[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Are you against the EU? I do not recall if you’ve written anything in that regard.[/quote]
Of course.[/quote]
Why is that the case?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]theuofh wrote:
Will we see a return of the gas chambers? This time to be used on the radicalised Muslims.
[/quote]
on the contrary…[/quote]
You give them too much credit. They are being used and abused by the real regional powers and after their utility has waned, they will be dispensed with. The puppet masters are the real threat.
[quote]theuofh wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]theuofh wrote:
Will we see a return of the gas chambers? This time to be used on the radicalised Muslims.
[/quote]
on the contrary…[/quote]
You give them too much credit. They are being used and abused by the real regional powers and after their utility has waned, they will be dispensed with. The puppet masters are the real threat.
[/quote]
And who might they be?
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]theuofh wrote:
I’m assuming a connection between the military dictatorships of South America playing a role in the formation of this liberation theology movement.
The US had a shared stake in removing any potentials for Communism gaining a stake in the region as Communism was threat #1 back then, just as terrorism is threat #1 right now, and was involved in that fight.
Modern history tends to be a bit cyclical.
[/quote]
Liberation theology movement is connected to the region’s colonial past and American hegemony in the Western hemisphere.
A nuclear exchange with the USSR posed the greatest threat to the US during the Cold War, not the proliferation of communism.
Terrorism does not pose an existential threat to the US and is not the #1 threat to American (or international) security. It is, however, a serious security concern.
[/quote]
The tricky thing about risk, threats, and concerns is that in hindsight they are 20/20.
Maintaining hegemony has shown to provoke over-enthusiastic responses to security concerns before they spiral into threats, even at times causing them to become threats, but we are digressing from the original topic.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Are you against the EU? I do not recall if you’ve written anything in that regard.[/quote]
Of course.[/quote]
Why is that the case?[/quote]
Well, for starters I’m a nationalist and therefore the idea of ceding national sovereignty to a supranational body is anathema to me. You only need to look at what a disaster the EU/Eurozone has been both economically and culturally.
The man called Jesus seemed to be anything but a capitalist, it seems to me he was more along the lines of a socialist at least insofar as the way he criticized greed, the wealthy, and mans willingness to turn a blind eye to those in need.
The Pope is right to be critical of capitalism so long as there is still room to respect autonomy. It’s consistent with Catholicism at least as I interpret it.
On the other hand, I don’t trust anything about the Church or Vatican. The reality about the world, and especially the United States is that Latino’s are going to make the majority of the Church within the next 20 or so years. So, now all of a sudden the Church is going to change up who it speaks up for because it’s good for business… That is likely why the Pope is calling for reform in the U.S. about borders and shit. For me it’s comical because of the information I’ve gathered about exclusive positions the Vatican only seems to offer it’s European members. Compared to Latino’s Europeans have gotten quite a bit more opportunity to rise within the ranks of the Church and hold desired positions, which is also changing.
Funny, how much the Church changes! BTW, how the fuck do you all gather Christ was a Capitalist? LOL!
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]theuofh wrote:
I’m assuming a connection between the military dictatorships of South America playing a role in the formation of this liberation theology movement.
The US had a shared stake in removing any potentials for Communism gaining a stake in the region as Communism was threat #1 back then, just as terrorism is threat #1 right now, and was involved in that fight.
Modern history tends to be a bit cyclical.
[/quote]
Liberation theology movement is connected to the region’s colonial past and American hegemony in the Western hemisphere.
A nuclear exchange with the USSR posed the greatest threat to the US during the Cold War, not the proliferation of communism.
Terrorism does not pose an existential threat to the US and is not the #1 threat to American (or international) security. It is, however, a serious security concern.
[/quote]
That is retarded. Terrorists like ISIS have a publicly declared intention of being an existential threat to the US.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]theuofh wrote:
I’m assuming a connection between the military dictatorships of South America playing a role in the formation of this liberation theology movement.
