Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: jman123 on January 17, 2012, 11:36:37 AM
-
This is interesting take from the SSPX
http://sspx.org/pastors_corner/pastors_corner_january_2012.htm#hispanic_influence
The Hispanic community in America, which was below two million in 1940, has increased tremendously in the last few decades. Today it includes over 50 millions souls and represents 16% of the 308 million Americans. Two thirds of Hispanics are Catholic, and 15% Evangelical.
The first Hispanic bishop was consecrated in 1970. There are presently 50 such bishops. Today, the Catholic Church in America counts 68 millions baptized persons, which represents about 22% of the total population, 40% of which are of Hispanic origin. To top it off, it is estimated that the growth of the Catholic population is coming from them at the rate of 70%. One of our every four children in Catholic kindergarten is Hispanic. At such a rate, the Hispanic community will compromise the majority of Catholics in America as soon as 2030.
Such statistics call for some remarks:
By now most United States dioceses have set up well-established Hispanic parishes where the faithful and children are taught the Faith and can grow with little need of adaptation. This continues the Catholic battle which all immigrants faced from the 19th century regarding the use of their own language and traditions in their Catholic schools. (I am thinking specifically of the Germans in the Midwest.) The children are growing up perfectly bilingual and they serve as mediators to less adaptable parents.
Without a doubt, Latin American culture has a lot to offer to the United States Catholic Church. Just think of the great mystics like St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila. Think too of the wonderful cultural development, evangelization, and education brought about by the Spanish settlers under the Catholics Ferdinand and Isabella. They are the heirs of the highest cultural achievement which was brought about from the connection of the Old and New World. Who can boast of establishing two flourishing universities in the New World 150 years before Harvard? Who can boast of having an Indian Viceroy of Mexico just a few generations after the Spanish conquest of Cortes?
Most southern States of the USA were at one time the property of the Spanish crown. Are we witnessing the revenge of the Hispanics who were kicked out of their own territory by a fiercely Masonic government?
Yet, one may fear that the Spanish influence may be less Catholic than numbers tell. Like the waves of immigrations of the last century, the incoming Hispanics are mostly underprivileged families seeking asylum in a country which promises a rosy future for them. They have little education and little ambition. It will take generations to turn them into the powerhouse of Catholic America in leadership.
More to the point, there is here a large reserve of vital forces into which the present hierarchy must tap, under pain of letting the easy, happy-clappy Church leaders swing them to their side. It seems inevitable that our Society of St. Pius X needs to direct much of its efforts along the same lines and promote study in Spanish at the seminary. And—this is not negligible—our college students will fare better in job interviews if they can present some bilingual capacity in their resume.
-
There are so many wasp-influenced/ neo-cons in the SSPX (US), at least where I live, it gets annoying. Fr. Hawker (of the Arcadia Priory) set up a once-a-month Spanish sermon to meet the needs of the Mexican and other Latino Catholics in the Colton, CA chapel (St. Joesph and IHM Chapel). During his sermon, a large majority of the (anglos) 'influential' families got up and left in disgust. This is why my family left our local SSPX chapels.
-
There are so many wasp-influenced/ neo-cons in the SSPX (US), at least where I live, it gets annoying. Fr. Hawker (of the Arcadia Priory) set up a once-a-month Spanish sermon to meet the needs of the Mexican and other Latino Catholics in the Colton, CA chapel (St. Joesph and IHM Chapel). During his sermon, a large majority of the (anglos) 'influential' families got up and left in disgust. This is why my family left our local SSPX chapels.
Yall should have sat snug in your seats and told Pale Face not to let the door hit him on the way out.
-
There are so many wasp-influenced/ neo-cons in the SSPX (US), at least where I live, it gets annoying. Fr. Hawker (of the Arcadia Priory) set up a once-a-month Spanish sermon to meet the needs of the Mexican and other Latino Catholics in the Colton, CA chapel (St. Joesph and IHM Chapel). During his sermon, a large majority of the (anglos) 'influential' families got up and left in disgust. This is why my family left our local SSPX chapels.
Yall should have sat snug in your seats and told Pale Face not to let the door hit him on the way out.
Well that's what was rather sad. Instead of standing firm in continuing a Spanish speaking ministry, the head at the priory gave in, and the Spanish sermons were discontinued.
CORRECTION: I do have a correction to make with my first post. It was Fr. Gonzales (SSPX) who gave the sermon in Spanish. When the WASP Traddies threw their hissy fit, Fr. Hawker was sent in to replace Fr. Gonzalez. C'est la vie ala 'Societeee'.
-
While I sympathize with the situation you faced where the parishioners wouldn't sit still for a Spanish sermon, I do think you're quite mistaken to call opposition to immigration "neo-con." It's nothing of the kind.
I wonder what would happen if the situation was reversed, if in Mexico, and English speaking priest decided to give a sermon in English once a month?
Somehow I doubt such a situation arise under similar conditions.
-
Yet, one may fear that the Spanish influence may be less Catholic than numbers tell. Like the waves of immigrations of the last century, the incoming Hispanics are mostly underprivileged families seeking asylum in a country which promises a rosy future for them. They have little education and little ambition. It will take generations to turn them into the powerhouse of Catholic America in leadership.
This is very strange commentary. First of all there is idea that things will be bright for them economically in the future, there is the comparison of their migration to that of past migrations, when in fact there are significant differences in the nature of the migration.
Secondly the idea that their role in the Church depends on their ambition and education. (a strange idea) Apparently many lack the resources be Catholic "powerhouses" (collection plate powerhouses?) in North America.
-
There are so many wasp-influenced/ neo-cons in the SSPX (US), at least where I live, it gets annoying. Fr. Hawker (of the Arcadia Priory) set up a once-a-month Spanish sermon to meet the needs of the Mexican and other Latino Catholics in the Colton, CA chapel (St. Joesph and IHM Chapel). During his sermon, a large majority of the (anglos) 'influential' families got up and left in disgust. This is why my family left our local SSPX chapels.
Why not have one priest say a Mass and give the sermon in Spanish and at another mass (the principal one, this being the United States) have the priest preach in English?
Switching to the Latin Mass is already a big deal for a lot of minorities. What makes it worse is when people, even if well-intentioned, add additional pressure by making them read out of English-Latin missals, say really English prayers (Challoner's prayers are really nice in English, but can a Mexican really appreciate that?), etc.
Especially in Southern California. There's a whole lot of minorities, etc. Those parishioners that left should be grateful that the priest wasn't preaching in Vietnamese or Cantonese. (Now there's a good idea!)
-
Secondly the idea that their role in the Church depends on their ambition and education. (a strange idea) Apparently many lack the resources be Catholic "powerhouses" (collection plate powerhouses?) in North America.
Yeah, sounds like something that someone of Opus Dei would say or one who views things too naturalistically.
-
Secondly the idea that their role in the Church depends on their ambition and education. (a strange idea) Apparently many lack the resources be Catholic "powerhouses" (collection plate powerhouses?) in North America.
Yeah, sounds like something that someone of Opus Dei would say or one who views things too naturalistically.
One other thing to consider about this talk about "ambition"
Last year, two Princeton sociologists, Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Walton Radford, published a book-length study of admissions and affirmative action at eight highly selective colleges and universities. Unsurprisingly, they found that the admissions process seemed to favor black and Hispanic applicants, while whites and Asians needed higher grades and SAT scores to get in. But what was striking, as Russell K. Nieli pointed out last week on the conservative Web site Minding the Campus, was which whites were most disadvantaged by the process: the downscale, the rural and the working-class.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/opinion/19douthat.html
Now recall Matthew making that post about the priest who said the boys didn't have enough ambition.
I imagine a lot of boys from families with nearly 10 children who live on food stamps growing up in a town where there are few options might seem to "lack ambition," and be bad for SSPX cash flow. Fortunately bright hispanics can get affirmative action. And likely it will be mainly the lighter ones who end up in Trad chapels. This influx will therefore help SSPX cash flow.
-
There are so many wasp-influenced/ neo-cons in the SSPX (US), at least where I live, it gets annoying. Fr. Hawker (of the Arcadia Priory) set up a once-a-month Spanish sermon to meet the needs of the Mexican and other Latino Catholics in the Colton, CA chapel (St. Joesph and IHM Chapel). During his sermon, a large majority of the (anglos) 'influential' families got up and left in disgust. This is why my family left our local SSPX chapels.
Yall should have sat snug in your seats and told Pale Face not to let the door hit him on the way out.
Indeed. It is hard to see this as anything other than simple racism. And the priest who caved is a coward. If he cant stand the disapproval of a few idiots in his pews, how would he ever stand up in a real persecution?
-
There is No Such Thing as 'racism'.
-
There are so many wasp-influenced/ neo-cons in the SSPX (US), at least where I live, it gets annoying. Fr. Hawker (of the Arcadia Priory) set up a once-a-month Spanish sermon to meet the needs of the Mexican and other Latino Catholics in the Colton, CA chapel (St. Joesph and IHM Chapel). During his sermon, a large majority of the (anglos) 'influential' families got up and left in disgust. This is why my family left our local SSPX chapels.
Yall should have sat snug in your seats and told Pale Face not to let the door hit him on the way out.
Indeed. It is hard to see this as anything other than simple racism. And the priest who caved is a coward. If he cant stand the disapproval of a few idiots in his pews, how would he ever stand up in a real persecution?
There is No Such Thing as 'racism'.
-
Just because you are against Illegal Immigration does not make you a racist.
-
Observations from a Mexican bandit:
The Hispanic community in America, which was below two million in 1940, has increased tremendously in the last few decades. Today it includes over 50 millions souls and represents 16% of the 308 million Americans. Two thirds of Hispanics are Catholic, and 15% Evangelical.
N.O. stats say that 25% of Catholics go to mass, but I remember reading that survey asked the question: "Do you go to mass at least once a month" (If anyone wants to correct me on that, I'm open to correction. ), which is not really going to mass. In Austria, a Catholic country, it's 5%, France,Spain & Germany same numbers more or less. AND we are talking about the Novus Ordo world where practically nothing is taught to the parishioners, they are pretty much ignorant of the faith. Needless to say, there are few Latinos that know the faith.
They do however have the faith in their veins, as it is part of their culture, but, they don't know it. That sounds like a strange remark, but I bring it up to point out a the fact that they are easy to convince of the faith compared to American Catholics, a country that has an anti-Catholic culture. That Catholicism is in their veins is a good trait that they posses.
The first Hispanic bishop was consecrated in 1970.
Wow! I find that hard to believe, since "Hispanics" were all over the Southwest, long before it was part of America.
Personally, I don't like the term Hispanic. I'm a Cuban of Spanish blood, call me a Spaniard who was born in Cuba, call me a Latino, or a Latin American, but this "Hispanic" term I don't care for.
By now most United States dioceses have set up well-established Hispanic parishes where the faithful and children are taught the Faith and can grow with little need of adaptation. This continues the Catholic battle which all immigrants faced from the 19th century regarding the use of their own language and traditions in their Catholic schools. (I am thinking specifically of the Germans in the Midwest.) The children are growing up perfectly bilingual and they serve as mediators to less adaptable parents.
Unfortunately what they are teaching them in the "well-established Hispanic parishes" is not Catholicism. They are even being taught to be like the Protestants, all separated from each other according to whatever each one wants. Even within Latinos they are separated. In Miami, the Cubans have their own mass, and the Mexicans their own, and the Nicaraguans their own. That's not Catholic!
Without a doubt, Latin American culture has a lot to offer to the United States Catholic Church. Just think of the great mystics like St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila.
They were Spaniards, not Latin Americans.
Think too of the wonderful cultural development, evangelization, and education brought about by the Spanish settlers under the Catholics Ferdinand and Isabella. They are the heirs of the highest cultural achievement which was brought about from the connection of the Old and New World. Who can boast of establishing two flourishing universities in the New World 150 years before Harvard? Who can boast of having an Indian Viceroy of Mexico just a few generations after the Spanish conquest of Cortes?
Most southern States of the USA were at one time the property of the Spanish crown.
They were Spaniards, not Latinos.
Are we witnessing the revenge of the Hispanics who were kicked out of their own territory by a fiercely Masonic government?
Yes, if they were Catholics like the Spanish were when they accomplished everything mentioned above. The problem is that these Latinos are only and barely culturally Catholic.
Yet, one may fear that the Spanish influence may be less Catholic than numbers tell. Like the waves of immigrations of the last century, the incoming Hispanics are mostly underprivileged families seeking asylum in a country which promises a rosy future for them.
Not "may be less Catholic than numbers tell", they are in fact barely Catholic at all.
They have little education and little ambition. It will take generations to turn them into the powerhouse of Catholic America in leadership.
Strange remark, but, I think he means that they have little ambition for the faith. No one can say that Mexicans (like 95% of these so-called by Americans, "Hispanics" are Mexicans) are not ambitious for monetary success, for they are very hard workers, and considering their lack of education, their achievements in "business" are extraordinary.
More to the point, there is here a large reserve of vital forces into which the present hierarchy must tap, under pain of letting the easy, happy-clappy Church leaders swing them to their side.
"must tap under pain of letting the easy, happy-clappy Church leaders swing them to their side"? What odd reasons to evangelize.
It seems inevitable that our Society of St. Pius X needs to direct much of its efforts along the same lines and promote study in Spanish at the seminary. And—this is not negligible—our college students will fare better in job interviews if they can present some bilingual capacity in their resume.
Being as Spanish speaking Catholics represent the largest group of Catholics in the world, Spanish is being taught already in Spanish seminaries. The SSPX can send their seminarians to Argentina to learn Spanish. From my personal observations, Spanish is easy to learn for Italians, French and Germans, but immersion in the language is the best way to learn it.
-
Nadie, if this priest is the priest I think he is, he's a rather strange bird.
The whole idea of confusing Spanish speaking with being Spanish or Spanish blooded is another strange thing. Of course in crime statistics mestizos are counted as whites.
-
There is No Such Thing as 'racism'.
There's No Such Thing as 'roscoe'.
-
Fr. Hawker (of the Arcadia Priory) set up a once-a-month Spanish sermon to meet the needs of the Mexican and other Latino Catholics in the Colton, CA chapel (St. Joseph and IHM Chapel). During his sermon, a large majority of the (anglos) 'influential' families got up and left in disgust. This is why my family left our local SSPX chapels.
"A once a month sermon", That's it? And "a large majority" left in disgust?
That's not Catholic." Those people that walked out have not God's grace. What lack of fortitude, for I'm sure that the majority of those that walked out were just following one or two leaders (instigators).
Hey, if a sermon is lame, we all will tend to think of other things, though I try to keep it Catholic, maybe meditating about a passage in the gospel or in any other writing in the missal, or meditating on my own needs before God. What's the big deal about not listening/ tuning out a sermon in say Vietnamese once a month?
Those people who walked out are not Catholic.
-
Fr. Hawker (of the Arcadia Priory) set up a once-a-month Spanish sermon to meet the needs of the Mexican and other Latino Catholics in the Colton, CA chapel (St. Joseph and IHM Chapel). During his sermon, a large majority of the (anglos) 'influential' families got up and left in disgust. This is why my family left our local SSPX chapels.
"A once a month sermon", That's it? And "a large majority" left in disgust?
That's not Catholic." Those people that walked out have not God's grace. What lack of fortitude, for I'm sure that the majority of those that walked out were just following one or two leaders (instigators).
Hey, if a sermon is lame, we all will tend to think of other things, though I try to keep it Catholic, maybe meditating about a passage in the gospel or in any other writing in the missal, or meditating on my own needs before God. What's the big deal about not listening/ tuning out a sermon in say Vietnamese once a month?
Those people who walked out are not Catholic.
Ii'm still in disbelief that it even happened Nadie!!!
-
Of course in crime statistics mestizos are counted as whites.
Are you sure about this? I would have thought everyone "South of the Border', even Brazilians, would be classified in the USA as "Hispanics".
-
Of course in crime statistics mestizos are counted as whites.
Are you sure about this? I would have thought everyone "South of the Border', even Brazilians, would be classified in the USA as "Hispanics".
Since there is no Hispanic category in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports and approximately 93 percent of Hispanics identify themselves, or are identified by law enforcement officers, as white, most arrests of Hispanics are added to white violent crime rates.
http://www.futurity.org/society-culture/skewed-stats-distort-black-crime-reports/
-
Fr. Hawker (of the Arcadia Priory) set up a once-a-month Spanish sermon to meet the needs of the Mexican and other Latino Catholics in the Colton, CA chapel (St. Joseph and IHM Chapel). During his sermon, a large majority of the (anglos) 'influential' families got up and left in disgust. This is why my family left our local SSPX chapels.
"A once a month sermon", That's it? And "a large majority" left in disgust?
That's not Catholic." Those people that walked out have not God's grace. What lack of fortitude, for I'm sure that the majority of those that walked out were just following one or two leaders (instigators).
Hey, if a sermon is lame, we all will tend to think of other things, though I try to keep it Catholic, maybe meditating about a passage in the gospel or in any other writing in the missal, or meditating on my own needs before God. What's the big deal about not listening/ tuning out a sermon in say Vietnamese once a month?
Those people who walked out are not Catholic.
Ii'm still in disbelief that it even happened Nadie!!!
It does not surprise me though. A strong personality can sway many (even the majority) to follow. Most people are cowardly sheeple afraid of words. I use real life occurances like this to show my children how to be strong, and to follow only truth.
"Wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.
Right is right even if no one is doing it." (Saint Augustine)
-
While it was certainly very wrong for those people to walk out, I can understand the feeling of those who believe that in the United States sermons should be in English unless the parish is specifically spanish speaking. It is a big deal for the English speaking members of the congregation to have to listen to a sermon in a foreign tongue once a month. It does feel like displacement.
It's mistaken to call it racism. If they were racists why would they go to mass with non-whites? Objecting to the language is not racism.
-
"Wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.
Right is right even if no one is doing it." (Saint Augustine)
A great quote, my favorite.
-
Of course in crime statistics mestizos are counted as whites.
Are you sure about this? I would have thought everyone "South of the Border', even Brazilians, would be classified in the USA as "Hispanics".
Since there is no Hispanic category in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports and approximately 93 percent of Hispanics identify themselves, or are identified by law enforcement officers, as white, most arrests of Hispanics are added to white violent crime rates.
http://www.futurity.org/society-culture/skewed-stats-distort-black-crime-reports/
I don't want to derail this thread, but from what I read, it sounds like they solved the problem of categorizing Hispanics as "White", by now re-categorizing them as "Black'.
When the researchers adjusted for the Hispanic effect, there was little overall change in the black percentage of violent crime.
The way I read the article: The black figures were low because they did not include Hispanics as it use to include, but now that they add Hispanics to Black, the crime rate is the same as has always been for "blacks".
-
There is No Such Thing as 'racism'.
Okay, what do YOU call it when someone hates someone else because of his or her race?
-
There is No Such Thing as 'racism'.
Okay, what do YOU call it when someone hates someone else because of his or her race?
According to roscoe, people have a God given right to dislike certain races.
A little roscoe-ology 101 for you...
-
While it was certainly very wrong for those people to walk out, I can understand the feeling of those who believe that in the United States sermons should be in English unless the parish is specifically spanish speaking. It is a big deal for the English speaking members of the congregation to have to listen to a sermon in a foreign tongue once a month. It does feel like displacement.
I disagree with you Telesphorus. Prior to the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church in the United States catered to different Catholics of many ethnic backgrounds by having the priests do the sermons in their native langue as well as Catholic hymns.
My Polish Catholic teacher who grew up with the traditional Latin Mass related to me that her parish gave Sunday sermons in Polish and English. Catholic hymns in her parish were sung in either Polish or English. She even stated this applied to the Czechs, Lithuanians, Italians and their respective dialects, Hungarian, German, etc. These European-American Catholics preserved their culture within their Catholic parish while remaining in their mother tongue, English.
When I was in the Novus Ordo, we had a Spanish, Chinese, and English sermons. Making our parish "multicultural" also increased the Catholic devotions that American Catholics seem alien to. We had Catholic fiestas, especially for the Santo Nino (Holy Child). In fact, we had Anglo-Americans who became devoted to the Infant Jesus of Prague as a result of sharing our Spanish Catholic culture to them.
We had no problem with the diversity because lots of the immigrants belonging to the older generations have difficulty comprehending "big words" in English. Imagine saying, "sanctification" or "propitiation" to an elderly Chinese Catholic who only knows basic communicative English skills.
During the pontificate of Pius XII, Cardinal James Francis McIntyre (the Metropolitan of Los Angeles & close friend of Cardinal Francis Spellman) had to increase the usage of Spanish sermons for the Filipino Catholic community because of their population increase within the Los Angeles archdiocese.
Here in the Philippines, we have American and Canadian priests giving sermons in English in the traditional Mass and they don't have any intention of learning how to speak Tagalog in my family's country which I find absurd. In the Novus Ordo, the foreign Western priests speak Tagalog in order to teach the Catholic Faith to their congregation and they adapt to the locals' culture.
-
Just because you are against Illegal Immigration does not make you a racist.
That is certainly true, I am opposed to illegal immigration myself. However, being unwilling to sit respectfully when priest delivers the sermon in Spanish, and to leave in disgust, is racism. The Church has to preach the Gospel to whomever sits in her pews, regardless of their immigration status. The fact that someone is is here illegally does not make them less precious to God.
All this is really beside the point, though. I don't recall anyone saying that the Hispanic people in the pews at this SSPX chapel were illegals.
-
I can understand the feeling of those who believe that in the United States sermons should be in English unless the parish is specifically Spanish speaking. It is a big deal for the English speaking members of the congregation to have to listen to a sermon in a foreign tongue once a month. It does feel like displacement.
As I understood it (and seen it done before) the sermon is done in English, then it is done in Spanish. Once a month is no big deal. I believe that you understood it to mean that the sermon was not done in English the Sunday that it was done in Spanish.
