« New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson [Bumped] | Main | Tru dat.... »

April 17, 2014

What’s to stop Putin?

a_putin_big.jpg

The West is led by the modern equivalents of Chamberlain:
President François Hollande of France is a political nonentity repudiated by his own compatriots; Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany have both ruled out the use of force to stop Putin from annexing Ukraine; and worst of all, President Barack Obama–the one man who has the power to stop Putin in his tracks–does nothing. He makes Neville Chamberlain seem like a bellicose activist. Is Vladimir Putin Another Adolf Hitler?:
a_vladimir-putins-girls.jpg

Posted by gerardvanderleun at April 17, 2014 9:40 AM. This is an entry on the sideblog of American Digest: Check it out.

Your Say

I haven't seen the Hitler/Chamberlain cliche brought up in a least a week. I guess the author couldn't stand it.

Posted by: Lorne at April 17, 2014 12:09 PM

The All American Poufter in the mom jeans is begging Putin to do some puttin' in. Barry was raised by that bumboy, Davis in Hawaii.

Posted by: Vermont Woodchuck at April 17, 2014 1:17 PM

A half breed faggot of dubious provenance on the throne and toadying grifters running the place.

OK, let's see a show of hands, who voted for this mook? Twice?

Posted by: chasmatic at April 17, 2014 1:22 PM

@chasmatic -- maybe it was the 35,000 voters with the same first and last name in North Carolina that put barkey over the top.

Posted by: tripletap at April 17, 2014 2:05 PM

Yeah, I am thinking of all the college students like my no-good step son that lives in Cali, and likes it! He needs a punch in the face, but the missus wouldn't let me, shrug.

And the tombstones and illegals. Down here in NM an illegal can get a drivers license and guess what? All that's needed to vote is a drivers license. A military putsch would be just as valid as the election results; I don't know what we're waiting for.

Posted by: chasmatic at April 17, 2014 4:43 PM

We're waiting for Franco.

At least I am.

Posted by: B Lewis at April 17, 2014 7:51 PM

I would prefer Pinochet. Franco was a socialist.

Posted by: bob sykes at April 18, 2014 3:40 AM

Franco was by no means a socialist. As he famously said in the days just prior to the coup, "One thing is certain: wherever I go, there will be no communism."

The Spanish State was based upon Catholic social teaching, e.g., that found in encyclicals such as Rerum Novarum. Capitalism and communism are both products of the culture of the so-called Enlightenment and are thoroughly Modernist and anti-Catholic.

Posted by: B Lewis at April 18, 2014 4:53 AM

We don't need to wait for anyone, we don't need a Franco (though a Churchill would be nice, especially if he brings new material).
But we have already had the American leaders we are asking for, they are long dead, but their words are written and await rediscovery by this generation.

The words of one DWM especially," ..I know not what course other may take, but for me. Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death!"

Posted by: John at April 18, 2014 9:05 AM

We don't need a Churchill. Enough of us have died saving the Empire.

We don't just need Franco. We need the "foreign legion", and some Requetes as well.

Posted by: B Lewis at April 18, 2014 10:14 AM

Lewis
I brought up Churchill because after all, Winston was half-American. Franco is bought up as an example of a type what was called "A Man on a Horse". A tough, ugly, short little son-of-a-bitch who knows what it is he wants to do and isn't afraid to throw everything on the table.

It occurs to me that many of the leaders of the early half of the Twentieth Century (left, right, communist, fascist, Imperialist and even American), if they came back today would shake their head in dis-belief and then clean the table. And few in the west could stand in their way.

Posted by: John at April 18, 2014 10:40 AM

I am hoping that some of you commenters will chime in and help me define this. if I'm drifting set me straight. I didn't do too well in civics classes. The examples of political leaders which we see here and others whose conduct we can observe have several common points. Unfortunately most of those leaders had evil intentions which manifested as they came to power. Let's look at why Putin, fer God's sake, has some admirers here in the US.

What this country needs, and what most of us want is a leader, or several men or women in leadership positions who will take a stand against the travesties our way of life is subjected to. Bold, decisive, strong, able to form coalitions and gather support from other pols around them. they must be moral, or at least be true to their own morality with no shifting and weaseling around. They must act with the best interests of our country at heart.

So, yes, there will be some bribery and favoritism, maybe a mistress, but when the counting is done our country gains the 90% and the ones who make it happen get their 10%.

