NationStates Jolt Archive

“They ought to know the yoke of perpetual enslavement because of their guilt. See to it that the perfidious Jews never in the future become insolent, but that they always suffer publicly the shame of their sin in servile fear.”
~ Pope Gregory IX

“They ought to know the yoke of perpetual enslavement because of their guilt. See to it that the perfidious Jews never in the future become insolent, but that they always suffer publicly the shame of their sin in servile fear.”
~ Pope Gregory IX
Overruled by Gregory X. Nice try, no cigar.

“They ought to know the yoke of perpetual enslavement because of their guilt. See to it that the perfidious Jews never in the future become insolent, but that they always suffer publicly the shame of their sin in servile fear.”
~ Pope Gregory IX

Nope, that still doesn't cover Pope Gregory X's unequivocal injunction against violence towards the Jews, nor his outright rejection of the Blood Libel. Try again.

What do you think about the Asians? Is there some vast asian-car-conspiracy too?

First of all, the "Vatican II" council was called by an antipope and therefore never actually occurred in the Roman Catholic Church.
Even if it had actually occurred:
-the council was pastoral and non-dogmatic,"...differing from other Councils, this one (Vatican II) was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastora" Antipope Paul VI
-the council followed a radical idea of replacing the Magisterium and the Roman curia with a council of bishops, making it fallible and causing great error
"The Council had avoided proclaiming solemn dogmatic definition that engage the infallibility of the Churches Magisterium". Antipope Paul Vi
-the documents of the council were certainly ambiguous

The false Council has done nothing but wreck havoc on the Church since its inception. The statistics support the Church's demise since Vatican II.And what gives you the religious authority to make that decision?

Overruled by Gregory X. Nice try, no cigar.
Popes do not just "overrule" each other based on their sequence. :rolleyes:


“It is fitting for Jews to serve Christians, but not for Christians to serve Jews. On the contrary, the Jews, as slaves rejected by that Saviour Whose death they wickedly contrived, should recognize themselves in fact and in creed the slaves of those whom the death of Christ has set free, even as it has rendered them bondmen.” ~Pope Benedict XIV

First of all, the "Vatican II" council was called by an antipope and therefore never actually occurred in the Roman Catholic Church.
Even if it had actually occurred:
-the council was pastoral and non-dogmatic,"...differing from other Councils, this one (Vatican II) was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastora" Antipope Paul VI
-the council followed a radical idea of replacing the Magisterium and the Roman curia with a council of bishops, making it fallible and causing great error
"The Council had avoided proclaiming solemn dogmatic definition that engage the infallibility of the Churches Magisterium". Antipope Paul Vi
-the documents of the council were certainly ambiguous

The false Council has done nothing but wreck havoc on the Church since its inception. The statistics support the Church's demise since Vatican II.

Okay, one thing at a time:

1) If the council was non-dogmatic, then it follows that it was open to new ideas, da? Now while I am no liberal (in the modern or classical senses), all organisations need to adapt to survive; if the church had not adapted but had instead maintained the same pointless dogmatic approach as it always had, I very much doubt it would be here today.

2) The council was fallible anyway; it was composed of humans. Unless of course by "fallible" you are meaning that it no longer enjoyed the status of infallibility enjoyed by the Pope, in which case you cannot argue that it has had any influence upon Christianity of any serious nature, since its' fallibility would make instructions issued by it worthless to the majority of Catholics.

3) The documents were ambiguous? So is the Bible. Your point is what, might I ask?

4) The statistics can be used to show just about anything. I am confident that I could find statistics linking the length of your hair with deaths in indo-China.

5) Again you quote a Pope. I remain unimpressed by his argument and yours. Take off the blinkers boyo.

And what gives you the religious authority to make that decision?
What decision are you referring to?

While we're at it, here's another one you can try:

Is it not a far better triumph for the Church to convince and convert the Jews than to put them all to the sword? Has that prayer which the Church offers for the Jews, from the rising up of the sun to the going down thereof, that the veil may be taken from their hearts so that they may be led from the darkness of error into the light of truth, been instituted in vain? If she did not hope that they would believe and be converted, it would seem useless and vain for her to pray for them. But with the eye of mercy she considers how the Lord regards with favor him who renders good for evil and love for hatred.
(St. Bernard of Clairvaux to Archbishop Henry of Mainz, 1146, The Letters of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, tr. Bruno Scott James [London, 1953], p. 466)

St Bernard, as I'm sure you are aware, was one of the leading theologians of the 12th century. Combine this with Pope Gregory forbidding forced baptism in 1272, and you have the orthodox Catholic view on the Jews: seek to convert them peacefully, and do them no harm.

It seems pretty clear that you are in direct conflict with orthodox Catholicism. Do you recant your heresy?

What decision are you referring to?
The decision that the findings of Vatican 2 were theologically invalid.

Popes do not just "overrule" each other based on their sequence. :rolleyes:


“It is fitting for Jews to serve Christians, but not for Christians to serve Jews. On the contrary, the Jews, as slaves rejected by that Saviour Whose death they wickedly contrived, should recognize themselves in fact and in creed the slaves of those whom the death of Christ has set free, even as it has rendered them bondmen.” ~Pope Benedict XIV
Why, yes, yes they do. If they come into conflict, the most recent wins.

As a Jewish American, I will have to say to all those who believe that the U.S Media and governement is controled by jews, are wrong.

Yet its already been pointed out that in America Jews own a hugely disproportionate share of the mass media as well as being highly over represented in the American governemnt.

I love Israel, i'm a big zionist

Now theres a shock....

As being jewish I look at my nation, the United States of America. I look at the accusations of jewish control in the United States. I dont see much of it. The media in the U.S is not control by the jews. You list all those Jewish people, in any profession you'll find Jews. Now if the Jews control the media, howcome the U.S media has been bias on the Israeli-palestianins issue by showing the suffering of palestianins caused bu Israel.

Hahahahahahahahahaha! Oh lordy thats rich. Aside from Israel, America has the most consistantly and overtly pro-Israeli media in the world. If you doubt this then try watchning even another European countries news reports on the Middle East, let alone an Arabic channel. The American media is world renowned for being pro-Israeli. Are you seriously trying to claim that this is a mere coincidence considering the huge Jewish influence in the American media?

Our the media calling the territories "occupied" even though they were captured by Israel in wars started by Arab nations.

Territory captured during wars and held against the wishes of its inhabitants are, by definition, occupied.

Anyways, does it matter that Jews are in the governement?

You tell me, would you mind if a muslim Palestinian got voted into a position of power in Israel?

People elect officials on issues and personality, not religion.

How many Muslims does Israel have in its government?

Plus what are any Jews in the government doing wrong?

Agitating for America to go to war against Afghanistan and Iraq, which has turned into a hugely unpopular war costing the lives of hundreds of Americans, would be a couple of biggies.

I take pity that you being so insecure and angry at yourself that you have to blame everything and everyone for your problems.

Yes, we all know the Jews have never blamed anyone else for their problems. Its interesting, when Jews live in poverty or generally do poorly, its because of 'oppression', 'anti-semitism', 'prejudice', etc, and therefore, of course, not their fault. Yet when they do well it MUST be because they are simply more industrious, intelligent, etc, and totally of their own accord.

Hypocracy is the hallmark of... ah, i see im repeating myself. :)

That you have to embrace hate, like Nazism

From a Zionist?!?! :roll

#Statistical Decline of the Church following Vatican II:

Priests. After skyrocketing from about 27,000 in 1930 to 58,000 in 1965, the number of priests in the United States dropped to 45,000 in 2002. By 2020, there will be about 31,000 priests--and only 15,000 will be under the age of 70. Right now there are more priests aged 80 to 84 than there are aged 30 to 34.

#

Ordinations. In 1965 there were 1,575 ordinations to the priesthood, in 2002 there were 450, a decline of 350 percent. Taking into account ordinations, deaths and departures, in 1965 there was a net gain of 725 priests. In 1998, there was a net loss of 810.

#

Priestless parishes. About 1 percent of parishes, 549, were without a resident priest in 1965. In 2002 there were 2,928 priestless parishes, about 15 percent of U.S. parishes. By 2020, a quarter of all parishes, 4,656, will have no priest.

#

Seminarians. Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians dropped from 49,000 to 4,700--a 90 percent decrease. Without any students, seminaries across the country have been sold or shuttered. There were 596 seminaries in 1965, and only 200 in 2002.

#

Sisters. 180,000 sisters were the backbone of the Catholic education and health systems in 1965. In 2002, there were 75,000 sisters, with an average age of 68. By 2020, the number of sisters will drop to 40,000--and of these, only 21,000 will be aged 70 or under. In 1965, 104,000 sisters were teaching, while in 2002 there were only 8,200 teachers.

#

Brothers. The number of professed brothers decreased from about 12,000 in 1965 to 5,700 in 2002, with a further drop to 3,100 projected for 2020.

#

Religious Orders. The religious orders will soon be virtually non-existent in the United States. For example, in 1965 there were 5,277 Jesuit priests and 3,559 seminarians; in 2000 there were 3,172 priests and 38 seminarians. There were 2,534 OFM Franciscan priests and 2,251 seminarians in 1965; in 2000 there were 1,492 priests and 60 seminarians. There were 2,434 Christian Brothers in 1965 and 912 seminarians; in 2000 there were 959 Brothers and 7 seminarians. There were 1,148 Redemptorist priests in 1965 and 1,128 seminarians; in 2000 there were 349 priests and 24 seminarians. Every major religious order in the United States mirrors these statistics.

#

High Schools. Between 1965 and 2002 the number of diocesan high schools fell from 1,566 to 786. At the same time the number of students dropped from almost 700,000 to 386,000.

#

Parochial Grade Schools. There were 10,503 parochial grade schools in 1965 and 6,623 in 2002. The number of students went from 4.5 million to 1.9 million.

#

Sacramental Life. In 1965 there were 1.3 million infant baptisms; in 2002 there were 1 million. (In the same period the number of Catholics in the United States rose from 45 million to 65 million.) In 1965 there were 126,000 adult baptisms-----converts-----in 2002 there were 80,000. In 1965 there were 352,000 Catholic marriages, in 2002 there were 256,000. In 1965 there were 338 annulments, in 2002 there were 50,000.

#

Mass attendance. A 1958 Gallup poll reported that 74 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1958. A 1994 University of Notre Dame study found that the attendance rate was 26.6 percent. A more recent study by Fordham University professor James Lothian concluded that 65 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1965, while the rate dropped to 25 percent in 2000.

Catholic Marriages:
1965 - 352,000
2002 - 256,000

Annulments:
1965 - 338
2002 - 50,000

Regular Mass Attendance - study #1:
1958 - 74% of Catholics (Gallup Pole)
1994 - 26.6% (Notre Dame study)

Regular Mass Attendance - Fordham University study:
1965 - 65% of Catholics
2000 - 25%


What do you Catholics think in the era of Vatican II?
77% believe Catholics don't have to attend Mass on Sunday
65% believe Catholics can divorce and remarry
53% believe Catholics can have an abortion
10% accept the Church's teaching on birth control (source, Notre Dame poll)
70% believe the Eucharist is a "symbolic reminder" of Our Lord (New York Times poll)


"In the Third Secret [of Fatima] it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top."
--Mario L. Ciappi, Cardinal

"It is impossible to approve in Catholic publications a style inspired by unsound novelty which seems to deride the piety of the faithful and dwells on the introduction of a new order of Christian life, on new directions of the Church, on new aspirations of the modern soul, on a new social vocation of the clergy, on a new Christian civilization, and many other things of the same kind."
--Pope Leo XIII

Territory captured during wars and held against the wishes of its inhabitants are, by definition, occupied.

Does this same principle hold for the USA and Canada for example?

#Statistical Decline of the Church following Vatican II:

Priests. After skyrocketing from about 27,000 in 1930 to 58,000 in 1965, the number of priests in the United States dropped to 45,000 in 2002. By 2020, there will be about 31,000 priests--and only 15,000 will be under the age of 70. Right now there are more priests aged 80 to 84 than there are aged 30 to 34.

#

Ordinations. In 1965 there were 1,575 ordinations to the priesthood, in 2002 there were 450, a decline of 350 percent. Taking into account ordinations, deaths and departures, in 1965 there was a net gain of 725 priests. In 1998, there was a net loss of 810.

#

Priestless parishes. About 1 percent of parishes, 549, were without a resident priest in 1965. In 2002 there were 2,928 priestless parishes, about 15 percent of U.S. parishes. By 2020, a quarter of all parishes, 4,656, will have no priest.

#

Seminarians. Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians dropped from 49,000 to 4,700--a 90 percent decrease. Without any students, seminaries across the country have been sold or shuttered. There were 596 seminaries in 1965, and only 200 in 2002.

#

Sisters. 180,000 sisters were the backbone of the Catholic education and health systems in 1965. In 2002, there were 75,000 sisters, with an average age of 68. By 2020, the number of sisters will drop to 40,000--and of these, only 21,000 will be aged 70 or under. In 1965, 104,000 sisters were teaching, while in 2002 there were only 8,200 teachers.

#

Brothers. The number of professed brothers decreased from about 12,000 in 1965 to 5,700 in 2002, with a further drop to 3,100 projected for 2020.

#

Religious Orders. The religious orders will soon be virtually non-existent in the United States. For example, in 1965 there were 5,277 Jesuit priests and 3,559 seminarians; in 2000 there were 3,172 priests and 38 seminarians. There were 2,534 OFM Franciscan priests and 2,251 seminarians in 1965; in 2000 there were 1,492 priests and 60 seminarians. There were 2,434 Christian Brothers in 1965 and 912 seminarians; in 2000 there were 959 Brothers and 7 seminarians. There were 1,148 Redemptorist priests in 1965 and 1,128 seminarians; in 2000 there were 349 priests and 24 seminarians. Every major religious order in the United States mirrors these statistics.

#

High Schools. Between 1965 and 2002 the number of diocesan high schools fell from 1,566 to 786. At the same time the number of students dropped from almost 700,000 to 386,000.

#

Parochial Grade Schools. There were 10,503 parochial grade schools in 1965 and 6,623 in 2002. The number of students went from 4.5 million to 1.9 million.

#

Sacramental Life. In 1965 there were 1.3 million infant baptisms; in 2002 there were 1 million. (In the same period the number of Catholics in the United States rose from 45 million to 65 million.) In 1965 there were 126,000 adult baptisms-----converts-----in 2002 there were 80,000. In 1965 there were 352,000 Catholic marriages, in 2002 there were 256,000. In 1965 there were 338 annulments, in 2002 there were 50,000.

#

Mass attendance. A 1958 Gallup poll reported that 74 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1958. A 1994 University of Notre Dame study found that the attendance rate was 26.6 percent. A more recent study by Fordham University professor James Lothian concluded that 65 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1965, while the rate dropped to 25 percent in 2000.

