55 Replies to “The New Far Right”

  2. I hate to be the pessimist here but the birthrate of Muslims is what convinces me it might get worse and never better.

  3. I hate to be the pessimist here but the birthrate of Muslims is what convinces me it might get worse and never better. Well, the birthrate and Mark Steyn.

  5. @ Saskhab:
    If you are convinced by Steyn et al., then the correct response is to take someone as spouse and do something about it.
    Luke 21:19 “By your endurance you will gain your lives.”
    Cheers
    Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
    1st Saint Nicolaas Army
    Army Group “True North”

  6. As regards the dutch judiciary they have managed to make singular fools of themselves with respect to Wilders. Hobknobbing with witnesses is a farcical way to ‘impartially’ render justice.
    MISTRIAL…DISMISSED
    Cheers
    Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
    1st Saint Nicolaas Army
    Army Group “True North”

  8. Condell could be talking about Canada. Same forces at work to undermine free speech here. We’ve had a political show trial already and every day university campus’ become no speech zones controlled by the fascist left.

  10. I wonder if the Romans ever noticed Rome being infitrated with outsiders or was it the frog in the boiling water.

  11. Gus@1:13
    The problem is, it’s largely the “yutes” that are at the forefront of the islamist movement in places like Britain and Europe. Their parents emigrated from their homelands in search of a better life, and may not have been terribly devout muslims. It’s their kids who feel cut off from their roots, and adopt extremist islam as a form of compensation.
    Now when the children of this cohort reach adulthood, they may pull another 180 and become Westernized with a vengeance, but we can’t afford to simply lie around and hope for that to happen.
    We need to set up a legal framework to revoke the ctizenship of, and to deport, those muslims that advocate or practice acts of jihad against our country. Even if they are native-born.

  12. As long as mosques are used as they are used and continue to be built in the Western world there will be this hatred fostered. That is what they do and that is how the parents relinquish control of their children. It is Islam that has Muslims hostage and the sooner we truly recognize that the better. The media seem to think that they will be spared this juggernaut they are aiding but if it comes they will be among the first of it’s victims. Rest assured this enemy will hear no pleas of mercy. For they have none.

  13. “We need to set up a legal framework to revoke the ctizenship of, and to deport, those muslims that advocate or practice acts of jihad against our country. Even if they are native-born.”
    That will never happen. If it did, the jihadis would simply go underground and that’s worse.
    Don’t worry it’s only about 10% of the Muslim world that is actively involved in Jihad …. that would make it oh … about ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION of them, no biggie.
    The other 1.3 billion of them will simply go along with it. They will not help us, they are either complicit or afraid.
    At least we are winning the man caused global warming debate, but then … that wasn’t real in the first place … Islam is real.

  14. Cal 2 – Cicero warned the Roman people. He was a powerful Senator and a lawyer and had dossiers on all the powerful people in the empire; he used the material in those dossiers to force (blackmail) the powerful people to make decisions to protect the republic. When Cicero died, Rome went downhill fast and failed (reverted to Emperors) in the next generation. Rome had mercenary soldiers who did not fight for Rome but for $$, if they did not get paid they would not fight, they resorted to looting and robbing helpless citizens who had forgotten how to use a sword; Roman citizens did not work, they lived off the production of slaves, they were fat, lazy and debauched. Women became very powerful and welded power over weak men with glee- men retreated to the arms of slave mistresses or other men. The citizens were soft and overfed and the few Roman children (the birthrate had fallen because the ambitious women did not want to ‘ruin’ their social life having children) were cared for by slaves. There was nothing of value to save; the Republic and the latter empire, did not last long.
    Leviticus (I hope I spelled the name correctly) wrote about this and when reading his book in 1973, I thought: “this is us!” – we have gone a lot further downhill since 1973.
    The man in the video is correct; the new left is violent because we allow them to be – they have no values: they attack, they don’t defend and if we do not get a spine and defend against them we will go the way the Romans did, right to the dustbin of history. It will not be pretty.

