revolution they had Napoleon, so I'm not sure what they would have to feel inferior about as a nation.  That they aren't America?  Lol -- come talk to me in ten years about that.  Even now, the French are considered far more evolved and sophisticated than Americans by... Well, everyone.

Anyway, this is counter-productive, it's obvious you are totally up your own navel and blind, with all sorts of wackjob theories that you are convinced are fact because in your pride you can never backtrack or admit you're wrong and have convinced yourself you are some resplendent intellectual that sees things no one else sees.

You don't make sense to ANYONE.  So keep up the charade in your bubble; it's like what roscoe says at this point.

Telesphorus said:  

I used to have strong resentment of wasps until I realized that with the "friends" on finds in the Catholic Church these days, you don't need any enemies.

Do you think you might be at least part of the problem?  Has that thought ever penetrated so much as one millimeter inside that thick skull of yours?

Instead of trying to be more accommodating to Catholics, instead of being charitable, you force yourself on people in this obnoxious, overbearing way.  Then you go find Muslims and now apparently Protestants who will agree with you, while they seduce you with their false views and take you further away from the truth.

Your pride is the problem, simple as that.  

Nadieimportante's machismo makes me want to run away with his daughter, and I don't even want to be married!  That is what unfair and overly strict laws do, they create rebellion.

How would you define this machismo the Nadieimportante displays, quote me some examples? Wanting to run away with a machos daughter, I would think would be quite dangerous to ones life?

What unfair and overly strict "laws" did I mention, that you can quote?

Men today are not men anymore, they are affraid of their own shadows. They are so affraid "of their children rebelling", and of being "overly strict" that they have become like deer in front of the headlight, and cease being parents.

There is a place between being  tyrant parents, and being a no-parents. If you think I've said something tyranical, you have much to learn, before you can be a parent.  

There is not a day that someone does not come up to my wife and I to tell us how well behaved our 5 children are (they are just 10 and under). Anyone can see that they happy children, and they'll talk to you like adults, looking at you right in the eye. They'll crack jokes at you that will surprise you for the intelligence level. They see the moon,  and the stars, and the trees, birds, and animals, and are always pointing things out. They are real children, who get dirty playing outside, and run around like crazy people when they play, but yet will sit at the dinner table in a restaurant and behave like adults. The waitresses are always pleasantly surprised at seeing well behaved children, that don't run around the restaurant like if it was their play house.

You have much to learn grasshopper.

I used to have strong resentment of wasps until I realized that with the "friends" on finds in the Catholic Church these days, you don't need any enemies.

The relative sanity of the small wasp town is a welcome relief sometimes.

So, basically, you are admitting that you feel more comfortable around Anglo-American Protestants than around Romance-speaking Catholics, and you think that all of these Romance-speaking Catholics have corrupted cultures, which gives them cynical attitudes that you find indecent and perverse, whereas the Anglo-Protestant mind is relatively uncorrupted and innocent by comparison ?

If that isn't about the most typical manner of thinking among Anglo-Protestants that there is, there is no other description for it.

Maybe your problem isn't with how every Catholic culture seems to get it wrong while the Anglo-Protestants -- just by happenstance and by (who could have guessed it) being the best according to the standard of "whiteness" they themselves invented -- seem to get it right; if that is the case, perhaps your real problem is with Catholicism itself.  Maybe it just doesn't breed cultures you find comfortable -- that is to say, maybe Catholic culture just isn't "white" and Protestant and English enough for you ?

If only the Church could trade all its stupid frogs, dagos, spics, and dune coons for the people and setting of a Jane Austen novel or some other Victorian English romantic book.  Then, the Faith would finally be kept by people who have the inherent dignity to do it justice. And maybe then there would be nuclear families and none of that evil old patriarchy and Latin machismo, since the "white" and "American" people of the world are too "civilized" for such "barbarianism."  Is that it ?

Nadieimportante said:

How would you define this machismo the Nadieimportante displays, quote me some examples? Wanting to run away with a machos daughter, I would think would be quite dangerous to ones life?

You answered your first question in your second question.

What unfair and overly strict "laws" did I mention, that you can quote?

Not letting a convert marry your daughter when you are a convert, and having an obvious double standard.  This after saying that men need to catch women after they are done sowing their wild oats, which shows blatant influence of feminism in your views.  

Because machismo and feminism are both exaggerations of the truth, they tend to converge, sort of like nαzιsm and Judaism which ultimately worked together against the Church.

Men today are not men anymore, they are affraid of their own shadows. They are so affraid "of their children rebelling", and of being "overly strict" that they have become like deer in front of the headlight, and cease being parents.

I have no problem with keeping your children in line, I'm glad you do.  I was talking about your irrational and hypocritical prejudices.

There is a place between being  tyrant parents, and being a no-parents. If you think I've said something tyranical, you have much to learn, before you can be a parent.  

No, you do not think with the Church but have your own prejudices, which really do show an influence of machismo, where you think that other guys treat women like you used to, which leads to being overly smothering.  There is no reason why your daughter should have to marry some guy who meets your own imaginary standard, which is at least slightly materialistic anyway.  Not that it's wrong to want your daughter to marry a hard worker or someone who will take care of her, that is essential, but an "entrepreneur"?

There is not a day that someone does not come up to my wife and I to tell us how well behaved our 5 children are (they are just 10 and under). Anyone can see that they happy children, and they'll talk to you like adults, looking at you right in the eye. They'll crack jokes at you that will surprise you for the intelligence level. They see the moon,  and the stars, and the trees, birds, and animals, and are always pointing things out. They are real children, who get dirty playing outside, and run around like crazy people when they play, but yet will sit at the dinner table in a restaurant and behave like adults. The waitresses are always pleasantly surprised at seeing well behaved children, that don't run around the restaurant like if it was their play house.

Good!  I admire that greatly.

You have much to learn grasshopper.

Indeed I do but I'm not sure I'm learning it here  :guitar:  

One more point about how the meddlesome father in law is a new phenomenon that is another way in which social conservatives enforce feminist laws:

Consider in the Godfather movies, that the mother of Santino says:

"Bambino, don't interfere"

This idea that father in laws should be perpetually meddling in their son-in-laws families is totally anti-traditional.  

Nadie asked:
What unfair and overly strict "laws" did I mention, that you can quote?  

Raul answered: Not letting a convert marry your daughter when you are a convert, and having an obvious double standard.  

Nadie responds: Total Strawman. I never said I was a convert from Protestantsm. I'm a Spaniard, not many Protestants in Spain.

Raul said: This after saying that men need to catch women after they are done sowing their wild oats, which shows blatant influence of feminism in your views. Because machismo and feminism are both exaggerations of the truth, they tend to converge, sort of like nαzιsm and Judaism which ultimately worked together against the Church.

Nadie responds: Another strawman.

Nadie said: Men today are not men anymore, they are affraid of their own shadows. They are so affraid "of their children rebelling", and of being "overly strict" that they have become like deer in front of the headlight, and cease being parents.  


Raul responds: I have no problem with keeping your children in line, I'm glad you do.  I was talking about your irrational and hypocritical prejudices.

Nadie answers: there you go again, and I'm sure that if I ask you what are those "irrational and hypocritical prejudices", you will respond with another strawman.



Nadie said:
There is a place between being  tyrant parents, and being a no-parents. If you think I've said something tyranical, you have much to learn, before you can be a parent.  


Raul replied: No, you do not think with the Church but have your own prejudices, which really do show an influence of machismo, ....

Nadie wastes his time for the last time responding to single man Raul who has no children nor any diea how to raise children:

Thanks for the lesson, henceforth I will not waste my time discussing family and children with single men.