Catholic Marriages:
1965 - 352,000
2002 - 256,000

Annulments:
1965 - 338
2002 - 50,000

Regular Mass Attendance - study #1:
1958 - 74% of Catholics (Gallup Pole)
1994 - 26.6% (Notre Dame study)

Regular Mass Attendance - Fordham University study:
1965 - 65% of Catholics
2000 - 25%


What do you Catholics think in the era of Vatican II?
77% believe Catholics don't have to attend Mass on Sunday
65% believe Catholics can divorce and remarry
53% believe Catholics can have an abortion
10% accept the Church's teaching on birth control (source, Notre Dame poll)
70% believe the Eucharist is a "symbolic reminder" of Our Lord (New York Times poll)




How about a nice poll of places where the church is strong...say Africa...oh, sorry, I forgot about that...

How about furthermore you account for the fact that advances in ythe actual knowledge of humankind have meant that actually knowing things has replaced blind faith in God?

Does this same principle hold for the USA and Canada for example?

Since the majority of the people living in those lands dont wish for independance, then no.

Since the majority of the people living in those lands dont wish for independance, then no.
Iraq...

http://www.romancatholicism.org/paul6-2.jpg
Paul VI with the six protestant "ministers"
consulted during the writing of the ecumenically-minded protestantised New Order of Mass.

The main author of it, Annibale Bugnini, had earlier said, "We must strip from our Catholic liturgy
everything that can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our seperated brethren, that is the protestants."
(L'Osservatore Romano, 19th March 1965.)

Bugnini was later discovered to be a freemason.
He spoke of the New Mass as a "Major conquest of the Catholic Church."

Judging by the loss of Catholic faith that immediately set in, one thinks it a disaster.

http://www.romancatholicism.org/paul6-2.jpg
Paul VI with the six protestant "ministers"
consulted during the writing of the ecumenically-minded protestantised New Order of Mass.

The main author of it, Annibale Bugnini, had earlier said, "We must strip from our Catholic liturgy
everything that can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our seperated brethren, that is the protestants."
(L'Osservatore Romano, 19th March 1965.)

Bugnini was later discovered to be a freemason.
He spoke of the New Mass as a "Major conquest of the Catholic Church."

Judging by the loss of Catholic faith that immediately set in, one thinks it a disaster.
TT are you going to rebut a point or are you just going to make up new crap.

How about furthermore you account for the fact that advances in ythe actual knowledge of humankind have meant that actually knowing things has replaced blind faith in God?

Since im not a catholic im not going to get into the whole debate which TT is having right now.

However, the belief that we have all the answers and 'know' enough that the possibility of a greater or older power than ours existing is impossible is sheer arrogance. And naivete.

How about a nice poll of places where the church is strong...say Africa...oh, sorry, I forgot about that...
Almost forgot...
http://www.solt3.org/images/Congregation%20in%20tribal%20headgear%20in%20sanctuary.jpg

Since the majority of the people living in those lands dont wish for independance, then no.

So you're saying that if the Israelis kill most of the Palestinians and colonise their land -- like the white Americans killed most of the native Americans, and settled their land -- that would make it OK?

I assume no such thing, being of a scientific bent. I cannot however assign my safety to a possibly non-existent entity. Such a view is, I would wager, shared by the majority of people in those nations where religion is failing.

Iraq...

Good point. Care to remind of the names of the 'hawks' in Washington and their ethnicity?

Almost forgot...
http://www.solt3.org/images/Congregation%20in%20tribal%20headgear%20in%20sanctuary.jpg


I don't get it, but I'm talking in big black print-that means I'm always right!

So you have shown that the Jews own alot of America. to that my Native Americans friend said, "Atleast they payed for it". :sniper:
America is a capitalist country. We (The white people) made it that way. And the jews ARE playing by our rules. So we have no right to cry just because they are starting to win at our game!! You do not like it. Then start your own business and buy America back.

#Statistical Decline of the Church following Vatican II:

What this shows is that the Roman Catholic faith went into something of a decline in the period between Vatican II and today. What it does not show is that said decline was caused by Vatican II. Nor does it take into account the decline in other faiths as the western world becomes less generally less theistic - and such declines in other religious viewpoints would be little affected by Vatican II.

I don't get it, but I'm talking in big black print-that means I'm always right!
What?

What this shows is that the Roman Catholic faith went into something of a decline in the period between Vatican II and today. What it does not show is that said decline was caused by Vatican II. Nor does it take into account the decline in other faiths as the western world becomes less generally less theistic - and such declines in other religious viewpoints would be little affected by Vatican II.
The Catholic Faith was greatly expanding and flourishing right up to the start of Vatican II.

While we're at it, here's another one you can try:


Is it not a far better triumph for the Church to convince and convert the Jews than to put them all to the sword? Has that prayer which the Church offers for the Jews, from the rising up of the sun to the going down thereof, that the veil may be taken from their hearts so that they may be led from the darkness of error into the light of truth, been instituted in vain? If she did not hope that they would believe and be converted, it would seem useless and vain for her to pray for them. But with the eye of mercy she considers how the Lord regards with favor him who renders good for evil and love for hatred.

(St. Bernard of Clairvaux to Archbishop Henry of Mainz, 1146, The Letters of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, tr. Bruno Scott James [London, 1953], p. 466)

St Bernard, as I'm sure you are aware, was one of the leading theologians of the 12th century. Combine this with Pope Gregory forbidding forced baptism in 1272, and you have the orthodox Catholic view on the Jews: seek to convert them peacefully, and do them no harm.

It seems pretty clear that you are in direct conflict with orthodox Catholicism. Do you recant your heresy?

Still waiting. I believe it's traditional to ask the heretic to recant three times. Also -- to stick closely to tradition, which I know you hold dear -- while the Catholic Church has a liberal view towards the Jews, it's pretty darned strict when it comes to unrepentant heretics.

Since the majority of the people living in those lands dont wish for independance, then no.


OK, so you appear to believe that democracy (at least at some level) is the basis for determining national sovereignty. If we were, for the moment, to accept TT's claims that the US is dominated by a Jewish elite, but they were however democratically elected, does it follow that they constitute a legitimate government (or a legitimate part of the government)?

So you're saying that if the Israelis kill most of the Palestinians and colonise their land -- like the white Americans killed most of the native Americans, and settled their land -- that would make it OK?

Im a Nietszchean, in that i dont try and apply moral judgements to world events, which are usually just an interaction of different groups,with the more powerful coming out on top.

I do however like to point out the hypocracy of others who claim to be highly moralistic, then try and use word games to claim the moral highground when they have no right to it. Claiming the occupied territories of Israel are anything other than occupied is disengenious at best.

I believe it's traditional to ask the heretic to recant three times.

Is it not also customary to show him the instruments?

“The Bible itself says that the Jews are an accursed people.”
~ Pope Clement VIII

“We decree and order that from now on, and for all time, Christians shall not eat or drink with the Jews, nor admit them to feasts, nor cohabit with them, nor bathe with them. […] They cannot live among Christians, but in a certain street, separated and segregated from Christians, and outside which they cannot under any pretext have houses.” ~ Pope Eugene IV

"We declare that the evidence of Christians is to be accepted against Jews in every case, since Jews employ their own witnesses against Christians - and that those who prefer Jews to Christians in this matter are to lie under anathema, since Jews ought to be slaves to Christians."
~Canon 26, Third Lateran Ecumenical Council

Im a Nietszchean, in that i dont try and apply moral judgements to world events, which are usually just an interaction of different groups,with the more powerful coming out on top.

Totally honest non-trap question: how do you square your interpretation of Nietzsche with the democratically determined sovereignty that I infered (perhaps incorrectly) from your earlier response concerning occupied territories? I'm asking this in connection with Nietzsche's view of herd morality.

USE YOUR BRAIN. STOP QUOTING PEOPLE.

USE YOUR BRAIN. STOP QUOTING PEOPLE.
You are truly an idiot.

You are truly an idiot.
No flaming. please.

“The Bible itself says that the Jews are an accursed people.”
~ Pope Clement VIII

“We decree and order that from now on, and for all time, Christians shall not eat or drink with the Jews, nor admit them to feasts, nor cohabit with them, nor bathe with them. […] They cannot live among Christians, but in a certain street, separated and segregated from Christians, and outside which they cannot under any pretext have houses.” ~ Pope Eugene IV

"We declare that the evidence of Christians is to be accepted against Jews in every case, since Jews employ their own witnesses against Christians - and that those who prefer Jews to Christians in this matter are to lie under anathema, since Jews ought to be slaves to Christians."
~Canon 26, Third Lateran Ecumenical Council

And yet none of these pronouncements, no matter what size of text they are printed in, make any reference to support the killing of Jews -- which Pope Gregory X's encyclical expressly forbids, backed by the letter of St Bernard to the Archbishop of Mainz. Nor do they lend any support to the Blood Libel, dismissed as an outright lie by Pope Gregory.

One last time, as tradition demands: do you recant your heresy and embrace the teachings of Holy Mother Church?

I am an idiot? Tell me, do I when backed into a corner quote Marx and Engels? No. Then again, you have yet to back me into one, which does not surprise me. So how about taking my advice?

I quote people who really don't matter, and then when people call me on them I insult them! Look at how big my font is! That means I'm right! HAHAHA! Jew!

Heh...yeah

OK, so you appear to believe that democracy (at least at some level) is the basis for determining national sovereignty. If we were, for the moment, to accept TT's claims that the US is dominated by a Jewish elite, but they were however democratically elected, does it follow that they constitute a legitimate government (or a legitimate part of the government)?

You misunderstand me. I believe power, not democracy, is the basis for determining sovereignty. With enough power, you become sovereign, without it you become a vassal.

Worries about whether a government is 'legitimate' or not are irrelevant if you dont have the power to enforce/remove aforesaid government.

On a personal level, i dont feel its in the best interests of any group to be controlled by another, and that all should strive for self-determination to their upmost extent. In a global context this may mean that some groups get pushed to the wall, whilst others flourish. But thats the way life is.

Is it not also customary to show him the instruments?

No, that's not necessary. Unless he recants, he is condemned out of his own mouth without the need to put him to the torture. (The use of torture was decreed to be a violation of divine law by Nicholas I in the 9th century, although this was later overruled by Innocent IV -- because pronouncements by later Popes do overrule earlier ones, despite what TT may think.) No, I'm afraid that -- unless he recants -- all that remains is for him to be handed over to the Secular Arm for whatever punishment they deem necessary. But whatever they decide, he is forever expelled from the bosom of the Church, anathema, cast into the outer darkness.

And yet none of these pronouncements, no matter what size of text they are printed in, make any reference to support the killing of Jews -- which Pope Gregory X's encyclical expressly forbids, backed by the letter of St Bernard to the Archbishop of Mainz. Nor do they lend any support to the Blood Libel, dismissed as an outright lie by Pope Gregory.

One last time, as tradition demands: do you recant your heresy and embrace the teachings of Holy Mother Church?
Your posts lack such sense...
I never said to simply kill Jews. Persecution of the Jews is perfectly righteous.

Why is it righteous? Because you hear the voices of dead men in your head? Because you think so?

“All the world suffers from the usury of the Jews, their monopolies and deceit. They have brought many unfortunate people into a state of poverty, especially the farmers, working class people and the very poor. […] Their ethical and moral doctrines as well as their deeds rightly deserve to be exposed to criticism in whatever country they happen to live.” ~Pope Clement VIII

Your posts lack such sense...
I never said to simply kill Jews. Persecution of the Jews is perfectly righteous.
Once again, it isn't.

OK. I hate to break it to you but...

POPE CLEMENT THE EIGHTH IS DEAD AND HAS BEEN FOR SOME TIME! IN THE INTERVENING TIME, THERE HAS BEEN....

CHANGE!

Now kindly actually answer the question, rather than quoting corpses.

“The Bible itself says that the Jews are an accursed people.”
~ Pope Clement VIII
Where does the Bible say that?

Once again, it isn't.
That's your media-induced opinion.

Then your opinion is obviously induced by something, is it not? After all, when cursory examination of the facts reveals that your opinion has little if any factual base, it follows that it must be caused by some sort of delusion.

"And when they had brought the apostles, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, saying, Did not we straitly command you that you should not teach in this name? And, behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. Then Peter and the other apostles answered, and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. […] And we are witnesses of these things.” ~Pope Saint Peter I, Acts of the Apostles 5

That's your media-induced opinion.

And you give your ignorant and lack of intelegence-induced opinion.

Point?

That's your media-induced opinion.
Pope Gregory the 10th...

Pope Gregory the 10th...
...said not what you claim him to say.

Oh great scott. Listen. Quoting things repeatedly in an attempt to avoid a question makes you look like a moron. This makes people think you are a moron, and coupled with poor arguments, it makes most people think you're a hell of a moron. Prove us wrong and answer the question. Why is it righteous?

Your posts lack such sense...
I never said to simply kill Jews. Persecution of the Jews is perfectly righteous.

Heretic. Your sophistry is transparent. You have on numerous occasions called for the death of Jewish people. You continue to claim that their persecution is "righteous", ignoring the categorical encyclical of Pope Gregory X of blessed memory, and the instruction of St Bernard. You have peddled the Blood Libel, stating it as fact when it has been declared false by the Holy See.

May you be damned in your going out and in your coming in.
The Lord strike you with madness and blindness.
May the heavens empty upon you thunderbolts and the wrath of the Omnipotent burn itself unto you in the present and future world.
May the Universe light up against you and the earth open to swallow you up.

You misunderstand me. I believe power, not democracy, is the basis for determining sovereignty. With enough power, you become sovereign, without it you become a vassal.

Fair enough, thus although you might describe a region as 'occupied territory' just because it has been conquered by the people of another region who are not the majority, this label carries no moral judgement, then?

From earlier response:

Since the majority of the people living in those lands dont wish for independance, then no.

However, if a minority were to rise up and seize control or declare independence, this would be entirely within their 'rights' (for want of a better term) as you see it?


Worries about whether a government is 'legitimate' or not are irrelevant if you dont have the power to enforce/remove aforesaid government.

Again, fair enough within a Nietzschean framework.

On a personal level, i dont feel its in the best interests of any group to be controlled by another, and that all should strive for self-determination to their upmost extent. In a global context this may mean that some groups get pushed to the wall, whilst others flourish. But thats the way life is.

What kind of groups are you talking about here? Am I meant to read in that you are talking about particularly racial or religious groups, or just any groups which find themselves to share common interests?

***

Can I ask you your thoughts on Nietzsche on the Jews, seeing as how they seem to be the dominant theme running through this thread?

Heretic. Your sophistry is transparent. You have on numerous occasions called for the death of Jewish people.
I have never called for the extermination of the Jews.

Can I add: May someone with presence of mind cut off your head with a cheese wire?

Can I add: May someone with presence of mind cut off your head with a cheese wire?
Yet more intelligence from the enlightened atheists...:rolleyes:

Yes, I thought so too. Glad you agree. You might have some sense yet.