  16. I agree with Pat Condell most of the time—and altogether on this post. However, he’s anti-Christian, and, hence, bites that hand that feeds him.
    Where the heck does Mr. Condell think the freedoms he asserts come from? They certainly don’t come from the state: we agree on that. Because, if our rights do come from the state, the state can take them away—as Pat rightly condemns European upstart states of trying to do.
    From the American Constitution: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights . . .” (emphasis mine)
    Like Obama, who has often excised the emphasized words, when quoting the Constitution, Condell denies both a Creator and the political fruits—Magna Carta in the UK and all the Western constitutional monarchies/republics that flowed from it.
    So, as much as I agree with Condell, IMO, he’s an opportunist. If he thinks his fine ideas about freedom have sprung, fully formed from his own, enlightened head, Judeo-Christianity be damned, he’s a damned fool.
    E.g., It doesn’t seem to occur to Mr. Condell that the present-day milquetoast West is altogether the product of secularism. For, when the vestiges of the Judeo-Christian dispensation were still strong—when my grandfathers and father were young—they discerned evil and fought it, unapologetically. Now, we “elightened secularists” cringe before the Muslim onslaught, including niqabs and burqas!
    Pat Condell rightly calls out the West as wimps and idiots—but he’s in favour of the evisceration of the Judeo-Christian foundation of our freedoms.
    With all due respect, Pat, how idiotic is that?

  17. lookout
    we got our freedoms INSPITE of the overbearing church
    the church fragmented because it didn’t want to loose it’s grip of the general populance

  19. lookout, I don’t disagree with your criticisms of Condell. IMO however, the vital point is that we religious folks have far more in common with him than we do with our adversaries, Islamism and it’s Western appeasers-enablers.
    It seems to me foolish and self-destructive to the cause of preserving Western Civilization to only accept and make common cause as Allies those with whom we agree 100 percent. I’ll agree to disagree with Condell over 20 percent of his ideas and work steadfastly with the common ground the other 80 percent of his views any day-the basic Freedoms of Western Civilization. This as opposed to our total lack of common ground with our Islamist and Western hard left enemies.

  20. GYM, translation, please. Mere assertion is not OK. (BTW, we’re not talking the fragmentation of the church here.)
    And, in only 24 words—don’t take my word for it: check it out—you’ve made an embarrassing (well, I’d be embarrassed) number of errors:
    E.g., It’s “its grip”; it’s “in spite of” or, if you like, “despite”; it’s “lose” not “loose”; it’s “grip ON”; and it’s “populace”, not to mention the missing upper case letters and punctuation. (I know, such grammatical markers are considered passe.)
    And I’m supposed to take you seriously?

  21. “If you are convinced by Steyn et al., then the correct response is to take someone as spouse and do something about it.”
    Hear hear!
    And I would that once you have kids, teach them to understand freedom.

  22. TJ: “And I would that once you have kids, teach them to understand freedom.”
    I couldn’t agree more. However, one needs a great deal of intestinal fortitude to go against the gruel-like “Kumbaya” grain of the present, as in almost everywhere, dispensation, which loves freedom for anyone whom the lefties, who control most of our institutions, consider a victim. (Those who help the victims? They’re oppressors!!)
    My twenty-something kids are pretty much on my Christian side (and consider themselves Christians)—we went to church today to honour our military dead, and a much loved grandfather, who was a vet—but any kind of strong expression, on my part, in opposition to certain malignant groups, is met with a certain degree of silence. (The good news: strong expression of our British, Christian heritage is considered—against all the odds of their left-wing schooling—A-OK!)
    Go figure. (It’s at least a good start, and better than being completely brainwashed. . .)