I don't see the big deal in reading something Catholic while the sermon is going on in an unintelligible language. The non-English speaking people do it all the time, and we all have to do it when we go abroad.
-
There is No Such Thing as 'racism'.
Okay, what do YOU call it when someone hates someone else because of his or her race?
According to roscoe, people have a God given right to dislike certain races.
A little roscoe-ology 101 for you...
That is so astoundingly far removed from anything that even resembles Catholicism that I am speechless.
Do I have a God given right to dislike people who abuse illegal drugs and suggest that mentally ill adolescents do the same?
-
I wrote a reply ealier to Telesphorus' resonse, feel free to give some input...
-
Nadie,
Thanks for your very informative and well-reasoned post above. I usually disagree with you, so I am happy to be able to give your post above a big "Amen".
I was once at a Mass (NO, as will be come obvious) celebrated by the pastor of the parish. The pastor went to seminary in Rome, and a priest from Africa who was a classmate of his was visiting, and concelebrated. It was a weekday Mass, with no music. As they processed in, some twit in front of me said out loud, to no one in particular, "I am not receiving Communion from some damned n*****. A woman in the pew next to me said to him, "Why don't you just leave?" He didn't. When the time came for Communion, this man was in the African priest's line. When he got there, he said something to the priest (I could not hear what he said) and stepped into the other priest's line. The white priest said something like, "You have insulted Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and in His priest. Leave now, and don't come to Communion again until you have repented and gone to confession."
That is how a priest behaves.
-
There is No Such Thing as 'racism'.
Okay, what do YOU call it when someone hates someone else because of his or her race?
Catholics should steer clear of calling anyone a racist. It is a communist method of smearing people and subduing them, a method used to divide racially diverse cultures specially the USA, and pit them one against the other.
When I was in High School I got ticked off by a black kid that hit me over the face with the shop broom, and I took it from him and broke it over his head and knocked him out. I was taken to the vice principal as a "racist", and they were going to expel me from the school. I never said a word and let the thing really get blown up by all the white teachers. Then the vp yelled at me, what's your story! All I said was: this jacket that that student pancaked with wood dust, this jacket was brought from Cuba by my father as the only "luggage" when we left.
I didn't get a chance to go any further, the vp asked, oh you are Cuban?. I said yes. He looked at me, and said, oh, went outside and told all the teachers. Everyone went back to class, and I was told to go to my next class. I was Cuban, I could not be "racist". What idiocy!
If another "white" person identical in looks to me, but an "American", or as they say "Anglo" did the same thing as I did, he would have been expelled as a racist and likely never allowed to return. When what he did was not race related at all.
This is America today. Catholics should not think the same way as "Americans".
-
While it was certainly very wrong for those people to walk out, I can understand the feeling of those who believe that in the United States sermons should be in English unless the parish is specifically spanish speaking. It is a big deal for the English speaking members of the congregation to have to listen to a sermon in a foreign tongue once a month. It does feel like displacement.
I disagree with you Telesphorus. Prior to the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church in the United States catered to different Catholics of many ethnic backgrounds by having the priests do the sermons in their native langue as well as Catholic hymns.
My Polish Catholic teacher who grew up with the traditional Latin Mass related to me that her parish gave Sunday sermons in Polish and English. Catholic hymns in her parish were sung in either Polish or English. She even stated this applied to the Czechs, Lithuanians, Italians and their respective dialects, Hungarian, German, etc. These European-American Catholics preserved their culture within their Catholic parish while remaining in their mother tongue, English.
When I was in the Novus Ordo, we had a Spanish, Chinese, and English sermons. Making our parish "multicultural" also increased the Catholic devotions that American Catholics seem alien to. We had Catholic fiestas, especially for the Santo Nino (Holy Child). In fact, we had Anglo-Americans who became devoted to the Infant Jesus of Prague as a result of sharing our Spanish Catholic culture to them.
We had no problem with the diversity because lots of the immigrants belonging to the older generations have difficulty comprehending "big words" in English. Imagine saying, "sanctification" or "propitiation" to an elderly Chinese Catholic who only knows basic communicative English skills.
During the pontificate of Pius XII, Cardinal James Francis McIntyre (the Metropolitan of Los Angeles & close friend of Cardinal Francis Spellman) had to increase the usage of Spanish sermons for the Filipino Catholic community because of their population increase within the Los Angeles archdiocese.
Here in the Philippines, we have American and Canadian priests giving sermons in English in the traditional Mass and they don't have any intention of learning how to speak Tagalog in my family's country which I find absurd. In the Novus Ordo, the foreign Western priests speak Tagalog in order to teach the Catholic Faith to their congregation and they adapt to the locals' culture.
-
While it was certainly very wrong for those people to walk out, I can understand the feeling of those who believe that in the United States sermons should be in English unless the parish is specifically spanish speaking. It is a big deal for the English speaking members of the congregation to have to listen to a sermon in a foreign tongue once a month. It does feel like displacement.
I disagree with you Telesphorus. Prior to the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church in the United States catered to different Catholics of many ethnic backgrounds by having the priests do the sermons in their native langue as well as Catholic hymns.
My Polish Catholic teacher who grew up with the traditional Latin Mass related to me that her parish gave Sunday sermons in Polish and English. Catholic hymns in her parish were sung in either Polish or English. She even stated this applied to the Czechs, Lithuanians, Italians and their respective dialects, Hungarian, German, etc. These European-American Catholics preserved their culture within their Catholic parish while remaining in their mother tongue, English.
When I was in the Novus Ordo, we had a Spanish, Chinese, and English sermons. Making our parish "multicultural" also increased the Catholic devotions that American Catholics seem alien to. We had Catholic fiestas, especially for the Santo Nino (Holy Child). In fact, we had Anglo-Americans who became devoted to the Infant Jesus of Prague as a result of sharing our Spanish Catholic culture to them.
We had no problem with the diversity because lots of the immigrants belonging to the older generations have difficulty comprehending "big words" in English. Imagine saying, "sanctification" or "propitiation" to an elderly Chinese Catholic who only knows basic communicative English skills.
During the pontificate of Pius XII, Cardinal James Francis McIntyre (the Metropolitan of Los Angeles & close friend of Cardinal Francis Spellman) had to increase the usage of Spanish sermons for the Filipino Catholic community because of their population increase within the Los Angeles archdiocese.
Here in the Philippines, we have American and Canadian priests giving sermons in English in the traditional Mass and they don't have any intention of learning how to speak Tagalog in my family's country which I find absurd. In the Novus Ordo, the foreign Western priests speak Tagalog in order to teach the Catholic Faith to their congregation and they adapt to the locals' culture.
In the little (very Catholic) town I grew up in, each of the three churches had a clear ethnic identity. (Irish, German, and Slovak). In the larger town nearby there were parishes of every ethnicity and rite. We got along fine in my little town. We went to each others festivals and patronal feasts, went to Forty Hours devotions in each others churches.The Slovak church did not have a school, and their kids went to school at one of the other parishes.
I am a little surprised that the SSPX priest there won't even attempt to learn Tagalog.
-
That is so astoundingly far removed from anything that even resembles Catholicism that I am speechless.
Do I have a God given right to dislike people who abuse illegal drugs and suggest that mentally ill adolescents do the same?
I agree with you, Sigismund. But remember, this IS roscoe we're talking about...
-
Nadie,
I understand why you objected to being characterized as a racist in the exchange you described. It was silly of the principal to do so. Are you saying that there is nothing that can be accurately described as racism out there. If I hate you because you are Latino, or black, or white or Asian or whatever, why isn't that racist?
-
If I hate you because you are Latino, or black, or white or Asian or whatever, why isn't that racist?
Do you think not wanting to sit through a Spanish sermon is necessarily racist?
-
Not necessarily racist, no. I would not particularly want to sit through a sermon in a foreign language. I have, though, when I have attended Mass in other countries. My desire to receive the Sacrament, and my respect for my Sunday obligation, easily won out.
I am not disturbed that these people preferred to hear a sermon in their own language. I am disturbed that they walked out in disgust. I am disturbed that they were not sufficiently concerned about their fellow Catholics who could not understand the sermon in English to offer up this very small sacrifice for their good and spiritual instruction.
-
If someone calls me a racist...I ask them why they are calling me a racist. If they can't give me a good reason...then I look at them and say "your just saying that because I am white"
-
I am not disturbed that these people preferred to hear a sermon in their own language.
Yes, as I said, walking out was very wrong, but not like Spanish sermons doesn't necessarily betoken "racism."
-
Nadie,
I understand why you objected to being characterized as a racist in the exchange you described. It was silly of the principal to do so. Are you saying that there is nothing that can be accurately described as racism out there. If I hate you because you are Latino, or black, or white or Asian or whatever, why isn't that racist?
I just would steer clear of calling a Catholic, a racist. Give them the benefit of the doubt. Don't jump to conclusions.
A kind of analogous technique that I use when people get violent with me (face to face), is to act as if I don't understand what they are doing, usually, they will just leave me alone since they see that I'm not scared at all. But if they are really intent on harming me, and anyone is watching, after hearing me be verbally abused for so long, the witnesses will testify that they would have acted the same way as I (break a broom over their head), LONG before I did. Actually in 30 years of using this technique the result has always been that "they will just leave me alone since they see that I'm not scared at all", so don't conclude that I'm some bar room brawler.
Give them every opportunity to explain themselves, ask them all manner of questions. If you finally conclude that they really are racist, by that time "the witnesses will testify that they would have concluded the same way LONG before you did".
The biggest source of a mis-diagnoses of racism in Americans is that they don't know how to differentiate class difference from racial difference. It is the biggest sources of error. Scarcely any Americans realize this. Class difference is the source of "discomfort?" (nothing in common?) between people, not race. A upper class white baptist would be more at home with an upper class Latino, than he would be with a lower class white baptist. The worst scenario of "discomfort" would be the combination of an upper class white baptist with a lower class Latino, and similarly an upper class Latino, with a lower class white baptist. The "discomfort" is mutual between upper and lower classes. The lower class Latino does not feel comfortable around upper class Latinos, just like a lower class white baptist would not feel "at home" with an upper class white baptist.
-
I am not disturbed that these people preferred to hear a sermon in their own language.
Yes, as I said, walking out was very wrong, but not like Spanish sermons doesn't necessarily betoken "racism."
Nor does it exclude it. But this is besides the point Tele. Its funny you don't call these particular SSPXers cultish in their actions as you usually do at almost every available opportunity............
Racism or not, the fact is is that these actions are not Catholic. Would you find the same treatment from those races of color, or color mixed (not necessarily black, but mexicans, filipinos, american indians, etc) persons? I don't think so. Its many of those peoples whose relatives and bloodlines have strong ties to Anglo Protestantism who seem to react in this way (some German Catholics for example) and favor and support these actions.
-
While it was certainly very wrong for those people to walk out, I can understand the feeling of those who believe that in the United States sermons should be in English unless the parish is specifically spanish speaking. It is a big deal for the English speaking members of the congregation to have to listen to a sermon in a foreign tongue once a month. It does feel like displacement.
I disagree with you Telesphorus. Prior to the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church in the United States catered to different Catholics of many ethnic backgrounds by having the priests do the sermons in their native langue as well as Catholic hymns.
My Polish Catholic teacher who grew up with the traditional Latin Mass related to me that her parish gave Sunday sermons in Polish and English. Catholic hymns in her parish were sung in either Polish or English. She even stated this applied to the Czechs, Lithuanians, Italians and their respective dialects, Hungarian, German, etc. These European-American Catholics preserved their culture within their Catholic parish while remaining in their mother tongue, English.
When I was in the Novus Ordo, we had a Spanish, Chinese, and English sermons. Making our parish "multicultural" also increased the Catholic devotions that American Catholics seem alien to. We had Catholic fiestas, especially for the Santo Nino (Holy Child). In fact, we had Anglo-Americans who became devoted to the Infant Jesus of Prague as a result of sharing our Spanish Catholic culture to them.
We had no problem with the diversity because lots of the immigrants belonging to the older generations have difficulty comprehending "big words" in English. Imagine saying, "sanctification" or "propitiation" to an elderly Chinese Catholic who only knows basic communicative English skills.
During the pontificate of Pius XII, Cardinal James Francis McIntyre (the Metropolitan of Los Angeles & close friend of Cardinal Francis Spellman) had to increase the usage of Spanish sermons for the Filipino Catholic community because of their population increase within the Los Angeles archdiocese.
Here in the Philippines, we have American and Canadian priests giving sermons in English in the traditional Mass and they don't have any intention of learning how to speak Tagalog in my family's country which I find absurd. In the Novus Ordo, the foreign Western priests speak Tagalog in order to teach the Catholic Faith to their congregation and they adapt to the locals' culture.
請問你會說國語嗎？或粵語？我忘了在菲律賓華僑說什麼。對不起我國語說得不好！
-
Nor does it exclude it. But this is besides the point Tele. Its funny you don't call these particular SSPXers cultish in their actions as you usually do at almost every available opportunity............
Actually s2rea, I think I made it clear I thought their actions were very wrong. I was even going to suggest it might be Birchers responsible, but since I had no evidence, I said nothing. I also think the reaction of the SSPX to the situation was very unfortunate and unprincipled. The fact remains that there certainly can be reason to object to having one's sermons in a foreign tongue in one's own country. That's the thing that doesn't seem to compute with you.
Racism or not, the fact is is that these actions are not Catholic. Would you find the same treatment from those races of color, or color mixed (not necessarily black, but mexicans, filipinos, american indians, etc) persons?
No, but I will be honest, I don't think I will ever be in a situation where I am in a non-English speaking country and hear the priest speak give sermons in English for my benefit outside of an English speaking congregation.
I don't think so. Its many of those peoples whose relatives and bloodlines have strong ties to Anglo Protestantism who seem to react in this way (some German Catholics for example) and favor and support these actions.
I don't think that's necessarily the case. I like how you throw in "some German Catholics"
You know s2rea, my ancestors had their own parishes, and they were forced to stop speaking their language. Let's see how you Spanish speakers react if that were done to you.
-
Maybe it's because racism is a BS Marxist term?
-
The fact remains that there certainly can be reason to object to having one's sermons in a foreign tongue in one's own country. That's the thing that doesn't seem to compute with you.
Thats almost funny. You act as if this is Christendom and everything is normal in the world. C'mon telesphorous. People need spiritual nourishment, especially nowadays.
No, but I will be honest, I don't think I will ever be in a situation where I am in a non-English speaking country and hear the priest speak give sermons in English for my benefit outside of an English speaking congregation.
You've also never been in a situation where you're a Mexican who is forced to cross borders in order to feed your family when you're at a point that you could care less what is illegal or not.
You know s2rea, my ancestors had their own parishes, and they were forced to stop speaking their language. Let's see how you Spanish speakers react if that were done to you.
And I can sympathize with that and call it wrong because it was Tele. But I'm trying to be relevant to the situation these people are in.
-
Maybe it's because racism is a BS Marxist term?
It may be a Marxist term, but there are people out there who hate others of differing races... if you tell me the term, I'll use it to be more proper.
-
The fact remains that there certainly can be reason to object to having one's sermons in a foreign tongue in one's own country. That's the thing that doesn't seem to compute with you.
Thats almost funny. You act as if this is Christendom and everything is normal in the world. C'mon telesphorous. People need spiritual nourishment, especially nowadays.
No, but I will be honest, I don't think I will ever be in a situation where I am in a non-English speaking country and hear the priest speak give sermons in English for my benefit outside of an English speaking congregation.
You've also never been in a situation where you're a Mexican who is forced to cross borders in order to feed your family when you're at a point that you could care less what is illegal or not.
You know s2rea, my ancestors had their own parishes, and they were forced to stop speaking their language. Let's see how you Spanish speakers react if that were done to you.
And I can sympathize with that and call it wrong because it was Tele. But I'm trying to be relevant to the situation these people are in.
I think your responses in this thread are not particularly logical because this issue obviously had a serious effect on you.
As for the point about illegals, I'm not going to judge their intentions, but I'm not going to agree to the idea that the laws of this country are to be disregarded so they can come here. And as I said, it's natural to want to hear sermons in your own national language. Not a foreign language. So if we want to understand the motivations of those who walked out, you should try to recognize that it is opposition to having their own language supplanted in their own land and place of worship.
-
I think your responses in this thread are not particularly logical because this issue obviously had a serious effect on you.
As for the point about illegals, I'm not going to judge their intentions, but I'm not going to agree to the idea that the laws of this country are to be disregarded so they can come here. And as I said, it's natural to want to hear sermons in your own national language. Not a foreign language. So if we want to understand the motivations of those who walked out, you should try to recognize that it is opposition to having their own language supplanted in their own land and place of worship.
Oh geez Tele. Of course it has a serious affect on me; my own family has lived through it. But just because it can stir emotion doesn't remove my ability to remain logical. When you got upset over how you were treated in the past, did it affect your logic?
And who's talking about what's "natural" to hear or not? We're talking about masonic government's (our's in particular) taking advantage of other countries (with the help of THEIR masonic governments) and peoples. If someone can ignore that, it doesn't make them racist, just daft.
-
Oh geez Tele. Of course it has a serious affect on me; my own family has lived through it. But just because it can stir emotion doesn't remove my ability to remain logical. When you got upset over how you were treated in the past, did it affect your logic?
I'm pointing out that you're not responding to my point as to their motivations. If you want to see their motivations as having no natural basis and instead being based on hatred then you aren't being fair. You took it as a terrible slight that they walked out. It seems to me the real disgrace was the reaction of the SSPX, and that the foolish acts of those who walked out are of relatively minor consequence, except that the SSPX caved to them.
And who's talking about what's "natural" to hear or not? We're talking about masonic government's (our's in particular) taking advantage of other countries (with the help of THEIR masonic governments) and peoples. If someone can ignore that, it doesn't make them racist, just daft.
Our government is letting them in opposition to popular will. That causes resentment.
-
Okay, good night Tele. Too tired to respond now. God bless brother.
-
And as I said, it's natural to want to hear sermons in your own national language. Not a foreign language.
Oh, please. The United States and its people didn't play by the rules in taking all of that land from Mexico; now they are expecting different behaviour from Mexicans and whining about how it is "American" land that belongs to "Americans," who, it should be noted, are expected to speak the English language. One cannot have it two ways. Either the principles of the US are universal and apply to everybody, or it is nothing but an over-ambitious Anglo-Protestant, Masonic country that has invaded and squatted on other peoples' land. As far as I am concerned, the imperial jurisdictions on this side of the Appalachians are simply large scale modular housing schemes for industrial- and service-oriented migrant workers and their families. It doesn't seem like the US has ever pretended to be much more than a rude Anglo syndicate that doesn't play by its own the rules and fumes when others do the same. They don't have the necessary luxury of being in Massachusetts for them to complain about "foreign" languages; not in California or Texas or New Mexico or Arizona, anyway.
So if we want to understand the motivations of those who walked out, you should try to recognize that it is opposition to having their own language supplanted in their own land and place of worship.
It's a Catholic place of worship. As for whose land it is and what it means for any land to be "American," well, that's rather debatable. The US has always represented itself as an exception to the natural associations the constitute every other country in history; thus, it also does not qualify for the deference to customary law and ownership that every country based on natural associations does.
-
Oh, please. The United States and its people didn't play by the rules in taking all of that land from Mexico.
You may not respect America's borders, but that hardly bears on what language Americans wish to hear their sermons in.
It's a Catholic place of worship. As for whose land it is and what it means for any land to be "American," well, that's rather negotiable.
It's pretty clear that it's not negotiable to those who encroach on it. They have nothing but insults for anyone who discusses the topic.
The US has always represented itself as an exception to the natural associations the constitute every other country in history;
"The US has always represented itself" - oh brother, it really is impossible to talk to silly French people. I've learned that the hard way. The US has a nationality and the people have a right to that nationality. Your curt dismissal of that right to nationality based on the universalist propaganda that has become ever more anti-national over the years is unworthy of consideration. In the same way it's unworthy of consideration in France and Germany.
thus, it also does not qualify for the deference to customary law and ownership that every country based on natural associations does.
All nationalities have national prerogatives except Americans.
Very similar to the idea that only white countries must accept colored migration.
And very pathetic.
-
Oh, please. The United States and its people didn't play by the rules in taking all of that land from Mexico.
You may not respect America's borders...
I just want to clarify that I dissent from your insistence upon using the word "America" as a synonym for the United States.
...but that hardly bears on what language Americans wish to hear their sermons in.
The wishes of these Anglo-Americans hardly bear on whether or not Spanish-speaking Catholics should be provided with sermons in Spanish.
It's pretty clear that it's not negotiable to those who encroach on it. They have nothing but insults for anyone who discusses the topic.
"Encroach." That's kind of begging the question, no ? As for feeling insulted, well, if somebody believes he is being encroached upon and another doesn't, he might feel as if he is being insulted while the supposed encroacher is not aware of any insult on his part.
"The US has always represented itself" - oh brother, it really is impossible to talk to silly French people. I've learned that the hard way. The US has a nationality and the people have a right to that nationality.
Sure, I don't deny that the US is a real country; just not on this side of the Appalachians.
Your curt dismissal of that right to nationality based on the universalist propaganda that has become ever more anti-national over the years is unworthy of consideration.
My dismissal of US propaganda is not based on any universalist propaganda. As for whether or not my dismissal is worthy of consideration, well, you say no and I say yes; we are at an impasse.
All nationalities have national prerogatives except Americans.
United-Statesians have the typical national prerogatives within their own original, pre-imperial, natural borders. But, even then, the US has based itself explicitly on unnatural and speculative foundations, retroactively applied to the thirteen English colonies though this basis might be. Upon this false basis's utter failure, the normal prerogatives and privileges that might be extended to a country should not be extended.