Then again, possibly not.

Yet more intelligence from the enlightened atheists...:rolleyes:
Well, with all the Jew hating, your not much of a Christian yerself. Forget all that stuff about love your neighbor.

Your posts lack such sense...
I never said to simply kill Jews. Persecution of the Jews is perfectly righteous.

You did however earlier say with regard to the formation of a White Nationalist government in the USA...

Well if we could maintain order and simply execute the Jews who refuse to leave, that would bepreferable.

Are we to take it that killing those Jews that do not acquiesce to your demands in the face of persecution is also perfectly righteous?

So you revoke the quote?
Or does your deceit continue?

I admitted my mistake. Augustine doesn't mention him going to hell. He DOES, however, obsess on those pears for several pages.

You pointed out that I was wrong and I acknowledged it. We're all still waiting on you.

...said not what you claim him to say.

From http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2003Mar/gregxjew.htm

(apologies to everyone else for the total cut-and-paste but this guy's BS surpasseth all understanding)

Editorial commentary is given in [square brackets]:

Gregory, bishop, servant of the servants of God, extends greetings and the apostolic benediction to the beloved sons in Christ, the faithful Christians, to those here now and to those in the future.

Even as it is not allowed to the Jews in their assemblies presumptuously to undertake for themselves more than that which is permitted them by law, even so they ought not to suffer any disadvantage in those [privileges] which have been granted them. [This sentence, first written by Gregory I in 598, embodies the attitude of the Church to the Jew.] Although they prefer to persist in their stubbornness rather than to recognize the words of their prophets and the mysteries of the Scriptures [which, according to the Church, foretold the coming of Jesus], and thus to arrive at a knowledge of Christian faith and salvation; nevertheless, inasmuch as they have made an appeal for our protection and help, we therefore admit their petition and offer them the shield of our protection through the clemency of Christian piety. In so doing we follow in the footsteps of our predecessors of blessed memory, the popes of Rome -- Calixtus, Eugene, Alexander, Clement, Innocent, and Honorius.

We decree moreover that no Christian shall compel them or any one of their group to come to baptism unwillingly. But if any one of them shall take refuge of his own accord with Christians, because of conviction, then, after his intention will have been manifest, he shall be made a Christian without any intrigue. For, indeed, that person who is known to have come to Christian baptism not freely, but unwillingly, is not believed to posses the Christian faith. [The Church, in principle, never approved of compulsory baptism of Jews]

Moreover no Christian shall presume to seize, imprison, wound, torture, mutilate, kill or inflict violence on them; furthermore no one shall presume, except by judicial action of the authorities of the country, to change the good customs in the land where they live for the purpose of taking their money or goods from them or from others.

In addition, no one shall disturb them in any way during the celebration of their festivals, whether by day or by night, with clubs or stones or anything else. Also no one shall exact any compulsory service of them unless it be that which they have been accustomed to render in previous times. [Up to this point Gregory X has merely repeated the bulls of his predecessors.]

Inasmuch as the Jews are not able to bear witness against the Christians, we decree furthermore that the testimony of Christians against Jews shall not be valid unless there is among these Christians some Jew who is there for the purpose of offering testimony. [the Church council at Carthage, as early as 419, had forbidden Jews to bear witness against Christians; Justinian's law of 531 repeats this prohibition. Gregory X here -- in accordance with the medieval legal principle that every man has the right to be judged by his peers -- insists that Jews can only be condemned if there are Jewish as well as Christian witnesses against them. A similar law to protect Jews was issued before 825 by Louis the Pious (814 - 840) of the Frankish Empire.]

Since it happens occasionally that some Christians lose their children, the Jews are accused by their enemies of secretly carrying off and killing these same Christian children and of making sacrifices of the heart and blood of these very children. It happens, too, that the parents of these very children, or some other Christian enemies of these Jews, secretly hide these very children in order that they may be able to injure these Jews, and in order that they may be able to extort from them a certain amount of money by redeeming them from their straits. [Following the lead of Innocent IV, 1247, Gregory attacks the ritual murder charge at length.]

And most falsely do these Christians claim that the Jews have secretly and furtively carried away these children and killed them, and that the Jews offer sacrifices from the heart and the blood of these children, since their law in this matter precisely and expressly forbids Jews to sacrifice, eat, or drink the blood, or to eat the flesh of animals having claws. This has been demonstrated many times at our court by Jews converted to the Christian faith: nevertheless very many Jews are often seized and detained unjustly because of this.

We decree, therefore, that Christians need not be obeyed against Jews in a case or situation of this type, and we order that Jews seized under such a silly pretext be freed from imprisonment, and that they shall not be arrested henceforth on such a miserable pretext, unless -- which we do not believe -- they be caught in the commission of the crime. We decree that no Christian shall stir up anything new against them, but that they should be maintained in that status and position in which they were in the time of our predecessors, from antiquity till now.

We decree in order to stop the wickedness and avarice of bad men, that no one shall dare to devastate or to destroy a cemetery of the Jews or to dig up human bodies for the sake of getting money. [The Jews had to pay a ransom before the bodies of their dead were restored to them.] Moreover, if any one, after having known the content of this decree, should -- which we hope will not happen -- attempt audaciously to act contrary to it, then let him suffer punishment in his rank and position, or let him be punished by the penalty of excommunication, unless he makes amends for his boldness by proper recompense. Moreover, we wish that only those Jews who have not attempted to contrive anything toward the destruction of the Christian faith be fortified by support of such protection.

Given at Orvieto by the hand of the Magister John Lectator, vice-chancellor of the Holy Roman Church, on the 7th of October, in the first indiction [cycle of fifteen years], in the year 1272 of the divine incarnation, in the first year of the pontificate of our master, the Pope Gregory X.

I have never called for the extermination of the Jews.

I'll back TT on this point, he hasn't called for the extermiantion of the Jews, so far as I have noticed, however that was not what Jeldred was claiming he was calling for:

You have on numerous occasions called for the death of Jewish people


And TT has made this statement:

Well if we could maintain order and simply execute the Jews who refuse to leave, that would bepreferable.

I am no psychiatrist, but what it seems to be is that these people are un conforatable with themselves and must take it out on others. So who are the first people they tred upon? The succesful Jews. In short they are jelous of their succes. Also I think people are over-compensating with all these big letters.

"And when they had brought the apostles, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, saying, Did not we straitly command you that you should not teach in this name? And, behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. Then Peter and the other apostles answered, and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. […] And we are witnesses of these things.” ~Pope Saint Peter I, Acts of the Apostles 5
You quote Acts 5:27-30 and 32. Perhaps it would be interesting to find out what you left out in the [...], eh?

Acts 5:31 - God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentence and forgivness of sins to Israel.

Always interesting to get the whole story isn't it? Now where does the Bible say the Jews are an accursed people?

Ah, so he's called for the conditional death of the Jews. Well that's fine.

I have never called for the extermination of the Jews.

More sophistry, as BWO's post clearly demonstrates. You can't change the facts to suit your argument. If you can't fit the facts into your argument, then you have to concede that you are wrong. Either that, or demonstrate to everyone exactly how slender your grip on reality actually is.

Ah, so he's called for the conditional death of the Jews. Well that's fine.
Hmmm, I think killing a human being out of war should be illegal, unlesss after a fair trial.

Sorry, should have made it clear, that was extreme sarcasm.

Wait, so TT's beef with Jews, is that we're not Christian? Hell, why not kill over 1/2 of world population: they're not christian either. Or is his problem is that we killed Christ? Well, omitting the issue of whether or not he was a true savior/messiah, there was a lot of violence in Jerusalem between supporters of Christ, and his opposition. ANd when the Roman mayor asked the head priest who to pardon, the head priest decided that death of one man is preferable over deaths of many on the steets in neverending riots.

Wait, so TT's beef with Jews, is that we're not Christian? Hell, why not kill over 1/2 of world population: they're not christian either. Or is his problem is that we killed Christ? Well, omitting the issue of whether or not he was a true savior/messiah, there was a lot of violence in Jerusalem between supporters of Christ, and his opposition. ANd when the Roman mayor asked the head priest who to pardon, the head priest decided that death of one man is preferable over deaths of many on the steets in neverending riots.

Maybe Jesus should've never died. That way, there would be no christianity-and, in accordiance to their laws, EVERYONE would go to hell!

Except the Jews. Them being God's chosen people and all.



(oh, out of curiosity, what's your stance on the old testament? 'Cause I don't remember Moses leading a bunch of white people out of egypt)

Quite so. To take a leaf from his book:

"Why, what harm has he done?" Pilate asked." (New English Bible, Mark 15, verse 14.

Actually they were afraid the Romans would come and crush them all for fear of a political revolt.

(oh, out of curiosity, what's your stance on the old testament? 'Cause I don't remember Moses leading a bunch of white people out of egypt)
Actually he's already said that it was white people Moses led out of Egypt. I think it's around page 35 or so.

What this shows is that the Roman Catholic faith went into something of a decline in the period between Vatican II and today. What it does not show is that said decline was caused by Vatican II. Nor does it take into account the decline in other faiths as the western world becomes less generally less theistic - and such declines in other religious viewpoints would be little affected by Vatican II.What it also fails to do is answer my question about what theological authority TT is claiming for his stance. While he is correct in his assertion that Vatican 2 was not held under conditions of papal infallability, it is an entirely different and much more theologically dubious matter to reject its legitimacy all together.

Actually he's already said that it was white people Moses led out of Egypt. I think it's around page 35 or so.

And then the settled in the Middle East, and stayed until...

...Wait. Shit. That doesn't work.

No, they went to Germany of all places :rolleyes:. I'm looking for it, I think it might be in the 20's now.

No, they went to Germany of all places :rolleyes:. I'm looking for it, I think it might be in the 20's now.

Funny, I don't remember that part of the bible :p

Here's the quote (post #440 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6803134&postcount=440), page 30):
The King of the North - the Persions came from Germany (around that area) believe it or not. And they are in fact the Aaryans, obviously they call themselves Persians.
Edit: This was in reference to the Persians taking the Israelites to Persia.

Funny, I don't remember that part of the bible
Exactly what I said :).

You did however earlier say with regard to the formation of a White Nationalist government in the USA...

Are we to take it that killing those Jews that do not acquiesce to your demands in the face of persecution is also perfectly righteous?
We will handle the Jewish problem with as little bloodhsed as possible.
Both the killing and the expulsion of Jews have been overseen by the Roman Catholic Church throughout history.

YOu know, this was probebly covered before, but...

...If the Jews have all the money. And own the media. And, hell, run the world.

WHY do you want to kick them out?!

That's like tickling Atlus. I mean...on the list of "stupid shit you should never do," "pissing off the rulers of the universe" would have to be at the top.




And yes, with the way you act? You seem to hate jewish people because they are, according to you, MUCH better. I mean, hell, they have all the money. They own the media. They own the presidency too, according to you.

Those are some seriously awesome accomplishments. If they're THIS good, why do we wanna get rid of them?

We will handle the Jewish problem with as little bloodhsed as possible.

Would learning to live together without the preconceived notion that the Jews are a 'problem' not mean even less bloodshed?

How do you plan to handle the 'black/asian/Native American/Muslim/Protestant/Buddhist/whatever problem' if you perceive them to be be problems as well? By the same methods?

Both the killing and the expulsion of Jews have been overseen by the Roman Catholic Church throughout history.


Which by your own admission has been guilty of great errors and is thus hardly to be trusted again.

Does the Roman Catholic Church possess any authority for overseeing such processes, other than those based on religious claims? (In other words, even if I believed your claim to be true and that it possessed an authority to do so, I would reject it one time as someone raised in a Protestant* culture, and then I would reject it again as an agnostic.)



* or as you term us "Christian Zionists or Episcopalian homosexuals" http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6795731&postcount=96

Does the Roman Catholic Church possess any authority for overseeing such processes, other than those based on religious claims?
For that matter why do you think they would oversee it, especially given that the Pope is Jewish (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6795275&postcount=44)?

Would learning to live together without the preconceived notion that the Jews are a 'problem' not mean even less bloodshed?

How do you plan to handle the 'black/asian/Mahometan/Buddhist/whatever problem' if you perceive them to be be problems as well? By the same methods?

Which by your own admission has been guilty of great errors.

Does the Roman Catholic Church possess any authority for overseeing such processes, other than those based on religious claims? (In other words, even if I believed your claim to be true and that it possessed an authority to do so, I would reject it one time as someone raised in a Protestant culture, and then I would reject it again as an agnostic.)

When did religion become such a major part of this discussion? The problem with the Jews does involve religion (their infiltration of Christianity) however the reason behind this thread and my earlier statements regarding to Jewish control is irreligious. As I said early in this thread, I do not wish for a theological debate here but when idiots constantly bring it up I have no choice to respond.
Roman Catholicism gained validity to me following The Passion of Mel Gibson, during which Jewish censors suceeded in censoring the crimes they had committed. Hutton Gibson has some good works on the issue.
Now I no longer wish to have religious discussion unless in a seperate thread at a later time.

The solution to all these problems is deportation, leaving a White paradise free of crime, perversion, welfare, terrorism, Zionism, and many other evils resulting from the mudpeople and their Jewish captors. Not to mention the utter loss of culture resulting from non-White immigration.

For that matter why do you think they would oversee it, especially given that the Pope is Jewish (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6795275&postcount=44)?
The Pope is not Jewish.

The Pope is not Jewish.

I believe what Calembel may have intended to ask was 'given your claims that he who currently masquerades as the pope, is in fact Jewish, and therefore an anti-pope, why would the Roman Catholic Church over which he exercise power oversee such processes?'

I believe what Calembel may have intended to ask was 'given your claims that he who currently masquerades as the pope, is in fact Jewish, and therefore an anti-pope, why would the Roman Catholic Church over which he exercise power oversee such processes?'
The antipope does not have power over the Roman Catholic Church.
sede vacante

When did religion become such a major part of this discussion?

I would guess it was around the point where you started claiming that there exists an antipope. If not at that point, then it was when you kept on quoting Popes in order to back up your arguments.



The solution to all these problems is deportation, leaving a White paradise free of crime, perversion, welfare, terrorism, Zionism, and many other evils resulting from the mudpeople and their Jewish captors.

So am I to take it that people like me, descended from Protestant (AKA "Christian Zionists or Episcopalian homosexuals") lineage would also face deportation?

Exactly what constitutes the group of 'mudpeople'?

Not to mention the utter loss of culture resulting from non-White immigration.

Could you give me some examples of white culture that has been produced in the USA, just so I know what you mean by the term?

The antipope does not have power over the Roman Catholic Church.
sede vacante

The (supposed) antipope may not have authority over the Roman Catholic Church, by your reasoning, but he certainly appears to be exercising power over it, yes? I chose my words carefully.

The (supposed) antipope may not have authority over the Roman Catholic Church, by your reasoning, but he certainly appears to be exercising power over it, yes? I chose my words carefully.