  23. “I agree with Pat Condell most of the time—and altogether on this post. However, he’s anti-Christian, and, hence, bites that hand that feeds him.”
    I’m a Catholic and I’m pretty sure Pat Condell is a former Catholic with no great love for the Church. But in a free society, Condell should be able to rattle on against the Catholic Church to his heart’s content.
    Whether I like it or not.
    And dare I say that’s one BIG difference between Christianity and Islam: Christianity doesn’t routinely threaten its detractors and critics with violence and death.
    If Islam cannot take its lumps in the jostle of a free society like the rest of us, it has no business being part of one.

  24. JJM writes, “I’m a Catholic and I’m pretty sure Pat Condell is a former Catholic with no great love for the Church. But in a free society, Condell should be able to rattle on against the Catholic Church to his heart’s content.”
    Well, I’m also a Catholic and I altogether believe that “Condell should be able to rattle on against the Catholic Church to his heart’s content”. (I sometimes do that too!)
    As this is not the issue, I’m not sure what your point is.
    However, I do know that Condell’s constant railing against Christianity (as in Judeo-Christianity), the foundational religion of the justice and freedoms of the West, at the same time as he rightly condemns the excesses of a far more dangerous religion—Mr. Beaver acknowledges that Narnia’s Aslan is not “safe”—is disingenuous, to say the least.
    As I’ve said, I altogether agree with Pat Condell here. But I believe he has a blind spot about an inoculation against jihad. A self-confident Christianity—not even allowed in the public square of the West, where militant Islam is protected (e.g., London on November 11: disgusting)—would not allow the dhimmitude we’re seeing everywhere in the West.
    Pat Condell diagnoses only part of the disease. How helpful is that?

  25. JJM, I agree with you: “If Islam cannot take its lumps in the jostle of a free society like the rest of us, it has no business being part of one.”
    Absolutely, and my beef is that Condell seems to have no understanding of the foundational importance of Christianity re the freedoms most of us take for granted.

  26. Regardless of personal bias, everyone knows the clarity of truth when they hear it, whether on a conscious or subconscious level despite the source of the words.
    Pat Condell speaks from a reasoned mind, sometimes the message is not what everyone wishes to hear. That does not make his personal viewpoint any less true, it simply means that an equally reasoned mind should value and weigh the opposing viewpoint, instead of locking ones own ideas in a narrow and self fulfilling paradigm.

  28. Knight 99: “Pat Condell speaks from a reasoned mind, sometimes the message is not what everyone wishes to hear. That does not make his personal viewpoint any less true [sic], it simply means that an equally reasoned mind should value and weigh the opposing viewpoint, instead of locking ones own ideas in a narrow and self fulfilling paradigm.”
    And your point is . . .?

  30. gordinkneehill
    [……The problem is, it’s largely the “yutes” that are at the forefront of the islamist movement in places like Britain and Europe. Their parents emigrated from their homelands in search of a better life, and may not have been terribly devout muslims. It’s their kids who feel cut off from their roots, and adopt extremist islam as a form of compensation……….]
    It is insoluable, short of a massive deportation. The muslim youth in europe are the main problem and judging by the adult muslim parent’s penchant for honour killing their kids…neither generation seems recoverable.
    This is an unreasonable and implacable enemy of freedom…….

  31. lookout, you’re wasting your breath on these guys. We both know that the Western world has pretty much turned its back on Christianity. We get people attempting to murder clergy and even drink their blood. We see and hear about child abuse (in and outside the church) and evident in all religious communities. Anyone who thinks that it does not occur in Muslim countries, is crazy; it’s endemic. We see the elderly being attacked and killed, lives destroyed by drugs while everyone calls for legalization! Corruption among our police, politicians and business class. The whirlwind is coming folks; prepare to meet your Maker.

  32. Sasquatch: “It is insoluable, short of a massive deportation.”
    Nonsense. A simple, -equal- application of law would take care of it. Giuliani cleaned up NYC in two terms as mayor, Bloomberg has been doing his very best to wreck what Giuliani built and has -failed- to do so.
    Muslims, as I keep saying, are not the problem. They aren’t even -a- problem, really, just a few jerkoffs taking advantage of loopholes made my multi-culti morons.
    SOCIALISTS are the problem. One which seems to be starting to get cleaned up. Go Rob Ford!