The US had a shared stake in removing any potentials for Communism gaining a stake in the region as Communism was threat #1 back then, just as terrorism is threat #1 right now, and was involved in that fight.
Modern history tends to be a bit cyclical.
[/quote]
Liberation theology movement is connected to the region’s colonial past and American hegemony in the Western hemisphere.
A nuclear exchange with the USSR posed the greatest threat to the US during the Cold War, not the proliferation of communism.
Terrorism does not pose an existential threat to the US and is not the #1 threat to American (or international) security. It is, however, a serious security concern.
[/quote]
That is retarded. Terrorists like ISIS have a publicly declared intention of being an existential threat to the US.
[/quote]
I have a publicly declared intention to have a twelve-pound reproductive organ.
This keeps my other publicly declared intentions – a dozen Super Bowl rings, a double EGOT, and a twentysome with identical (female) nondecuplets of Swedish ancestry – great company.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]theuofh wrote:
I’m assuming a connection between the military dictatorships of South America playing a role in the formation of this liberation theology movement.
The US had a shared stake in removing any potentials for Communism gaining a stake in the region as Communism was threat #1 back then, just as terrorism is threat #1 right now, and was involved in that fight.
Modern history tends to be a bit cyclical.
[/quote]
Liberation theology movement is connected to the region’s colonial past and American hegemony in the Western hemisphere.
A nuclear exchange with the USSR posed the greatest threat to the US during the Cold War, not the proliferation of communism.
Terrorism does not pose an existential threat to the US and is not the #1 threat to American (or international) security. It is, however, a serious security concern.
[/quote]
That is retarded. Terrorists like ISIS have a publicly declared intention of being an existential threat to the US.
[/quote]
I have a publicly declared intention to have a twelve-pound reproductive organ.
This keeps my other publicly declared intentions – a dozen Super Bowl rings, a double EGOT, and a twentysome with identical (female) nondecuplets of Swedish ancestry – great company.[/quote]
Its like you read my mind and then reproduced my thoughts with an extra dose of eloquence.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]theuofh wrote:
I’m assuming a connection between the military dictatorships of South America playing a role in the formation of this liberation theology movement.
The US had a shared stake in removing any potentials for Communism gaining a stake in the region as Communism was threat #1 back then, just as terrorism is threat #1 right now, and was involved in that fight.
Modern history tends to be a bit cyclical.
[/quote]
Liberation theology movement is connected to the region’s colonial past and American hegemony in the Western hemisphere.
A nuclear exchange with the USSR posed the greatest threat to the US during the Cold War, not the proliferation of communism.
Terrorism does not pose an existential threat to the US and is not the #1 threat to American (or international) security. It is, however, a serious security concern.
[/quote]
That is retarded. Terrorists like ISIS have a publicly declared intention of being an existential threat to the US.
[/quote]
I have a publicly declared intention to have a twelve-pound reproductive organ.
This keeps my other publicly declared intentions – a dozen Super Bowl rings, a double EGOT, and a twentysome with identical (female) nondecuplets of Swedish ancestry – great company.[/quote]
Its like you read my mind and then reproduced my thoughts with an extra dose of eloquence.
[/quote]
I think this is where Khorosan comes in, but the nuance is generally lost on most of the American population.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]theuofh wrote:
I’m assuming a connection between the military dictatorships of South America playing a role in the formation of this liberation theology movement.
The US had a shared stake in removing any potentials for Communism gaining a stake in the region as Communism was threat #1 back then, just as terrorism is threat #1 right now, and was involved in that fight.
Modern history tends to be a bit cyclical.
[/quote]
Liberation theology movement is connected to the region’s colonial past and American hegemony in the Western hemisphere.
A nuclear exchange with the USSR posed the greatest threat to the US during the Cold War, not the proliferation of communism.
Terrorism does not pose an existential threat to the US and is not the #1 threat to American (or international) security. It is, however, a serious security concern.
[/quote]
That is retarded. Terrorists like ISIS have a publicly declared intention of being an existential threat to the US.