He has power over the Novus Ordo Church.
The church that recently closed an Austrian seminary due to sexual misconduct is not Catholic.
The Catholic Church currently has no valid pope.
St. Athanasius experienced this when persecuted by the Arians who had overtaken much of the Church in his time. He was perscuted as an "outsider" to Catholicism as traditionalists are today.

"Catholics who remain faithful to TRADITION even if they are reduced to but a handful, they are the True Church of Jesus Christ"
~St. Athanasius

When did religion become such a major part of this discussion? The problem with the Jews does involve religion (their infiltration of Christianity) however the reason behind this thread and my earlier statements regarding to Jewish control is irreligious. As I said early in this thread, I do not wish for a theological debate here but when idiots constantly bring it up I have no choice to respond.
Roman Catholicism gained validity to me following The Passion of Mel Gibson, during which Jewish censors suceeded in censoring the crimes they had committed. Hutton Gibson has some good works on the issue.
Now I no longer wish to have religious discussion unless in a seperate thread at a later time.

The solution to all these problems is deportation, leaving a White paradise free of crime, perversion, welfare, terrorism, Zionism, and many other evils resulting from the mudpeople and their Jewish captors. Not to mention the utter loss of culture resulting from non-White immigration.
We killed one man, because there was violence in Israel because of him.
Roman catholics killed thousands of jews during the inquisition; the crusades killed thousands of jews on the way to middle east.

I just wish Jews "did have all the power in US". Then I could order you arrested for kiddie porn.

We killed one man, because there was violence in Israel because of him.
Roman catholics killed thousands of jews during the inquisition; the crusades killed thousands of jews on the way to middle east.
Oh next we'll here about the "horrors" of the valiant Wars of the Cross and the "brutality" of the noble Inquisition. :rolleyes:

The once family-oriented Disney became a propaganda outlet for homosexuals, negroes, Jews and communists following the rise of Jew Michael Eisner to CEO.
Disney has begun to decline internally since then.
Visit Save Disney (http://www.savedisney.com/) for more information from Roy Disney.

Well see, here's the thing about that, TT. The site doesn't say ANYTHING about Jews.

As far as the "propaganda" bit, none of that seems to be brought up in Roy Disney's resignation letter to Eisner:

http://www.savedisney.com/letters/red_resign_letter.asp

As I have said, and as Stanley Gold has documented in letters to you and other members of the Board, this Company, under your leadership has failed during the last seven years in many ways:

1-The failure to bring back ABC Prime Time from the ratings abyss it has been in for years and your inability to program successfully the ABC Family Channel. Both of these failures have had, and I believe will continue to have, significant adverse impact on shareholder value.

2-Your consistent micro-management of everyone around you with the resulting loss of morale throughout the Company.

3-The timidity of your investments in our theme park business. At Disney's California Adventure, Paris and now in Hong Kong, you have tried to build parks "on the cheap" and they show it and the attendance figures reflect it.

4-The perception by all of our stakeholders -- consumers, investors, employees, distributors and suppliers -- that the company is rapacious, soul-less, and always looking for the "quick buck" rather than long-term value which is leading to a loss of public trust.

5-The creative brain drain of the last several years, which is real and continuing, and damages our Company with the loss of every talented employee.

6-Your failure to establish and build constructive relationships with creative partners, especially Pixar, Miramax, and the cable companies distributing our products.

7- Your consistent refusal to establish a clear succession plan.

Furthermore, the FAQ states that Savedisney is run by both Disney and Stanley Gold, both of whom resigned over differences with Eisner.

Hang on a minute... GOLD? That sounds almost... um... how do I put this...

http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.09.20/news5.html

LOS ANGELES — The University of Southern California, once considered a bastion of WASP elitism, has capped a decade of transformation by naming its first Jewish board chairman, Stanley Gold.

...Gold — an investor who rose to national prominence in 1984 as a key architect of the takeover of Walt Disney Co., in which Disney's nephew Roy gained control of the company and placed Michael Eisner in charge — sees his chairmanship at USC as less about his Judaism than about his abilities and business acumen.

Yeah. So much for that.

Trying to drag Roy Disney into your anti-Semitic bullshit? You really have no shame.

Oh next we'll here about the "horrors" of the valiant Wars of the Cross and the "brutality" of the noble Inquisition. :rolleyes:
Do you deny that the Crusaders, when passing Jewish vilages killed Jews for no reason at all?
Do you deny that the Spanish Inquisition has persecuted Jews jsut for being a different religion?

The church that recently closed an Austrian seminary due to sexual misconduct is not Catholic.

Are you implying that the (alleged true) Catholic church would have taken no action?


I'm quite interested in your answers to my post immediately preceeding the one you just responded to, by the way.


Quiet word of advice: using bigger fonts makes you look like you are suffering from Tourette's syndrome.

Are you implying that the (alleged true) Catholic church would have taken no action?


I'm quite interested in your answers to my post immediately preceeding the one you just responded to, by the way.


Quiet word of advice: using bigger fonts makes you look like you are suffering from Tourette's syndrome.
He is not suffering from the Tourette syndrom,e he is suffering from the Tenete Syndrome: when you are a clueless nazi chooosing your way jsut to be different.

We killed one man, because there was violence in Israel because of him.

Ah, Doom777, I didn't know we had posters from the Roman Empire here.

Do you deny that the Crusaders, when passing Jewish vilages killed Jews for no reason at all?
Do you deny that the Spanish Inquisition has persecuted Jews jsut for being a different religion?
The Jews had no place there. Their usury had caused much damage to Gentile populations as well. Roman Catholic doctrine requires Catholicism to be the state religion and this was enforced.

Ah, Doom777, I didn't know we had posters from the Roman Empire here.
I am jewish. It was us who condemned him and released that other guy.

I am jewish. It was us who condemned him and released that other guy.

It wasn't you that hammered home the nails and hung him up to die though, as far as I can tell that appears to have been some blokes with white skin and no interest in the values of the Jewish people other than keeping them peaceful.

The Jews had no place there. Their usury had caused much damage to Gentile populations as well. Roman Catholic doctrine requires Catholicism to be the state religion and this was enforced.
They were living in separate villages, minding their own business. Anyways, Jewish population has almost always added to the society it was living in, making it richer in many ways. And I think we already have seen that the later-day popes have abolished killing Jews for being Jew.

TT, did you vote in this poll under two different nation names?

Are you implying that the (alleged true) Catholic church would have taken no action?


I'm quite interested in your answers to my post immediately preceeding the one you just responded to, by the way.


Allowing homosexuals in the Church would never have happened. Decent men are not allowed in the Novus Ordo priesthood, for they do not engage in homosexual "orgys" at Novus Ordo seminaries. Only one thing can be said about the many sex scandals:
ONLY IN THE NOVUS ORDO! :rolleyes:

TT, did you vote in this poll under two different nation names?
Tenete Traditiones, Tenete Traditiones II


What do you think?

They were living in separate villages, minding their own business. Anyways, Jewish population has almost always added to the society it was living in, making it richer in many ways. And I think we already have seen that the later-day popes have abolished killing Jews for being Jew.
Though I never advocated killing simply "for being Jew,", I must ask regarding your last statement, who exactly do you refer to?

Allowing homosexuals in the Church would never have happened. Decent men are not allowed in the Novus Ordo priesthood, for they do not engage in homosexual "orgys" at Novus Ordo seminaries. Only one thing can be said about the many sex scandals:
ONLY IN THE NOVUS ORDO! :rolleyes:
Wait a minute, so you think that today's vatican is not really catholic, but "Novus Ordo"? So you don't believe in the modern day pope and so forth? Well guess what, the majority of the world agrees that the pope leads the Roman Catholic religion. Thus, you not following the Pope and the Bishop council, makes you not Roman Catholic, but a member of some tiny Christian sect. So, stop claiming you're Roman Catholic, you're sectitionist(sp?).

Though I never advocated killing simply "for being Jew,", I must ask regarding your last statement, who exactly do you refer to?
Gregory the 10th.

Though I never advocated killing simply "for being Jew,", I must ask regarding your last statement, who exactly do you refer to?
It was in this thread before, some guy was quoting Gregory, who said that although Jews are not Christian, they should still be allowed to live, and celebrate their holidays and so forth.

Tenete Traditiones, Tenete Traditiones II


What do you think?

I think he did, but I wanted to see if he'd fess up or not. He mustn't have much "faith" in others being as rabidly racist as he is if he feels the need to skew his own polls by voting under multiple user names.

A simply IP check would probably reveal that half of votes that agree with his are other accounts he has created...

Exactly what constitutes the group of 'mudpeople'?
Non-European ancestry.



Could you give me some examples of white culture that has been produced in the USA, just so I know what you mean by the term?
The USA has no distinct culture, it is a mix of many White cultures.

Though I never advocated killing simply "for being Jew,", I must ask regarding your last statement, who exactly do you refer to?Oh yeah, that's right, You advocated deportation simply "for being Jew", The killing part only applied to those who refused to leave :rolleyes: .

Your posts lack such sense...
I never said to simply kill Jews. Persecution of the Jews is perfectly righteous.

What kind of persecution? Shunting us into a ghetto? Making us wear identifiable clothing? We get beaten up if we don't salute when an Aryan asshole walks by?

How far are you prepared to go with this "Plan O' Bullshit"?

It was in this thread before, some guy was quoting Gregory, who said that although Jews are not Christian, they should still be allowed to live, and celebrate their holidays and so forth.
He was referring to specific incidences at the time. Anyway I never disagreed with your right to live and celebrate your holidays- outside the White nations of the world.

Oh yeah, that's right, You advocated deportation simply "for being Jew" .
Correct

TT, did you vote in this poll under two different nation names?

Possibly three, see post here (link) (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6809890&postcount=502). (TT, TTII, Jemell)

It should be noted further to that post that both the nations "Killer Bong" and "HC Eredeviste" seem to have voted in more than one category (including the 'no implementation' one) since I made the post linked above.

I asked a question about the multiple entries of nations in the TEchnical forum, but I don't think there has been a useful response yet.

Allowing homosexuals in the Church would never have happened. Decent men are not allowed in the Novus Ordo priesthood, for they do not engage in homosexual "orgys" at Novus Ordo seminaries. Only one thing can be said about the many sex scandals:
ONLY IN THE NOVUS ORDO! :rolleyes:

So, no sex scandals ever occured in the Roman Catholic Church?

Possibly three, see post here (link) (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6809890&postcount=502). (TT, TTII, Jemell)

It should be noted further to that post that both the nations "Killer Bong" and "HC Eredeviste" seem to have voted in more than one category (including the 'no implementation' one) since I made the post linked above.

I asked a question about the multiple entries of nations in the TEchnical forum, but I don't think there has been a useful response yet.

It's because the poll had the square boxes as opposed to the circles.

With circles, you can only choose one, with boxes, you can choose as many as you want.

The USA has no distinct culture, it is a mix of many White cultures.Face the truth, it also has many non-white cultures in that mix. This country is founded upon a basic tenent that all men are created equal, your seperatist dogma will never prevail in this country.

Wait, so TT's beef with Jews, is that we're not Christian? Hell, why not kill over 1/2 of world population: they're not christian either. Or is his problem is that we killed Christ? Well, omitting the issue of whether or not he was a true savior/messiah, there was a lot of violence in Jerusalem between supporters of Christ, and his opposition. ANd when the Roman mayor asked the head priest who to pardon, the head priest decided that death of one man is preferable over deaths of many on the steets in neverending riots.

Besides that is the issue of whether the NT can even be considered an accurate source. History teaches us that the Jews were being OCCUPIED by Pilate, who was an extremely bloody ruler. It is highly unlikely the Jewish elders were in a position to tell Pilate to do ANYTHING.

Furthermore, I personally have yet to find corroboration of this alleged Passover "custom" of releasing a prisoner.

What exactly is the "Novus Ordo" Church?
I don't admit to having any experience in latin, but i'm guessing it means something along the lines of "New Order Church".

Non-European ancestry.

Delineate the boundaries of Europe that you are using here: I'm sure you know the story of the historian that wrote a book called "Europe in the Middle Ages" and concluded the work with the announcement that it was impossible to tell where and when both Europe and the Middle Ages started and finished.

Was it you or DA or Austrealite that claimed that the white people of Europe originated as one of the tribes of Israel? Surely that would mark them out from being of European ancestry.

Why the term 'mudpeople'? I fail to see why such a term would be applied to the Asians, for example.

So, despite those of Protestant stock and faith being "Christian Zionists or Episcopalian homosexuals" they would be allowed to stay? As would followers of the (alleged) antipope?

What about those people that share European lineage with lineage from other parts of the globe?

The USA has no distinct culture, it is a mix of many White cultures.

So, during its entire 200+ year history the US has made no advances in culture? During that time it has stagnated and produced nothing of value? It has produced no culture whatsoever?

You must surely be able to give me a handful of examples of a white cultural product of the USA, no?

It's because the poll had the square boxes as opposed to the circles.

With circles, you can only choose one, with boxes, you can choose as many as you want.

Ah: we had kind of come to that conclusion, but the mod handling it - Myrth - thought he might have messed it up during his merging of the threads and moved my enquiry to Technical.

So, that means those voting more than once for contradictory options spoiled their ballots, and those that claim there was no 'implementation' remain very much a minority (once puppets are weeded out as well).

(Not that I have a problem with people believing revisionist interpretations, unless their beliefs are motivated by political motivations of which I am already suspicious.)

You must surely be able to give me a handful of examples of a white cultural product of the USA, no?
Eminem ;).

BTW, if you follow paleontologist research, we all came from africa. Technically, we are all blacks.

Both the killing and the expulsion of Jews have been overseen by the Roman Catholic Church throughout history.

And that makes it right?

Roman Catholicism gained validity to me following The Passion of Mel Gibson, during which Jewish censors suceeded in censoring the crimes they had committed.

First, no one ALIVE today comitted any crime 2,000 years ago. I know you're not a math whiz, but nobody really lives that long nowadays.

Second, care to provide an example of this alleged censorship?

Hutton Gibson has some good works on the issue.

Hutton Gibson is an idiot and a Holocaust denier. Mel Gibson, for all his faults, at least admitted that his father was wrong on this point.

The solution to all these problems is deportation, leaving a White paradise free of crime, perversion, welfare, terrorism, Zionism, and many other evils resulting from the mudpeople and their Jewish captors.

Riiight, because we all know white people have never comitted crimes, perversion, or other evils, right? Europeans never fought with each other, never killed anyone... there have never been any European thieves, right? I guess Robin Hood was a Jew, too.

Not to mention the utter loss of culture resulting from non-White immigration.

"Loss of culture" is right. America is a great nation because of its diversity. Kicking out anyone a darker shade than vanilla is going to result in making this place a cultural black hole (sorry, I guess "white hole" is more appropriate).

The Pope is not Jewish.

That's what we've all been telling you. I guess it finally sunk in?