  33. larben, gotcha, thanks. I agree. I was about to say, “Say goodnight, Dick,” and do it.
    So:
    “And all I’ve done for want of wit
    to mem’ry now I can’t recall;
    So fill to me the parting glass,
    Good night and joy be with you all.”

  34. @lookout
    We don’t call them ‘atheists’; use the politically correct term:
    “Theologically challenged” 🙂
    But of course that may be interpreted as a “Jew-Deo Christian” conspiracy which should sell a few more pulp novels.
    Of course Pat can rail against the Church all he wants, it is unlikely to change the teachings of the Church. Further, Pat can criticize individual members of the Church all he wants. The Church is full of sinners, no big surprise there…
    But conflating Islamist bombers with your garden variety Christian is a bit of stretch.
    So much for soiling Eurabia’s drinking water and harking back to the Inquisition. The fascists of old eshewed religion.
    http://www.zenit.org/article-30939?l=english
    “Book Features 1943 Bombing of Vatican
    In all there are some thirty photographs taken on November 6, 1943, the day after the bombing. A personal note of the photographer, also kept in the envelope, indicated the hour of the event.
    Though Vatican City was hitherto spared during the war, that evening a plane flew over. At 8:15 p.m. five bombs were released, of which one remained unexploded.
    The consequences are imprinted in those photos: the water reservoir in the railroad station and offices of the governorate were destroyed; the glass in the rear of St. Peter’s Basilica was shattered.
    The Italian Social Republic, led by Benito Mussolini out of Salo, accused the United States of the attack. The Fascist press speculated on the event, accusing the Allies of having violated the international norms and offending the symbolic place of Christianity.
    In reality, Ferrara revealed that it was the Italian Fascists themselves who planned the attack on the Holy See.
    The plane, which has since been identified as a SIAI Marchetti S.M. 79, an Italian bomber known as a “Sparviero,” took off from Viterbo, Italy. It had been a gift to the Italian Social Republic.”
    The atheist fascists then had a bit of hate on for Catholics and not a few catholics found their way to Auschwitz as well.
    In particular Pat should enlighten himself to the history of St. Maximillian Kolbe
    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Kolbe.html
    Conflating Catholics or Christians with fascism of the old atheist variety or the new Islamo variety is quite frankly “A Bridge Too Far!”
    Cheers
    Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
    1st Saint Nicolaas Army
    Army Group “True North”

  35. Posted by: lookout/ larben
    To be fair, the point you made that perked up my ears –
    “….my beef is that Condell seems to have no understanding of the foundational importance of Christianity re the freedoms most of us take for granted.”
    I myself see the importance of Christianity as foundational to modern western society. On the other hand, I also believe too much emphasis is placed on Christianity as responsible for the “freedoms & rights” we supposedly enjoy today.
    In fact the basis of “western freedom” derives from the rebellion against the Devine Right of Kings and begins in English law via the Magna Carta, which was forced on King John of England a champion of the Catholic Church at the time. Centuries of legal evolution later, we have Habeas Corpus, our Bill of Rights etcetera. This was not the will of the church, or the prevailing monarchies of the time, it was the will of the people attempting to break the bondages of Devine Rule.
    It was never in Christianity’s best interest from an institutional standpoint to deviate from the inquisitions, and give the “common man” rights and privileges equal to the puppet kings. That was taken from them via legal pressures and bloody revolution as with France.

  36. knight:
    I assume you’re talking about Catholicism.
    The Church of Rome certainly does not represent my understanding of the traditional apostolic church, which represented all other Christian denominations at the time Rome decided to go it alone.
    The Church of Rome does not speak for me. Neither does its breakaway bodies from the breakaway Church of Rome ie the Protestant movement.
    There is a much different apostolic Christian tradition outside of the Church of Rome, which never practised such travesties as the Inquisition.
    Having said that, Christianity represents the best that every human being in the world has ever been, at one time or another.
    That makes it distinct from any other.