I grew up in the Chicago area in the 50s, early 60s and I saw this of the Daley machine: they were crooked, mob-influenced, inclined to give patronage jobs, &c but when a contract went out to build a road? probably the winning contractor was mob-linked, maybe one of Daley's shirt-tail relatives. They over-charged the job and a few guys got new Cadillacs but at end of day the road got built, on time, to specs, and the street signs got painted as a bonus.

Look back at presidents that did well for our country. I'm not gonna get into Dems vs Repubs but look: JFK, Reagan, Truman, See what I'm saying? Strong, they made decisions that benefited the US and faced down whoever of other countries wanted to do us harm. Even Nixon, yeah he was a crook but he was our crook. Krushchev put his shoe back on and went home empty-handed IIRC.

These politicians didn't set out to profit as a first priority but when they accomplished good things for us, well, yeah, they got some cream off it too.

hard to sum it up, I tend to drift a bit, but what I want is a leader that I can be proud of. Failing that, I do not want one that I am ashamed of, like that half-breed faggot we have now. I better watch out how I say this ... um ... there are some people that should get a punch in the face.

Posted by: chasmatic at April 18, 2014 2:22 PM

I don't want to live in a "free" country. Individual liberty is not the greatest good. I want to live in an explicitly, constitutionally Christian country, a country in which the law and culture are openly and unashamedly based upon the teachings of the Church. I want to live in a country where the traditional moral and cultural order of the West is enforced by law.

Anything less, any country where the law and government are based upon the Rights of Man or the ideas of the Enlightenment or vox populi, vox dei or any of the other satanic lies we have been brainwashed into believing for the last five hundred years is just going to end up in the same secular global antichrist regime that we enjoy today.

No more Enlightenment proposition state. No more Masonic revolutionary order. I want to live in a nation, a real, blood and faith nation. Anything less than that and we end up bailing out the same sinking ship we are in right now.

Out of all of Western history, only one nation ever beat the Muslims and the Communists. I'll leave it to the reader to discover which nation that was.

Posted by: B Lewis at April 18, 2014 7:46 PM

B Lewis, I am a bit confused by your comments. Perhaps you would be kind enough to elucidate for such a simple mind as mine.

"... an explicitly, constitutionally Christian country ..." does that mean that if there are some people that are not Christian they would be forbidden entry? Any born in such a country would have to go to church and be baptized &c or run afoul of the law? Doesn't sound very tolerant to me. Certainly no freedom for the individual. IIRC God gave us all free will.

" No more Masonic revolutionary order." If I have read my history correctly there were some Freemasons involved with the Revolution and the founding of this country back in the 1770s. Freemasons are monotheistic; no, not of the Anti-Christ. There were some Christians too and I bet some non-Christians.

"... secular global antichrist regime ..." that phrase confuses me. Sounds like some propaganda rhetoric meant to elicit knee-jerk response and a chorus of "Amens".

Which church's doctrine would be the one to follow?

"... the traditional moral and cultural order of the West is enforced by law." That sounds kind of Old Testament to me. The Law would be enforced by whom?

I am a born-again Christian, washed in the Blood of the Lamb and right with my God. I don't remember any of my preachers teaching about this political stuff.

Posted by: chasmatic at April 18, 2014 8:53 PM

B Lewis, I am a bit confused by your comments. Perhaps you would be kind enough to elucidate for such a simple mind as mine.

I would be delighted to do so.

"... an explicitly, constitutionally Christian country ..." does that mean that if there are some people that are not Christian they would be forbidden entry?

No. They would merely be forbidden to participate in government, to own property, or to hold full citizenship.

Any born in such a country would have to go to church and be baptized &c or run afoul of the law?

No. They would merely have to abide by the civil law of the country.

Doesn't sound very tolerant to me.

Good. I am against tolerance.

Certainly no freedom for the individual.

I disagree. Besides, individual liberty is not the greatest good.

IIRC God gave us all free will.

I'm not sure what this has to do with my post. I do not deny that humans have free will.

" No more Masonic revolutionary order." If I have read my history correctly there were some Freemasons involved with the Revolution and the founding of this country back in the 1770s.

Yes, there were. Nevertheless, "Freemasonry is incompatible with the Catholic faith... [it] teaches a naturalistic religion that espouses indifferentism, the position that a person can be equally pleasing to God while remaining in any religion."

"Masonry is also a secret society. Its initiates subscribe to secret blood oaths that are contrary to Christian morals. The prospective Mason swears that if he ever reveals the secrets of Masonry—secrets which are trivial and already well-known—he wills to be subject to self-mutilation or to gruesome execution. (Most Masons, admittedly, never would dream of carrying out these punishments on themselves or on an errant member).