Oh next we'll here about the "horrors" of the valiant Wars of the Cross and the "brutality" of the noble Inquisition.

Now you're obviously trolling.

This, from the Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm#IIB

The Spanish Inquisition, however, properly begins with the reign of Ferdinand the Catholic and Isabella. The Catholic faith was then endangered by pseudo converts from Judaism (Marranos) and Mohammedanism (Moriscos). On 1 November, 1478, Sixtus IV empowered the Catholic sovereigns to set up the Inquisition. The judges were to be at least forty years old, of unimpeachable reputation, distinguished for virtue and wisdom, masters of theology, or doctors or licentiates of canon law, and they must follow the usual ecclesiastical rules and regulations. On 17 September, 1480, Their Catholic Majesties appointed, at first for Seville, the two Dominicans Miguel de Morillo and Juan de San Martin as inquisitors, with two of the secular clergy assistants. Before long complaints of grievous abuses reached Rome, and were only too well founded. In a Brief of Sixtus IV of 29 January 1482, they were blamed for having, upon the alleged authority of papal Briefs, unjustly imprisoned many people, subjected them to cruel tortures, declared them false believers, and sequestrated the property of the executed. They were at first admonished to act only in conjunction with, the bishops, and finally were threatened with deposition, and would indeed have been deposed had not Their Majesties interceded for them.

...Torture was applied only too frequently and [too]cruelly

Even the VATICAN thought the Inquisition was going too far! :rolleyes:

http://www.aish.com/literacy/jewishhistory/Crash_Course_in_Jewish_History_Part_48_-_The_Inquisition.asp

How did the Inquisition work?

Jewish conversos would be arrested and accused of not being true Christians. They wouldn't even know who was accusing them; evidence would be presented against them in secret. Then they would be tortured until they confessed to being heretics. Then, once they confessed, they would be killed. The usual form was burning at the stake, though if they were willing to kiss the cross, they would be spared the horrible pain of burning and would be strangled instead.

The key point is that it really didn't matter if they repented - they died either way.

What if some people refused to confess even under torture? Or worse, what if some people admitted right away to practicing Judaism secretly, but even when tortured refused to concede the truth of Christianity? If they survived the horrendous tortures, they would be burned at the stake in a ceremony called auto-da-fe meaning "act of faith."

This went on until 1834 when the Inquisition was finally abolished, by which time every Spaniard came to fear its power. By then the Inquisition's field of operations had spread to Christian heretics, Protestants sects, witches, and even people who read the wrong books. The Spanish Inquisition was not the only Inquisition, because as the Jewish conversos fled to other more friendly countries, the Inquisition followed them, even as far as Brazil, where the last person was burned at the stake in the 19th century.

The Jews had no place there.

Who are you to say anyone has a specific "place" anywhere?

Their usury had caused much damage to Gentile populations as well.

They were FORCED INTO usury because they were forbidden from having other jobs. Then when the powerful got tired of having them around, they turned on them.

Roman Catholic doctrine requires Catholicism to be the state religion and this was enforced.

What does Catholic doctrine say about murder and torture? Is that what you guys mean by "pro-life"?

The USA has no distinct culture, it is a mix of many White cultures.

Just take out the word "White" and you'd be correct, for once.

BTW, if you follow paleontologist research, we all came from africa. Technically, we are all blacks.

It's just some are paler than others. ;)

Eminem ;).
Dear god.

So all nonwhites and jews get deported.
What about white muslims?
Or white buddhists?
White atheists?
White nonchristians in general?

So all nonwhites and jews get deported.
What about white muslims?
Or white buddhists?
White atheists?
White nonchristians in general?
No, they just get sterilized.

[QUOTE=QahJoh]Just take out the word "White" and you'd be correct, for once.
[QUOTE]
Guess he doesnt eat burritoes and chips.

No, they just get sterilized.
let me guess... without anasthesia, right? What if they adopt a kid, and raise them to be non christian?

let me guess... without anasthesia, right? What if they adopt a kid, and raise them to be non christian?
Yes. Then they get shot. The sub-humans aren't allowed to adopt children anyway in the New American Reich.

I am too lazy to read all 59 pages of talk but i would just like to state this:

The cheif Allied medical examiner for the European theatre stated in a newspaper article that he never came accross a single case of murder in the concentration camps. u may ask, what about teh gas chambers and the crematorium? that is easy to answer, Typhus thrives in situations were people are crammed in and insufficiently clean. and the best way to prevent the spread of diseases is to burn the bodies of those who died of the disease, so that explains the crematorium, and the allies kept the "death" camps running months after the war was over in order to stop the spread of these diseases to everyone in europe.

the gas u ask, was used for delousing zyklon B, the supposed killer, was used for delousing and the killing of rodents and pests like rats that would of thrived and spread disease in the camps. in Auschwitz not a single trace of the gas was found in the supposed gas chamber. and many of teh death camps that were supposed to exist, for instance at one of teh worst camps in poland the brits flew over with photo reconaisance (sp?) and it showed a small logging camp, at teh time that this camp was supposedly at teh height of its killing. if it were a camp like that there would of been permanent structures made of concrete but in 1944 the same place was flown over by teh brits and no trace of teh camp was found, and no scarring of the landscape that would of been the result of concrete buildings. the gas chamber that was supposedly there had cement foundation (according to the "inmates") and so would of left a huge scar in the land but tehre were no scars at all. and pictures from teh ground of the supposed gas chamber show a cement foundation, one that there is never a trace of in anything other then that photo of the building from teh ground or "survivor" interviews.

note: i am not saying that it was not bad, just that propoganda was used to the best of its ability to prove it was a just war.


"Loss of culture" is right. America is a great nation because of its diversity. Kicking out anyone a darker shade than vanilla is going to result in making this place a cultural black hole (sorry, I guess "white hole" is more appropriate).

there are many faults in ur statement:
1. USA is not a great nation
2. USA is not diverse, it is a "cultural melting pot" were everyone is molded into whatever teh US government wants (my proof: the thing were u murdered teh indians because u thought god wanted u to spread west). canada is moer diverse, it is called the cultural mosaic because everything is allowed to run its own life under its own rules, not mold to what we want
3.it will not make it a cultural black hole, since when was ancient rome a black hole? or any of teh great empires throughout history, no empire has never been based on equality of all, it is always one over the other, thats were we get the term PAX ROMANA. the british empire was made up of all races, hindu, white, native american, black, chinese to naem but a few but it was great because it had subjugated all the others, not because it bowed to them.

I am too lazy to read all 59 pages of talk but i would just like to state this:

The cheif Allied medical examiner for the European theatre stated in a newspaper article that he never came accross a single case of murder in the concentration camps. u may ask, what about teh gas chambers and the crematorium? that is easy to answer, Typhus thrives in situations were people are crammed in and insufficiently clean. and the best way to prevent the spread of diseases is to burn the bodies of those who died of the disease, so that explains the crematorium, and the allies kept the "death" camps running months after the war was over in order to stop the spread of these diseases to everyone in europe.

the gas u ask, was used for delousing zyklon B, the supposed killer, was used for delousing and the killing of rodents and pests like rats that would of thrived and spread disease in the camps. in Auschwitz not a single trace of the gas was found in the supposed gas chamber. and many of teh death camps that were supposed to exist, for instance at one of teh worst camps in poland the brits flew over with photo reconaisance (sp?) and it showed a small logging camp, at teh time that this camp was supposedly at teh height of its killing. if it were a camp like that there would of been permanent structures made of concrete but in 1944 the same place was flown over by teh brits and no trace of teh camp was found, and no scarring of the landscape that would of been the result of concrete buildings. the gas chamber that was supposedly there had cement foundation (according to the "inmates") and so would of left a huge scar in the land but tehre were no scars at all. and pictures from teh ground of the supposed gas chamber show a cement foundation, one that there is never a trace of in anything other then that photo of the building from teh ground or "survivor" interviews.

note: i am not saying that it was not bad, just that propoganda was used to the best of its ability to prove it was a just war.




there are many faults in ur statement:
1. USA is not a great nation
2. USA is not diverse, it is a "cultural melting pot" were everyone is molded into whatever teh US government wants
3.it will not make it a cultural black hole, since when was ancient rome a black hole? or any of teh great empires throughout history, no empire has never been based on equality of all, it is always one over the other, thats were we get the term PAX ROMANA. the british empire was made up of all races, hindu, white, native american, black, chinese to naem but a few but it was great because it had subjugated all the others, not because it bowed to them.
Ignored. Why?

1. Won't read the thread.

2. Brings up asked and answered questions.

3. Uses the word "teh". Teh is not a word. Grow up.

4. Doesn't think that the United States is a great country (admit that).

5. Can't spell.

6. Shorterns words in that annoying way.

give me 5 reasons why the USA is great, i bet u i could name atleast 50 other nations with those same reasons they are great.

teh is a word, i am from newfoundland ( in canada), in the local dialect the "h" is not pronounced, so teh and the is pronounced the same and we use both spelling. and if u say use proper english i could say TEH same to u yank, its honour, not honor (although u wouldnt need to know that as u dont have any, neither do any of ur countrymen)

2. Brings up asked and answered questions.

its called the art of rhetoric, all the great speakers and philosophers mastered it, learn to use it more often

I cant help but notice that simply because i said the USA isnt great he has to refute everythign i say, but since he cant find fault with my message he must critique my spelling,

I am too lazy to read all 59 pages of talk but i would just like to state this:

I'm almost too lazy to read your post: why the hell should we care what you have to say if you don't care what we have to say?



there are many faults in ur statement:
1. USA is not a great nation
By what standard of greatness? Size, popualtion, wealth, cultural richness, world power, technological advancement?

2. USA is not diverse, it is a "cultural melting pot" were everyone is molded into whatever teh US government wants

If the USA is not a diverse country then no country is culturally diverse.


3.it will not make it a cultural black hole, since when was ancient rome a black hole? or any of teh great empires throughout history, no empire has never been based on equality of all, it is always one over the other, thats were we get the term PAX ROMANA. the british empire was made up of all races, hindu, white, native american, black, chinese to naem but a few but it was great because it had subjugated all the others, not because it bowed to them.

The issue is not whether one culutre/race subjugating another is able to produce culture, but whether one culture/race that intentionally shuts itself off from all other cultures/races and avoids communicating with them as much as possible is able to produce and interesting and vital culture. The example of Rome you give is irrelevant, as is the British Empire, as subject peoples were not banned from the centre of power or the homeland: big difference.

Instead of comparing it to empires which flourished as a result of the cultural influences that came about due to the intermingling of different cultures/races (such as Rome, the British Empire, even the US), a better comparison would be with those cultures that were cut off from all others by accidents of geography. The aborigines and the inuits certainly had valid cultures and interesting social structures, but it would be stretching things somewhat to describe them as flourishing or vital hotbeds of cultural inventiveness and exploration of the manifold possibilities available to human beings.

its calle dhte art of rhetoric, all the great speakers and philosophers mastered it, learn to use it more often

I think most great speakers and philosophers also mastered the art of investigating what had gone before them rather than just crossing their fingers and hoping for luck in a discussion.


You asked for 5 reasons why the US is 'great':

1. Large population.
2. Highly technologically advanced.
3. A vivid and sparkling artistic culture.
4. A high level of social equality.
5. A high level of economic freedom.

And one for luck:

6. Its the only superpower left.

Ach hell, I'm feeling generous, have another on me:

7. Some of the finest educational establishments in the world exist within its borders.

And you need that one for luck. Personally, I don't really like our high population. LA traffic sucks.

Move to Wyoming? ;)

I'm almost too lazy to read your post: why the hell should we care what you have to say if you don't care what we have to say?

tehn how are u replying to it if u havent read it? and u cant tell me u've read every 59 pages of text.

By what standard of greatness? Size, popualtion, wealth, cultural richness, world power, technological advancement?

size, its not that big, canada has a fraction of the population but over 1 1/2 the size, population there are many larger countries, and sice when was a coutnry full of idiots mean its great. wealth? 90% of the countries money is in the control of 10% of the population, most of ur population lives below teh poverty line of most other developed nations. cultural richness i can only scoff and hold back my laughter, name one great cultural achievement of the USA, where is teh USA's Van gogh or Mozart. world power? gained at the expense of others, and if u didnt know, outside of the USA people scoff at u because u think ur so big and powerful, when we couldnt care less about what u think. technological advancement? ha ha ha, LMAO I guess ur gonna say u developed the rocket, wrong the scientists that developed ur moon rockets were germans captured in WWII. u just throw money at people to make them move to USA so u can take what tehy invent and claim it as ur own, i bet u would probably say u guys invented the wheel, probably not now since i've mentioned it

And you need that one for luck. Personally, I don't really like our high population. LA traffic sucks.

Traffic is a result of a high population density in certain areas rather than just a high population. The US's population density is 27 per square km - compare this to the UK with 235 per square km. Traffic is a result of concentrated masses of people and bad urban planning.

Yeah, I know that simply having a large population may not automatically seem to make a country appear great, and that the US comes in below India and China, but human lives in themselves have a value. Thus more people = more value = great.


(I'm not from the US, by the way, but the blanket suggestion that the US isn't 'great' without defining that term any further strikes me as crass stupidity, thus I take issue with it).

and ur said u have some fo teh finest educational establishments, maybe to shoot people with a sniper rifle from on top of. u watch too many american movies, i bet u think that the sky is only blue in the USA, everywhere else isnty good enough that they ahve grey

and ur said u have some fo teh finest educational establishments, maybe to shoot people with a sniper rifle from on top of. u watch too many american movies, i bet u think that the sky is only blue in the USA, everywhere else isnty good enough that they ahve grey

Do you have autism?

(I'm not from the US, by the way, but the blanket suggestion that the US isn't 'great' without defining that term any further strikes me as crass stupidity, thus I take issue with it).

i could say the same about u saying yankeeville is great, since i have refuted everything u have said

its called the art of rhetoric, all the great speakers and philosophers mastered it, learn to use it more often

I cant help but notice that simply because i said the USA isnt great he has to refute everythign i say, but since he cant find fault with my message he must critique my spelling,

I think we can ALL find fault with a message that includes denying the existence of the Holocaust.

tehn how are u replying to it if u havent read it? and u cant tell me u've read every 59 pages of text.

Note the use of the word 'almost' in my post, and yes, I have read the entire thread. Somewhat more disturbingly I think I have posted on almost all of the pages...



size, its not that big, canada has a fraction of the population but over 1 1/2 the size, population there are many larger countries, and sice when was a coutnry full of idiots mean its great.

'Size' was presented as a counterexample of how vague your blanket refusal to acknowledge the US as being 'great' was without providing a value which could be measured to determine whether it was 'great' or not.

Two countries (India & China) = 'many'?

Personally, I like human beings, and believe that they have an intrinsic worth of some kind: thus even if they are idiots (which you still have to prove) they have a value.


wealth? 90% of the countries money is in the control of 10% of the population, most of ur population lives below teh poverty line of most other developed nations.

They may not have got it by ethical means or deal with the responsibility of having that wealth in a manner that either you or I agree with, but they still have it.

cultural richness i can only scoff and hold back my laughter, name one great cultural achievement of the USA, where is teh USA's Van gogh or Mozart.

The fusion of coloured influences into white traditional folk music creating the panoply of contemporary music that we have today. The twists given to European folk music as it was carried over by settlers. The novels of William S. Burroughs. The novels of Melville. The novels of Henry Miller. The poetry of Robert Frost. The paintings of Jackson Pollack. The paintings of Jasper Johns. The paintings of Whistler. The Guggenheim museums. The John Paul Getty collections. Film Noir. Westerns. The electrification of music. Jazz. Science fiction. The architecture of New York... how long do you want me to go on?


world power? gained at the expense of others, and if u didnt know, outside of the USA people scoff at u because u think ur so big and powerful, when we couldnt care less about what u think.

Firstly, I'm not an american. I fail to see why people outside of the USA people are scoffing at Northern Ireland.

Where did you specify when you dismissed the US for not being great that it was on moral grounds? And, you know, I think that the people of Iraq are quite concerned with what the US think of them right now, not so much a case of 'couldn't care less'.

technological advancement? ha ha ha, LMAO I guess ur gonna say u developed the rocket, wrong the scientists that developed ur moon rockets were germans captured in WWII.

Yup, Wernher von Braun and his Nazi cronies - of course they based their work on earlier Russian pioneers. No, I was refering more to general high tech industry and saturation of technology through society.

u just throw money at people to make them move to USA so u can take what tehy invent and claim it as ur own, i bet u would probably say u guys invented the wheel, probably not now since i've mentioned it

I think the issue with Wernher von Braun was not so much throwing money at him, but telling him - "you either come and work for the US, or you get tried for possible war crimes in connection with slave labour, or you could try and see how long you last working under Stalin".


Edit: skipped a section by msitake and fixed some quoting problems.

and ur said u have some fo teh finest educational establishments, maybe to shoot people with a sniper rifle from on top of.

I wasn't aware that they had courses in sniping at MIT.

u watch too many american movies,

Either you have been spying on someone else in the mistaken impression that they are me, or you are talking nonsense off the top of your head and have no idea about me or my life.

i bet u think that the sky is only blue in the USA, everywhere else isnty good enough that they ahve grey

Well, certainly looking outside at were I was born and live the sky appears to be black and water is falling out of it. It might just be raining in the middle of the night.

i could say the same about u saying yankeeville is great, since i have refuted everything u have said

Ah, you forgot to wait for the counter-refutation.

Anyone else suspect that he is actually another TT pseudonym, deliberately using attrocious spelling and grammar to hide the fact?

Anyone else suspect that he is actually another TT pseudonym, deliberately using attrocious spelling and grammar to hide the fact?

No, actually, but I could be wrong. If he is, then TT has got more adventurous with his national animals and currencies.

Sorry Bodies, my statement wasn't bashing. It's just true. I really don't like LA traffic or population density wherever I go. I've got to agree with Germany 1871-1918, our schools are a haven for snipers. I'm not saying that snipers spawn like bunnies at our schools. While doing a "shooting drill" at my school, there was a great discussion on how dangerous the place would be if there really was a shooter. It's kinda scary how many ideas we came up with. I don't think that's what Germany meant though.

Back on topic, we have plenty of singers and artists. Hrm, a singer is an artist... Although I hate modern art, it is art and some is probably considered good in artistic circles. Ever heard of Josh Groban? He's American, a singer, and he's got a great voice. There are others but the lazy factor has entered into my decision not to continue the list.

On American power: Yes, we have the money to advance ourselves. Some may be at the expense of others but that's how everything works. At least in the past. Look at Canada. Who was there first? The natives. I'm not condoning the actions of America but you can't single us out.

Scientific acheivement: Albert Einstein was a German. However, why did he leave Germany? He didn't want to die. Ever heard of the airplane? Americans again. Yes, people from other countries have helped advance this one but who cares? We've helped other countries. Britain, Israel, France, Russia, Germany, etc, etc. Ever heard of the Joint Strike Fighter? It's a plane being designed by the greatest minds in the world. Americans, Germans, Brits(not sure how to put British people into that context) and others.

Although I agree that some parts of US diversity are hindered by the government, we are a very diverse nation. Melting pot=diversity.

Sorry Bodies, my statement wasn't bashing. It's just true. I really don't like LA traffic or population density wherever I go.

I didn't take it in that vein: however I stand by what I said. It isn't just a high population that creates issues like traffic problems, instead it is a case of bad urban and civic planning (and the ongoing american obsession with the motorcar)*.




* I feel very 1940s using the word 'motorcar' for some reason. I wonder how long before I regress to 'horseless carriage'?

2. USA is not diverse, it is a "cultural melting pot" were everyone is molded into whatever teh US government wants (my proof: the thing were u murdered teh indians because u thought god wanted u to spread west). canada is moer diverse, it is called the cultural mosaic because everything is allowed to run its own life under its own rules, not mold to what we want

First, it's a bit dishonest to point to the Indian genocides of over 120 years ago as representative of America today.

Second, "Melting Pot" isn't really accurate anymore. It's more of a "tapestry" now, not unlike your mosaic thing.

Third, although plenty of Americans do assimilate (at least to certain degrees), what evidence do you have that the GOVERNMENT'S behind it?

3.it will not make it a cultural black hole, since when was ancient rome a black hole? or any of teh great empires throughout history, no empire has never been based on equality of all, it is always one over the other, thats were we get the term PAX ROMANA. the british empire was made up of all races, hindu, white, native american, black, chinese to naem but a few but it was great because it had subjugated all the others, not because it bowed to them.

First, subjugating other cultures is generally not viewed as a "good thing", at least not by modern standards. I think Rome did a fair amount of asshole things, to tell you the truth.

Second, if you bothered to read what I was responding to, you'd know that TT didn't talk about SUBJUGATING other cultures:

Not to mention the utter loss of culture resulting from non-White immigration.

This moron isn't talking about subjugating non-whites. He wants to EXPEL them, i.e., remove them from America entirely. That's a bit different than Rome, if memory serves.

M'kay, all is good then. Did you know that you can get a special car registration as horseless carriage? You would be correct in saying it. Sort of.

Back on topic, if Rome didn't like you for whatever reason, they just killed you. End of story.

Actually back on subject: Germany, do you find subjugating people a good thing?

In my view, this is the ultimate result of the denial of God and the exaltation of man as his own god by secular humanism. Without God and without moral absolutes, what is to prevent us from doing this to one another? Worth noting that the totalitarians of the 20th century have killed more people in the name of their ideologies than all of history's religious wars and persecutions combined. (The Nazis hated Christianity and planned to destroy it once they finished off the Jews.) Not to justify the evils done in the name of religion, but when the Great Leader replaces the Supreme Being, and the Manifesto, Thoughts of the Chairman, whatever, becomes the Holy Book, it always ends up in a terror far worse than any inquisition.
First off, I'd like to see a body count for that claim. *IF* the body count is higher in modern times (which strongly I doubt) it is only because of greater population and military technology. A Thirty Years War with modern hardware would wipe out all involved.

Secondly, the Nazis were not really atheists:

“Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without religious foundation is built on air; consequently all character training and religion must be derived from faith.”

- Adolf Hitler on signing the Nazi-Vatican Concordat, April 26, 1933

http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/hitler.htm
http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_AHitler.htm
http://www.atheistalliance.org/library/morris-xtianity_nazis.html

There is no questioning that the Nazis capitalized on Christian anti-Semitism that dates back to the Middle Ages. Look at everything Tenete Traditiones has written in this thread. Here we have a very fervent Christian who would no doubt participate in the Holocaust in a heartbeat. I am not arguing that Christians are any more prone to genocide than the rest of the human family. But to argue that the Holocaust was the byproduct of secular humanism is utter nonsense. The Nazis did their evil deeds with “Gott mitt uns” (“God is with us”) on their belt buckles and that kind of arrogance has always bred the world’s worst horrors. Need I cite 9-11? Flying airplanes into skyscrapers takes a kind of faith that atheists are proud to say they don't have.

Besides that is the issue of whether the NT can even be considered an accurate source. History teaches us that the Jews were being OCCUPIED by Pilate, who was an extremely bloody ruler. It is highly unlikely the Jewish elders were in a position to tell Pilate to do ANYTHING.

Furthermore, I personally have yet to find corroboration of this alleged Passover "custom" of releasing a prisoner.Not only that but the punishment at the time for heresy was death by stoning. Crucifixion was the punishment for common criminals and political dissidents (the likelyhood is that Jesus was killed for subversion, one school of thought says he may have been an ex Zealot. And the Jewish elders of the time did not have the legal authority to carry out that sentence. The Romans did. (And considering the political situation in the time the Gospels were likely to have been written it's quite understandable that the writers would have played down Roman involvement for the sake of their personal safety).

Whites are the only true "human", we evolved from Homo erectus and Homo habilis into Homo sapiens. Making us "Humans"

The other races are a descended from the Australopithecine.


The jews are a mixture of arab, semite, asian, and african blood, the ultimate mongrelized race. They are originally from central Asia. Jews are Khazars.

Okay, time for my Biology qualifications to kick some arse.

Firstly, which Australopithecine are you talking about? There are around seven known species of Australopithecine, some of which are considered to be side branches.

Secondly, Australopithecines died out way, way before even Homo sapiens was first thought to have become a distinct species (thought to be around 1 million years ago). Are you seriously suggesting that they somehow "revived" to become the "other races" of today?

Thirdly, your timeline is wrong. It is Homo habilis > Homo erectus > Homo sapiens.

Fourthly, since Australopithecines and the Homo sapiens are completely different species, they would not be able to interbreed to form "mongrels". Australopithecines and Homo sapiens, being entirely seperate species, would not be able to interbreed, and even if they could, they would not be able to produce fertile offspring.

Fifthly, Australopithecine DNA has been extracted, and it has been shown that their DNA is unlike any DNA currently existing on earth, thus showing that nothing currently on earth could have evolved from the Australopithecines.

Sixthly, stop pretending you have even a basic and rudimentary grasp of Biology.

Note: It stated that FOX was a subsidiary owned by a Jew. Incorrect, it is owned by an Australian, Rupert Murdock(h).

That was probably the stupidest statement. How are the Jews even directly related to the Khazars? The Sefardics were Jewish refugees from their Homeland and they settled in Northern Africa, especially in Ethiopia. They also settles in Persia, now present day Iran. Then there was another branch that settled in Europe called the Ashkenazics. I believe the Jewish culture and race was never from Africa in the first place, neither from Khazar areas.

I'm very much shocked to see that only 80% acknowledges the Holocaust. I did not know that this world was so infected with stupidity :(

I'm very much shocked to see that only 80% acknowledges the Holocaust. I did not know that this world was so infected with stupidity :(

Is it really fair to refer to the world though? I don't know what the average south american, african or asian really knows about nazi holocaust.

i believe that the nazies killed 6 million jews and how ever many gypies and slavs in the camps. But then I am going on the historical documents.

I think that the problem, since we have to really on records, its too easy for some to say "the jewish imperial zionist hegemony have warped th numbers!!!"

the ones who don't want to beleive will always say its made up.

I was wondering:


HOW THE HELL IS AMERICA A WHITE COUNTRY? WHITE PEOPLE IMMIGRATED THERE AND TOOK IT FROM THE NATIVE AMERICANS BY KILLING THOUSANDS AND CAUSING MILLIONS TO DIE OF HORRIBLE PLAGUES. AMERICA IS NO WHITE COUNTRY.

Oh and on a related topic guess who had the largest libary in the world over a thousand years before the US had even been DISCOVERED by the white man? Why it was those "sand niggers" and "mud people" in Iraq. And yet many on the right think that lots of white people should be allowed to be in Iraq against the native arabs wishes...Weird huh?

As far as i know John Kerry is a quarter or less jewish(correct me if im wrong) and has beena roman catholic his entire life. As for the media it shows that Jews generaly make better entrprenuers(spelling probably wrong) and actors. So what if they own so much? Isnt america the country where if you work hard you can acheive anything?
And the senators and representatives were elected so either only jews go to the polls or people see them as good candidates.
By the way im a quarter jewish and an atheist by religion.

[QUOTE=Slovyania]As far as i know John Kerry is a quarter or less jewish(correct me if im wrong) and has beena roman catholic his entire life. As for the media it shows that Jews generaly make better entrprenuers(spelling probably wrong) and actors. So what if they own so much? Isnt america the country where if you work hard you can acheive anything?
[QUOTE]

Unless of course you commit the crime of being Jewish :rolleyes: .

Oh and on a related topic guess who had the largest libary in the world over a thousand years before the US had even been DISCOVERED by the white man? Why it was those "sand niggers" and "mud people" in Iraq.
Guess what... 300 years before America was discovered by the Europeans Baghdad was annihilated and civilization wiped out completely from Mesopotamia... the Iraqis are still rebuilding from the damage even to this day. Just goes to show that libraries built a thousand years ago do not reflect conditions today. There is no doubt that today, at least, the West is the superior civilization.

And yet many on the right think that lots of white people should be allowed to be in Iraq against the native arabs wishes...Weird huh?
I don't support the Iraq war because of the huge costs in money and resources but the Middle East is definitely not all Arab. You show your condescendingly racist and ignorant views by ignoring the other minorities of the area including the Kurds who hate Saddam and have gladly accepted an American presence for over 10 years to protect them from the Arab majority.

I'm a Jewish Tapir and I control the Banks!

http://i.somethingawful.com/news/2004/08/14-tapir10sm.gif

:eek: Holy crap.
Well, what can I say. You're on us this time! Yes, we meet every night in your cemetery planning to take over the world while eating the flesh of a young blond Christian kid, and after that we go and crucify a Catholic girl or two, and then we drink some Christian blood we've got left on the shelf next to the Gefilte fish and go to sleep drooling thinking how much we rock and how very soon we're gonna take over.
:)
Shabbat Shalom.

I was wondering:


HOW THE HELL IS AMERICA A WHITE COUNTRY? WHITE PEOPLE IMMIGRATED THERE AND TOOK IT FROM THE NATIVE AMERICANS BY KILLING THOUSANDS AND CAUSING MILLIONS TO DIE OF HORRIBLE PLAGUES. AMERICA IS NO WHITE COUNTRY.
Ridiculous. America is predominantly settled by non-natives such as whites and blacks, and there is no logic to kicking these innocent people out, who have nothing to do with events hundreds of years ago. If you want to restore all the countries in the world to the first nations then the Turks should get out of Turkey (which they seized by killing thousands of Greeks), the French should get out of France (which they seized by killing thousands of Celts), and the Hindus should get out of India (which they seized by killing thousands of Dravidians). We should regret all the blood shed in the past but you don't have to dwell on it.