[/quote]
Do you understand the magnitude of existential?
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]theuofh wrote:
I’m assuming a connection between the military dictatorships of South America playing a role in the formation of this liberation theology movement.
The US had a shared stake in removing any potentials for Communism gaining a stake in the region as Communism was threat #1 back then, just as terrorism is threat #1 right now, and was involved in that fight.
Modern history tends to be a bit cyclical.
[/quote]
Liberation theology movement is connected to the region’s colonial past and American hegemony in the Western hemisphere.
A nuclear exchange with the USSR posed the greatest threat to the US during the Cold War, not the proliferation of communism.
Terrorism does not pose an existential threat to the US and is not the #1 threat to American (or international) security. It is, however, a serious security concern.
[/quote]
That is retarded. Terrorists like ISIS have a publicly declared intention of being an existential threat to the US.
[/quote]
Do you understand the magnitude of existential?[/quote]
Of course, you’re more likely to get struck by lightening than killed by a terrorist aren’t you?
But that has nothing to do with the existential threat of Islam. Islam is an existential threat to the “ideological state apparatus:”
As a student of international relations you should also be aware of the profound changes to morale and foreign policy that acts of terrorism can bring about.
And the cultural revolution of the 1960’s? Are you arguing that the hard left didn’t usurp the ideological state apparatus in the 1960’s?
The Catholic Church is a joke, as are all other forms of explanation regarding higher powers and all-powerful gods.
After all, the Christian God is all-powerful.
However, when it comes to God, simple logic proves that He cannot ever exist under any circumstances that humans can even begin to explain or understand.
A contradiction cannot realistically exist. It is impossible for something to be both blue and not blue at the same time. The ball is blue. The same ball is not blue. These cannot both be true at the same time, nor can they both be false at the same time. A contradiction.
God is all-powerful. If He is, then there is NOTHING that He cannot do. This says nothing of what He will do, what He is likely to do, what He has done in the past, and so on. It only speaks to what He is capable of, and those capabilities are entirely without limit.
EXCEPT, that it is impossible for God to make an object so heavy that he cannot lift it. That is a contradiction that cannot ever exist as far as humans are concerned. We cannot sufficiently explain how two contradictory statements can both be true at the same time. God’s omnipotence presents a clear contradiction.
HOWEVER, this does not mean that God cannot exist. If He is all-powerful, it is entirely possible that He exists in such a way that we cannot comprehend. In fact, that is the ONLY way He can exist. He cannot exist in any way whatsoever that allows us to explain His nature at all. We cannot even begin to try and describe Him, His nature, His wisdom, His anything. But that is exactly what religion aims to do. It aims to codify the values of an entity that is impossible for us to understand. So all religion does is try to describe to us the nature of this ball that is both blue and not blue at the same time. Since we cannot comprehend the existence of such a thing, any and all assumptions made about such a thing, any claims to special communication with such a thing, and so forth, are completely pointless and useless.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
The Pope is right to be critical of capitalism so long as there is still room to respect autonomy. It’s consistent with Catholicism at least as I interpret it.
[/quote]
The problem is not “capitalism” it’s the idea that capitalism should be an organising principle of the state. The Catholic Church in the late 19th Century understood this and so they backed “corporatism” as an organising principle. Corporatism attempts to reconstruct the guild system of the Middle Ages by organising men into factions with common interests. In a corporatist system capitalists would be merely one class or interest group.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
The Catholic Church is a joke, as are all other forms of explanation regarding higher powers and all-powerful gods.
After all, the Christian God is all-powerful.
However, when it comes to God, simple logic proves that He cannot ever exist under any circumstances that humans can even begin to explain or understand.
A contradiction cannot realistically exist. It is impossible for something to be both blue and not blue at the same time. The ball is blue. The same ball is not blue. These cannot both be true at the same time, nor can they both be false at the same time. A contradiction.