"Historically, one of Masonry's primary objectives has been the destruction of the Catholic Church; this is especially true of Freemasonry as it has existed in certain European countries. In the United States, Freemasonry is often little more than a social club, but it still espouses a naturalistic religion that contradicts orthodox Christianity. (Those interested in joining a men's club should consider the Knights of Columbus instead.)

"The Church has imposed the penalty of excommunication on Catholics who become Freemasons."

Freemasonry is a Freemasons are monotheistic; no, not of the Anti-Christ.

"Masonry is a parallel religion to Christianity. The New Catholic Encyclopedia states, 'Freemasonry displays all the elements of religion, and as such it becomes a rival to the religion of the Gospel. It includes temples and altars, prayers, a moral code, worship, vestments, feast days, the promise of reward and punishment in the afterlife, a hierarchy, and initiative and burial rites'".

Source for above quotes


There were some Christians too and I bet some non-Christians.

Correct. Thomas Jefferson, for example, was not a Christian. Benjamin Franklin was a Deist and an habitue of the Hellfire Club. Our Founding Fathers were not the pious Christians we have all been taught to think they were.

"... secular global antichrist regime ..." that phrase confuses me. Sounds like some propaganda rhetoric meant to elicit knee-jerk response and a chorus of 'Amens'.

I don't expect any response except anger. People have been conditioned to believe in the civic religion of the United States and do not care to hear anyone question it or its saints. True Right-wing politics are offensive to almost all modern Americans, from members of the Democratic Left to the so-called "conservatives" that run the GOP.

As for the current social and political order: it is thoroughly worldly and completely antagonistic toward the Christian faith.

Which church's doctrine would be the one to follow?

There is only one Church.

"... the traditional moral and cultural order of the West is enforced by law." That sounds kind of Old Testament to me. The Law would be enforced by whom?

The courts.

What's wrong with the Old Testament?

The Christian State I am espousing is nothing new. It is simply a watered-down version of Western society (e.g., Germany, France, England, etc.) as it existed prior to the "Enlightenment", the "Reformation", and the Revolutions of 1776 and 1789. More recent examples include Portugal of the Estado Novo period (1933-1975) and Spain during the Franco years (1936-1975).

The society I would prefer to inhabit is, in short, a traditional, pre-Revolutionary, Christian, Western society.

I am a born-again Christian, washed in the Blood of the Lamb and right with my God. I don't remember any of my preachers teaching about this political stuff.

Then you are to be envied, because there exists a whole, rich tradition of Christian politics and social thought for you to discover. I'd start with Saint Augustine's The City of God and go from there. Good luck.

Posted by: B Lewis at April 18, 2014 10:02 PM

B Lewis, ,thank you for taking the time to shed some light on that which you wrote and on my comments. I am not trying to be snarky, I guess you could see that. I do, however, disagree with much of what you said. That's all right, in troubled times I think people of faith should gather on whatever common ground we can.

I gather you are a Catholic, again fine with me. Some of the standards I hold myself to and which I expect of others is to abide by basic moral principles such as are found in the Ten Commandments. I am nominally a Baptist, which only means that that's where I go to church where I live. I was brought to The Lord by a Pentecostal fellowship. They make for some interesting services!

I am also a Freemason but I won't get into further discussion about that. There is a certain amount of live and let live and in the near future we will need to gather with like-minded folks against the powers of evil. Divide and conquer is a strategy I do not want to fall to.

Posted by: chasmatic at April 19, 2014 12:10 PM

B Lewis, c'mon. I don't want to get into a discussion about Freemasons and the Illuminati and the New World Order &c. It seems they started with good intentions. You and I might share a foxhole one day and we need to stay strong in what commonalities we have. Some of my friends are Catholics; they are very nice people and I like their food.

Historically, the name refers to the Bavarian Illuminati, an Enlightenment-era secret society founded on May 1, 1776 to oppose superstition, prejudice, religious influence over public life, abuses of state power, and to support women's education and gender equality.

What is it you most desire?

Light.

So mote it be.

Posted by: chasmatic at April 19, 2014 8:24 PM

And what does one call "one who has been enlightened"?

As I said: I don't think the average Mason is hip to what Freemasonry really represents. In most towns being a Lodge member is just a way to get good contracting jobs or beat a speeding ticket.
But reality is what it is, and in reality Freemasonry is a terrible evil.