Very similar to the idea that only white countries must accept colored migration.
Not at all. I don't believe in your silly and incoherent usage of the spurious concept of "whiteness," nor the corresponding term "colored." Likewise, I don't believe in the Marxist ideology you seem to enjoy assigning me. The US is a liberal, artificial collective, not a real country in any traditional sense of that term. Sorry, but your talking points about whiteness and language, borders, culture (and so on) don't really apply here.
United-Statesians cannot both eat their cake and have it, too.
-
Worst case they can take a nap while the sermon is done, once a month in Spanish.
By the way, a more common occurance is to hear a sermon EVERY SUNDAY in bad accent English, by a Frenchman, Latin American, or Aussie, and not understand much of anything, to the point where your mind just shuts off from the overload. This happens all the time and everywhere in the SSPX. That is MUCH worse than a sermon in Spanish once a month.
And I can speak English and Spanish, and am very patient with trying to understand bad English, as I have traveled all over the world on business and HAD to listen and understand. Unlike a sermon, which in the end won't cost you money if you didn't understand it right, or at all.
-
Worst case they can take a nap while the sermon is done, once a month in Spanish.
That's not the point Nadie. I agree completely that walking out was wrong, but that's not the point.
By the way, a more common occurance is to hear a sermon EVERY SUNDAY in bad accent English, by a Frenchman, Latin American, or Aussie, and not understand much of anything, to the point where your mind just shuts off from the overload.
The sermons can be understood.
This happens all the time and everywhere in the SSPX. That is MUCH worse than a sermon in Spanish once a month.
English speaking Catholics wanted sermons in the English language in an American Church. Now you can talk all day that it isn't a big deal but they have an understandable motive for being discontent.
And I can speak English and Spanish, and am very patient with trying to understand bad English, as I have traveled all over the world on business and HAD to listen and understand. Unlike a sermon, which in the end won't cost you money if you didn't understand it right, or at all.
Yes, you can, and people who live in the United States should be able to speak and understand English.
-
nadie said:
By the way, a more common occurance is to hear a sermon EVERY SUNDAY in bad accent English, by a Frenchman, Latin American, or Aussie, and not understand much of anything, to the point where your mind just shuts off from the overload.
Tele responded: The sermons can be understood.
Nadie answers: I was there with those "bad accent" English sermons, I said they were unintelligble. If they are unintelligible, they can't be understood, just the same as Spanish to you. There is no difference unintelligible is unintelligble.
Tele said: English speaking Catholics wanted sermons in the English language in an American Church. Now you can talk all day that it isn't a big deal but they have an understandable motive for being discontent.
nadie responds: They do hear the sermon in English, so what are you complaining about? The sermon is done in English every Sunday, and then one one Sunday it is ALSO done in Spanish.
I don't get you. If the same thing was done to me in Syrian, I would not mind at all.
Tele wrote: people who live in the United States should be able to speak and understand English.
nadie responds: Boy I've heard this a million times in my life in Miami. Sorry, but it is totally Protestant, it's not Catholic. It is idiotic. There are people who are uneducted, illiterate, hard headed, old etc, who have difficulty with foreign language. I dare say that Americans are the WORST at learning any foreign language, and yet they want ALL foreignors to speak English only? It's crazy. Take educated Americans and move them to Poland and not one will learn Polish. Comparitively speaking it is amazing how an illiterate in Spanish ,Mexican peon, can come to the USA and learn English, which they ultimately do.
A sermon in Spanish once a month or even every week if the congregation has enough non-English parishioners, is not big deal.
-
Worst case they can take a nap while the sermon is done, once a month in Spanish.
That's not the point Nadie. I agree completely that walking out was wrong, but that's not the point.
It's more worthy of consideration than some rah-rah US nativist nonsense. Either the US is a melting pot or it's a country for and by Anglo-Germanic people exclusively.
English speaking Catholics wanted sermons in the English language in an American Church.
"American Church" ? Maybe they should join the Southern Baptists or the Episcopalians or something. As far as I know, there is no "American" language. Anyway, there are (or perhaps were) multiple languages at that Southern California SSPX parish. It seems like English-speaking Catholics wanted and English sermon and Spanish-speaking Catholics wanted a Spanish sermon, the priests were willing to please both parties, and the English-speaking Americatholics threw a hissy fit about having to hear Spanish in Southern California, forcing the SSPX to, somewhat predictably, buckle to their political and economic pressure. You are acting as if the English-speaking Catholics are in the first tier of chapel-goers and the Spanish-speaking ones are in the second-tier. Why ? They just are, they just don't get as much say, because... they just don't. They're not Uh-murrican.
Now you can talk all day that it isn't a big deal but they have an understandable motive for being discontent.
It's easy to understand how wrong they are, too.
Yes, you can, and people who live in the United States should be able to speak and understand English.
I knew it was going here.
To be brief, no, people who live in the United States are under no obligation whatsoever to speak and understand English. Sioux need not speak English. Acadians need not speak English. New Mexicans and other Spanish need not speak English. Perhaps the people who immigrated to the US, knowing it was an English-speaking country, are under some sort of obligation of common fairness to learn/speak English. But Acadians, New Mexicans, the various Indian tribes, and the Mexicans returning to their ancestral land that was acquired and occupied by the US under circuмstances of incredibly questionable legality, should not be expected, pressured, or forced to speak English. What about the Gullahs, too. Their language developed alongside so-called "American English." They shouldn't be expected to speak a language besides Gullah, either.
And, if the US is honest about being a melting pot or possessing universal principles, nobody should be expected to conform to the Anglo-Protestant culture and its language, etc. But, since the US is serially dishonest about all that and instead expects everybody to dress, think, and act like WASPs, they should either stop pretending otherwise or they should stop complaining about people not speaking the local language of New England. Southern California, North and South Dakota, Louisiana, Northern Maine, etc. -- these places are not their country; it is wrong when United-Statesians say "our country" and "our language" in reference to any place but the strip of land between the Appalachians and the Atlantic Ocean.
Anyway, I am curious, why should everybody within the US's imperial dominion speak the language of the imperial capital and the home country of the empire ? What gives force to the "should" ? Is it a moral obligation or what kind of obligation is it ?
-
It's more worthy of consideration than some rah-rah US nativist nonsense. Either the US is a melting pot or it's a country for and by Anglo-Germanic people exclusively.
It's for the people who live here and who constitute the core ethnicity to determine who comes here. That's a universal principle of self-determination.
"Either it's a melting pot or for Anglo-Germanic people exclusively."
This is just another dumb comment. Either it's this or that? Who said? It's the legitimate right of the people who have lived here, whose ancestors built the country to decide what they want and to act within their rights and power to that end.
We all know what your response is going to that is going to be: everyone but Americans have rights. Very well, you ally yourself with the naked aggression of foreigners who have absolutely no respect for this country or its national sovereignty. In that sense you're right in lock-step with the Jews.
Of course, the bottom line is that you don't recognize anything American as having legitimacy, that is simply hatred of America and a disregard for its rights, which is the default mode of PC leftists and those on the right who think it gives them some sort of credibility to bash America
-
Nadie answers: I was there with those "bad accent" English sermons, I said they were unintelligble.
Some priests need to speak better English, but by and large they can be understood. Saying Australian priests can't be understood - I don't buy it. Also, it's the responsiblity of older folks to get hearing aids.
If they are unintelligible, they can't be understood, just the same as Spanish to you. There is no difference unintelligible is unintelligble.
That's a ridiculous statement. You have zero credibility in saying that.
nadie responds: They do hear the sermon in English, so what are you complaining about? The sermon is done in English every Sunday, and then one one Sunday it is ALSO done in Spanish.
Another ridiculous statement, saying that every Sunday excludes 25% of Sundays.
I don't get you. If the same thing was done to me in Syrian, I would not mind at all.
Like I've said before I wouldn't expect foreigners to have sermons in English for my benefit every fourth Sunday.
Tele wrote: people who live in the United States should be able to speak and understand English.
nadie responds: Boy I've heard this a million times in my life in Miami. Sorry, but it is totally Protestant, it's not Catholic. It is idiotic.
English in and of itself doesn't have a religious orientation. The US may not be Catholic, but it does have a language. Those who don't like the national language of Americans should keep to their own people and their own parishes.
There are people who are uneducted, illiterate, hard headed, old etc, who have difficulty with foreign language. I dare say that Americans are the WORST at learning any foreign language, and yet they want ALL foreignors to speak English only? It's crazy.
I don't object to foreigners expecting me to speak their language in their lands. It really is common sense. People who cannot adapt to living here can remain in their ethnic communities and ethnic churches.
Take educated Americans and move them to Poland and not one will learn Polish. Comparitively speaking it is amazing how an illiterate in Spanish ,Mexican peon, can come to the USA and learn English, which they ultimately do.
Polish is a very difficult language. Anyway, that's beside the point. I don't object to foreigners expecting people settling in their land to learn the language of that land. The practicality of that, when so many foreigners already speak English, is a major reason that there is little motivation for Americans to learn. There's nothing wrong in keeping a strong motivation for foreigners to learn the native language of the country they're settling in.
A sermon in Spanish once a month or even every week if the congregation has enough non-English parishioners, is not big deal.
This is the United States. If people the people want sermons in their national language, they have a legitimate reason to demonstrate a strong preference for it. Certainly not to walk out of mass, but they have a strong justification for their preference.
-
It's more worthy of consideration than some rah-rah US nativist nonsense. Either the US is a melting pot or it's a country for and by Anglo-Germanic people exclusively.
It's for the people who live here and who constitute the core ethnicity to determine who comes here. That's a universal principle of self-determination.
Core ethnicity, eh ? Which one is that ? Where is the list of "universal principles" ? Now you are beginning to sound like Woodrow Wilson.
This is just another dumb comment. Either it's this or that? Who said?
Logical consistency said.
It's the legitimate right of the people who have lived here, whose ancestors built the country to decide what they want and to act within their rights and power to that end.
Then I guess the Mexicans get to decide what language is spoken and the parasitic Anglophone United Statesians don't, since the Mexicans are the only thing close to the core ethnicity in Southern California and they built it, whereas the Yankees have contributed very little to the land and have actually, more or less, destroyed it. Unless you think that a people need not have any bond whatsoever with the land they are living on, and that they can treat it as hostile and ruin it as much as they want and still claim it as their own, even if they are interlopers on it themselves, I don't see how you can really say that the English-speakers "built Southern California." It looks more like rude exploitation to me. Besides, the English-speakers are not a single ethnicity and therefore lose on that front. And for the record, I dissent from your use of "rights" language and your implication that there are universal human rights of any kind.
We all know what your response is going to that is going to be: everyone but Americans have rights.
Outside of their narrow strip of land, United-Statesians are part of an imperial venture. In a struggle for solidification of a conquest, nobody gets to complain when their victims don't surrender. That's how the game works. Sorry if you were expecting the rules to apply to one side but not the other. The US gained most of its current claimed land through aggression and invasive settlement; they therefore have no moral power to complain when others do the same back to them. As for the Mexicans in California -- they're not even pursuing invasive settlement aggressively, they're simply re-settling in the lands of their ancestors, which currently are occupied by an imperial régime and its migrant industrial and agricultural workers and/or colonists. They are committing no crime by not wishing to join the régime that invaded and partaking in the mentality and camaraderie and culture of the colonists.
Very well, you ally yourself with the naked aggression of foreigners who have absolutely no respect for this country or its national sovereignty.
I ally myself with order and law being brought to North America; you are right, I do have no respect for the mythos of the United States and its propaganda narratives. I respect it as being given legitimate authority in the places where it has been given authority, but I also think that God gave it this as a harsh punishment of the human race. The Anglo-American Establishment of the past two hundred years has been the scourge of Christendom, the purifying fire of servitude and destruction. Being from one of the pre-imperial autochthonous peoples myself, I have nothing but sympathy for the Mexicans and encourage them to not let their children learn English if they can tough it out.
In that sense you're right in lock-step with the Jews.
I am on the side of Christendom and against the destruction of morals, the spread of dissorder and falsehood, and the ruination of God's creation. The United States and its associated English-speaking bureaucrats and colonists are a force for the destruction of morality, the destruction of order, the spread of falsehood, the spread of the love of riches, and the devastation of God's creation. So, you tell me who advances the Jews' agenda better. As far as what the Jews themselves think, it seems like very few of them would not count the US as their greatest ally and weapon.
Of course, the bottom line is that you don't recognize anything American as having legitimacy...
What does that term mean if you really analyze it -- "American" ? It seems to have about as much accuracy and meaning as "civilisation," that is to say, it is a corruption of language. I don't share the ideology of those who use either word in the way you and Man of the West do, so you will have to be more precise. If you think that I am going to cowtow to English nationalist myths, or English ideology, or the Enlightenment, or the public school propaganda of the US government, then you should think again.
...that is simply hatred of America and a disregard for its rights, which is the default mode of PC leftists and those on the right who think it gives them some sort of credibility to bash America
Well, I can assure you that I am not intellectually indebted in any way to political correctness. Likewise, I don't need to use and do not use political correctness to help my case.
-
That's a ridiculous statement. You have zero credibility in saying that.
Since he speaks Spanish, it seems like he has a lot of credibility in saying it.
English in and of itself doesn't have a religious orientation.
No, five hundred years of Protestant language and usage haven't affected it in the slightest ?
The US may not be Catholic, but it does have a language.
So ?
Those who don't like the national language of Americans should keep to their own people and their own parishes.
You sound like somebody who has been perfectly indoctrinated, repeating all of your mantras like "Americans" and "national" and "foreigner," and so forth. You still have not given any reason to believe that the term "American" is a coherent, meaningful word outside of the devotion given to its cult.
People who cannot adapt to living here can remain in their ethnic communities and ethnic churches.
The "here" in question is Southern California, which is full of Mexicans. The SSPX is an international priestly fraternity. It is ridiculous to expect them to bow before the blind prejudices of US company men at the expense of the souls of the Catholic faithful.
Polish is a very difficult language.
Especially for an Américain, though.
There's nothing wrong in keeping a strong motivation for foreigners to learn the native language of the country they're settling in.
The native language of Southern California is Spanish. It's just ridiculous to pretend otherwise. Outside of the narrow strip between the Appalachians and the Atlantic, the US has no "native" language. You are treating the US like it is a real country just like all the others, but it simply isn't, no matter how many times the mantras are sung or how deep of a meditative state the United-Statesians go into in front of their idols (US flag, Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Statue of Liberty, etc.). Reality is still there outside of the mantras and the mythoi and the cults.
This is the United States.
Negotiable. It depends on what one means.
-
The 'Anglo' ( of which there really is No Such Thing) populations of the world( regardless of their physical location) are no different than the pagan v2 anti-church worshipping Mexicans of today. America belongs to neither of them.
-
To be clear, I am referring to Prot 'Anglos'.
-
nadieimportante said:
I was there with those "bad accent" English sermons, I said they were unintelligble. If they are unintelligible, they can't be understood, just the same as Spanish to you. There is no difference unintelligible is unintelligble.
tele reponded: That's a ridiculous statement. You have zero credibility in saying that. Some priests need to speak better English, but by and large they can be understood. Saying Australian priests can't be understood - I don't buy it. Also, it's the responsiblity of older folks to get hearing aids.
nadie responds:
I speak two languages. I made a living working with overseas clients, and traveling all over the world. If I say I find it excruciating to listen to a "bad accent in English" sermon, I think I know what I am saying. Saying I have zero credibility for saying that, just highlights to me that you are a young hothead, with zero experience in life. You should really learn to control your childish outbursts.
nadie said: They do hear the sermon in English, so what are you complaining about? The sermon is done in English every Sunday, and then one one Sunday it is ALSO done in Spanish.
tele responds: Another ridiculous statement, saying that every Sunday excludes 25% of Sundays.
Nadie responds: - Your math is wrong. It shows me that you did not understand what I've said 5 or more times.
According to how it was explained, the parishioners received the sermon in English every Sunday, that's 100% sermons in English HEARD. Then in addition, on one Sunday, the sermon which was read in English, was repeated, but in Spanish for those that do not understand English. Do you understand now?
tele wrote:
I don't object to foreigners expecting me to speak their language in their lands. It really is common sense. People who cannot adapt to living here can remain in their ethnic communities and ethnic churches.
Nadie respond: Wow, what an childish comment. They're SSPXers, they're lucky if they have AN SSPX MASS within 500 miles. Have you ever been to a foreign country and had to speak the language? If they treated you the same way that you speak here, you'd be crying in the streets.
nadie wrote:
Take educated Americans and move them to Poland and not one will learn Polish. Comparitively speaking it is amazing how an illiterate in Spanish, Mexican peon, can come to the USA and learn English, which they ultimately do.
tele responds: Polish is a very difficult language.
Nadie asks: and English is not? You should really stick to a subject that you know something about. You are a very difficult person, set in your ways.
Even though you are like 32, "eres un viejo de calzoncillos largo" ( you are an old man set in his ways, that still wears long john underwear). You need to find yourself a nice Spanish beauty to soften your sharp edges.
-
:applause: Si, exactamente !
-
I speak two languages. I made a living working with overseas clients, and traveling all over the world. If I say I find it excruciating to listen to a "bad accent in English" sermon, I think I know what I am saying. Saying I have zero credibility for saying that, just highlights to me that you are a young hothead, with zero experience in life. You should really learn to control your childish outbursts.
No Nadie, you just have no credibility in saying that a bad accent English sermon is equivalent to a foreign language sermon. The fact that you resort to attacking me personally just shows that you know what you're saying is ridiculous. Well sticking out your chest doesn't make your being ridiculous any less ridiculous. And are you suggesting that the English sermons at this particular parish were not comprehensible compared to the Spanish? You see you're just talking irrelevant hot air.
Nadie responds: - Your math is wrong. It shows me that you did not understand what I've said 5 or more times.
LOL. Okay. Let me guess, you sell people things saying they will have something "every month" then later you concede "except for three times a year" and then you get indignant when they suggest you're not being straight. I suppose with enough chutzpah that technique works.
According to how it was explained,
No, that's not how it was explained.
There are so many wasp-influenced/ neo-cons in the SSPX (US), at least where I live, it gets annoying. Fr. Hawker (of the Arcadia Priory) set up a once-a-month Spanish sermon to meet the needs of the Mexican and other Latino Catholics in the Colton, CA chapel (St. Joesph and IHM Chapel). During his sermon, a large majority of the (anglos) 'influential' families got up and left in disgust. This is why my family left our local SSPX chapels.
the parishioners received the sermon in English every Sunday, that's 100% sermons in English HEARD.
And yet you're still clinging to the argument that bad accent English is equivalent to Spanish, because it's apparent you were arguing the situation where Spanish is substituted for English. You must be very practiced at the bait and switch. Seems to be a common technique among certain "Catholics." Indeed I can see the appeal of Feeneyism to certain Romance language speakers.
Then in addition, on one Sunday, the sermon which was read in English, was repeated, but in Spanish for those that do not understand English. Do you understand now?
Perhaps that was the case, but frankly I don't believe an SSPX chapel would have two half-hour sermons the same day.
Nadie respond: Wow, what an childish comment.
Not submitting to the demands of your ethnicity is not childish.
They're SSPXers, they're lucky if they have AN SSPX MASS within 500 miles. Have you ever been to a foreign country and had to speak the language? If they treated you the same way that you speak here, you'd be crying in the streets.
I have a feeling that the way you act is far more likely to leave people dying in the streets than the way act. I would say that because if I go to Latin America I am far more likely to find people dying in the streets, whereas in this country, Latins know they can be taken care of by the beneficence of the American golden goose that is based on the productive capacity of Europeans.
Nadie asks: and English is not? You should really stick to a subject that you know something about.
Pfffft. More huffing and puffing. It's clear what sort of insulting arrogance and insolence is typical of your type of people. Which is why their migration should be tightly controlled.
-
To be clear, I am referring to Prot 'Anglos'.
That is Prot 'Anglos' whom even the Anglican Church did not want in England anymore.
-
nadie said:
Then in addition, on one Sunday, the sermon which was read in English, was repeated, but in Spanish for those that do not understand English. Do you understand now?
Tele responded:
Perhaps that was the case, but frankly I don't believe an SSPX chapel would have two half-hour sermons the same day.
Nadie responds: sermons don't have to be 30 minutes. AND I've seen the sermons done in English and Spanish as I described, at the SSPX chapel in Miami, The Shrine of St. Philomena, that they took over after the death of Fr. Hopkins. And I'm told that Fr. Hopkins did the sermon in English, Haitian creole and Spanish, and he was an Englishmen!
When I saw it, a French priest did the sermon in English, and another French priest did the same sermon in Spanish. He translated from English directly as he did the sermon, quite a feat. Few peole could do that. He later did the burial service in Latin and explained translated some in English and Spanish. His Spanish was perfect and his English very good. So, that SSPX priest spoke three languages (at least) perfectly, and Latin of course. Very common for Europeans.
nadie said:
They're SSPXers, they're lucky if they have AN SSPX MASS within 500 miles. Have you ever been to a foreign country and had to speak the language? If they treated you the same way that you speak here, you'd be crying in the streets.
tele responded; I have a feeling that the way you act is far more likely to leave people dying in the streets than the way act. I would say that because if I go to Latin America I am far more likely to find people dying in the streets,
nadie responds: What are you talking about by saying dying in the streets? I said crying in the streets.
tele wrote:
whereas in this country, Latins know they can be taken care of by the beneficence of the American golden goose that is based on the productive capacity of Europeans.
It's clear what sort of insulting arrogance and insolence is typical of your type of people. Which is why their migration should be tightly controlled.
nadie responds: Spaniards are not European to you? To you Latin Americans from Spain, Portugal, France, Italy and Germany are not Europeans? Argentina has a higher percentage of Europeans than the USA or Canada.