God is all-powerful. If He is, then there is NOTHING that He cannot do. This says nothing of what He will do, what He is likely to do, what He has done in the past, and so on. It only speaks to what He is capable of, and those capabilities are entirely without limit.
EXCEPT, that it is impossible for God to make an object so heavy that he cannot lift it. That is a contradiction that cannot ever exist as far as humans are concerned. We cannot sufficiently explain how two contradictory statements can both be true at the same time. God’s omnipotence presents a clear contradiction.
HOWEVER, this does not mean that God cannot exist. If He is all-powerful, it is entirely possible that He exists in such a way that we cannot comprehend. In fact, that is the ONLY way He can exist. He cannot exist in any way whatsoever that allows us to explain His nature at all. We cannot even begin to try and describe Him, His nature, His wisdom, His anything. But that is exactly what religion aims to do. It aims to codify the values of an entity that is impossible for us to understand. So all religion does is try to describe to us the nature of this ball that is both blue and not blue at the same time. Since we cannot comprehend the existence of such a thing, any and all assumptions made about such a thing, any claims to special communication with such a thing, and so forth, are completely pointless and useless.[/quote]
We’re not discussing the relative merits or lack thereof of Christianity. The topic under consideration is the church as a temporal power and authority. The only state structure compatible with Catholicism is monarchy. And not the anticlerical Johnnycomelately monarchism of the Bonapartists or the Constitutional monarchy of Orleanists but rather the genuine monarchy of Salic law expressed in Carlist and Legitimist thought.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
The Catholic Church is a joke, as are all other forms of explanation regarding higher powers and all-powerful gods.
After all, the Christian God is all-powerful.
However, when it comes to God, simple logic proves that He cannot ever exist under any circumstances that humans can even begin to explain or understand.
A contradiction cannot realistically exist. It is impossible for something to be both blue and not blue at the same time. The ball is blue. The same ball is not blue. These cannot both be true at the same time, nor can they both be false at the same time. A contradiction.
God is all-powerful. If He is, then there is NOTHING that He cannot do. This says nothing of what He will do, what He is likely to do, what He has done in the past, and so on. It only speaks to what He is capable of, and those capabilities are entirely without limit.
EXCEPT, that it is impossible for God to make an object so heavy that he cannot lift it. That is a contradiction that cannot ever exist as far as humans are concerned. We cannot sufficiently explain how two contradictory statements can both be true at the same time. God’s omnipotence presents a clear contradiction.
HOWEVER, this does not mean that God cannot exist. If He is all-powerful, it is entirely possible that He exists in such a way that we cannot comprehend. In fact, that is the ONLY way He can exist. He cannot exist in any way whatsoever that allows us to explain His nature at all. We cannot even begin to try and describe Him, His nature, His wisdom, His anything. But that is exactly what religion aims to do. It aims to codify the values of an entity that is impossible for us to understand. So all religion does is try to describe to us the nature of this ball that is both blue and not blue at the same time. Since we cannot comprehend the existence of such a thing, any and all assumptions made about such a thing, any claims to special communication with such a thing, and so forth, are completely pointless and useless.[/quote]
We’re not discussing the relative merits or lack thereof of Christianity. The topic under consideration is the church as a temporal power and authority. The only state structure compatible with Catholicism is monarchy. And not the anticlerical Johnnycomelately monarchism of the Bonapartists or the Constitutional monarchy of Orleanists but rather the genuine monarchy of Salic law expressed in Carlist and Legitimist thought.[/quote]
Why the long discussion? The Church has no temporal power as doctrine. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, render unto God what is God’s. The Catholic Church developed the way it did out of greed, necessity, and as an acceptance of the realities of the temporal world it evolved in.
People like power, and the Church is nothing more than a collection of people and their beliefs. It’s only natural that the Church used its position to its advantage from a Machiavellian standpoint. The Church understood better than anyone that the key to power and sovereignty is through an understanding of human nature, not morality, since it is humans that are being ruled over, not morality. They used this understanding of human nature to their benefit.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
The Catholic Church is a joke, as are all other forms of explanation regarding higher powers and all-powerful gods.