  37. In fact, Knight99, it was the adulterer, Henry VIII who by making himself the Church, encouraged the later thinking of the Louis of France, the Sun Kings, to think of themselves of possessing “Divine Right”. Prior to that, most of the kings and queens of Europe thought themselves, Servants of God. Well except for Henry’s forbear who tried to usurp Church power by appointing his buddy Thomas Beckett Archbishop. It backfired on him when Beckett started to take the appointment seriously!

  38. set you free>
    Therein lays my point. Everyone makes claim to thier religion being the best, the one and only, and responsible for all that is good in the world. Please name one that dosen’t I would be interested.
    I’m not trashing Christianity, I’m mearly pointing out that the privilege of “freedom” derives from law not religion. The fact that most of those lawgivers were Christian, does not counterbalance the fact that those opposed were also equally Christian. Individual freedom derived though legal evolution and force.
    The outcomes of those endevors, are shared equally amongst all religions, living in western societies. Unfortunatly the toils of centuries are being wasted and lost to the ideas of collectivism and the nearly devine worship of new kings. “All that glitters is not gold”.

  39. Hans Rupprecht – Fascinating stuff, (your posts are usually very light-hearted but juicy.) This one certainly was. Plan to read up on this incident.

  40. Knight 99
    You forget though that the American founders believed that God is the ultimate guarantor of their fundamental rights. Which is based on their understanding of Christianity.
    The French revolution was a spinoff of the American revolution as the french soldiers came home inspired. Yet if you recall the revolution in France didn’t grant them liberty, they simply went from Louis XVI to Robespierre to Napoleon.
    Correct me if I’m mistaken but I do believe that the Catholic Church was the ones who preserved all the “heretical” pagan writings that made the renaissance possible. Not that the Church didn’t have its own missteps and scandal but the church isn’t so vulnerable to heresy that it can only be maintained through inquisitions. The inquisitions also happened long before the revolutions.

  41. ..he who mentioned socialists.? I could not agree more.! Left wing, whacko, unionized, pimply faced mouthpieces … (George Soros), & sorta like that dread-headed beotch that hijacked Christy Blatch’s event. Mindless morons..but Islam has them as well and they are called Imans and they convert, subjegate, threaten and coerce all that come within their mosques to their brand of fanaticism. Upon leaving, the masses become the oft spoken about “moderate muslims”. Muslims who are nothing even close to that description.
    The shit is starting to hit the fan folks…are you prepared.?

  42. ..and by the way Kate, that was an excellent find on U-tube. As a dutch immigrant, I am ashamed of what the so called judiciary in Holland is doing…simply blows my mind. But I suppose its no different than here with all the disgusting admiration for Omar Khadr among other issues.
    Good pick
    Theo

  43. Posted by: M>
    That’s why I believe that painting the fine tapestry of history with a broad bush is counterintuitive.
    “…..the American founders believed that God is the ultimate guarantor of their fundamental rights”.
    Although the “American founders” were undoubtedly Christian, many if not most were also Freemasons, to many a secret society or religion onto itself. The symbolism throughout the early American architecture, writings, and currency testifies to this beyond doubt.
    Where did the practices of Christianity and the practices of Freemasonry converge or separate when drafting the Constitution? For certain, the Constitution founded its bases in law, again via the Magna Carta.
    “….the revolution in France didn’t grant them liberty, they simply went from Louis XVI to Robespierre to Napoleon”.
    The point was, they were fighting the yoke of monarchial dictatorship which was supported by the church.
    Again I’m not trashing Christianity, but I am supporting one of Pat Condell’s points that religion of any stripe is not, nor has it ever been proactive in guaranteeing personal freedom. More often than not it’s the opposite and religion is used to repress individuality, and position someone in power between you and the almighty. I personally think that Pat takes it too far with Christianity, maybe he was molested as a child? Who knows, in a free society you should have the right to turn it off if you so choose, and visit the almighty on your own terms, in your own space. There really shouldn’t be a need for gods “representative” to tell you how to do it, but if that is some people’s shtick, I’m not standing in their way.
    Kind of like those comet guys a few years back in LA, remember the orange jump suits and white tennis shoes, never once did I see any tears of sympathy following them to the ever after, and nobody seemed to stand in their way.