The Jews had no place there. Their usury had caused much damage to Gentile populations as well. Roman Catholic doctrine requires Catholicism to be the state religion and this was enforced.

Tenete usury has actually helped the Gentiles.
England was one of the most prolific users of usury, and became the leading power in the world for about two centuries.
The Muslims who banned usury entirely went into a slow decline and lost control of their once thriving nations, due to running out of money to buy new technology or support the massive infrastructure necessary for controlling their empire. This happened after centuries of rivaling and even surpassing Europe.

Ridiculous. America is predominantly settled by non-natives such as whites and blacks, and there is no logic to kicking these innocent people out, who have nothing to do with events hundreds of years ago. If you want to restore all the countries in the world to the first nations then the Turks should get out of Turkey (which they seized by killing thousands of Greeks), the French should get out of France (which they seized by killing thousands of Celts), and the Hindus should get out of India (which they seized by killing thousands of Dravidians). We should regret all the blood shed in the past but you don't have to dwell on it.

Was I saying kick out the whites? No, I was saying that it is pure hypocricy for whites to demand that a country is theirs and no one else should be allowed it.

Because 2% of the population has manifested complete control over the American media. The Jews have been responsible for the bringing destruction to America as it is rife with more foreign and internal problems than ever before.
The media promotes homosexuality, abortion, interracial relationships, same-sex marriages yet not heterosexual marriages. The Jewish ACLU has been behind the secularization of the country removing every vestige of God from the public square. Protestants are nothing more but Zionist slaves to Pat Robertson and other Zionist fanatics while Roman Catholics are deluded into following the Polish Jew Karol Kaczorowska Wojityla as their antipope.
Jews, unlike Germans, Irish, Italians, Swedes, French or any European people, are a distinct Semitic racial group as propagated by their Talmudic religion. They've thrived at the world's expense for millenia until now when the unGodly Israel was re-established with which they can truely dominate the world.
America is also now threatened by Arab terrorists thanks to blind support of Israel. Of course the question can be asked how these Arabs got into the country in the first place which can be traced to Jewish lobbying for open immigration. Jews are different than any other group and have no place in America. They should go back to beloved Israel and wait until the Mohammedan hordes destroy it. Just keep White blood out of there.


and of course all of this is the fault of the jews, and not of the middle class white male, grasping at straws for reasons why his country is going down the pan. (instead of being a bit less selfish, greedy, ignorant and anti-semitic)
why dont all those 98% gentiles stand up for themselves....oh I forgot, your argument is total bollocks and completely without foundation or support...

Was I saying kick out the whites? No, I was saying that it is pure hypocricy for whites to demand that a country is theirs and no one else should be allowed it.
not hypocritical, just stupid. The fact that whites took the land of America from indians has no bearing on anything whatsoever... no one doubts that the Republic of TUrkey is a turkish country even if it was taken from greeks hundreds of years ago.

and of course all of this is the fault of the jews, and not of the middle class white male, grasping at straws for reasons why his country is going down the pan. (instead of being a bit less selfish, greedy, ignorant and anti-semitic)
why dont all those 98% gentiles stand up for themselves....oh I forgot, your argument is total bollocks and completely without foundation or support...


Nooo! It is because of the horrible "religious and racial tolerance" that Jews have spread! Can you actualy believe that now most people DO NOT actualy hate Jew?! How could this have happened?! Now blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Arabs hell even GAY people can walk around lots of places without the risk of being beaten to death like they deserve! Damn the jews and the progress he has helped this country make! I can not even call people with skin pigmentation darker than me ****** without being socialy frowned upon!

not hypocritical, just stupid. The fact that whites took the land of America from indians has no bearing on anything whatsoever... no one doubts that the Republic of TUrkey is a turkish country even if it was taken from greeks hundreds of years ago.

Well still the Turkeys have no right to descriminate against other races trying to come in or to claim that the land is an "Arabic country". They stole it, it is not theirs at all and they should not pretend it is.

Well still the Turkeys have no right to descriminate against other races trying to come in or to claim that the land is an "Arabic country". They stole it, it is not theirs at all and they should not pretend it is.
They don't have a right to discriminate but if you are talking about 'land theft' hundreds of years back then few countries in the world will have a legitimate claim to existence by your standards. Also the Turks do not claim to be an "Arabic country"... read my post, the fifth on page 62... the mid east is not uniformly arabic.

Tenete usury has actually helped the Genitles. England was one of the most prolific users of usury and became the leading power in the world for about two centuries.
The Muslims who banned usury entirely went into a slow decline and lost control of their once thriving nations after centuries of rivaling and even surpassing Europe.

It's not as if the Catholic Church has any objection to usury now anyway. They got rid of that particular injunction in the 14th century when they saw the tremendous amounts of money that could be made. It's also about the time when the Catholic Church started turning a blind eye towards various Jewish expulsions. Nothing boosts your business like persecuting and exporting your competitors.

Although it would be a mistake to blame the decline of Muslim civilisation on a lack of banking facilities. They did fine without it for over 500 years. It was more the Mongol invasion and the destruction of Baghdad, and the inward-looking, traditionalist, dogmatic, doctrine-based world-view that the invasion provoked, which choked off further advances.

it's so sad to see , some judes take misadvantage of this sad event to justify their current acts of aggression ...

and ow yes :
POOR RUSSIANS
10M of them died in WWII and nobody ever mentions them ...

To Tenete Traditiones:
All I really want to say to you would be: "F*ck off, you Nazi c*nt! Go find a bunker and blow your pathetic fascist brains out sooner rather than later, 'cos - get this - nobody likes a Nazi. They are a profoundly immature and for want of a better word - stupid bigots. In other words: the scum of the modern world. We didn't spend six years getting rid of them just so ignorant hicks could think to themselves: 'uh, actually Hitler rocked...' No, he was a psychotic abomination. The only good fascist is a dead fascist."

But, of course, decorum suggests otherwise.

So in that case, I just implore you to remove that massive anti-semitic chip on your shoulder, and rejoin the 21st century. Think you can do that?

it's so sad to see , some judes take misadvantage of this sad event to justify their current acts of aggression ...

and ow yes :
POOR RUSSIANS
10M of them died in WWII and nobody ever mentions them ...

A lot of people died in WWII, dear, people stick to the Jews because the Jews were killed in an overplanned Genocide, not quite a war.

"judes"? HA! Why not "kike", while you're at it.
And don't generalize all Jews in "their current acts of aggression". Don't forget most of the Jews aren't Israelis.

...Just scroll down the list to see Jewish Comedians, ...



Oh no. Our comedy is controlled by Jews.

:rolleyes:

People, look. It's plain you're not dealing with a rational person. He's either been cultally brainwashed or has some issues of his own to work out, but either way, you're not going to make headway in an argument with him. All you do by replying is take his ideas more seriously. He's a neo-Nazi punk, part of a miniscule minority of people on earth with such ideas, and it's not worth your time to pay attention to him.

I vote that this thread is deleted.
Who's with me?

If you've got some bug up your arse about Jews, keep it to yourself. So what if they run most of the successful businesses, they're a resourceful and intelligent people. And anyway, Judaism is a faith, a way of life that can be chosen by others if they wish, not an entire race or global Empire, so stop being a moron. I'm not Jewish, but I've got a lot of respect for them. They deserve it, after being pissed on so many times by Christianity and Islam, as well as those who were simply jealous of their prosperity. So, try and show a little more consideration. In comparison, I think you'll find that many Christians and Muslims are too busy mudslinging and shouting at each other to be as successful or as resiliant as Jews. And before I get Catholics and Shi-ites on my back, please remember I am not slagging off every single one of you, merely the narrow-minded fundamentalists who refuse to accept anything that is against their doctrines. And even if, and this is a mighty big "if", there was a Jewish conspiracy, then I would gladly let them take power. As long as they could avoid the path of favouritism that Christians and Muslims tend to go down, then I think it would be beneficial to *everybody*.

So there.

Although it would be a mistake to blame the decline of Muslim civilisation on a lack of banking facilities. They did fine without it for over 500 years. It was more the Mongol invasion and the destruction of Baghdad, and the inward-looking, traditionalist, dogmatic, doctrine-based world-view that the invasion provoked, which choked off further advances.


I agree that its not completely to blame but it does play a part in it. I edited the above post a few minutes ago, saying how the lack of funds prevented the Muslims from updating their armies and infrastructure. These had been hurt by the various invasions and revolts in the areas not under the direct control of the Turkish Empire. And it was the traditionalists who prevented usery from being made at least semi-legal. The Austrian Empire, Spain, France, and various other countries had been invaded and suffered disasters before, but they could for the most part fall back on borrowed money to recover. The Turkish Empire couldn't.
The fact that it lasted as a super power for so long, says something about how effective it was. But since it was unwilling and unable to change it was replaced when new methods came along.
And seeing how poorly TT is doing with his arguements, we can hope it won't be long before his way of thinking is replaced.

So, despite those of Protestant stock and faith being "Christian Zionists or Episcopalian homosexuals" they would be allowed to stay? As would followers of the (alleged) antipope?
If it they do not follow an Eastern religion, then all Whites shall remain. Obviously worshippers of John Paul or Pat Robertson are more than welcome to move to beloved Israel.
Still, the division is based on race, not religion.

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so..."~ Adolf Hitler, 1941

What about those people that share European lineage with lineage from other parts of the globe?
Mud



So, during its entire 200+ year history the US has made no advances in culture? During that time it has stagnated and produced nothing of value? It has produced no culture whatsoever?

You must surely be able to give me a handful of examples of a white cultural product of the USA, no?
No, nothing.

Its good to see, that not all americans are stupid. Good luck, TT, but i fear, you will have no success by educating ppl, who are actualy zobies and slaves to the mass media. They are unable to think and analyze, they dont read books, where are REAL facts. This world is very close to Orvels 1984...

And here are some facts from history, about USSR...
1. Leader of bolshevik revolution - Lenin/Uljanov - mother jewish
2. Foreign comissar Chicherin - mother jewish
3. Comissar of national matters - notorios Stalin/Dzugashvilli - father jewish, surename means shvilli - son, dzuga - jew (from georgian language)
4. Comissar of economics - Rurje/Larins - jewish
5. Comissar of restoration Shlihter - jewish
6. Comissar of government control Lander - jewish
7. Comissar of army and fleet Trotsky/Bronshtein - jewish
8. Commisar of govermental land Kaufman - jewish (he controled 1/6 of the planet )
9. Comissary of social work Shmit - jewish
10. Comissary of civil supply Lilina/Knigisen - jewish
11. Comissary of national enlightment Lunacharsky - jewish
12. Comissary of religion Shpicberg - jewish
13. Comissary of population Zinovjev/Apfelbaum - jewish
14. Comissary of social hygiene Anvelt - jewish
15. Comissary of finances Gukovsky - jewish
16. Comissary of press Kochen/Volodarsky - jewish
17. Comissary of elections Radomislky/Uricky - jewish
18. Comissary of justice Shteinberg - jewish - he controlled the executions
19. Comissary of evacuation Fēnigšteins - jewish

How do i know this? Simply - i was "citizen" of USSR, my nation lost few hundred thousand people tnx to USSR.
Damn, when do people will start to read and think?

I just finished reading the entire thread. It took me three days because i had to take breaks in order to laugh my head off.
Honestly, i'm scared that people still believe crap like this today. Wars are started because of close-minded bigots like DA, CM, TT and all their little friends. I'm a jew and i'm proud of it. I would like to address the comment made about Iraq and Afghanistan.
It went something like "the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were started because of Americas blind support in Israel"??? if that was the case then why didn't Israel send troops over to help? Israel at no point backed the war.
Also i'm almost certain that for every corporation you give me "owned" by a Jew i can give you two owned by a catholic.
I hope you will notice that i tried to avoid using long words in order to avoid confusion.

PR of Sanctaphrax

p.s if you would all like to get together at some point and smash your heads together it would save me the effort:)

This world is very close to Orvels 1984...
Orvel? Didn't he sing "I wish I could fly"?

Oh no. Our comedy is controlled by Jews.

:rolleyes:
"I want to focus on the Jewishness of the characters... I want some Goldsteins and Cohens and and Bergs..."
~Larry David, Jewish comedian and propagandist

And here are some facts from history, about USSR...

It was communist. The United States aren't.


They are unable to think and analyze,

QED


they dont read books, where are REAL facts.


Translation: I don't get my ideas from crackpots on TV, I get them from crackpots in books. I'm obviously more intellectual!

Your logic does not follow. Nice try thinking and analyzing.

Its good to see, that not all americans are stupid. Good luck, TT, but i fear, you will have no success by educating ppl, who are actualy zobies and slaves to the mass media. They are unable to think and analyze, they dont read books, where are REAL facts. This world is very close to Orvels 1984...

How do i know this? Simply - i was "citizen" of USSR, my nation lost few hundred thousand people tnx to USSR.
Damn, when do people will start to read and think?

URRS wasn't very nice to jews too (many died as The ones in Nazi Germany), another genious at work, i see.

yes READ BOOKS, not nazi poo

It was communist. The United States aren't.

What makes you so sure?

This whole thing is basically "I HATE JEWISH PEOPLE" followed by "YOU STUPID NAZI," and a few random uses of logic or reasonable arguments here and there does not make up for the fact that this thing should have been locked a few dozen pages ago.

"I want to focus on the Jewishness of the characters... I want some Goldsteins and Cohens and and Bergs..."
~Larry David, Jewish comedian and propagandist

And your feeble little point would be...? It's not much of a quote, and it's even more useless when you provide no context at all.

Incidentally, you've never answered one question (well, several, actually, but this one will do for now): do you still believe that Jews kill Christian children and drink their blood, as you maintained some time ago? I haven't seen a retraction from you, even though Pope Gregory X called the whole notion "false", "silly", and "miserable":

And most falsely do these Christians claim that the Jews have secretly and furtively carried away these children and killed them, and that the Jews offer sacrifices from the heart and the blood of these children, since their law in this matter precisely and expressly forbids Jews to sacrifice, eat, or drink the blood, or to eat the flesh of animals having claws. This has been demonstrated many times at our court by Jews converted to the Christian faith: nevertheless very many Jews are often seized and detained unjustly because of this.

We decree, therefore, that Christians need not be obeyed against Jews in a case or situation of this type, and we order that Jews seized under such a silly pretext be freed from imprisonment, and that they shall not be arrested henceforth on such a miserable pretext, unless -- which we do not believe -- they be caught in the commission of the crime. We decree that no Christian shall stir up anything new against them, but that they should be maintained in that status and position in which they were in the time of our predecessors, from antiquity till now.

(Full text at http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2003Mar/gregxjew.htm -- like you didn't know already. Emphasis mine.)

Are you just incapable of admitting that you're wrong, and that the whole thing is just a big fat lie which you've been maliciously spreading around to support your perverted belief system?

I'm not understanding why the belief in Jesus is important in leading a country or state? And Jews are not a race, they are from as many different countries as Christians come from. So unless your a neo-nazi, this really isnt all that important.

What makes you so sure?
Massive homelessness, poverty, hunger, substandard housing, unemployment, omnicorporations... very, very uncommunist.

Baseless accusations...

Well, imo you just proved me right with the post you posted right before the post you quoted me from.

What am I claiming?

Your claim would be that if the mother of someone is a Jew, then the someone is a Jew.

Was it really that unclear?

I'm not understanding why the belief in Jesus is important in leading a country or state? And Jews are not a race, they are from as many different countries as Christians come from. So unless your a neo-nazi, this really isnt all that important.

I think these guys want to believe all Christians are white and Jew's aren't, they're a specific race.

For the SIXTH time, JEW IS NOT A RACE.

Incidentally, you've never answered one question (well, several, actually, but this one will do for now): do you still believe that Jews kill Christian children and drink their blood, as you maintained some time ago? I haven't seen a retraction from you, even though Pope Gregory X called the whole notion "false", "silly", and "miserable":
Jews do indeed commit evil crimes most certainly today.
Perhaps there were some false claims at that time however that does not undo the crimes in today's age. I was not the one who claimed that Jews drink Christian blood.

The encyclical forbade simply persecuting the Jews without a reason however if they have committed crimes, justice should be brought upon them.
Lest we forget Pope Pius V's Hebraeorum gens later expelled the Jews from Church states.

Your claim would be that if the mother of someone is a Jew, then the someone is a Jew.

Yes, that is true.

Jews do indeed commit evil crimes most certainly today.
Perhaps there were some false claims at that time however that does not undo the crimes in today's age. I was not the one who claimed that Jews drink Christian blood.

The encyclical forbade simply persecuting the Jews without a reason however if they have committed crimes, justice should be brought upon them.
Lest we forget Pope Pius V's Hebraeorum gens later expelled the Jews from Church states.
What crimes did these Jews commit? It is ironic that after the parasitic Jews were expelled from Catholic states and infected new hosts such as the Netherlands and England, the Netherlands and England became the most powerful and richest states of Europe while Spain (undone by the usury of the Christian Fugger family?) imploded.

Jews do indeed commit evil crimes most certainly today.
Perhaps there were some false claims at that time however that does not undo the crimes in today's age. I was not the one who claimed that Jews drink Christian blood.

The encyclical forbade simply persecuting the Jews without a reason however if they have committed crimes, justice should be brought upon them.
Lest we forget Pope Pius V's Hebraeorum gens later expelled the Jews from Church states.
(Pius was a dick, quite frankly)

What crimes have they committed?

*Proove it that I dare speaking for the community, like you tend in your bacterial lifeform propaganda*

Who the hell are you to make judgements on WHO is QUALIFIED. Do I miss something?

Tbh, he didn't do a judgment, he just questioned. Kind of 2 different things.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/blood.htm

For your reading pleasure.

Jews are Communists who have committed crimes of deception and have attempted to destroy the Church, and enslave and destroy the White race.
From a Christian perspective, their communist practices alone are incriminating.

Jews are Communists who have committed crimes of deception and have attempted to destroy the Church, and enslave and destroy the White race.
From a Christian perspective, their communist practices alone are incriminating.

Yes, and we make pigs fly, too.

Of course the Holocaust occured! Do you think 6 000 000 Jews just spontaneously combusted?

Jews are Communists who have committed crimes of deception and have attempted to destroy the Church, and enslave and destroy the White race.
From a Christian perspective, their communist practices alone are incriminating.

hahaha thanks for making my day, that was really funny, I must say I love you fundamentalists.

But in all seriousness, from a communist perspective you are a reactionary, patriarchical society that has committed historical atrocities and supports the ruling powers of the European royal families. (it always is funny to hear a catholic tell about the divine ruling right of the British royal family.)

oh damn, I'm late for my abortion, and then I need to find my boyfriend to practice sodomy.

What about those people that share European lineage with lineage from other parts of the globe?
Mud

Yes, you described them as 'mudpeople' earlier. I then asked you why you used that particular term. I'll ask again: why did you use that particular term?

You must surely be able to give me a handful of examples of a white cultural product of the USA, no?
No, nothing.

Seems to me like the white folks of the US have a major problem there. Are we to assume that they would produce nothing of cultural value if they were left alone?

Jews are Communists who have committed crimes of deception and have attempted to destroy the Church, and enslave and destroy the White race.
As far as totalitarian organizations go, the Church is pretty tolerant of all races and colors... the Church welcomed Indians (from India) as early as the 1500s, American Indians, Chinese, Africans, etc. Dioceses have been set up all around the world wherever missionaries go regardless of what nationality or color the converts may be.

Also you still haven't explained the fact that the most tolerant societies of Europe (England and the Netherlands, both of which had large populations of Jews, mainstream Christians and Christian non-conformists, and other minorities) have been some of the richest nations in the world for hundreds of years. While Spain and France which expelled the Jews and Huguenots have taken second place behind the northern banking and trading powers.


From a Christian perspective, their communist practices alone are incriminating.
You are accusing the Jews of being usurious capitalist pigs and communist pigs. WTF? You make no sense.

Oh yeah Pope Leo XIII issued Rerum Novarum which called on Catholics to support Christian communistic principles (but oppose atheist Marxism)

WTF? You make no sense.

He hasn't made sense in most of his arguments.

Jews are Communists who have committed crimes of deception and have attempted to destroy the Church, and enslave and destroy the White race.
From a Christian perspective, their communist practices alone are incriminating.
I'm a good friend of the Popes, we used to go to the same Synagogue in Golders Green:) he supplied me with an inside man in every Church in the US and U.K. When the time is right we'll secretly destroy all the churches and enslave everyone. wahahahahaha. but ssshhhhhhh!!! don't tell anyone. it'll be our little secret.

PR of Sanctaphrax

I'm a good friend of the Popes, we used to go to the same Synagogue in Golders Green:) he supplied me with an inside man in every Church in the US and U.K. When the time is right we'll secretly destroy all the churches and enslave everyone. wahahahahaha. but ssshhhhhhh!!! don't tell anyone. it'll be our little secret.

PR of Sanctaphrax

We'll celebrate together by slaughtering us a Christian virgin and drinking her blood, eh?

We'll celebrate together by slaughtering us a Christian virgin and drinking her blood, eh?
sure, shall I invite the Pope too???

sure, shall I invite the Pope too???

Yeah, the bloodbath only tastes good with the Pope there. Have him bring the whole family, I think they're rather nice folk.

Yeah, the bloodbath only tastes good with the Pope there. Have him bring the whole family, I think they're rather nice folk.
I love being a Jew:)
it's the only religion where you can get away with drinking peoples blood

Also you still haven't explained the fact that the most tolerant societies of Europe (England and the Netherlands, both of which had large populations of Jews, mainstream Christians and Christian non-conformists, and other minorities) have been some of the richest nations in the world for hundreds of years. While Spain and France which expelled the Jews and Huguenots have taken second place behind the northern banking and trading powers.
The Jewish populations prospered, not the native Europeans themselves.

Hellish Holland (http://www.sspx.ca/Angelus/2004_FebMar/Hellish_Holland.htm)

Jews do indeed commit evil crimes most certainly today.

A) Name a social or cultural group which does not.

and B) If you have evidence for any specific crimes, why not toddle off down to your local police station? If you DON'T have any evidence, then all you're doing is (shock!) making unsubstantiated claims to support your crippling inferiority complex. Remember, too, that -- according to Pope Gregory -- you'll need a Jewish witness to back you up.

Perhaps there were some false claims at that time however that does not undo the crimes in today's age.

Oh, really? Ya think? Again, though: what crimes? What evidence? What justification can you offer for persecuting an entire people for the crimes, real or imaginary, of some individuals? Should you be persecuted because of the crimes of far-right Catholic screwballs?

I was not the one who claimed that Jews drink Christian blood.

No, that's true, you're right there. Having checked back, it was Decisive Action -- although you are on record as saying:

Decisive Action made the claim and he seems to be very reliable factually so take it up with him.

Admittedly this was in regard to DA's fatuous claim that black people are descended from Australopithecines, but you showed your usual courage of your convictions by scurrying away from this argument. Do you still think he's "very reliable factually"?

Do you believe that Jewish people drink Christian blood? Yes or no?

The encyclical forbade simply persecuting the Jews without a reason however if they have committed crimes, justice should be brought upon them.

You mean, if they commit crimes, they should be punished for them. This makes them different from other people in what way?

Lest we forget Pope Pius V's Hebraeorum gens later expelled the Jews from Church states.

Actually, Hebraeorum gens expelled Jews from Church States excluding Rome and Ancona, pretty significant portions of the Papal States at the time, but let's not quibble over details. How about Honorius III's Sicut judaeis non debet esse licentia, or Urban V's Sicuti judaeis non debet, both forbidding violence against Jews? And let's not forget Urban VIII's Cum sicut acceptimus, which lays on Catholics the obligation to feed Jews imprisoned for debts. Have you fed a Jew imprisoned for debt recently?

I love being a Jew:)
it's the only religion where you can get away with drinking peoples blood

I'm with you. Those silly Christians will never catch on.

I'm with you. Those silly Christians will never catch on.
ah well, more blood of Virgins for us, eh???
they just don't know what their missing:)

Actually, Hebraeorum gens expelled Jews from Church States excluding Rome and Ancona, pretty significant portions of the Papal States at the time, but let's not quibble over details. How about Honorius III's Sicut judaeis non debet esse licentia, or Urban V's Sicuti judaeis non debet, both forbidding violence against Jews? And let's not forget Urban VIII's Cum sicut acceptimus, which lays on Catholics the obligation to feed Jews imprisoned for debts. Have you fed a Jew imprisoned for debt recently?

I don't think so, and only because he seems too emotionally involved in this argument to look at the facts.

ah well, more blood of Virgins for us, eh???
they just don't know what their missing:)

Their loss.

The Jewish populations prospered, not the native Europeans themselves.

The Netherlands' problems stemmed from repeated incursions by the armies of the Catholic Emperor Charles V, and England's stemmed from decades of religious (Christian) upheaval under the Catholic-in-all-but-name Henry VIII (a bit like yourself: Catholic, but didn't acknowledge the Pope. And he was nuts, too), the Protestant Edward VI, the Catholic Mary I and the Anglican Elizabeth I. I suppose they were all really Jews in disguise?

The Netherlands' problems stemmed from repeated invasions by the Catholic Emperor Charles V, and England's stemmed from decades of religious (Christian) upheaval under the Catholic-in-all-but-name Henry VIII (a bit like yourself: Catholic, but didn't acknowledge the Pope. And he was nuts, too), the Protestant Edward VI, the Catholic Mary I and the Anglican Elizabeth I. I suppose they were all really Jews in disguise?
of course. my theory is that TT is really a Jew in disguise but he won't admit it.
come on TT you know you want to.
just repeat after me "I am a Jew and I am proud of it"
alternatively you may just want to stick to "Heil Hitler" it seems to be working for you right now. now let's settle this debate with a pint of blood. what do you say???

I'm amazed at the number of racists on this board, and with that said, I'll be gone.

I'm amazed at the number of racists on this board, and with that said, I'll be gone.
who do you mean??? they all left TT to fight by himself.

I suppose they were all really Jews in disguise?

I think so. I think TT seems to think Jews are the cause of all the world's problems and Christians are and have always been just innocent, helpless victims of our evil.

*Sigh*

who do you mean??? they all left TT to fight by himself.

And we're just making jokes.

I think so. I think TT seems to think Jews are the cause of all the world's problems and Christians are and have always been just innocent, helpless victims of our evil.

*Sigh*
not just us, don't forget he also hates:
non-Catholics
Muslims
Hispanics
Asians...
anyway to shorten it up. he hates anyone who hasn't got blonde hair and blue eyes, a perfect Catholic with no other blood in him for the last fifty generations. anything i forgot???
oh yeah someone who has no ambition and goes no further than floor cleaner at McDonalds so that they are like him.
to sum up he wants an army of clones of himself, luckily for us this is the opposite to what the rest of the world wants.

And we're just making jokes.
yeah, don't take me for a racist. i'm really not. it's just people like him who have views that couldn't be verified if he had the entire FBI behind him piss me off.

not just us, don't forget he also hates:
non-Catholics
Muslims
Hispanics
Asians...
anyway to shorten it up. he hates anyone who hasn't got blonde hair and blue eyes, a perfect Catholic with no other blood in him for the last fifty generations. anything i forgot???
oh yeah someone who has no ambition and goes no further than floor cleaner at McDonalds so that they are like him.
to sum up he wants an army of clones of himself, luckily for us this is the opposite to what the rest of the world wants.

He hates anyone who isn't white or doesn't agree with what the Church says.

He hates anyone who isn't white or doesn't agree with what the Church says.
or anyone who suceeds:)

yeah, don't take me for a racist. i'm really not. it's just people like him who have views that couldn't be verified if he had the entire FBI behind him piss me off.

It's not even that. When I was first involved in this thread I angry, but it's become rather hard to not be amused by this thread. He keeps pulling BS out of the air.

or anyone who suceeds:)

I jes noticed ( and was amused by the fact ) that we're ten posts behind eachother. Completely off-topic, I know.

It's not even that. When I was first involved in this thread I angry, but it's become rather hard to not be amused by this thread. He keeps pulling BS out of the air.
same here. i don't even believe that HE believes some of the BS that he's posted. all his friends left this thread about ten pages back.
i swear i'm expecting someone to post a message saying "you just got punk'd!!!" any minute now.

same here. i don't even believe that HE believes some of the BS that he's posted. all his friends left this thread about ten pages back.
i swear i'm expecting someone to post a message saying "you just got punk'd!!!" any minute now.

I'm beginning to expect it as well.

Un momento, I haven't eaten since yesterday evening. Cereal calls. :)

I'm beginning to expect it as well.

Un momento, I haven't eaten since yesterday evening. Cereal calls. :)
don't worry, you've got time until TT learns to read and write in order to respond.

don't worry, you've got time until TT learns to read and write in order to respond.

He's going too slow, I'm back.

He's going too slow, I'm back.
he'll catch up when we are all old.

maybe

possibly

chances aren't big

okay no chance whatsoever that he'll ever catch up with us. I have a six year old cousin who's probably smarter than him.

he'll catch up when we are all old.

maybe

possibly

chances aren't big

okay no chance whatsoever that he'll ever catch up with us. I have a six year old cousin who's probably smarter than him.

Hey, he has a pretty wild imagination. Gotta give him that.

He's going too slow, I'm back.
do you think that if we offered him lessons it would embarrass him??
i mean to learn reading from a foolish Jew could be bad for your reputation.
hey we could charge him a pint of blood for our services:)

Hey, he has a pretty wild imagination. Gotta give him that.
so does my cousin:)

so does my cousin:)

Hehe.

Hehe.
no, he really does:)