After all, the Christian God is all-powerful.
However, when it comes to God, simple logic proves that He cannot ever exist under any circumstances that humans can even begin to explain or understand.
A contradiction cannot realistically exist. It is impossible for something to be both blue and not blue at the same time. The ball is blue. The same ball is not blue. These cannot both be true at the same time, nor can they both be false at the same time. A contradiction.
God is all-powerful. If He is, then there is NOTHING that He cannot do. This says nothing of what He will do, what He is likely to do, what He has done in the past, and so on. It only speaks to what He is capable of, and those capabilities are entirely without limit.
EXCEPT, that it is impossible for God to make an object so heavy that he cannot lift it. That is a contradiction that cannot ever exist as far as humans are concerned. We cannot sufficiently explain how two contradictory statements can both be true at the same time. God’s omnipotence presents a clear contradiction.
HOWEVER, this does not mean that God cannot exist. If He is all-powerful, it is entirely possible that He exists in such a way that we cannot comprehend. In fact, that is the ONLY way He can exist. He cannot exist in any way whatsoever that allows us to explain His nature at all. We cannot even begin to try and describe Him, His nature, His wisdom, His anything. But that is exactly what religion aims to do. It aims to codify the values of an entity that is impossible for us to understand. So all religion does is try to describe to us the nature of this ball that is both blue and not blue at the same time. Since we cannot comprehend the existence of such a thing, any and all assumptions made about such a thing, any claims to special communication with such a thing, and so forth, are completely pointless and useless.[/quote]
We’re not discussing the relative merits or lack thereof of Christianity. The topic under consideration is the church as a temporal power and authority. The only state structure compatible with Catholicism is monarchy. And not the anticlerical Johnnycomelately monarchism of the Bonapartists or the Constitutional monarchy of Orleanists but rather the genuine monarchy of Salic law expressed in Carlist and Legitimist thought.[/quote]
If the Church is not a legitimate institution in that it claims to represent something that it cannot ever possibly represent, this erodes any moral authority it may have. If it has zero moral authority, how can it have any legitimate temporal authority? The only legitimate temporal authority is one that has been chosen by the people, whose power is derived from the consent of the people, and whose actions are in complete respect of natural law/rights. The Church swings and misses on all three.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Why the long discussion? The Church has no temporal power as doctrine. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, render unto God what is God’s.
[/quote]
That’s an assertion about scripture. I’m not considering scripture here.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
If the Church is not a legitimate institution in that it claims to represent something that it cannot ever possibly represent, this erodes any moral authority it may have. If it has zero moral authority, how can it have any legitimate temporal authority? The only legitimate temporal authority is one that has been chosen by the people, whose power is derived from the consent of the people, and whose actions are in complete respect of natural law/rights. The Church swings and misses on all three.[/quote]
Legitimate authority derives from the consent of the people? Which people?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
If the Church is not a legitimate institution in that it claims to represent something that it cannot ever possibly represent, this erodes any moral authority it may have. If it has zero moral authority, how can it have any legitimate temporal authority? The only legitimate temporal authority is one that has been chosen by the people, whose power is derived from the consent of the people, and whose actions are in complete respect of natural law/rights. The Church swings and misses on all three.[/quote]
Legitimate authority derives from the consent of the people? Which people?[/quote]
Whichever people choose that particular form of government as the form under which they expect their rights to be protected. Whichever people choose to give such consent. Was the current form of gov’t in a given location justly chosen by the people? Or is that sovereign simply the result of internecine warfare? The piece of shit that floated to the top, so to say.
I’m not aware of any “people” who have granted the Church this sort of temporal authority. What natural rights does the Church purport to protect? None. Since that is the only proper role of a temporal authority, and since the Church does not fill this role, it has no legitimate authority.
You can just read John Locke for further clarification of my views regarding the proper role of gov’t. I just defer to him when in doubt.