Do you just have a problem with those of Indian and African blood?
-
Tele wrote: It's clear what sort of insulting arrogance and insolence is typical of your type of people. Which is why their migration should be tightly controlled.
Handson man Nadie responds: Do you want to tightly control migration of "insulting and arrogant people" or do you want to control migration of Spaniards who live in Latin America? I don't understand what you are saying? Am I insulting and arrogant because I am a successful first generation immigrant American citizen, educated here, that came from Latin America, or am I just "insulting and arrogant"becuase I'm a "Latin American? Maybe I am "insulting and arrogant " because I'm strikingly handsome and the girls swoon to me?
(http://www.nndb.com/people/121/000118764/alfonso-bedoya-1-sized.jpg)
Look at those pearly whites!
-
...first generation immigrant American citizen, educated here, that came from Latin America, or am I...
And are you a United States citizen legally entitled to stay here?
-
Tele wrote: It's clear what sort of insulting arrogance and insolence is typical of your type of people. Which is why their migration should be tightly controlled.
Handson man Nadie responds: Do you want to tightly control migration of "insulting and arrogant people" or do you want to control migration of Spaniards who live in Latin America? I don't understand what you are saying? Am I insulting and arrogant because I am a successful first generation immigrant American citizen, educated here, that came from Latin America, or am I just "insulting and arrogant"becuase I'm a "Latin American? Maybe I am "insulting and arrogant " because I'm strikingly handsome and the girls swoon to me?
(http://www.nndb.com/people/121/000118764/alfonso-bedoya-1-sized.jpg)
Look at those pearly whites!
Nadie- we may not agree on ... the unmentionable issue.. but this is very good! Perhaps this explains the sentiment of Tele and Graham very well.....! In the end, it doesn't matter, they lose with attitudes like that.
-
Nadie- we may not agree on ... the unmentionable issue.. but this is very good! Perhaps this explains the sentiment of Tele and Graham very well.....! In the end, it doesn't matter, they lose with attitudes like that.
Lose what? What is there to lose really? I wouldn't be the one walking out of Church in the middle of mass, but I wouldn't be the one no longer going to Church either.
There's a point where you have to stand your ground against people who are looking to take offense.
-
...first generation immigrant American citizen, educated here, that came from Latin America, or am I...
And are you a United States citizen legally entitled to stay here?
Yes, for 51 years.
-
nadie responds: Spaniards are not European to you? To you Latin Americans from Spain, Portugal, France, Italy and Germany are not Europeans? Argentina has a higher percentage of Europeans than the USA or Canada.
Argentina has a lot more indian admixture than on paper. "White" is rather loosely defined in Latin America sometimes, which is fine, but let's not kid ourselves.
Here's some commentary from a Mexican girl (Lebanese, German and Cantabrian, no Amerind):
¿Y luego mis conocidos mexicanos me preguntan por qué no quiero volver a México? creo que sobran razones:
Desde el machismo extremo hasta la violencia que vive ahora; desde su falta de cultura, hasta el malinchismo; desde la extrema desigualdad social, hasta el hecho de que el tiene dinero es dios; desde que manda más la naturaleza del salvaje y no de la razón.
¿Qué puedo esperar de un sitio que me trató peor que a un animal simple y llanamente por ser chica? ¿Cuándo podrá una persona denunciar sin miedo a aparecer descuartizada? ¿Para cuándo una tregua?
Yeah, that's what we need here in the US.
-
I am not disturbed that these people preferred to hear a sermon in their own language.
Yes, as I said, walking out was very wrong, but not like Spanish sermons doesn't necessarily betoken "racism."
Well, I agreed that it doesn't. Would you agree that people should put their reception of the Sacrament, their Sunday obligation, and pastoral concern for their fellow Catholics who don't speak English ahead of their "Not Liking" a sermon in Spanish?
-
Tele wrote: It's clear what sort of insulting arrogance and insolence is typical of your type of people. Which is why their migration should be tightly controlled.
Handson man Nadie responds: Do you want to tightly control migration of "insulting and arrogant people" or do you want to control migration of Spaniards who live in Latin America? I don't understand what you are saying? Am I insulting and arrogant because I am a successful first generation immigrant American citizen, educated here, that came from Latin America, or am I just "insulting and arrogant"becuase I'm a "Latin American? Maybe I am "insulting and arrogant " because I'm strikingly handsome and the girls swoon to me?
(http://www.nndb.com/people/121/000118764/alfonso-bedoya-1-sized.jpg)
Look at those pearly whites!
Nadie- we may not agree on ... the unmentionable issue.. but this is very good! Perhaps this explains the sentiment of Tele and Graham very well.....! In the end, it doesn't matter, they lose with attitudes like that.
Let me post that quote again, so I can see that beautiful mug of mine again.
By Tele's his response to your comment, it looks like he does not have a clue as to what you are talking about. Amazing!
-
Nadie,
I understand why you objected to being characterized as a racist in the exchange you described. It was silly of the principal to do so. Are you saying that there is nothing that can be accurately described as racism out there. If I hate you because you are Latino, or black, or white or Asian or whatever, why isn't that racist?
I just would steer clear of calling a Catholic, a racist. Give them the benefit of the doubt. Don't jump to conclusions.
A kind of analogous technique that I use when people get violent with me (face to face), is to act as if I don't understand what they are doing, usually, they will just leave me alone since they see that I'm not scared at all. But if they are really intent on harming me, and anyone is watching, after hearing me be verbally abused for so long, the witnesses will testify that they would have acted the same way as I (break a broom over their head), LONG before I did. Actually in 30 years of using this technique the result has always been that "they will just leave me alone since they see that I'm not scared at all", so don't conclude that I'm some bar room brawler.
Give them every opportunity to explain themselves, ask them all manner of questions. If you finally conclude that they really are racist, by that time "the witnesses will testify that they would have concluded the same way LONG before you did".
The biggest source of a mis-diagnoses of racism in Americans is that they don't know how to differentiate class difference from racial difference. It is the biggest sources of error. Scarcely any Americans realize this. Class difference is the source of "discomfort?" (nothing in common?) between people, not race. A upper class white baptist would be more at home with an upper class Latino, than he would be with a lower class white baptist. The worst scenario of "discomfort" would be the combination of an upper class white baptist with a lower class Latino, and similarly an upper class Latino, with a lower class white baptist. The "discomfort" is mutual between upper and lower classes. The lower class Latino does not feel comfortable around upper class Latinos, just like a lower class white baptist would not feel "at home" with an upper class white baptist.
I see, and once again, I agree with you completely.
-
nadie responds: Spaniards are not European to you? To you Latin Americans from Spain, Portugal, France, Italy and Germany are not Europeans? Argentina has a higher percentage of Europeans than the USA or Canada.
Argentina has a lot more indian admixture than on paper. "White" is rather loosely defined in Latin America sometimes, which is fine, but let's not kid ourselves.
....Yeah, that's what we need here in the US.
Is your problem people with Indian blood lines? Should the Spaniards have exterminated the Indians (like the USA did) instead of converting them and taking them as one of their own, as the Spaniards attempted (and as Fr. DeSmet was doing in the Rockies)?
-
Is your problem people with Indian blood lines? Should the Spaniards have exterminated the Indians (like the USA did) instead of converting them and taking them as one of their own, as the Spaniards attempted (and as Fr. DeSmet was doing in the Rockies)?
You're the one who was pointing out that Argentina is more European than the United States.
-
PereJoseph, Catholics colonized other areas through military might and imposed their rule, do you have a problem with that as well? Is the problem as you see it that a powerful will has been imposed on native peoples, or is it all about whether this will is Catholic or not? If the latter, then you shouldn't complain about colonialism, because it just sounds liberal.
I usually agree with you but you are going too far here, saying Mexicans shouldn't even learn to speak English. I am not any more fond of this Masonic nation than you are, as you well know, but it's absurd to pretend that having this type of government hasn't changed the game. America seems to be a punishment from God, like Babylon, but God did not tell the Jews in Babylon to live totally separately from Babylon and reject everything about it. You are acting like the false prophet from Ezekiel who didn't accept God's punishment.
Where I do agree is that America is a nebulous and meaningless concept, and usually when people trumpet the way "America" should be it's just their own idealistic fantasy. America is whatever they want to see. The proof is that there is a certain strain of people whose vision of "America" is keeping immigrants out, yet the Statue of Liberty says "Give me your tired, your poor," etc. This country was practically built on the backs of immigrants. True, that was legal, while many Mexicans now come here illegally. But there are many out there who have this idea of America as "our country" meaning whites, and I'm not sure where they would get such an impression. It is a melting-pot nation, this was permitted and encouraged.
Nadieimportante said:
Nadie asks: and English is not? You should really stick to a subject that you know something about. You are a very difficult person, set in your ways.
English is not even a fraction as hard as Polish. Polish has seven cases, more than Latin, as well as freakishly difficult pronunciation. It is generally accepted to be up there with Chinese and Arabic as the hardest language for foreigners to learn. Poland is a relatively small country so the people there have always been cosmopolitan, many of them once knew French, I'm sure today many know French, German and / or English.
-
By the way, I'm not talking about the sermon in Spanish when I say that people here should learn English. I have no opinion about that.
-
nadie responds: Spaniards are not European to you? To you Latin Americans from Spain, Portugal, France, Italy and Germany are not Europeans? Argentina has a higher percentage of Europeans than the USA or Canada.
Argentina has a lot more indian admixture than on paper. "White" is rather loosely defined in Latin America sometimes, which is fine, but let's not kid ourselves.
I was talking about European blood. So, you now switched it to white. OK, so, to you, ALL Latin Americans of European descent are not really white when they call themselves Europeans? What is white then? It's not very common to find a Latin American of European descent call himself white, normally they'll tell you where they or their parents came from in Spain, Italy Germany etc.
-
I am not any more fond of this Masonic nation than you are, as you well know, but it's absurd to pretend that having this type of government hasn't changed the game. America seems to be a punishment from God, like Babylon, but God did not tell the Jews in Babylon to live totally separately from Babylon and reject everything about it. You are acting like the false prophet from Ezekiel who didn't accept God's punishment.
Raoul76, I see a problem with your statement here because you assert that our country, the United States is displeasing to you and in previous posts, you desire to move to France to await the prophesied, Great Monarch.
Have not realized that the French Republic is Masonic like the United States? Did you know that Catholic monarchs like King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette helped the American colonies rebel against the U.K.?
I am not here to say that America is a good country or that it is not a Masonic state, but I am here to point the inconsistency of your statement: you desire to leave a Masonic-controlled country in order to go to another Masonic country and await the restoration of a Catholic monarchy, which may or may not happen since this is only private revelation.
-
PereJoseph, Catholics colonized other areas through military might and imposed their rule, do you have a problem with that as well?
It depends on the circuмstances, but in principle, I do not have a problem with it.
Is the problem as you see it that a powerful will has been imposed on native peoples, or is it all about whether this will is Catholic or not?
The latter, as well as all of the attendant dishonesty and murder the US used in pursuit of its anti-Christ goals.
If the latter, then you shouldn't complain about colonialism, because it just sounds liberal.
I am not opposed to colonialism as such, and I hope that I did not give that impression. I am opposed to Protestants coming into a country of Catholics and Catholic allies and then effacing the legitimate customs, languages, and memory of the people there, especially since those things constituted the reign of Christ in this land and were gleefully destroyed in order to erect the reign of Satan.
I usually agree with you but you are going too far here, saying Mexicans shouldn't even learn to speak English.
Well, I don't think the US will be around much longer, so I think devout Mexican parents will unnecessarily be putting their children at risk of being absorbed into an immoral urban youth culture by having them learn English. Plus, I don't see why there is any obligation for Mexicans in Southern California to learn English. That being said, I am speaking of this particular case with this particularly strange type of governmental régime and culture. In general, I think immigrants to countries should always learn the local language and respect the local customs and traditions of the people there.
I am not any more fond of this Masonic nation than you are, as you well know, but it's absurd to pretend that having this type of government hasn't changed the game.
How do you mean ?
America seems to be a punishment from God, like Babylon, but God did not tell the Jews in Babylon to live totally separately from Babylon and reject everything about it.
I never quite said that. Obviously people need to respect the laws insofar as they are made by a power God allows and insofar as they are ordained to order and justice. I think people need to make a livelihood, too, and I don't recommend total rejection; I personally don't have the great honour of living like a hermit -- as my vocation requires -- and I likewise don't insist that others live like Elias on Mount Carmel, either, if they are not so called. That being said, I think that local heritages that predate the US's presence should be preserved and, in patient watching and prayer, people such as myself should redeem the time as we wait until a more opportune situation arises and, nature following its course, the US government dissolves. Then we can rebuild.
You are acting like the false prophet from Ezekiel who didn't accept God's punishment.
I am aware that we are being punished; that being said, I also don't think we should join in on the punishing by sharing in the falsehoods and sins of the wicked generations that have succeeded, one after the another, in the US as it has poured over North America, nor should we offer incense to the Americanist idols. In my case, I believe I have a patriotic duty to preserve my heritage and the memory of the country of Louisiana until the US goes away, meanwhile fulfilling my duty of state as best as I can in the concrete circuмstances in which I find myself. That doesn't mean I can't still be loyal to the cause of my forefathers, preferring it to eventually prevail and the US to recede from my homeland, while also finding my way in the world through having a passport, driver's license, etc. I don't think that counts as not accepting God's punishment. But I am well aware that I merely propose, while God disposes.
Keep in mind that the Hebrews in Babylon did eventually return to Israel and remembered that they were Hebrews, descendants of Abraham to whom God made His covenant; they did not all become full Babylonians, even if they did bring Babylonian errors and wicked customs back with them before being returned to the straight and narrow path (for a while).
But there are many out there who have this idea of America as "our country" meaning whites, and I'm not sure where they would get such an impression. It is a melting-pot nation, this was permitted and encouraged.
The truth is that, while it was called a melting-pot nation, there was always and still is a very strong contingent of people who want(ed) everything to melt into the pre-existing English and Puritan soup. It might be accepted as seasoning, but that's it. It seems that there was a kind of disingenuousness in the way the US was represented as a melting pot. Maybe it is because, while the US was purposely designed to be an exception to every other country by being based on novel ideas represented as universal, self-evident truths, the original United-Statesians were still very much Englishmen who believed in English ideas (as the US ideas are), and their society could not help but operate according to the dynamics natural to any other country. In order to get ahead and be accepted in US society, one had to, for all intents and purposes, become another Anglo-Protestant.
Any claims to non-ethnic detachedness fell before the insistence on the English language, the English ideas, the piety shown for the Puritan settlers of Massachusetts, the anti-Catholicism contained in the US Declaration of Independence, and the overwhelmingly Protestant culture and state and local laws. It really never could be simultaneously both so incredibly English and a universal melting-pot. And the US would not be the US if not for the ideas, language, laws, culture, and religion of its founders. A practical example will suffice : Every public school history textbook includes the phrase "our Pilgrim forefathers" when speaking of the Mayflower and so forth; for the natives of Santa Fe, Lafayette, and the various Indian reservations, that sounds a little strange. Ah, but it's a melting pot... well, kinda, but... not really.
-
Is your problem people with Indian blood lines? Should the Spaniards have exterminated the Indians (like the USA did) instead of converting them and taking them as one of their own, as the Spaniards attempted (and as Fr. DeSmet was doing in the Rockies)?
You're the one who was pointing out that Argentina is more European than the United States.
You didn't answer his questions.
-
You didn't answer his questions.
The Spanish didn't exterminate and enslave indians?
Anyway PereJoseph, I'm done talking to you, because you're a maniac. But in your very Jєωιѕн world view, Americans are precluded from having an identity, rights, or a nationality. Your hatred of America is something you wouldn't have if it weren't for the Jєωιѕн influence on you.
-
You didn't answer his questions.
The Spanish didn't exterminate and enslave indians?
Exterminate ? No. Enslave, yes, pretty frequently. You didn't answer the other questions, though, such as whether or not you have a problem with people who have Indian bloodlines or whether or not you consider Latin Americans of European descent to be "white." :scratchchin:
I have my suspicions as to why. Tell me, have you really considered the absurdity yet of aligning yourself against almost every Catholic ethnicity on the face of the earth and siding with United-Statesian White Nationalists ?
Anyway PereJoseph, I'm done talking to you, because you're a maniac.
I guess that when you, like Man of the West, have no arguments and facts and don't have a sound grasp of the issues at hand, you give childish insults instead. Then again, it looks like I am in good company, since you have insulted the character and intelligence of just about everybody on this forum at one point or another when they don't find you as persuasive as you imagine yourself to be. There's no shame in admitting that you aren't prepared to continue a discussion and can't answer the arguments that cause you so much frustration.
But in your very Jєωιѕн world view, Americans are precluded from having an identity, rights, or a nationality.
There you go again with your meaningless terminology and baseless accusations. :sleep:
Your hatred of America is something you wouldn't have if it weren't for the Jєωιѕн influence on you.
An absolutely incredible claim. You might as well just admit you lost, rather than prove it by resorting to the ultimate cop-out, especially considering that you haven't offered any proof whatsoever. Most people aren't going to follow you on this, seeing it for the uninformed ranting of a reactionary hot-head that, let's face it, makes up a large portion of your posts.
As an aside, I love America, though I still need to go down to the South of it and see the Andes.
-
Exterminate ? No.
They caused massive deaths.
You didn't answer the other questions, though, such as whether or not you have a problem with people who have Indian bloodlines
I don't have a problem with them, but I don't consider them to be Europeans.
or whether or not you consider Latin Americans of European descent to be "white." :scratchchin:
Whether they are white or not would depend on their ancestry being predominantly European, wouldn't it?
I have my suspicions as to why. Tell me, have you really considered the absurdity yet of aligning yourself against almost every Catholic ethnicity on the face of the earth
That is another stupid statement. How to align myself against Catholic nations by saying that the US is culturally and historically a white European nation? It's only someone who is completely lacking in objectivity who denies that. As I've said before, you deny the identity and the existence of an American nationality, that is simply a result of being someone consumed with hatred for what you consider to be "anglo-protestant" America and it's prairies that you wish desolation on.
and siding with United-Statesian White Nationalists ?
So recognizing white Americans as an ethnicity and really the core of the American nationality is "aligning with white Americans against every Catholic ethnicity." That is of course an absurd remark, but I suppose it's natural from someone who is mentally ill.
I guess that when you, like Man of the West, have no arguments and facts and don't have a sound grasp of the issues at hand, you give childish insults instead.
There's no arguing with a lunatic.
Then again, it looks like I am in good company, since you have insulted the character and intelligence of just about everybody on this forum at one point or another when they don't find you as persuasive as you imagine yourself to be.
You mean when they show their inept reasoning? I would say nearly all of them have agreed with me at some point or another, it's only when it comes to topics they can't handle that they start raving. And believe me, you are a raving lunatic with your talk about all white English speaking American Catholics being somehow not really being Catholic - indeed you've said as much - you recognize the people you hate, even if you claim you don't recognize the existence of the American nationality. That you're infected with judaized thinking and French stupidity is unfortunate but evident.
There's no shame in admitting that you aren't prepared to continue a discussion and can't answer the arguments that cause you so much frustration.
No, there's no shame in concluding you're a basket case and putting you on ignore. I mean really. Your posts are a symptom of hysteria.
There you go again with your meaningless terminology and baseless accusations. :sleep:
It's not baseless at all. Your obsessive hatred of the American ethnicity, which is so great that you deny the Catholicity of white Americans, and have done so before, is something you've borrowed from the Jєωιѕн propagandists.
An absolutely incredible claim. You might as well just admit you lost, rather than prove it by resorting to the ultimate cop-out, especially considering that you haven't offered any proof whatsoever.
What you say about the US is part of the post-68 narrative. It shows that your thinking is defective and is heavily influenced by judaized leftism.
Most people aren't going to follow you on this, seeing it for the uninformed ranting of a reactionary hot-head that, let's face it, makes up a large portion of your posts.
Your posts could come out of any culturally leftist history. You've synthesized Feeneyism and cultural marxism into a bizarre melange.
As an aside, I love America, though I still need to go down to the South of it and see the Andes.
Sure, you love America. The people who've followed your increasingly deranged posts here can see you hate the United States and its people in a pathological way. Something that could only come from French sense of inferiority nursed under the Jєωιѕн power that dominates the French.
-
You didn't answer his questions.
The Spanish didn't exterminate and enslave indians?
Exterminate ? No. Enslave, yes, pretty frequently. .
This is crap because this enslavement( acc to Bible, some are intended to be enslved) was the exception rather than the rule. See Bio of Columbus by his son Ferdinand-- very rare. :smoke-pot:
-
Tele, I know you cannot resist answering this, so you might as well just take me off ignore.
Exterminate ? No.
They caused massive deaths.
Since causing massive deaths of combatants in war is rarely considered "extermination," I assume you are referring to smallpox, for which, obviously, the Spaniards cannot be held accountable. There are quite a few nasty things, of course, such as having black slaves dive for pearls thirty to fifty feet underwater in the sea, causing many to drown, or else overworking Indian slaves in the silver and gold mines of the Andes, &c.
But I think the point of bringing this up on your part is to show some sort of equivalency between English and Spanish treatment of Indians. The differences are profound and simple. In Spanish colonies, Indians were given the Faith and often had a pretty good chance of having a good life, though the Spanish were rather ceaseless in their pressure towards Renaissance-style sedentarism. In the English colonies, Indians were considered sub-human and there actually were real efforts of extermination of the "savages."
You didn't answer the other questions, though, such as whether or not you have a problem with people who have Indian bloodlines
I don't have a problem with them, but I don't consider them to be Europeans.
How mixed do they have to be before they don't count as Europeans ? How unmixed until they count as Europeans ?
Whether they are white or not would depend on their ancestry being predominantly European, wouldn't it?