  44. “However, I do know that Condell’s constant railing against Christianity (as in Judeo-Christianity), the foundational religion of the justice and freedoms of the West, at the same time as he rightly condemns the excesses of a far more dangerous religion—Mr. Beaver acknowledges that Narnia’s Aslan is not “safe”—is disingenuous, to say the least.”
    Amen.
    Pat Condell, as eloquent as he is, has used his superlative language capabilities for years against Christianity and now he rails against Muslims for attacking ‘Western Values’.
    The man is a bigot.
    Western civilization was founded on Christianity which formed the crucible of western values and we live in a ‘post-Christian’ world today, largely shorn of those values, shorn of that foundation in no small part because of people like Pat Condell.
    The very values that Pat Condell holds that are so offended by multiculturalism and Muslim doctrine are nothing more than a hangover of the ghosts of Christianity past for people like Pat Condell.
    Pat Condell and his fellow travellers didn’t stumble upon these precious values out of thin air or the sheer brilliance of their own intellects.
    These values were conveyed to Pat Condell because they found real world expression in entire societies full of people who sought to know God according to the idea that the Judeo/Christian Bible was a revelation from God about who He(God) is and what His plan for mankind is.
    To summarise, I agree with Pat Condell that Islam, which is nearly 1400 years old, is the perfect embodiment of an ideology that was created to target Judeo/Christian values for destruction.
    Thank you, Pat Condell, for finally hitting the target.
    The colateral damage from your constant myopic bigotry nothwithstanding, you finally found a real threat.
    I don’t imagine that when you’re finally up against it, Pat, that you won’t sell out Christians to Muslims if your own skin is on the line.

  45. Why do people here keep saying the Founding Fathers were Christians?
    They were not. They were Deists.

  46. Knight99
    Again we’re talking in generalities. Not all the founding fathers were Freemasons (that I know of), not all of them were Christian some were atheists of sorts but they all agreed in the principle of the document in that the rights of liberty were given to them by the Creator and that the creator made all men equal. The fundamental point is the admittedly somewhat stupid and irritating Christan message that God loves us all because we are all His children.
    I can’t rationally arrive at the conclusion that we’re all equal because it is patently self evident that we’re not. Some people are stupid, some smart, weak, strong, tough, frail. If you strip from us that idea of equality, why shouldn’t the strong rule the weak? What really distinguishes the screams of the dying from the crackle of a burning tree? It’s all just carbon. The Divine Right of Kings is natural. The Chinese had the Mandate of Heaven. Look ma’ no Jesus. In a world where no man is your brother your strength, cunning and ability to command transfigures your most mundane actions into something hallowed. Who is to say otherwise? In that sense I would disagree that Christianity does not in some way underpin our conception of freedom and liberty. It’s just grossly unreasonable and in some ways quite stupid.
    Vis-a-vis your comment on individuality: I think that there is too high of a premium placed on individuality nowadays. It’s farcical, it really is, I mean who is an individual? What the hell does that mean? We all have groups we belong to. Religions with tradition is kind of beautiful in a way because it ties you with all your forebears and all your successors. I’m a lifelong Catholic, just to put my cards on the table, and I’ve never prayed to a priest nor have I asked for their intercessions and never felt a need to. I have always understood my faith as deeply personal and I want it to be because only God could understand my moments of extreme evilness 😀
    The gospels themselves are highly historically charged and most people aren’t students of history or theologians and I think having someone who studies that stuff or is taught in it is helpful. What’s even wrong with wrong with that? We’re not told what to do. I’m not in the least compelled to go to church and go when I feel it and sleep in when I don’t.
    The church is really even back in their heyday relatively politically powerless. The existence of institutions does not mean they have the ability to compel people beyond rational thresholds. The crusades for instance could not of sustained themselves were plunder and land not part of the equation. You think the Spanish launched their armada solely for the glory of Rome? I think that kind of reduction is a mistake.
    You may not be a Christian basher but your choice of words impresses upon me some contempt. Schick? Molestation? Need one be molested to have seething hatred for the Church? Are you seriously comparing the Catholic or…any church really to a what? Haley’s comet suicide cult?
    Blergh long post.