I'll share a foxhole with you if it comes to that. But it won't come to that. Someday soon, the Catholic Church is going to suffer another terrible persecution at the hands of Those Who Want Light. A large portion of the Church will quit Christ and join forces with the Church of Man, of which large part will consist of Brother Masons. The few of us Catholics who refuse to join hands with our brothers of all faiths, and who remain faithful to the Tradition, will become hunted enemies of the human race. At that point, you and I will be on opposite sides of the front.

Until then, I wish you peace and a Happy Easter.

But the organization itself is

Posted by: B Lewis at April 19, 2014 10:36 PM

B Lewis: "But reality is what it is, and in reality Freemasonry is a terrible evil." might be your reality but it seems a bit narrow. Narrow is the path to true Salvation so, OK, for you.

"I don't think the average Mason is hip to what Freemasonry really represents." Hmm, by average Mason, I guess you mean guys like these, and note, this is just the A and B section:

Winston Churchill,
John Wayne,
Abbott, Sir John J.C. - Prime Minister of Canada 1891-92
Aldrin, Edwin E. - Astronaut
Armstrong, Louis - Jazz Musician
Arnold, General Henry "Hap" - Commander of the Army Air Force
Austin, Stephen F. - Father of Texas
Autry, Gene - Actor
Baldwin, Henry - Supreme Court Justice
Balfour, Lloyd - Jewelry
Bartholdi, Frederic A. - Designed the Statue of Liberty
Bassie, William "Count" - Orchestra leader/composer
Baylor, Robert E. B. - Founder Baylor University
Beard, Daniel Carter - Founder Boy Scouts
Bell, Lawrence - Bell Aircraft Corp.
Bennett, Viscount R.B. - Prime Minister of Canada 1930-35
Berlin, Irving - Entertainer
Black, Hugo L. - Supreme Court Justice
Blair, Jr., John - Supreme Court Justice
Blatchford, Samuel - Supreme Court Justice
Bolivar, Simon - "Liberator" of South America
Borden, Sir Robert L. - Prime Minister of Canada 1911-1920
Borglum, Gutzon & Lincoln - Father and Son who carved Mt. Rushmore
Borgnine, Ernest - Actor
Bowell, Sir Mackenzie - Prime Minister of Canada 1894-96
Bowie, James - Alamo
Bradley, Omar N. - Military leader
Brant, Joseph - Chief of the Mohawks 1742 - 1807
BuBois, W.E.B. - Educator/scholar
Buchanan, James - President of the U.S.
Burnett, David G. - 1st President of the Republic of Texas
Burns, Robert - The National Poet of Scotland
Burton, Harold H. - Supreme Court Justice
Byrd, Admiral Richard E. - Flew over North Pole
Byrnes, James F. - Supreme Court Justice
Calvo, Father Francisco - Catholic Priest who started Freemasonry in Costa Rica 1865

All these "average Masons" must not be part of the inner circle that you want to call The Illuminati. Imagine how many average Masons have been fooled throughout the decades. Er, let me offer a quote that says what I believe in the case of DC.

It seems the Catholics knew how to deal with those they did not like or trust:

When asked by a Crusader leader - at the siege of Béziers, France in 1209 - how to distinguish Cathars from Catholics, Arnaul Amalric replied:

“Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius."
Kill them all. For the Lord knoweth them that are His.

I would also point out the Auto da Fe made popular by Catholics in Spain and Portugal.
An auto-da-fé (also auto-de-fé and auto de fe) was the ritual of public penance of condemned heretics and apostates that took place when the Spanish Inquisition or the Portuguese Inquisition had decided their punishment, followed by the execution by the civil authorities of the sentences imposed. Both auto de fe in medieval Spanish and auto da fé in Portuguese mean "act of faith".

The most extreme punishment imposed on those convicted was execution by burning. In popular usage, the term auto-da-fé, the act of public penance, came to mean the burning at the stake that was held on a separate day.

Them Jesuits are mean MFs. Don't let the frocks fool you, the Catholic Church owned an awful lot of the world back in the day. Didn't accomplish that by turning the other cheek. Jesuits are famous for saying "give me a child when he is ten and we will have him for life". I think maybe they got to you at an earlier age. You the guys that insist on saying the Mass in Latin?

B Lewis, I have decided to live and let live. you'll go your way and I'll go mine. If you ever pass by my house I will thank you for not stopping. I expect to get a blast from you about this comment, I never met a Catholic that didn't get in the last word.

Posted by: chasmatic at April 22, 2014 7:02 AM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)