I won't give credence to the arbitrary term "white," which you have in no way defended as being accurate in any consistent and/or scientific way. If somebody is 51% European and 49% Algonquian, are they European ? What about 60/40 ? 80/20 ? At what point is somebody considered "white," and which races are considered "white" and which ones aren't ?
I have my suspicions as to why. Tell me, have you really considered the absurdity yet of aligning yourself against almost every Catholic ethnicity on the face of the earth
That is another stupid statement.
Well, you don't like Frenchmen and, therefore, probably would hate Frenchwomen, too, since we all tend to like each other pretty well. And you said some deprecating things about Nadie's ethnicity, who is Cuban, and it seems like you tend to dislike all Romance-speaking peoples. Therefore, it seems like you nourish a personal distaste for... the majority of all Catholics who have ever lived. You tend to think that our general non-acceptance of "white this," "non-white that" WASP rhetoric is the result of stupidity or stubbornness, as if we are denying an obvious reality and are placing ourselves categorically outside the fight for "civilization" because we are either too dumb or too dishonest to participate. At least, that is how it seems.
How to align myself against Catholic nations by saying that the US is culturally and historically a white European nation?
You seem to have trouble comprehending statements in the context of the sentences surrounding them. I am saying that you align yourself against Catholic nations by your dislike for Romance-speaking people and our cultures and customs and general attitudes.
It's only someone who is completely lacking in objectivity who denies that.
Why do you feel the need to take things to a personal level and make unreasonable exaggerations ?
As I've said before, you deny the identity and the existence of an American nationality...
From the standpoint of international law ? No. From the standpoint of ethnos, uh, yeah, you bet I do. That's because there is no such thing as any "American" people unless we are referring to English and Scotch-Irish people from the Thirteen Colonies and Appalachia. But, once again, the burden of proof is entirely on you.
...that is simply a result of being someone consumed with hatred for what you consider to be "anglo-protestant" America
Let me get this straight -- I deny that there is any coherent "American" ethnicity, which is proof of my hatred of it ? Or is my wish for Catholic people to advance at the expense of Anglo-Protestant people somehow evidence of non-Catholic pathologies ? I suppose I don't quite understand your accusation. Maybe you could make it again in a clearer way.
...and it's prairies that you wish desolation on.
I wish nothing but health to the glorious prairies of North America, trust me. How did you ever get any other impression ? I would truly be surprised if you could find me saying anything favourable regarding the destruction or harm of the prairies.
So recognizing white Americans as an ethnicity and really the core of the American nationality is "aligning with white Americans against every Catholic ethnicity."
Now it seems like you're just being disingenuous. You know that's not how the issue was framed. In any case, "white Americans" are not an ethnicity, at least not really, since "white" is an arbitrary and silly term that means nothing. If that is the name you want to give for people who identify with Anglo-Germanic Protestant culture, "white," I guess that's fine, but I still maintain that the descriptor is in no way helpful.
That is of course an absurd remark, but I suppose it's natural from someone who is mentally ill.
Now you're just engaging in pharisaical hypocrisy, at least, I find this behaviour of yours surprising, coming from somebody who so frequently goes on and on about being the victim of slander and calumny. The words you put in my mouth cannot be evidence of mental illness, but then... you knew that. I suppose it is only charitable to assume that you are not being sincere, in which case you are merely acting like a childish buffoon.
There's no arguing with a lunatic.
You really need to grow up. The truth is that apparently there's no arguing with somebody who is unable to follow an argument from premise to conclusion. I have been calm and consistent, dealing with the issue using nothing but facts and history; you have not justified any of your central claims, have liberally dealt out insults, and have answered no question addressed to you.
You mean when they show their inept reasoning?
No, I mean when they disagree with you, somebody who habitually comes to conclusions in anger and cannot swallow his pride and back down on his rash theories in the face of those who have rival theories they arrived at through sober reflection and experience. And, just for the sake of the dispute, I would like to clarify that I am not including myself in the latter group.
I would say nearly all of them have agreed with me at some point or another, it's only when it comes to topics they can't handle that they start raving.
You have it as backwards as possible.
And believe me, you are a raving lunatic with your talk about all white English speaking American Catholics being somehow not really being Catholic - indeed you've said as much...
You don't think that people not living in an integrally Catholic culture and not having Catholic traditions and folk customs, speaking a language affected by centuries of Protestant usage, puts them at a disadvantage in comparison to those who have Catholic cultures, traditions, folk customs, and ready linguistic usages ? You don't think that centuries of Americanist ecclesiastical and political culture doesn't, in any way, obscure the richness of the ancient Faith ? If not, I guess we are just at an impasse. Regardless, it's no strange theory of mine. Just about any French Canadian Catholic worth his salt would agree. Then again, perhaps we are all mentally ill together -- an entire race of lunatics, having our unsoundness of mind pointed out by... a lone German-Irish Yankee from Ohio publicly known for having a wild temper... His method of demonstration ? Unsubstantiated accusation. Hmm. I like our odds.
Speaking of odds, I think the readers can decide for themselves who sounds more like a raving lunatic, you, in all your wrath, or me, in all my composition and
...you recognize the people you hate, even if you claim you don't recognize the existence of the American nationality.
I have a pretty flexible and nuanced view of the problem, thank you. You are right that I don't have very much fondness for Anglo-American culture, though, and none for its myths and cults.
That you're infected with judaized thinking...
Another thing you've not demonstrated in any way whatsoever.
...and French stupidity is unfortunate but evident.
I take any accusation of sharing in an alleged "French stupidity" as a badge of honour, especially coming from somebody like yourself.
Your posts are a symptom of hysteria.
Well, we will let the readers decide who they think is hysterical and who is not. Otherwise it's just my word against yours. I should add that you do seem to be pretty upset about this, though, especially considering that you, uh, still haven't given any warrants whatsoever for any of your central claims, therefore logically handing a landslide victory over to me, before you then resorted to a lengthy series of insults.
Tell me, if an "American" had his country taken over by us stupid French Canadians -- who you really do seem to despise (and I use that word in its literal sense, not in the silly hyperbolic way that is common to you and Man of the West) -- would you accuse him of being a hateful lunatic if he desired for his countrymen to, over time, naturally displace the foreign invaders and their culture ? There are many similar cases worldwide. I think you would hesitate before accusing an Armenian of being a hateful lunatic for wanting the Mohammedan Turks, Kurds, and Azerbaijanis to be displaced from the environs of lakes Urmia and Van (which they are destroying), which were anciently held by his forefathers. But, maybe I am wrong, and you would be consistent and treat him like he is evil, too. Maybe the only truly sane and charitable thing for him to do would be to want to protect Kurdish and Turkish and Azerbaijani culture, abandon those places completely forever, and hope that those three peoples convert... And maybe all the European Kings were full of hatred and lunacy, too, whenever they participated in rivalries between one another, rather than wishing for their competitors to efface their heritages utterly (which one was right ?). If that is what you think, well, obviously we disagree.
It's not baseless at all. Your obsessive hatred of the American ethnicity...
How can I hate something that doesn't exist ? If you are referring to the WASPs of the Thirteen Colonies and the Scoth-Irish of Appalachia, no, I do not hate them, but I don't like their thoroughly Protestant culture and heritage, it's true. I hate their political ideology, too.
...which is so great that you deny the Catholicity of white Americans...
You are using totally different definitions than me. Sorry, but I am not a member of your ideological club.
...is something you've borrowed from the Jєωιѕн propagandists.
Jєωιѕн propagandists have commented on the effects of Americanism and WASP culture on the richness and fullness and historicity of Catholicism in the US ? Where ? Did you read it ?
What you say about the US is part of the post-68 narrative.
Which part ? Prove it.
It shows that your thinking is defective and is heavily influenced by judaized leftism.
I don't think my thinking is either defective or influenced by judaised leftism. You should prove the connection between my thinking and judaised leftism (after you define your terms, of course), even if only for charity's sake.
Your posts could come out of any culturally leftist history.
Please show me how that is the case. As of now, it seems like you're just bluffing. I would truly be grateful if you could show me where I am indebted to culturally leftist history (rather than just plain history), so that I could then re-orient my thoughts to correct information.
You've synthesized Feeneyism and cultural marxism into a bizarre melange.
This is news to me. Firstly, I'm not even a "Feeneyite," since I await word from Rome on the matter, though I admit that I find "Feeneyite" arguments to be incredibly logical and convincing and I think they are very important. Secondly, how has the belief that there is only one form of baptism affected my thinking ? Or are you just grasping at straws ? Thirdly, I am not a cultural Marxist, nor have you proven that I am in even the slightest way. This makes your detection of both of these forces supposedly poisoning my mind even more remarkable, since you were able to detect them despite their having no presence.
There, I called your bluff. I doubt you can make good on it at all, since you clearly don't possess the intellectual acuмen and knowledge to actually back up your wild accusations, which are based, precisely, on a reactionary and emotive manner of thinking and a lack of study : "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." But, please, try. Maybe start with offering, oh, I don't know, any proof whatsoever for just one of your central claims.
Sure, you love America.
I do love America; it's my home and it's beautiful. I certainly do not love the United States government and its culture, however, if you thought I was conflating them with the land.
[Y]ou hate the United States and its people in a pathological way.
I don't hate people from the United States. I don't hate anybody. I don't like their culture and the US government and I want them, so long as they cannot give up these things, to leave the Mississippi Valley, but I don't hate them. Maybe you could try to prove that I and my fellow French Canadians who don't love some other culture and people more than our own actually do have a pathological and unhealthy hatred for anglais; you should do that right after you prove the central claims of your "argument."
Something that could only come from French sense of inferiority nursed under the Jєωιѕн power that dominates the French.
Oh, yes, we French have a terrible inferiority complex regarding the glorious Anglo-Germanic peoples of the world. Thanks to the Jews who dominate us but in no way dominate the anglais, whether politically and economically or intellectually and in the formation of their imaginations, we cannot help but be manipulated into an un-intellectual hatred deprived of an lucid understanding of facts and reality based on experience and study. The sense of inferiority probably comes from our jealousy of the great English accomplishments that we could only hope to equal, specifically in crafts, building, art, literature, cuisine, military history, discovery, inventions, natural science, philosophy, theology, prestige (in the ways that matter to us), and in missions. Or maybe it couldn't come from that, since we excel in all of those things. For some reason, despite actually having the advantage in all of those categories and only trailing behind in sailing, large scale imperial organisation, the love of money, and insular xenophobia, we still cannot help but think of ourselves as inferior, though. And the Jews are the ones who help this complex along. Is that your theory ? And that's why we chafe at the English bit so much, because we are jealous ? It has nothing to do with wanting to be liberated from the English thumb (which wrought so many crimes on us) and finally winning the contest between the Catholic French and the Protestant English once and for all ? Only an anglais could ever believe something so wacky.
-
Bump.
-
Tele, I know you cannot resist answering this, so you might as well just take me off ignore.
Exterminate ? No.
They caused massive deaths.
Since causing massive deaths of combatants in war is rarely considered "extermination," I assume you are referring to smallpox, for which, obviously, the Spaniards cannot be held accountable. There are quite a few nasty things, of course, such as having black slaves dive for pearls thirty to fifty feet underwater in the sea, causing many to drown, or else overworking Indian slaves in the silver and gold mines of the Andes, &c.
But I think the point of bringing this up on your part is to show some sort of equivalency between English and Spanish treatment of Indians. The differences are profound and simple. In Spanish colonies, Indians were given the Faith and often had a pretty good chance of having a good life, though the Spanish were rather ceaseless in their pressure towards Renaissance-style sedentarism. In the English colonies, Indians were considered sub-human and there actually were real efforts of extermination of the "savages."
You didn't answer the other questions, though, such as whether or not you have a problem with people who have Indian bloodlines
I don't have a problem with them, but I don't consider them to be Europeans.
How mixed do they have to be before they don't count as Europeans ? How unmixed until they count as Europeans ?
Whether they are white or not would depend on their ancestry being predominantly European, wouldn't it?
I won't give credence to the arbitrary term "white," which you have in no way defended as being accurate in any consistent and/or scientific way. If somebody is 51% European and 49% Algonquian, are they European ? What about 60/40 ? 80/20 ? At what point is somebody considered "white," and which races are considered "white" and which ones aren't ?
I have my suspicions as to why. Tell me, have you really considered the absurdity yet of aligning yourself against almost every Catholic ethnicity on the face of the earth
That is another stupid statement.
Well, you don't like Frenchmen and, therefore, probably would hate Frenchwomen, too, since we all tend to like each other pretty well. And you said some deprecating things about Nadie's ethnicity, who is Cuban, and it seems like you tend to dislike all Romance-speaking peoples. Therefore, it seems like you nourish a personal distaste for... the majority of all Catholics who have ever lived. You tend to think that our general non-acceptance of "white this," "non-white that" WASP rhetoric is the result of stupidity or stubbornness, as if we are denying an obvious reality and are placing ourselves categorically outside the fight for "civilization" because we are either too dumb or too dishonest to participate. At least, that is how it seems.
How to align myself against Catholic nations by saying that the US is culturally and historically a white European nation?
You seem to have trouble comprehending statements in the context of the sentences surrounding them. I am saying that you align yourself against Catholic nations by your dislike for Romance-speaking people and our cultures and customs and general attitudes.
It's only someone who is completely lacking in objectivity who denies that.
Why do you feel the need to take things to a personal level and make unreasonable exaggerations ?
As I've said before, you deny the identity and the existence of an American nationality...
From the standpoint of international law ? No. From the standpoint of ethnos, uh, yeah, you bet I do. That's because there is no such thing as any "American" people unless we are referring to English and Scotch-Irish people from the Thirteen Colonies and Appalachia. But, once again, the burden of proof is entirely on you.
...that is simply a result of being someone consumed with hatred for what you consider to be "anglo-protestant" America
Let me get this straight -- I deny that there is any coherent "American" ethnicity, which is proof of my hatred of it ? Or is my wish for Catholic people to advance at the expense of Anglo-Protestant people somehow evidence of non-Catholic pathologies ? I suppose I don't quite understand your accusation. Maybe you could make it again in a clearer way.
...and it's prairies that you wish desolation on.
I wish nothing but health to the glorious prairies of North America, trust me. How did you ever get any other impression ? I would truly be surprised if you could find me saying anything favourable regarding the destruction or harm of the prairies.
So recognizing white Americans as an ethnicity and really the core of the American nationality is "aligning with white Americans against every Catholic ethnicity."
Now it seems like you're just being disingenuous. You know that's not how the issue was framed. In any case, "white Americans" are not an ethnicity, at least not really, since "white" is an arbitrary and silly term that means nothing. If that is the name you want to give for people who identify with Anglo-Germanic Protestant culture, "white," I guess that's fine, but I still maintain that the descriptor is in no way helpful.
That is of course an absurd remark, but I suppose it's natural from someone who is mentally ill.
Now you're just engaging in pharisaical hypocrisy, at least, I find this behaviour of yours surprising, coming from somebody who so frequently goes on and on about being the victim of slander and calumny. The words you put in my mouth cannot be evidence of mental illness, but then... you knew that. I suppose it is only charitable to assume that you are not being sincere, in which case you are merely acting like a childish buffoon.
There's no arguing with a lunatic.
You really need to grow up. The truth is that apparently there's no arguing with somebody who is unable to follow an argument from premise to conclusion. I have been calm and consistent, dealing with the issue using nothing but facts and history; you have not justified any of your central claims, have liberally dealt out insults, and have answered no question addressed to you.
You mean when they show their inept reasoning?
No, I mean when they disagree with you, somebody who habitually comes to conclusions in anger and cannot swallow his pride and back down on his rash theories in the face of those who have rival theories they arrived at through sober reflection and experience. And, just for the sake of the dispute, I would like to clarify that I am not including myself in the latter group.
I would say nearly all of them have agreed with me at some point or another, it's only when it comes to topics they can't handle that they start raving.
You have it as backwards as possible.
And believe me, you are a raving lunatic with your talk about all white English speaking American Catholics being somehow not really being Catholic - indeed you've said as much...
You don't think that people not living in an integrally Catholic culture and not having Catholic traditions and folk customs, speaking a language affected by centuries of Protestant usage, puts them at a disadvantage in comparison to those who have Catholic cultures, traditions, folk customs, and ready linguistic usages ? You don't think that centuries of Americanist ecclesiastical and political culture doesn't, in any way, obscure the richness of the ancient Faith ? If not, I guess we are just at an impasse. Regardless, it's no strange theory of mine. Just about any French Canadian Catholic worth his salt would agree. Then again, perhaps we are all mentally ill together -- an entire race of lunatics, having our unsoundness of mind pointed out by... a lone German-Irish Yankee from Ohio publicly known for having a wild temper... His method of demonstration ? Unsubstantiated accusation. Hmm. I like our odds.
Speaking of odds, I think the readers can decide for themselves who sounds more like a raving lunatic, you, in all your wrath, or me, in all my composition and
...you recognize the people you hate, even if you claim you don't recognize the existence of the American nationality.
I have a pretty flexible and nuanced view of the problem, thank you. You are right that I don't have very much fondness for Anglo-American culture, though, and none for its myths and cults.
That you're infected with judaized thinking...
Another thing you've not demonstrated in any way whatsoever.
...and French stupidity is unfortunate but evident.
I take any accusation of sharing in an alleged "French stupidity" as a badge of honour, especially coming from somebody like yourself.
Your posts are a symptom of hysteria.
Well, we will let the readers decide who they think is hysterical and who is not. Otherwise it's just my word against yours. I should add that you do seem to be pretty upset about this, though, especially considering that you, uh, still haven't given any warrants whatsoever for any of your central claims, therefore logically handing a landslide victory over to me, before you then resorted to a lengthy series of insults.
Tell me, if an "American" had his country taken over by us stupid French Canadians -- who you really do seem to despise (and I use that word in its literal sense, not in the silly hyperbolic way that is common to you and Man of the West) -- would you accuse him of being a hateful lunatic if he desired for his countrymen to, over time, naturally displace the foreign invaders and their culture ? There are many similar cases worldwide. I think you would hesitate before accusing an Armenian of being a hateful lunatic for wanting the Mohammedan Turks, Kurds, and Azerbaijanis to be displaced from the environs of lakes Urmia and Van (which they are destroying), which were anciently held by his forefathers. But, maybe I am wrong, and you would be consistent and treat him like he is evil, too. Maybe the only truly sane and charitable thing for him to do would be to want to protect Kurdish and Turkish and Azerbaijani culture, abandon those places completely forever, and hope that those three peoples convert... And maybe all the European Kings were full of hatred and lunacy, too, whenever they participated in rivalries between one another, rather than wishing for their competitors to efface their heritages utterly (which one was right ?). If that is what you think, well, obviously we disagree.
It's not baseless at all. Your obsessive hatred of the American ethnicity...
How can I hate something that doesn't exist ? If you are referring to the WASPs of the Thirteen Colonies and the Scoth-Irish of Appalachia, no, I do not hate them, but I don't like their thoroughly Protestant culture and heritage, it's true. I hate their political ideology, too.
...which is so great that you deny the Catholicity of white Americans...
You are using totally different definitions than me. Sorry, but I am not a member of your ideological club.
...is something you've borrowed from the Jєωιѕн propagandists.
Jєωιѕн propagandists have commented on the effects of Americanism and WASP culture on the richness and fullness and historicity of Catholicism in the US ? Where ? Did you read it ?
What you say about the US is part of the post-68 narrative.
Which part ? Prove it.
It shows that your thinking is defective and is heavily influenced by judaized leftism.
I don't think my thinking is either defective or influenced by judaised leftism. You should prove the connection between my thinking and judaised leftism (after you define your terms, of course), even if only for charity's sake.
Your posts could come out of any culturally leftist history.
Please show me how that is the case. As of now, it seems like you're just bluffing. I would truly be grateful if you could show me where I am indebted to culturally leftist history (rather than just plain history), so that I could then re-orient my thoughts to correct information.
You've synthesized Feeneyism and cultural marxism into a bizarre melange.
This is news to me. Firstly, I'm not even a "Feeneyite," since I await word from Rome on the matter, though I admit that I find "Feeneyite" arguments to be incredibly logical and convincing and I think they are very important. Secondly, how has the belief that there is only one form of baptism affected my thinking ? Or are you just grasping at straws ? Thirdly, I am not a cultural Marxist, nor have you proven that I am in even the slightest way. This makes your detection of both of these forces supposedly poisoning my mind even more remarkable, since you were able to detect them despite their having no presence.
There, I called your bluff. I doubt you can make good on it at all, since you clearly don't possess the intellectual acuмen and knowledge to actually back up your wild accusations, which are based, precisely, on a reactionary and emotive manner of thinking and a lack of study : "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." But, please, try. Maybe start with offering, oh, I don't know, any proof whatsoever for just one of your central claims.
Sure, you love America.
I do love America; it's my home and it's beautiful. I certainly do not love the United States government and its culture, however, if you thought I was conflating them with the land.
[Y]ou hate the United States and its people in a pathological way.
I don't hate people from the United States. I don't hate anybody. I don't like their culture and the US government and I want them, so long as they cannot give up these things, to leave the Mississippi Valley, but I don't hate them. Maybe you could try to prove that I and my fellow French Canadians who don't love some other culture and people more than our own actually do have a pathological and unhealthy hatred for anglais; you should do that right after you prove the central claims of your "argument."
Something that could only come from French sense of inferiority nursed under the Jєωιѕн power that dominates the French.