  47. Ooops: “It’s just grossly unreasonable and in some ways quite stupid.”
    What I mean is that the notion of equality is unreasonable and quite stupid and no rational person without some faith would ever come up with that junk.

  48. Posted by: M>
    Interesting post, a little bit of a rant, but I get your point.
    Your right, I was not bashing Christianity, in fact I was raised Catholic myself, but simply choose not to participate. Nope, and I never saw or heard of any molestations within the church or schools I ever attended, just what I heard of in the media.
    That aside, my original post was alluding to Christianity, particularly western protestant Christianity making the grandiose claim that ALL of our freedoms and liberties are derived from Christianity, especially their particular Christian brand.
    I simply disagree with that sentiment and put forward that our freedom and liberty stems for the most part from Law and the legal processes of early Europeans. It was always Christian against Christian. To say that freedom and liberty stems from Christianity is an oxymoron, as the process to repress freedom and liberty also came from Christianity. Thus it was something else that drove the desire to separate the common folk, from Kings which was always supported or represented in the background by one form or another of Christianity.
    Pick your brand; Christians are the most uncharitable people I have ever met towards one another. I’m amazed as I travel the world listening to “Christians” spew their vehement hatred towards Catholics as an example. Just last week I sat and listened to one English blowhard sitting across a table from me and (out of the blue) rag on with his filthy mouth about Irish people and Catholics (Which of course I happen to be both by ancestry). It finally occurred to him to take a breath and ask if maybe I was Catholic. I laughed and shook my head, like what a friggen idiot. I see it all the time; I hold no water in Christian claims of piety.

  49. Posted by: M>
    Part #2
    “It’s farcical, it really is, I mean who is an individual? What the hell does that mean?”
    You see, that’s a question that many other people don’t need to ask. Just because you do, does not make the people who don’t need to ask it, wrong.
    You have agreed with me on several points whether you recognized it or not, beginning with “speaking in generalities” and “Not all the founding fathers were Freemasons’, meaning most probably were. The point is moot, because the intent was to lay out the fact that one so called brand of Christianity did not lay down the Constitution protecting the rights of the individual. It was a blend of prevailing thought based on much older “constitutions” of law not religion.
    Thankfully we all enjoy the remnants of those individual rights and freedoms that much smarter people than us actually respected and gladly died for. Of course we are eventually bound to lose that which we neither understand nor respect. We can’t even rationalize that other people desperately desire us not to have it.

  50. Posted by: M>
    Part #3
    “……why shouldn’t the strong rule the weak?”
    Assuming your sentiments were not rhetorical – the strong shouldn’t rule the weak, because you are the weak. “No man is an island onto himself”.
    Strong verses weak may exist in the animal kingdom where strength is derived from muscle and instinct, but in the human world you are always at the disadvantage of intellect, cooperation, and lack of moral integrity.
    Who is the strong? Sergeant Rock with 20 years of marine training, or the wimpy horde of a 1000 well armed but lesser trained Chinese army coming over the hill to meet him?
    The same could be said of the weasel drug addict living next door that just happens to be a member of the Hells Angels, or the 86 year old Mafia godfather who was recently killed last week in Montreal.
    Tyrannical groups draw together in numbers to become the strong, the Nazi’s and their pencil necked leadership were no different, your either in or your out. If you lack the immoral fiber required by most of these kinds to survive within them, you die with the rest.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation