Then they came for unborn babies, and I did not preach against abortion.
In the nautical novel Moby Dick, Herman Melville has a chapter where he paints a magnificent portraiture of Father Mapple’s pulpit. Beginning with a physical sketch, Melville soars to a pen a grand spiritual interpretation of the pulpit.
“What could be more full of meaning?” he writes, “for the pulpit is ever this earth’s foremost part; all the rest comes in its rear; the pulpit leads the world. … Yes, the world’s a ship on its passage out, and not a voyage complete; and the pulpit is its prow.”
What happens to the world when the pulpit goes into silent mode refusing to speak the Word of the Lord to the life-and-death issues of our times?
The genocide of the Jews in Nazi Germany elicited few condemnations from the pulpit. At the Treysa Conference in August 1945, church leaders confessed the complicity of their pulpits: “Long before our churches became piles of rubble, our pulpits were restricted, and our prayers were silenced.”
An exponentially greater genocide of 61million unborn babies in the US since Roe v. Wade, 9million in the UK since 1967, and an unspeakable figure of over one billion five hundred twenty-three million worldwide since 1980 has elicited even fewer condemnations from Protestant pulpits in the US and UK.
As a Catholic, I know what the ‘official’ position of the church is but they haven’t been placing as much emphasis on it as they used to thanks to the socialist pontiff.
For me, what the Catholic church needs to also do is define the dogma that is concerned with where the unbaptized go. Some theologians say they go to Limbo (not purgatory, not hell), that is in fact a place where they can sleep forever without any suffering. Some say they go straight to heaven.
I don’t know if the Church someday will define it, but it is an important component in the abortion argument that always seems to be glossed over.
I truly struggle with this issue. I am fundamentally against abortions from a religious and ethical perspective; however, I want to save the west and am keenly aware of the demographics associated with abortion in the US. From a strictly demographic perspective, abortions keep the minority population in check, thus I would like to see more abortions for everyone but whites.
Remember - shills and neocons who get offended by this. Before you reply and flag my post. I do not care if you are offended. This is my view and position. I am free to have it and speak it.
You need to think this one through @Bryan.
What you’re saying is, you approve of murder if they are people you don’t like.
You do realize that minorities are still going to outnumber whites in America even with all the abortions right? Maybe it would be smarter to address the actual issues like welfare abuse, unregulated migration, and living expenses that lead to declining birthrates before trying to justify getting wombs scrapped out like a jack-o-lantern on the taxpayer’s dime because people couldn’t help but do the ONE activity that could result in pregnancy.
Everyone approves of murdering people they don’t like. We just accept a political solution as easier.
This was the argument that Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood used. She even was not ashamed of her position and named her project that was aimed at black people as “The Negro Project”. In a twist of “strange bedfellows”, Ruth Bader Ginsburg signed on to your very rationale for abortion. She was later forced to retract it when she discovered- much to her dismay and surprise- that black people can read. And when they read, they knew who she was referring to when she said:
"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of."
Of course she later pretended she was talking about world population but that was disingenuous since her only role was on the US supreme court and that was the sole topic being discussed… not some post-apocalyptic world in which a notional Ginsburg-like Justice makes laws for the entire world.
Yep… saymo saymo.
Funny that…the person you replied too shares the same philosophy as Ginsburg and he calls us shills.
Oh and just for record @Bryan, I never flagged your posts…only trolls that would come here to troll us.
As for your beliefs you’re allowed to have em…and so do I.
Now libs will use your posts to paint us all with same brush while ignoring those that speak against you.
And that’s the real travesty IMO.
Who is “us” in your sentence?
Conservatives that doesn’t share his opinion.
So his speech should be constrained because it doesn’t align to a neo-conservative position and because liberals might not like it?
Why do you care so much about what liberals do or say?
Someone doesn’t know what Neo-conservatism is I see.
As for what libs think…I don’t give a fuck about em. But what I do care about are Conservative minded individuals from different race/culture/traditions/heritage being dissuade from joining conservative movement.
My hatred is towards ideologue of progressive movement…not individuals.
As for my comment. That’s what they do. They will use the words of imbecile as a weapon against our ideology to prevent us from wrestling control of our goverment away from em.
Think of it this way…he’s playing right into their hands.
Let me sum it up for you. Since this thread went from being about abortion, to my post about it (noticing you didn’t provide anything of value to the discussion other than your dislike of my perspective…which I called in advance).
A neocon is someone who seeks to keep the current status quo, basically compliant with Cultural Marxism applied to young people and military imperialism.
Essentially, neocons are Trotskyite Leftists who realized in the 70s that the Marxist Left was too anti-war for their taste. So they decided to pretend to be hyper-patriotic Republicans so that they could exploit the dipshit American Right-wing and thereby use the American military to achieve Israeli foreign policy goals. They are not all Jews; there are rah rah Evangelicals and a few well-paid shabbos goyim elites. They are attatched at the hip to the Jewish lobby and the MIC. They first came to influence in Reagan’s White House (Iran-Contra) and fully took over during W’s presidency.
Trump has many neocons is his cabinet, which is disappointing as the original Trump base formed a counter-revolution against the neocons, lead largely by the remaining paleocons who politically align much closer to the average Republican on the street than neocons do.
Since that is a lot of political jargon here is a simplification:
Neocon = Israel first
Paleocon = America first
Notice the kvetching from the neocons here anytime anything negative is mentioned about Israel, Jews, or Zionism. Also notice the kvetching when anything critical of minorities is posted, hence their desire to perpetuate the status quo and goals of Cultural Marxism (whether they realize it or not).
Sadly, they are usually among the generation that came of age in the 1950s through the early 1980s. They grew up in a largely white America where the nuclear family had not yet been destroyed. Yet when others who came after them want to also live in a country just like that they are called racists, bigots, misogynists, homophobes, xenophobes, and now transphobes.
Neocons are pure cancer.
Also abotrions keep the retards in check. A drunken whore will likely give birth to a degenerate who will become a gangbanger or an underage prostitute, and a burden on taxpayers, contributing nothing to society.
Great post @Bryan
One point I wanted to add is that true conservatism has been dead since the Enlightenment. Neocons are completely incapable of conserving anything.
Pic very much related.
Looks like someone was using Wiki.
Yes Neo mean new Neo-con is new conservatives, heart of neo-con is foreign interventionism.
The democrats that came over where interventionist that still had their progressive government influence/ways. those who know me from BNN knows I’m about as far away from that philosophy as you can get…long before Paul bots showed up.
Bolton is about as much of Neo-con as one can get, I opposed his entry into Trump administration, but I also know many conservatives share Bolton philosophy.
So what does this got to do with race relationship? Many minorities doesn’t believe or share Bolton world views. Seems to me they can be used as ally against much larger enemy…the progressive movement that has it’s roots in interventionism.
But again one would have to look at wider picture instead of focusing on race.
Their is a saying I used from time to time. I’ll let aardvark that shares my philosophy into my house before I let in a lib in.
As for Paleocon…I’ve been one all my life. It’s nice to see “some” finally catch up that theirs alternative to establishment interventionist.
I see you’re responding Bryan, take your time, put your thoughts into it because I have to leave for few hours.
Because whites are superior? Why do you believe this?
Nice jab, but I sincerely doubt you’ll find anything that I just provided on wiki. They don’t allow that kind of talk.
That’s partly correct. Foreign interventionism to advance the foreign policy goals of Israel. Just say it.
We are seeing this play out right now with regard to Trump’s order to withdraws troops from Syria. US military presence in Syria does nothing to advance our foreign policy interests. It is quite beneficial to Israel though. They want total control of the Golan Heights badly. With Assad deposed, they can take it over formally and expand the borders of Israel, permanently. They have wanted this since they first occupied the territory militarily in 1967. If you want to have a longer discussion on the geopolitics of Israel-Syria let’s start a thread.
I’m assuming that you mean the Democrats that switch sides and became Republicans once the neoconservatives took over the party?
Glad to hear it. If that’s the case then you support putting America (and Americans) first. Where we likely disagree is that I believe America was, is, and must remain a majority white country. Notice that I didn’t say exclusively. While an ethno-state would be lovely it’s not possible. I also believe the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be repealed and the Hart Cellar Immigration Act should be scrapped as well.
There we go again using the term “conservative” when that isn’t what we are talking about. Many neo-conservatives support Bolton, as does the MIC, and the Zionists. Yes, Bolton is the definition of a neo-conservative.
Everything. Neo-conservatives advance the goals of Cultural Marxists. They are fundamentally Trotskyites and are pushing multiculturalism just as hard as the left, although their angle is GDP. Multiculturalism is destroying America. How do we stop it? Keep the white population a majority. Race matters. It always has and always will. You see this clearly with every race except whites, which beings us full circle to the goal of Cultural Marxism.
The REAL Question you should be asking is, what do the Neo-Conservatives and Establishment Democrats have in common? Once you answer that you might just stop associating the word conservative with neocons.
I would prefer not to use anyone. That’s a DNC and GOP tactic. I would also prefer not to have to associate with anyone privately or publicly. I want the same for other races. Look at how productive blacks were before the 1960s. They had well maintained homes, neighborhoods, and were doing well to elevate and advance themselves without the state. Detroit in the 1950s is a prime example of this. Then that communist wife beater MLK came along and the perpetual victimhood began. I want other races to succeed and add value to this country on an equal footing. I don’t want to be subservient to them, nor do I want them subservient to me.
That’s what has gotten us into this mess in the first place. We can’t keep ignoring the fact that race is a factor and that our race is under attack.
I don’t know what I am anymore. I am tired of feeling like my race is under attack and that my country is crumbling under the banner of forced diversity and mandatory multiculturalism.