Oh, yes, we French have a terrible inferiority complex regarding the glorious Anglo-Germanic peoples of the world. Thanks to the Jews who dominate us but in no way dominate the anglais, whether politically and economically or intellectually and in the formation of their imaginations, we cannot help but be manipulated into an un-intellectual hatred deprived of an lucid understanding of facts and reality based on experience and study. The sense of inferiority probably comes from our jealousy of the great English accomplishments that we could only hope to equal, specifically in crafts, building, art, literature, cuisine, military history, discovery, inventions, natural science, philosophy, theology, prestige (in the ways that matter to us), and in missions. Or maybe it couldn't come from that, since we excel in all of those things. For some reason, despite actually having the advantage in all of those categories and only trailing behind in sailing, large scale imperial organisation, the love of money, and insular xenophobia, we still cannot help but think of ourselves as inferior, though. And the Jews are the ones who help this complex along. Is that your theory ? And that's why we chafe at the English bit so much, because we are jealous ? It has nothing to do with wanting to be liberated from the English thumb (which wrought so many crimes on us) and finally winning the contest between the Catholic French and the Protestant English once and for all ? Only an anglais could ever believe something so wacky.
One for the future "Best posts ever" Matthew keeps talking about....
-
I was once in an Indian Tribe museum in Southern Arizona in about 1994, and I told the girl I was with, a German tourist, that Cortez conquered the Indians, and this man next to me, who never looked up, said, if they conquered the Indians, why is Mexico all Indians? I just looked at him (He was a mestizo, and looked like a college professor, a cultured, educated man, with a suit and glasses), at a glance, and never looked at him again, and just thought to myself, like as if I was all alone, and instantly realized, the truth of what he said.
I once read in a Protestant (ecuмenical) forum, something written by a Baptist American Indian, he said the the Spaniards commited a h0Ɩ0cαųst on the Indians. I answered that yes, the Protestants in the USA were very good with the Indians, that's why there's no Indians today here. And the Spaniards exterminated the Indians in Mexico, that's why Mexico is like 95% Indian today (by American standards).
The truth is in the populations, for anyone to see today.
-
I was once in an Indian Tribe museum in Southern Arizona...
I hope you left your daughters at home! :laugh1:
-
a lone German-Irish Yankee from Ohio publicly known for having a wild temper
In the USA, the Germans, and the Irish (as well as the Italians, French, Poles and every immigrant) were consider to be "inferior", specially if they were the Catholics. This was the case even just before WWII. The Irish to this day are not considered anything special. So, I don't understand Tele's attitude towards EVERY, it seems (he took off after the French recently), culture. People who live in glass houses.....
There's a joke about nationalities:
Heaven is where:
All the cops are English
All the chefs are French
All the mechanics are German
All the lovers are Italian
All the public administrators are Swiss
Hell is where:
All the cops are German
All the chefs are English
All the mechanics are French
All the lovers are Swiss
All the public administrators are Italian.
Every culture has it's qualitities and shortcomings. Men are not measured by where they came from or the successes of their country of origin, but from what they make of themselves.
-
Some studies on Argentina demonstrate that the country (as you can tell simply by looking at the features of people in a crowd) while being predominantly European, is heavily descended from Amerindian women:
Argentineans carried a large fraction of European genetic heritage in their Y-chromosomal (94.1%) and autosomal (78.5%) DNA, but their mitochondrial gene pool is mostly of Native American ancestry (53.7%);
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/12/new-comprehensive-study-on-continental.html
-
Some studies on Argentina demonstrate that the country (as you can tell simply by looking at the features of people in a crowd) while being predominantly European, is heavily descended from Amerindian women:
Argentineans carried a large fraction of European genetic heritage in their Y-chromosomal (94.1%) and autosomal (78.5%) DNA, but their mitochondrial gene pool is mostly of Native American ancestry (53.7%);
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/12/new-comprehensive-study-on-continental.html
This was on the first page of a Google image search for "Argentina crowd" :
(http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/images/stories/large/2009/06/28/_2FQ0163WEB.jpg)
Yet, these people in their mitochondrial gene pool are 53.7% of American Indian ancestry, so I guess that means they're not "white."
The term must be relative, then... scientifically meaningless, one could perhaps even venture to say.
-
Someone made the false claim that the Argentinian nationality is more European by ancestry than the American nationality.
It's a false claim, but the truth has never stopped pseudo-traditionalists infected with post-68 views on race, in contrast to traditional Catholic and European attitudes about race.
-
Anyone who gets some bee in their bonnet about a more "pure" America, or a way America is supposed to be, is bound to fall into irrationality. America makes no sense and was never designed to make any sense.
Yes, as PereJoseph says, the Anglo world is dominant right now and is directly opposed to the Catholic world, which, like Sleeping Beauty, is dormant and waiting to be restored to life. Just as Joan of Arc defeated the English, the Virgin Mary will soon defeat the Protestant-Masonic-Jєωιѕн world and France will be restored. The French have been sleeping with the enemy, but that will soon stop, I follow the culture and they are slowly coming to grips with the fact that they need to just let America and its whole way of life fall, to stop trying to play the game our way.
-
Telesphorus said:
Sure, you love America. The people who've followed your increasingly deranged posts here can see you hate the United States and its people in a pathological way. Something that could only come from French sense of inferiority nursed under the Jєωιѕн power that dominates the French
Tele, I happen to know you had no resentment towards the French not too long ago. Could this be because I am obsessed with France and we had a squabble?
You are clearly going way off track... And that is what everyone will see.
America is like the utopia of the Jews. Have you forgotten that Israel owns this country? If anyone is acting like a Jew here, it's you, since you are adamantly supporting their enforcer, which is the US. The French are ruled by Jews also, sure, they have succuмbed to a certain political correctness, but deep down the Catholic roots are still there, and that is not the case with Americans. Even many of the Catholic Americans never really understood the entire world-historical picture, their Catholicism was mingled with American manifest destiny which was against Catholic rule and Catholic states.
You just nourish personal grudges and then say the opposite of whatever your imagined enemies say, which by now has become the whole world.
-
It's just idiocy to deny the existence of an American nationality, to claim that a people with a significant Amerind admixture are more European than the white American nationality, etc. (I'm not saying there aren't plenty of white people in Argentina, never did. It is clear though that what is considered "white" varies in Latin America a great deal. Of course, that's because being lighter is prized in Latin America, but hated among yankees. Kind of makes you scratch your head a bit as to the motivation for the yankee hating.
Maybe people raised in California just aren't aware of the existence of the default American nationality. Most amusingly they refer to their fellow Catholics as "WASPs" or as "Americanists" - denying that they are real Catholics. It's the influence of irrational post-68 hysteria and extremism.
As for the French, what I've come to notice they commonly possess a combination of stupidity, pride, and a complex of inferiority, which tends to manifest in vicious cowardly behavior.
-
There are many kinds of Jєωιѕн influence. While Americans tend to be ignorant people, they aren't nearly as infected by PC or quasi-marxist ideologies that you find among the Irish and Quebecers.
-
Lol, I'm not even sure what the debate is about at this point.
I think you know what PereJoseph is saying. Okay, so WASPs founded America as it is today, meaning they are behind the Constitution, and they are the ones who instilled / inflicted their "values" on it. But a Catholic should be less concerned by racial fantasies he nourishes in the dark than by the plight of the Church.
I have no clue what you're getting at with this whole thing about Argentina. So they are part Indian, so what? Are you saying that is their identity, but ours is to have a higher percentage of European blood? Then what is the percentage that qualifies someone to be an authentic European American? Tele, this is just loopy.
The Catholic Spaniards intermarried and bred with Indians. America was never 80% European or whatever. It was 100% Indian and then Euros gradually introduced themselves into it. Then the WASPs came and pulled the rug out from under the Spaniards and French Catholics. And whatever their claims are about the predominance of their race, or the centrality of WASP whiteys to America, that should be of little concern to a Catholic. You're aligining yourself with the same kind of people who reviled the Irish immigrants for being Catholic. You're not thinking with the Church, you're led astray by all kinds of personal theories based on what sounds a lot like a racial superiority complex.
You have railed against Spanish machos, and dumb French. So what is your ideal, WASP Americans? Or Catholic Americans? So now you are Americanist? What is the point of all this?
I feel my mind melting after I read some of these posts of yours, Tele. It's like the minotaur has led me into a labyrinth. I'm not even sure what I'm saying anymore, please forgive me if I'm making no sense.
-
People's national existence doesn't go away if they aren't Catholic. For example, France is not a Catholic state. It still exists. People still identify with it. But it's totally non-Catholic. But America having Protestant roots is used as an excuse to delegitimize its national identity.
That's a typical French ploy - whenever they feel inferior they start whining about the American lack of culture, etc.
My experience of French people has been uniformly bad, and I'm convinced it's because they are at once cynical, conceited, and cowardly.
-
I used to blame wasps for the problems with American Catholics too, but I honestly can't anymore.
It's been a long long time since the Klan would burn crosses near Catholic neighborhoods.
The collapse of Catholicism everywhere has to be blamed on Catholics. And their submission to propaganda.
-
I don't know about the first 2 but cowardly is not how I would describe the French.
-
Just wait to see who converts to the faith, America or France. You have millenia of prophecies that will provide you with the answer.
True, France can reject the faith, it has done it before, and at the end of time, it along with everyone else will probably do it again. But the roots are still deep.
What is the national identity of America? Some WASPs and Masons enforced their will on everyone else through craft and skulduggery and that's supposed to mean something that I as a Catholic should hang my hat on? Sorry, no. This country had indigenous peoples long before they got here, and then those indigenous peoples were partly converted by the European Catholics. These Catholics did not try to impose some kind of sorry, fantastical myth on the Indians, they simply brought them the truth. You sound very susceptible to English and American imperial fantasies, as Pere says, like you are blaring Elgar all day or something.
PereJoseph said:
I have my suspicions as to why. Tell me, have you really considered the absurdity yet of aligning yourself against almost every Catholic ethnicity on the face of the earth and siding with United-Statesian White Nationalists ?
-
I don't know about the first 2 but cowardly is not how I would describe the French.
You don't think the Reign of Terror was cowardly?
-
Telesphorus said:
The collapse of Catholicism everywhere has to be blamed on Catholics. And their submission to propaganda.
No argument from me but... Weren't you just exalting American Catholics and saying that they gave the nation a unique identity?
Yes, of course the Catholics are susceptible to propaganda -- Americanist and anti-European propaganda, for one thing, which you seem pretty close to embracing here.
You appear to be trying to blend the American Catholics with the WASPs with the common denominator being a certain percentage of European blood and saying this is the core identity of America... Or am I mistaken?
-
People have national identities as well as religious identities, and for that reason you have people calling American Catholics "wasps" as though they aren't Catholic, while they exult Mexico and France as somehow being wonderfully Catholic places, when that hasn't been the case for a very long time.
-
I don/t know of anywhere that is a 'wonderfully Catholic place' today.
-
I don/t know of anywhere that is a 'wonderfully Catholic place' today.
That's right, but you hear all these criticisms of various nationalities that's based supposedly on their not having Catholic traditions. Well what about the nationalities with Catholic traditions? I'm not seeing authentic preservation occurring.
-
It's just idiocy to deny the existence of an American nationality, to claim that a people with a significant Amerind admixture are more European than the white American nationality, etc. (I'm not saying there aren't plenty of white people in Argentina, never did. It is clear though that what is considered "white" varies in Latin America a great deal. Of course, that's because being lighter is prized in Latin America, but hated among yankees. Kind of makes you scratch your head a bit as to the motivation for the yankee hating.
What's your obsession with this white % obsession? I judge a man by what he makes of himself. You are Irish German, so PreJoseph said, well I have tons of Irish German people living in my state who are first generation upright savages, toughless at 30, rednecks, they're everywhere today. Go to any Walmart and see them, it's no small minority. What does their "white %" mean?
The world that I live in judges a man's superiority by their achievements (the order has no significance):
How much money they make, have.
How many toys they own, like house, cars, yacht etc. (not mortgaged or financed))
How cultured they are (refined, educated, class)
How happy they truly are.
How many true friends they have
How beautiful their wife is in looks, or inside, or both.
How strong they are, their fighting ability.
Their athletic, musical abilities.
& many other traits
The color of their skin means nothing. If you are 100% white Norwegian homeless drunkard, and I'm a blue black man from Nigeria worth millions, who is superior?
To a Catholic, the number one would be who is living a life according to God's will. Who saves their soul in the end, is all that makes one superior, for you can't take any of the above things that make one superior in this world. what good does allthat "American white" do all those "superior" people in America? They are practically all going to hell.
Maybe people raised in California just aren't aware of the existence of the default American nationality. Most amusingly they refer to their fellow Catholics as "WASPs" or as "Americanists" - denying that they are real Catholics. It's the influence of irrational post-68 hysteria and extremism.
To you all the people in California are the same.
As for the French, what I've come to notice they commonly possess a combination of stupidity, pride, and a complex of inferiority, which tends to manifest in vicious cowardly behavior.
To you all the French are the same.
By the way,how exactly does French man you've come to notice commonly possess a combination of pride and inferiority complex? In my world those are opposed traits.
So far, to you all Argentines, Americans (except Californians, so far), French, Latin Americans, Indians, and _______ people commonly possess a combination of traits that you've noticed in whomever you disagrees with you.
You need to get out of this ghetto you've created in your mind.
-
' I'm 6' 2 weigh 210-- long hair, pretty fair skin......'
Love Man-- Otis Redding
-
You are Irish German, so PreJoseph said, well I have tons of Irish German people living in my state who are first generation upright savages, toughless at 30, rednecks, they're everywhere today.
Correction: Should say toothless
-
nadieimportante said:
The world that I live in judges a man's superiority by their achievements (the order has no significance):
How much money they make, have.
How many toys they own, like house, cars, yacht etc. (not mortgaged or financed))
The color of their skin means nothing. If you are 100% white Norwegian homeless drunkard, and I'm a blue black man from Nigeria worth millions, who is superior?
He who loves the world hates me, ring any bells?
If a fiction writer came on this site trying to play the part of a Latin macho to irritate Tele, he couldn't have it done it any better, lol.
-
Maybe people raised in California just aren't aware of the existence of the default American nationality. Most amusingly they refer to their fellow Catholics as "WASPs" or as "Americanists" - denying that they are real Catholics. It's the influence of irrational post-68 hysteria and extremism.
If my serving in the u s military wasn't proof enough that I was aware of the existence of the default US (what you call 'American') nationality, I don't know what would. It'smost likely that nothing would suffice for you since you show yourself to be regularly illogical when you start emoting and feel like you're backed into a corner on certain issues. Yes, I imagine you've been filled with a great sense of Americanism from your immediate family, for which I do not blame you. I am open to being wrong, but this is the impression i get. I don't know how being from California would even be relevant to this.... just more proof of your illogical, and likely emotion driven, conclusions.
And in no way am I justifiyng my joining the military as noble nor would I council anyone to join knowing what I know now.
-
If my serving in the u s military wasn't proof enough that I was aware of the existence of the default US (what you call 'American') nationality, I don't know what would. It'smost likely that nothing would suffice for you since you show yourself to be regularly illogical when you start emoting and feel like you're backed into a corner on certain issues.
lol. So what is the default American nationality then? Do you recognize it? Let me give you a hint: It's not Mexican.
Yes, I imagine you've been filled with a great sense of Americanism from your immediate family, for which I do not blame you.
No, not really. I would say though, that it's obvious that some people can't handle the fact that they aren't white Americans, that they aren't of the American nationality, so they want to deny that there is such a nationality. As for myself I don't really identify with the American nationality so much. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And it is a white European ethnic group.
I am open to being wrong, but this is the impression i get. I don't know how being from California would even be relevant to this.... just more proof of your illogical, and likely emotion driven, conclusions.
Who is really the one who is emoting here?
And in no way am I justifiyng my joining the military as noble nor would I council anyone to join knowing what I know now.
You know I could join the French Foreign Legion, it wouldn't make me French. Nor do I intend to do so, or counsel anyone to join. I'm not sure what you're trying to say about belonging to the US military. That you're patriotic? Or familiar with the American national ethnicity? I would say that people in California are more used to the modern Babel than they are to living within a society that is constituted by the white American ethnicity.
As for Nadie's claim that I'm obsessed with whiteness, I think that's nonsense of course. I do think Latin Americans do form a hierarchy of caste where whites are on type. Take a man like Vincente Fox, for example. I think Latin women like white men the same way asian girls do. Malinchism? Is that what it's called? I notice that many Latin Americans emphasize their Spanish heritage to the expense of their indigenous heritage, not that that's wrong, that's just the way they are.
-
The color of their skin means nothing. If you are 100% white Norwegian homeless drunkard, and I'm a blue black man from Nigeria worth millions, who is superior?
Who would you rather be the father of your grandchildren?
-
Where would you rather be homeless? In Norway or Rhodesia [Present day in its messed up form]?
-
Nadi:
To a Catholic, the number one would be who is living a life according to God's will. Who saves their soul in the end, is all that makes one superior, for you can't take any of the above things that make one superior in this world. what good does allthat "American white" do all those "superior" people in America? They are practically all going to hell.
That's pretty much the bottom line and you all should leave it at that.
-
Nadi:
To a Catholic, the number one would be who is living a life according to God's will. Who saves their soul in the end, is all that makes one superior, for you can't take any of the above things that make one superior in this world. what good does allthat "American white" do all those "superior" people in America? They are practically all going to hell.
That's pretty much the bottom line and you all should leave it at that.
It's not unreasonable to want to live in a place where you and your family are at home and reasonably secure.
-
nadieimportante said:
The world that I live in judges a man's superiority by their achievements (the order has no significance):
How much money they make, have.
How many toys they own, like house, cars, yacht etc. (not mortgaged or financed))
The color of their skin means nothing. If you are 100% white Norwegian homeless drunkard, and I'm a blue black man from Nigeria worth millions, who is superior?
He who loves the world hates me, ring any bells?
If a fiction writer came on this site trying to play the part of a Latin macho to irritate Tele, he couldn't have it done it any better, lol.
Strawman. Did you miss these two parts or did you just leave it out so you could slander me? Please explain.
The world that I live in judges a man's superiority by their achievements (the order has no significance): [/b][/u]
How much money they make, have.
How many toys they own, like house, cars, yacht etc. (not mortgaged or financed))
To a Catholic , the number one would be who is living a life according to God's will. Who saves their soul in the end, is all that makes one superior, for you can't take any of the above things that make one superior in this world.
-
There are other measures of success too, which include crime statistics, recidivism, disease, tendency for violent crime and other factors which can dramatically affect the kind of experience you have in an area, unless you're successful enough where you can live in a gated community and hire armed guards.
-
The color of their skin means nothing. If you are 100% white Norwegian homeless drunkard, and I'm a blue black man from Nigeria worth millions, who is superior?
Who would you rather be the father of your grandchildren?
This is one of those questions that if you had another chance I'm sure you would have deleted, right?
-
nadieimportante said:
The world that I live in judges a man's superiority by their achievements (the order has no significance):
How much money they make, have.
How many toys they own, like house, cars, yacht etc. (not mortgaged or financed))
To a Catholic , the number one would be who is living a life according to God's will. Who saves their soul in the end, is all that makes one superior, for you can't take any of the above things that make one superior in this world.
I missed the second part, I apologize. But as I'm sure you'll understand, I had no way of knowing that you were negative towards "the world that you live in." It sounded like you were boasting about it.
-
nadieimportante said:
The world that I live in judges a man's superiority by their achievements (the order has no significance):
How much money they make, have.
How many toys they own, like house, cars, yacht etc. (not mortgaged or financed))
To a Catholic , the number one would be who is living a life according to God's will. Who saves their soul in the end, is all that makes one superior, for you can't take any of the above things that make one superior in this world.
I missed the second part, I apologize. But as I'm sure you'll understand, I had no way of knowing that you were negative towards "the world that you live in." It sounded like you were boasting about it.
No problem, thanks.
(By the way, calling a Latino a macho is not an insult. I think the idea that it's an insult comes from the emasculation of men by feminists in the USA and Europe.)
play the part of a Latin macho
-
This is one of those questions that if you had another chance I'm sure you would have deleted, right?
Of course not.
Which would you prefer?
Do you think that woman Heidi Klum would have been better off married to a drunken homeless Norwegian?
Probably yes.
-
And the same goes for the Elin Nordegren.
-
And Nicole Brown Simpson.
-
I'll point out something else:
A good woman, by giving herself to a certain type of man, can make a huge difference in his life. But of course today, when women pairing off (and even then without permanent commitment) happens so late you are not likely to find the sort of woman who can help a man make something of himself (what was that proverb about a woman being behind a successful man? that sounds like meaningless cliche these days, but it must have meant something once). Just as you don't often see good men marrying young women and helping them to become mothers instead of what they are becoming these days.
-
The color of their skin means nothing. If you are 100% white Norwegian homeless drunkard, and I'm a blue black man from Nigeria worth millions, who is superior?
Who would you rather be the father of your grandchildren?
What a breathtakingly offensive comment. I want the fathers of my grandchildren to be Catholic. Thanks be to God, all of them are. I could not care less about their race. I certainly would not want you to be their father. But since my wife was not white, and my daughters are racially impure and over 22, I suppose you wouldn't want that either.
-
What a breathtakingly offensive comment.
Because black millionaires are supposedly good fathers and homeless Norwegian males who drink are inveterately bad and evil people? And because it's wrong to want one's grandchildren to look like oneself?
That's offensive? What is offensive is idea that the worth of fatherhood and heritable characteristics can be measured by money.
-
Thanks be to God, all of them are. I could not care less about their race. I certainly would not want you to be their father.
lol that's hardly an argument. You really misunderstand me, my attitudes and my views, but I suppose for someone with your background and upbringing in the 60s it's to be expected.
But since my wife was not white, and my daughters are racially impure and over 22, I suppose you wouldn't want that either.
LOL! Don't be so sure!
I won't ask for permission either.
-
The color of their skin means nothing. If you are 100% white Norwegian homeless drunkard, and I'm a blue black man from Nigeria worth millions, who is superior?
Who would you rather be the father of your grandchildren?
Not much of a choice, two evils. They are not Catholic.
My duty is to save my daughters souls, to that end:
The man must be a real Catholic, ideally from a family with a Catholic tradition(no converts with non-Catholic family members), from the same social status, class as my family, and a good man, with a entrpreneurial spirit.
If they don't possess these qualities, I will not let them even get close.
-
Not much of a choice, two evils. They are not Catholic.
Who said they were not Catholics?
My duty is to save my daughters souls, to that end:
Okay Nadie, now here's the point: I wasn't saying that either were optimal. I was just giving you an alternative. I'm not saying the alternative is good or acceptable, or that you would accept either, just that it would be natural to prefer one to the other.
If they don't pocess these qualities, I will not let them even get close.
Well that is a problem because it is not up to you.
I might not like my daughter to marry a negro, but I could hardly stop her or tell it was not within her rights to do so.
-
...from the same social status...class as my family...
If they don't possess these qualities, I will not let them even get close.
If you will not even let someone of a different class get close, then what's wrong with those who don't want people of a different getting close?
-
Nadie said: If they don't pocess these qualities, I will not let them even get close.
Well that is a problem because it is not up to you.
That's what a coward would say, people who give up even before the fight has started. . However, the reality is that it is totally up to me.
You are not married, nor have any children, nor have the years of experience I have in the tactics of men. And judging by your comment above, I doubt that you have the resolve that I have.
When I say "I will not let them even get close", I mean it. The process of seducing someone takes time, if one is alert, they can see it all, and stop it from the get go. I could spot you eyeing my daughters in an instant. and I'd come right over to you tell you to drop it. Usually that is all that's needed.
My daughters are being raised to grow up and pass/keep the faith in the family, and to save their souls. We are likely the only ones left of our greater family that will pass on the faith (unless some others return to the faith). This is no game, this is a war for eternal life.
My ways are not your ways, so you will never understand.
-
That's what a coward would say, people who give up even before the fight has started. . However, the reality is that it is totally up to me.
St. Thomas Aquinas (not that you respect his opinion):
The maid is in her father's power, not as a female slave without power over her own body, but as a daughter, for the purpose of education. Hence, in so far as she is free, she can give herself into another's power without her father's consent, even as a son or daughter, since they are free, may enter religion without their parent's consent.
Not your decision.
You are not married, nor have any children, nor have the years of experience I have in the tactics of men. And judging by your comment above, I doubt that you have the resolve that I have.
I see, so you think you will manipulate, by hook or by crook, and get your way.
I think you might find yourself unpleasantly surprised if you adopt such an attitude.
When I say "they will not let them even get close", I mean it. The process of seducing someone takes time, my daughters are being raised to grow up and pass/keep the faith in the family, and to save their souls. We are likely the only ones left of our greater family that will pass on the faith (unless some others return to the faith). This is no game, this is a war for eternal life.
My ways are not your ways, so you will never understand.
Oh I understand the control freakery.
-
...from the same social status...class as my family...
If they don't possess these qualities, I will not let them even get close.
If you will not even let someone of a different class get close, then what's wrong with those who don't want people of a different getting close?
That appears incomplete please explain further.
-
That's what a coward would say, people who give up even before the fight has started. . However, the reality is that it is totally up to me.
St. Thomas Aquinas (not that you respect his opinion):
The maid is in her father's power, not as a female slave without power over her own body, but as a daughter, for the purpose of education. Hence, in so far as she is free, she can give herself into another's power without her father's consent, even as a son or daughter, since they are free, may enter religion without their parent's consent.
Not your decision.
LOL.
You are not married, nor have any children, nor have the years of experience I have in the tactics of men. And judging by your comment above, I doubt that you have the resolve that I have.
I see, so you think you will manipulate, by hook or by crook, and get your way.
I think you might find yourself unpleasantly surprised if you adopt such an attitude.
When I say "they will not let them even get close", I mean it. The process of seducing someone takes time, my daughters are being raised to grow up and pass/keep the faith in the family, and to save their souls. We are likely the only ones left of our greater family that will pass on the faith (unless some others return to the faith). This is no game, this is a war for eternal life.
My ways are not your ways, so you will never understand.
Oh I understand the control freakery.
You see, you don't understand. Your mind has been effeminetized and you don't know it. You've given up before the fight has even begun (and you even look for justification for your laziness in missapplying St. Thomas). I'm the patriarch, the guardian of my childrens souls, I'm the shepherd that gives up his life for his sheep. You will never understand, because we are so different.
-
Nadieimportante said:
When I say "I will not let them even get close", I mean it. The process of seducing someone takes time, if one is alert, they can see it all, and stop it from the get go. I could spot you eyeing my daughters in an instant. and I'd come right over to you tell you to drop it. Usually that is all that's needed.
My daughters are being raised to grow up and pass/keep the faith in the family, and to save their souls. We are likely the only ones left of our greater family that will pass on the faith (unless some others return to the faith). This is no game, this is a war for eternal life.
It's like the devil sent you to say EXACTLY what will most rile Tele up, like you're a caricature of the Latin machismo he feels he experienced before.
You were Hugh Hefner before marriage, then converted very late, and yet you won't let your daughter marry a convert? Hypocritical much? Just a few days ago you were saying that guys HAD to let girls sow their wild oats before swooping in and catching them. But of course, that means all other girls except your daughters, right? It's not a surprise that when it comes to your own daughters you are extremely overprotective, probably because you think all guys think like you used to ( and maybe still do ). This is a classic mistake.
You and Tele are almost two peas in a pod. Both full of contradictions, driven by irrational prejudices. I can imagine you going around and around in circles forever.
If the girl is over 18 you really have no choice. Your attitude is the kind that drives young girls out of the Church. Ease up on the reins and trust the teaching of the Church and their love of God to guide them.
-
...from the same social status...class as my family...
If they don't possess these qualities, I will not let them even get close.
If you will not even let someone of a different class get close, then what's wrong with those who don't want people of a different getting close?
That appears incomplete please explain further.
That was supposed to say 'of a different race'.
-
You see, you don't understand. Your mind has been effeminetized and you don't know it.
I think you've been niggerized and don't know it. Mr. repentant "Hugh Hefner clone."
You've given up before the fight has even begun (and you even look for justification for your laziness in missapplying St. Thomas).
Uh-huh. Misapplication. Right, Mr Feeneyite, I mustn't understand St. Thomas. And if I didn't misunderstand him, then you'd agree?
I'm the patriarch, the guardian of my childrens souls, I'm the shepherd that gives up his life for his sheep. You will never understand, because we are so different.
I understand very clearly you'll be old man by the time push comes to shove. One reason that Aristotle recommends a big age difference, to prevent fathers from trying to excessively dominate their children.
-
Nadieimportante said:
When I say "I will not let them even get close", I mean it. The process of seducing someone takes time, if one is alert, they can see it all, and stop it from the get go. I could spot you eyeing my daughters in an instant. and I'd come right over to you tell you to drop it. Usually that is all that's needed.
My daughters are being raised to grow up and pass/keep the faith in the family, and to save their souls. We are likely the only ones left of our greater family that will pass on the faith (unless some others return to the faith). This is no game, this is a war for eternal life.
It's like the devil sent you to say EXACTLY what will most rile Tele up, like you're a caricature of the Latin machismo he feels he experienced before.
You were Hugh Hefner before marriage, then converted very late, and yet you won't let your daughter marry a convert? Hypocritical much? Just a few days ago you were saying that guys HAD to let girls sow their wild oats before swooping in and catching them. But of course, that means all other girls except your daughters, right? It's not a surprise that when it comes to your own daughters you are extremely overprotective, probably because you think all guys think like you used to ( and maybe still do ). This is a classic mistake.
You and Tele are almost two peas in a pod. Both full of contradictions, driven by irrational prejudices. I can imagine you going around and around in circles forever.
If the girl is over 18 you really have no choice. Your attitude is the kind that drives young girls out of the Church. Ease up on the reins and trust the teaching of the Church and their love of God to guide them.
Wise up, and learn from experience. Your analysis of me is totally wrong. If you just saw me once, you'd have a different picture. You are too quick to judge, and you base it on your small circle of experience, two big mistakes.
You teach children from the time they are born, if you have not done that, then you are right, there's nothing you can do when they're 18. The children have the example of their parents for like 15 years, and that's where they develop the armor to protect themselves, and if it's done right, they will listen to your adivice till the day that they/you die, because they have learned from experience that the parent know. They have learned that it's better to learn of others errors, than to learn from their own experience the same errors. My grandfather lived to be almost 101, and he worked till the day he died. He was the patriarch and his sons, and grandson consulted him and listened (unforetunately the Faith was not an important element of the teaching, however, the golden rule was).
In my life's experiences and travels I have learned that there are few men who learn from experience, and change their ways, very few. I'm one that changes when something better is shown to me. I made a 180 degree change in my life. The coal miners lungs will always be black even after he leaves the mines and gets a job elsewhere. I didn't know better for my first 39 years, but when the truth was shown to me, I abandoned my past and changed my life. The past is real, I can't erase it. But all that matters now is the present and the future.
Learn from experience and change what is not right. Don't become set in your erroneous ways..
-
You see, you don't understand. Your mind has been effeminetized and you don't know it.
I think you've been niggerized and don't know it. Mr. repentant "Hugh Hefner clone."
The more that one struggles in quicksand, the faster they go down.
-
...from the same social status...class as my family...
If they don't possess these qualities, I will not let them even get close.
If you will not even let someone of a different class get close, then what's wrong with those who don't want people of a different getting close?
That appears incomplete please explain further.
That was supposed to say 'of a different race'.
Oh, OK. I don't have much time now to do your question justice, so I'll just post a quote I made earlier. Later I may start thread on the subject of race vs class:
Nadie,
I understand why you objected to being characterized as a racist in the exchange you described. It was silly of the principal to do so. Are you saying that there is nothing that can be accurately described as racism out there. If I hate you because you are Latino, or black, or white or Asian or whatever, why isn't that racist?
I just would steer clear of calling a Catholic, a racist. Give them the benefit of the doubt. Don't jump to conclusions.
A kind of analogous technique that I use when people get violent with me (face to face), is to act as if I don't understand what they are doing, usually, they will just leave me alone since they see that I'm not scared at all. But if they are really intent on harming me, and anyone is watching, after hearing me be verbally abused for so long, the witnesses will testify that they would have acted the same way as I (break a broom over their head), LONG before I did. Actually in 30 years of using this technique the result has always been that "they will just leave me alone since they see that I'm not scared at all", so don't conclude that I'm some bar room brawler.
Give them every opportunity to explain themselves, ask them all manner of questions. If you finally conclude that they really are racist, by that time "the witnesses will testify that they would have concluded the same way LONG before you did".
The biggest source of a mis-diagnoses of racism in Americans is that they don't know how to differentiate class difference from racial difference. It is the biggest sources of error. Scarcely any Americans realize this. Class difference is the source of "discomfort?" (nothing in common?) between people, not race. A upper class white baptist would be more at home with an upper class Latino, than he would be with a lower class white baptist. The worst scenario of "discomfort" would be the combination of an upper class white baptist with a lower class Latino, and similarly an upper class Latino, with a lower class white baptist. The "discomfort" is mutual between upper and lower classes. The lower class Latino does not feel comfortable around upper class Latinos, just like a lower class white baptist would not feel "at home" with an upper class white baptist.
-
Dear Augustinian,
You only quoted a part of the whole that I wrote, the whole is crucial, after all, you could have asked "You won't let someone who is not an entreprener marry your daughter"? All of these go together, and much more. However, the real Catholc is what will tip the scales. God can provide the rest, or protect from the harm from the lack in the rest.
The man must be a real Catholic, ideally from a family with a Catholic tradition(no converts with non-Catholic family members), from the same social status, class as my family, and a good man, with a entrpreneurial spirit.
If they don't possess these qualities, I will not let them even get close.
-
No matter what anyone likes or any qualms anyone has about "racism", it's human nature to form social groups around people who are similar to you in terms of class, race and culture.
Marrying someone outside of your racial and cultural group can have a lot of unwelcome difficulties that aren't restricted simply to how it is received by other people in society.
-
The more that one struggles in quicksand, the faster they go down.
Uh-huh, because the term "niggerized" doesn't refer to anything real, it's just blind racism?
No, the term niggerized has a definite meaning, it's a legitimate term to use, and it describes a certain kind of hierarchy of values.
For example, is the phrase "nigger rich" racism?
Well, to some hyper-sensitive cockalorum (or other type) playing the racial victim card, I suppose so.
-
That's why it's best to leave it alone.
It has been shown that most people marry within their race. By far the vast majority through history has done this.
By making interracial marriage this taboo, you only encourage it, in a sense. I compare it to Prohibition which vastly exacerabated vice in trying to repress it with overly draconian measures.
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.
-
I've never claimed interracial marriage is taboo, or that I would make it taboo.
Catholics aren't "wasps" for not having post-68 views on race.
-
By the way, my last post was a response to Augustine Baker's, not Tele's. This one is a response to Tele's.
Telesphorus said:
Uh-huh, because the term "niggerized" doesn't refer to anything real, it's just blind racism?
No, the term niggerized has a definite meaning, it's a legitimate term to use, and it describes a certain kind of hierarchy of values.
For example, is the phrase "nigger rich" racism?
Well, to some hyper-sensitive cockalorum (or other type) playing the racial victim card, I suppose so.
What does "niggerized" mean to you? Yes, it means something, that term is one associated with slaves on the plantation who were kept in abject subjection. So you can use it to say that, under the globalists, we are all becoming "niggers." But this is nothing pejorative about the black race, it refers to people who are exploited. If you think it means something else, like that blacks are morons or sub-human, you are holding an un-Catholic position.
-
That's not what the term means.
The cathinfo Zoot Suits and nadie importunado know what I'm talking about.
-
Tele, I know you cannot resist answering this, so you might as well just take me off ignore.
Exterminate ? No.
They caused massive deaths.
Since causing massive deaths of combatants in war is rarely considered "extermination," I assume you are referring to smallpox, for which, obviously, the Spaniards cannot be held accountable. There are quite a few nasty things, of course, such as having black slaves dive for pearls thirty to fifty feet underwater in the sea, causing many to drown, or else overworking Indian slaves in the silver and gold mines of the Andes, &c.
But I think the point of bringing this up on your part is to show some sort of equivalency between English and Spanish treatment of Indians. The differences are profound and simple. In Spanish colonies, Indians were given the Faith and often had a pretty good chance of having a good life, though the Spanish were rather ceaseless in their pressure towards Renaissance-style sedentarism. In the English colonies, Indians were considered sub-human and there actually were real efforts of extermination of the "savages."
You didn't answer the other questions, though, such as whether or not you have a problem with people who have Indian bloodlines
I don't have a problem with them, but I don't consider them to be Europeans.
How mixed do they have to be before they don't count as Europeans ? How unmixed until they count as Europeans ?
Whether they are white or not would depend on their ancestry being predominantly European, wouldn't it?
I won't give credence to the arbitrary term "white," which you have in no way defended as being accurate in any consistent and/or scientific way. If somebody is 51% European and 49% Algonquian, are they European ? What about 60/40 ? 80/20 ? At what point is somebody considered "white," and which races are considered "white" and which ones aren't ?
I have my suspicions as to why. Tell me, have you really considered the absurdity yet of aligning yourself against almost every Catholic ethnicity on the face of the earth
That is another stupid statement.
Well, you don't like Frenchmen and, therefore, probably would hate Frenchwomen, too, since we all tend to like each other pretty well. And you said some deprecating things about Nadie's ethnicity, who is Cuban, and it seems like you tend to dislike all Romance-speaking peoples. Therefore, it seems like you nourish a personal distaste for... the majority of all Catholics who have ever lived. You tend to think that our general non-acceptance of "white this," "non-white that" WASP rhetoric is the result of stupidity or stubbornness, as if we are denying an obvious reality and are placing ourselves categorically outside the fight for "civilization" because we are either too dumb or too dishonest to participate. At least, that is how it seems.
How to align myself against Catholic nations by saying that the US is culturally and historically a white European nation?
You seem to have trouble comprehending statements in the context of the sentences surrounding them. I am saying that you align yourself against Catholic nations by your dislike for Romance-speaking people and our cultures and customs and general attitudes.
It's only someone who is completely lacking in objectivity who denies that.
Why do you feel the need to take things to a personal level and make unreasonable exaggerations ?
As I've said before, you deny the identity and the existence of an American nationality...
From the standpoint of international law ? No. From the standpoint of ethnos, uh, yeah, you bet I do. That's because there is no such thing as any "American" people unless we are referring to English and Scotch-Irish people from the Thirteen Colonies and Appalachia. But, once again, the burden of proof is entirely on you.
...that is simply a result of being someone consumed with hatred for what you consider to be "anglo-protestant" America
Let me get this straight -- I deny that there is any coherent "American" ethnicity, which is proof of my hatred of it ? Or is my wish for Catholic people to advance at the expense of Anglo-Protestant people somehow evidence of non-Catholic pathologies ? I suppose I don't quite understand your accusation. Maybe you could make it again in a clearer way.
...and it's prairies that you wish desolation on.
I wish nothing but health to the glorious prairies of North America, trust me. How did you ever get any other impression ? I would truly be surprised if you could find me saying anything favourable regarding the destruction or harm of the prairies.
So recognizing white Americans as an ethnicity and really the core of the American nationality is "aligning with white Americans against every Catholic ethnicity."
Now it seems like you're just being disingenuous. You know that's not how the issue was framed. In any case, "white Americans" are not an ethnicity, at least not really, since "white" is an arbitrary and silly term that means nothing. If that is the name you want to give for people who identify with Anglo-Germanic Protestant culture, "white," I guess that's fine, but I still maintain that the descriptor is in no way helpful.
That is of course an absurd remark, but I suppose it's natural from someone who is mentally ill.
Now you're just engaging in pharisaical hypocrisy, at least, I find this behaviour of yours surprising, coming from somebody who so frequently goes on and on about being the victim of slander and calumny. The words you put in my mouth cannot be evidence of mental illness, but then... you knew that. I suppose it is only charitable to assume that you are not being sincere, in which case you are merely acting like a childish buffoon.
There's no arguing with a lunatic.
You really need to grow up. The truth is that apparently there's no arguing with somebody who is unable to follow an argument from premise to conclusion. I have been calm and consistent, dealing with the issue using nothing but facts and history; you have not justified any of your central claims, have liberally dealt out insults, and have answered no question addressed to you.
You mean when they show their inept reasoning?
No, I mean when they disagree with you, somebody who habitually comes to conclusions in anger and cannot swallow his pride and back down on his rash theories in the face of those who have rival theories they arrived at through sober reflection and experience. And, just for the sake of the dispute, I would like to clarify that I am not including myself in the latter group.
I would say nearly all of them have agreed with me at some point or another, it's only when it comes to topics they can't handle that they start raving.
You have it as backwards as possible.
And believe me, you are a raving lunatic with your talk about all white English speaking American Catholics being somehow not really being Catholic - indeed you've said as much...
You don't think that people not living in an integrally Catholic culture and not having Catholic traditions and folk customs, speaking a language affected by centuries of Protestant usage, puts them at a disadvantage in comparison to those who have Catholic cultures, traditions, folk customs, and ready linguistic usages ? You don't think that centuries of Americanist ecclesiastical and political culture doesn't, in any way, obscure the richness of the ancient Faith ? If not, I guess we are just at an impasse. Regardless, it's no strange theory of mine. Just about any French Canadian Catholic worth his salt would agree. Then again, perhaps we are all mentally ill together -- an entire race of lunatics, having our unsoundness of mind pointed out by... a lone German-Irish Yankee from Ohio publicly known for having a wild temper... His method of demonstration ? Unsubstantiated accusation. Hmm. I like our odds.
Speaking of odds, I think the readers can decide for themselves who sounds more like a raving lunatic, you, in all your wrath, or me, in all my composition and
...you recognize the people you hate, even if you claim you don't recognize the existence of the American nationality.
I have a pretty flexible and nuanced view of the problem, thank you. You are right that I don't have very much fondness for Anglo-American culture, though, and none for its myths and cults.
That you're infected with judaized thinking...
Another thing you've not demonstrated in any way whatsoever.
...and French stupidity is unfortunate but evident.
I take any accusation of sharing in an alleged "French stupidity" as a badge of honour, especially coming from somebody like yourself.
Your posts are a symptom of hysteria.
Well, we will let the readers decide who they think is hysterical and who is not. Otherwise it's just my word against yours. I should add that you do seem to be pretty upset about this, though, especially considering that you, uh, still haven't given any warrants whatsoever for any of your central claims, therefore logically handing a landslide victory over to me, before you then resorted to a lengthy series of insults.
Tell me, if an "American" had his country taken over by us stupid French Canadians -- who you really do seem to despise (and I use that word in its literal sense, not in the silly hyperbolic way that is common to you and Man of the West) -- would you accuse him of being a hateful lunatic if he desired for his countrymen to, over time, naturally displace the foreign invaders and their culture ? There are many similar cases worldwide. I think you would hesitate before accusing an Armenian of being a hateful lunatic for wanting the Mohammedan Turks, Kurds, and Azerbaijanis to be displaced from the environs of lakes Urmia and Van (which they are destroying), which were anciently held by his forefathers. But, maybe I am wrong, and you would be consistent and treat him like he is evil, too. Maybe the only truly sane and charitable thing for him to do would be to want to protect Kurdish and Turkish and Azerbaijani culture, abandon those places completely forever, and hope that those three peoples convert... And maybe all the European Kings were full of hatred and lunacy, too, whenever they participated in rivalries between one another, rather than wishing for their competitors to efface their heritages utterly (which one was right ?). If that is what you think, well, obviously we disagree.
It's not baseless at all. Your obsessive hatred of the American ethnicity...
How can I hate something that doesn't exist ? If you are referring to the WASPs of the Thirteen Colonies and the Scoth-Irish of Appalachia, no, I do not hate them, but I don't like their thoroughly Protestant culture and heritage, it's true. I hate their political ideology, too.
...which is so great that you deny the Catholicity of white Americans...
You are using totally different definitions than me. Sorry, but I am not a member of your ideological club.
...is something you've borrowed from the Jєωιѕн propagandists.
Jєωιѕн propagandists have commented on the effects of Americanism and WASP culture on the richness and fullness and historicity of Catholicism in the US ? Where ? Did you read it ?
What you say about the US is part of the post-68 narrative.
Which part ? Prove it.
It shows that your thinking is defective and is heavily influenced by judaized leftism.
I don't think my thinking is either defective or influenced by judaised leftism. You should prove the connection between my thinking and judaised leftism (after you define your terms, of course), even if only for charity's sake.
Your posts could come out of any culturally leftist history.
Please show me how that is the case. As of now, it seems like you're just bluffing. I would truly be grateful if you could show me where I am indebted to culturally leftist history (rather than just plain history), so that I could then re-orient my thoughts to correct information.
You've synthesized Feeneyism and cultural marxism into a bizarre melange.
This is news to me. Firstly, I'm not even a "Feeneyite," since I await word from Rome on the matter, though I admit that I find "Feeneyite" arguments to be incredibly logical and convincing and I think they are very important. Secondly, how has the belief that there is only one form of baptism affected my thinking ? Or are you just grasping at straws ? Thirdly, I am not a cultural Marxist, nor have you proven that I am in even the slightest way. This makes your detection of both of these forces supposedly poisoning my mind even more remarkable, since you were able to detect them despite their having no presence.
There, I called your bluff. I doubt you can make good on it at all, since you clearly don't possess the intellectual acuмen and knowledge to actually back up your wild accusations, which are based, precisely, on a reactionary and emotive manner of thinking and a lack of study : "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." But, please, try. Maybe start with offering, oh, I don't know, any proof whatsoever for just one of your central claims.
Sure, you love America.
I do love America; it's my home and it's beautiful. I certainly do not love the United States government and its culture, however, if you thought I was conflating them with the land.
[Y]ou hate the United States and its people in a pathological way.
I don't hate people from the United States. I don't hate anybody. I don't like their culture and the US government and I want them, so long as they cannot give up these things, to leave the Mississippi Valley, but I don't hate them. Maybe you could try to prove that I and my fellow French Canadians who don't love some other culture and people more than our own actually do have a pathological and unhealthy hatred for anglais; you should do that right after you prove the central claims of your "argument."
Something that could only come from French sense of inferiority nursed under the Jєωιѕн power that dominates the French.
Oh, yes, we French have a terrible inferiority complex regarding the glorious Anglo-Germanic peoples of the world. Thanks to the Jews who dominate us but in no way dominate the anglais, whether politically and economically or intellectually and in the formation of their imaginations, we cannot help but be manipulated into an un-intellectual hatred deprived of an lucid understanding of facts and reality based on experience and study. The sense of inferiority probably comes from our jealousy of the great English accomplishments that we could only hope to equal, specifically in crafts, building, art, literature, cuisine, military history, discovery, inventions, natural science, philosophy, theology, prestige (in the ways that matter to us), and in missions. Or maybe it couldn't come from that, since we excel in all of those things. For some reason, despite actually having the advantage in all of those categories and only trailing behind in sailing, large scale imperial organisation, the love of money, and insular xenophobia, we still cannot help but think of ourselves as inferior, though. And the Jews are the ones who help this complex along. Is that your theory ? And that's why we chafe at the English bit so much, because we are jealous ? It has nothing to do with wanting to be liberated from the English thumb (which wrought so many crimes on us) and finally winning the contest between the Catholic French and the Protestant English once and for all ? Only an anglais could ever believe something so wacky.
Tele-
Have you read this? I'm curious if you have the ability to answer PereJoseph's concerns and questions, though I feel as if you ignored this post on purpose due to an inability to respond adequately to such a exhaustive post, at least all at once. Perhaps you feel that a complete response would demonstrate the defects in your thinking? If you like to call Caminus out for not responding to certain posts, surely you can be man enough to show others the same respect... You've shown the ability to answer selective posts, but I think most would like to see a complete response to the above. Thanks.
-
:popcorn:
-
PereJoseph said:
Oh, yes, we French have a terrible inferiority complex regarding the glorious Anglo-Germanic peoples of the world. Thanks to the Jews who dominate us but in no way dominate the anglais, whether politically and economically or intellectually and in the formation of their imaginations, we cannot help but be manipulated into an un-intellectual hatred deprived of an lucid understanding of facts and reality based on experience and study. The sense of inferiority probably comes from our jealousy of the great English accomplishments that we could only hope to equal, specifically in crafts, building, art, literature, cuisine, military history, discovery, inventions, natural science, philosophy, theology, prestige (in the ways that matter to us), and in missions. Or maybe it couldn't come from that, since we excel in all of those things. For some reason, despite actually having the advantage in all of those categories and only trailing behind in sailing, large scale imperial organisation, the love of money, and insular xenophobia, we still cannot help but think of ourselves as inferior, though. And the Jews are the ones who help this complex along. Is that your theory ? And that's why we chafe at the English bit so much, because we are jealous ? It has nothing to do with wanting to be liberated from the English thumb (which wrought so many crimes on us) and finally winning the contest between the Catholic French and the Protestant English once and for all ? Only an anglais could ever believe something so wacky.
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:
-
Have you read this? I'm curious if you have the ability to answer PereJoseph's concerns and questions, though I feel as if you ignored this post on purpose due to an inability to respond adequately to such a exhaustive post, at least all at once.
PereJoseph has made many posts that anyone from the pre-1968 world would consider ridiculous.
He doesn't consider Americans (and he pretends not to recognize the term) to be real Catholics. It's similar to the bizarre "white Catholics are wasps" comment, which is another absurdity. (I know of no wasp ancestors at all)
I've noticed it's similar to things you hear from certain quasi-Marxist Irish nationalists. It's non-Catholic, it puts nation above or on the same plane as religion, which seems to be common among the French, Irish, etc.
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.
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.
-
Catholics aren't "wasps" for not having post-68 views on race.
You know, somebody can have non-Marxist views on race and not have WASP views like you do. There are more ways of looking at it than either the Rule Britannia and Yankee way or the Frankfurt School neo-Marxist way. That is to say, one does not have to either adopt one or the other type of non-Catholic ideology. We are in no way forced into that false choice. One can just look at every nation as having its own type of strengths and weaknesses, be candid about them when the moment is right, and leave it at that. It is mysterious how certain races/nations/ethnicities develop their common traits, but of course they do develop and have them. In any case, sometimes racial mixing can help the common good, sometimes it can hurt it. How is this "post-1968" or "Marxist," when in fact it was the common view of the Middle Ages. It seems like you are being duped by the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.
-
I pointed out I was done talking with him before he made that post, I'm not talking to him anymore. He's crazy. And if you think his post is so good, you should try harder to think clearly.
-
I pointed out I was done talking with him before he made that post, I'm not talking to him anymore. He's crazy. And if you think his post is so good, you should try harder to think clearly.
I didn't think so. Surprise surprise.
-
Quick- someone who can remember from logic class- what is the fallacy where someone immediately tries to discredit anyone who disagrees with them, without answering the other parties objection? (There may be a few in there)
-
What is the point of talking about fallacies when you call Catholics "wasps."?
I know very well the sort of irrationality that PereJoseph is peddling. It definitely has a lot of parallels with the Marxist approach to things, I've seen it before. The anglos become the class oppressors. Surprise surprise. Well it's very convenient to be anti-white these days. There's no penalty for it.
The aggressive attitudes you encounter among these groups is really the product of the corrupt societies they have developed in.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Not letting minorities run roughshod over people is not "looking back with nostalgia to lynchings."
It's no surprising that you frame the issue in such terms though, it's another example of how the ethnic plurality in the US is not allowed to defend its own interests without being accused of racism.
It's a similar tactic to bringing up the rack or the stake whenever anyone talks about a Catholic state.
It's a left-wing tactic.
-
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.
-
I don't think my experiences of my Catholic parish, Catholic school and of Trad-dom are unusual at all. I think they are typical.
-
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.
-
Whites basicallly run Cuba, despite all of the anti-racism and equal opportunity. That's been pretty much true of all Latin American countries, it's also overwhelmingly true of the US Military.
Even the elite units in the US Military are made up predominantly of whites.
It's not just a matter of a Victorian mentality, but there's something else at work.
I'll submit too that as soon as the Caucasian disappears from the scene in various parts of the world, that it will be disastrous a to political systems, followed by ensuing anarchy. A strong case in point is South Africa, where now nothing works, has the highest crime rate in the world and whites are frequently murdered and raped, thanks to what I'll leave the reader to decide.
It's just a fact of life, but personally, even though Rhodesia was a great idea until the Reds came and ruined everyone's lives, both white and black alike, I see people becoming even more unconcerned about racial and cultural differences to the denigration of whites overall.
Even with all the anti-white rhetoric in the West now, African nations just begging for whites to return and start managing their countries again. Can't say as I blame em either.
-
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'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.
Nadie, I'm in complete agreement here. I don't know Tele or Raoul personally, but from what I can tell, objectively, I hear little from them of their fathers. I would suspect they either have very weak or non-existent father figures, which would explain much. All I've ever heard is about each of them speak about is their mothers, and I say this with all due respect, and not to be insulting. But I'm curious if my assessment is accurate.
-
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:
-
So, basically, you are admitting that you feel more comfortable around Anglo-American Protestants than around Romance-speaking Catholics,
I'm sure there are plenty of Romance speaking Catholics I could get along with. For example there are many Germans in South America.
There isn't any disputing the corruption of Romance countries.
That's not saying I get along well with white Protestants. It's just you aren't typically dealing with the chip on the shoulder attitudes that come from a sense of inferiority.
There is something really really wrong with most of the Catholic societies of the past 100 years, that's why you saw things like French and Italian participation in WWI, the Spanish cινιℓ ωαr, la violencias, the Mexican Revolution etc.
Would I get along better with masonic anglos than with masonic romance speakers?
Of course.
-
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.
-
I don't like racism because I do not want to be put into a FEMA camp.
This ain't Vox. Can't be.
-
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.
-
Not very convincing, Nadie.
Okay, so you aren't a convert but you were a bad Catholic who became presumably a good Catholic. It's kind of the same. I know someone like that who considers themselves a convert.
Anyway, it's irrational to make a blanket statement that you wouldn't let a convert marry your daughter, some of them may make better Catholics than you.
All my other points that you say are "straw men" aren't really straw men, you just don't have answers for them.
-
St. Margaret of Cortona is said to have won many converts.
The term conversion does not apply to water baptism only.
-
All my other points that you say are "straw men" aren't really straw men, you just don't have answers for them.
The internet is a lousy vehicle for communicating what one is. If you saw me and I saw you, we would know more in one "view" than all the questions and answers that go back and forth here. So, I'll just leave it at that.
-
Has anyone else noticed that Vox's flag first said "Sweden" and now it says "Canada"? Hmm...
Now it says the Netherlands, LOL. Who the heck is this person?
-
nadieimportante said:
The internet is a lousy vehicle for communicating what one is. If you saw me and I saw you, we would know more in one "view" than all the questions and answers that go back and forth here. So, I'll just leave it at that.
Is that a threat?
I know plenty from the Internet. I know you hold an irrational view about who your daughter should marry, that it is overly controlling and based on personal prejudice, not on Church teaching. I also know you are a Feeneyite which is wrong. Change it and move on.
-
nadieimportante said:
The internet is a lousy vehicle for communicating what one is. If you saw me and I saw you, we would know more in one "view" than all the questions and answers that go back and forth here. So, I'll just leave it at that.
Is that a threat?
I know plenty from the Internet. I know you hold an irrational view about who your daughter should marry, that it is overly controlling and based on personal prejudice, not on Church teaching. I also know you are a Feeneyite which is wrong. Change it and move on.
Where do you see a threat in what I wrote?
-
Has anyone else noticed that Vox's flag first said "Sweden" and now it says "Canada"? Hmm...
Now it says the Netherlands, LOL. Who the heck is this person?
I am VoxClamantis, HEAR ME ROAR!
Germany now!
-
Not very convincing, Nadie.
Okay, so you aren't a convert but you were a bad Catholic who became presumably a good Catholic. It's kind of the same. I know someone like that who considers themselves a convert.
Anyway, it's irrational to make a blanket statement that you wouldn't let a convert marry your daughter, some of them may make better Catholics than you.
I usually don't like the term "bad Catholic," the way that it is used today assumes that one can be habitual bad and yet remain Catholic, which is false. It should generally be replaced with either with ex-Catholic, lapsed Catholic, or faithless Catholic. Nadie may not be a "convert" but he is then a revert, and thus is no different than most converts.
-
What a breathtakingly offensive comment.
Because black millionaires are supposedly good fathers and homeless Norwegian males who drink are inveterately bad and evil people? And because it's wrong to want one's grandchildren to look like oneself?
That's offensive? What is offensive is idea that the worth of fatherhood and heritable characteristics can be measured by money.
That was no one's point. It certainly was not mine. What i find offensive is that moral values are determined by color. We have had this argument before, to no purpose. I will do my best to stick to threads about Catholicism and leave arguing with racists to those with the stomach for it.
-
What i find offensive is that moral values are determined by color
I certainly never claimed that moral values are determined by one's color.
That certainly doesn't mean that one's racial heritage, or the racial heritage of one's descendants, should be a matter of indifference, no matter what politically correct persons may think.
-
Caraffa said:
I usually don't like the term "bad Catholic," the way that it is used today assumes that one can be habitual bad and yet remain Catholic, which is false. It should generally be replaced with either with ex-Catholic, lapsed Catholic, or faithless Catholic. Nadie may not be a "convert" but he is then a revert, and thus is no different than most converts.
Yeah, he would have to tell us, but it sounds likely that he didn't have a trace of the faith and that his Catholicism of the time was limited to being baptized. That is not being a bad Catholic, if you have apostasized you aren't Catholic.
In any case, I find it odd that he has established these restrictions against converts marrying his daughter, when cradle Catholics don't even take that attitude. It's HER decision, ultimately, of course, but I just believe his attitude is a bad one and one that increases the chances of making his daughter(s) rebellious. We all know about the overly strict father and / or husband whose wife cheats on him, his daughter runs away, etc. This is not just my personal theory, my priest gave a sermon about husbands who are too controlling with their wives and the fallout this causes.
It's the same in the Church, errors too far on the left OR right cause people to lose the faith. Since we live in the time of VII where most errors are on the left, people tend to swing too far in the other direction -- and I am convinced anti-Christ will be a far-right pseudo-Catholic rather than a far-left one like the VII crowd. People who are Jansenist types, like the Pharisees, tend to give people burdens that are greater than they can bear. God gives us our crosses, but extremists and letter-of-the-law types want to give themselves and others even more. It's extremely important to keep the proper balance in all things.
-
I say this, by the way, as someone who has fought ever since becoming Catholic with my own tendencies towards Phariseeism, overemphasizing God's justice at the expense of His mercy, always tempted by far-right self-righteousness and black-and-white thinking.
-
What a breathtakingly offensive comment.
Because black millionaires are supposedly good fathers and homeless Norwegian males who drink are inveterately bad and evil people? And because it's wrong to want one's grandchildren to look like oneself?
That's offensive? What is offensive is idea that the worth of fatherhood and heritable characteristics can be measured by money.
That was no one's point. It certainly was not mine. What i find offensive is that moral values are determined by color. We have had this argument before, to no purpose. I will do my best to stick to threads about Catholicism and leave arguing with racists to those with the stomach for it.
Oh, it's the "R" word again.
Maybe you're a racist?
-
Raoul76 said:
...We all know about the overly strict father and / or husband whose wife cheats on him, his daughter runs away, etc. This is not just my personal theory, my priest gave a sermon about husbands who are too controlling with their wives and the fallout this causes.
...People who are Jansenist types, like the Pharisees, tend to give people burdens that are greater than they can bear. God gives us our crosses, but extremists and letter-of-the-law types want to give themselves and others even more. It's extremely important to keep the proper balance in all things.
Meanwhile, you are not even married, and how old are you?
I can tell you that your observations, of this particualr situation are totally off. Which makes your entire thread another strawman. You are detracting here against my person, and in all charity, I will tell you that you should learn to refrain from going into personal defense/attack mode everytime you disagree with someone. You are obviously hurt by something in life that makes you act this way, and I noticed before that you do this all the time with others and yet they all have charitable refrained from attacking you the same way. I am doing the same.
It's extremely important to keep the proper balance in all things.
This cliche is as old as time. The question is what is balance? The strawman rant that you wrote above is not an example of "balanced".
-
Raoul76 said:
...We all know about the overly strict father and / or husband whose wife cheats on him, his daughter runs away, etc. This is not just my personal theory, my priest gave a sermon about husbands who are too controlling with their wives and the fallout this causes....People who are Jansenist types, like the Pharisees, tend to give people burdens that are greater than they can bear. God gives us our crosses, but extremists and letter-of-the-law types want to give themselves and others even more. It's extremely important to keep the proper balance in all things
Meanwhile, you are not even married, you have no personal experience with the raising of children, nor with married life with a wife. And how old are you? Tell me?
I can tell you that your observations of this particualr situation (me and my family) that you are totally off. Which makes your entire thread another strawman. You are detracting here against my person, and in all charity, I will tell you that you should learn to refrain from going into personal defense/attack mode everytime you disagree with someone. You are obviously hurt by something in life that makes you act this way, and I noticed before that you do this all the time with others and yet they all have charitable refrained from attacking you the same way. I am doing the same.
Learn from your mistakes, and improve yourself, and move on.
Raoul76 said:
It's extremely important to keep the proper balance in all things.
Indeed it is. This cliche is as old as time. The question is what is balance? The strawman rant that you wrote above is not an example of "balanced".
-
Dear Raoul,
Perhaps you missed this? :
Dear Augustinian,
You only quoted a part of the whole that I wrote, the whole is crucial, after all, you could have asked "You won't let someone who is not an entreprener marry your daughter"? All of these go together, and much more. However, the real Catholc is what will tip the scales. God can provide the rest, or protect from the harm of the lack in the rest.
The man must be a real Catholic, ideally from a family with a Catholic tradition(no converts with non-Catholic family members), from the same social status, class as my family, and a good man, with a entrpreneurial spirit.
If they don't possess these qualities, I will not let them even get close.
-
The best way, without a doubt, to learn is by the examples of others. I learned from the examples of the many good fathers in my fathers side of the family. All of them followed the example of the patriarch of the family, my grandfather, who lived (and worked) till he was almost 101. My grandfather lived with my father and mother and siblings in our house for 40 years of my life. All these good examples, grandfather, father and uncles, remained married for life. We didn't watch TV and live detached lives like people do today, we were a close family, and I listened to the stories about all of my ancestors, and all of the great freinds and men that they knew. This was our entertainment.
From this experience, one sees DAILY for all of their lives what it is to be a man, a good just man, to those placed in their care, as fathers, and as employers. This is how one learns the right way.
That is the source of my experience, good fathers. It is my intention to continue that heritage passed on to me, and hopefully be the patriarch that my grandfather was.
-
Whites basicallly run Cuba, despite all of the anti-racism and equal opportunity. That's been pretty much true of all Latin American countries, it's also overwhelmingly true of the US Military.
Even the elite units in the US Military are made up predominantly of whites.
It's not just a matter of a Victorian mentality, but there's something else at work.
I'll submit too that as soon as the Caucasian disappears from the scene in various parts of the world, that it will be disastrous a to political systems, followed by ensuing anarchy. A strong case in point is South Africa, where now nothing works, has the highest crime rate in the world and whites are frequently murdered and raped, thanks to what I'll leave the reader to decide.
It's just a fact of life, but personally, even though Rhodesia was a great idea until the Reds came and ruined everyone's lives, both white and black alike, I see people becoming even more unconcerned about racial and cultural differences to the denigration of whites overall.
Even with all the anti-white rhetoric in the West now, African nations just begging for whites to return and start managing their countries again. Can't say as I blame em either.
Hence my joke:
There's a joke about nationalities:
Heaven is where:
All the cops are English
All the chefs are French
All the mechanics are German
All the lovers are Italian
All the public administrators are Swiss
Hell is where:
All the cops are German
All the chefs are English
All the mechanics are French
All the lovers are Swiss
All the public administrators are Italian.
Every culture has it's qualitities and shortcomings. Men are not measured by where they came from or the successes of their country of origin, but from what they make of themselves.
-
The best way, without a doubt, to learn is by the examples of others. I learned from the examples of the many good fathers in my fathers side of the family. All of them followed the example of the patriarch of the family, my grandfather, who lived (and worked) till he was almost 101. My grandfather lived with my father and mother and siblings in our house for 40 years of my life. All these good examples, grandfather, father and uncles, remained married for life. We didn't watch TV and live detached lives like people do today, we were a close family, and I listened to the stories about all of my ancestors, and all of the great freinds and men that they knew. This was our entertainment.
From this experience, one sees DAILY for all of their lives what it is to be a man, a good just man, to those placed in their care, as fathers, and as employers. This is how one learns the right way.
That is the source of my experience, good fathers. It is my intention to continue that heritage passed on to me, and hopefully be the patriarch that my grandfather was.
The best way for any man, no matter what is genetic makeup, financial wealth or way of life is the Catholic Faith. Whether he be pygmy or a Nobel Prize winning scientist.
Of course, the Latin American family is one of those things, a combination of many cultural dimensions native to America and Europe, which the Church fostered and nurtured.