You need to take interest in hitlero-thomism guys.
Full blown fascism and national-socialism enhanced with the philosophy of saint Thomas Aquinas, plus elements of Hegelianism in order to solve some aporias of the thomist system (on causality and creation, on the link between nature and surnature, as Joseph Mérel tries to uncover it in his works, that are sadly not translated).
All of that with fully Traditional Catholicism, basically SSPX with the acceptation of sedevacantism as a (stressed) hypothesis.
Also, I guess it's obvious : total refusal and refutation of the holohoax.
Here are the books on that list that you can find in English and probably in .pdf :
All Carl Schmitt Life of St Louis, by Joinville Works by Mussolini, Hitler and Primo de Rivera (you can add Degrelle to that) Céline's Mea Culpa, Trifles for a Massacre, School for corpses Bardèche's Nuremberg add some revisionist stuff you know to that, as long as it's as solid as Reynouard's or Faurrisson's Try to read a biography of Adrien Arcand, even if you don't find his texts Saint Thomas Aquinas can be easily found Koninck's On the Primacy of the Common Good. Against the Personalists Garrigou-Lagrange's God in 2 volumes Catechism of Trent or Saint Pius the Xth's one are great Mgr Lefebvre's They Have Uncrowned Him Amerio's Iota Unum
Also forgot to mention that this idea revolves around the idea of a new Holy Roman Empire made with the Germanic parts of Europe (North/East of France, Germany, Austria, maybe even Switzerland) that would be the economic and military center of the new Europe. France would have its vocation of providing the ideas (philosophy, Catholic theology, history) fulfilled and the German elements would fulfill their leadership vocation.
wtf are you talking about. can you put it into lehman’s terms
Luke Sanders
Why are you adding Hitler and BS immanentist-like ideologies whose aim is to create a "new Man"?
Adam Torres
>God exists
Huh... interesting theory you got there. But where's the evidence?
Some people are so autistic that they need to follow the masses by adopting the dominant religion, but also feel the need to confine themselves to an obscure sect of that religion with an idiosyncratic set of beliefs that nobody really cares about.
David Nguyen
i’m going to have to echo this sentiment
Evan Russell
>No Lionel Groulx
Adam Cox
This is sort of what was behind Franco, Salazar, Pétain and even Mussolini.
John Fisher
have you read vonnegut
Nathan Sullivan
so how do we preserve civilization past 3 generations? my grandfather rode a camel, my father drove a lincoln, and i drive a lamborghini, my son will drive a lincoln, and my son will ride a camel how do we solve this
Lucas Moore
I guess you talk about >enhanced [...] that are sadly not translated).
>All of that with fully Traditional Catholicism, basically SSPX with the acceptation of sedevacantism as a (stressed) hypothesis.
Basically : There are some problems in saint Thomas Aquinas' philosophy that have not been solved (that's the "causality/creation and nature/surnature" part) or badly by the modernists. The philosopher Joseph Mérel thinkgs that these problems can be solved in a correct and traditional way by using elements of the philosophy of Hegel (that have roots in neo-platonic philosophy). He tries to show the way in his books.
Also, sedevacantism is saying that "the pope is not the pope because he is a heretic". Some say that only of the pope Francis, some go back to Vatican II and say that all the popes since then are heretics. Thing is that we cannot say that as long as they don't proclaim dogmatically a heresy. But we can, in order to reject the modernist council of Vatican II, accept the sedevacantist ("the throne of Peter is Vacant") HYPOTHESIS, without any way to say that it is true or untrue since we'll need some validation from above (proclamation of a heresy) or the contrary (the pope or the next one or another says that there were mistakes and proceeds to put Vatican II in the trash).
It is a bit obtuse but well.
It's not immanentist. The negative aspects (that contradicts Catholic orthodoxy) of fascisms and nat-soc we reject, but these ideologies are sane in essence and the errors were mainly accidental, due to the lack of culture or due to the context.
Lionel Groulx has the right idea for a stable agriculturalist society however, a society that would base itself on national heroes and a very high birthrate, one that would be of 10-12 childrens per women MINIMUM.
Jonathan Ward
can’t each human determine between truth, and self-gratifying lies? i don’t see why we need dogma when we have science, physics, and common sense. do you like molyneux?
Robert Brown
You understood what I meant by immanentist.
The whole framework of fascism, as practiced and understood by Mussolini, and National Socialism ought to be rejected. It's more modernist hogwash, not salvageable. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mit_brennender_Sorge
Science, physics and common sense are different from religion. Science (generally speaking) is about the "how", not about the "why". Common sense is not sufficient, you just have to see how many idealist leftists contradict reality.
Mit brennender Sorge never attacked these movements in their essence but in some aspects of the doctrine (race, statolatry, some paganish stuff), while on the other hand the encyclical about communism CLEARLY STATES that communism is satanic. The pope attacked Rosenberg especially, but Von Papen, a Catholic, said that national-socialism was the best answer to 1789. Bishop von Galen loudly criticized eugenism for example, he was listened by Hitler. But he saw very well that national-socialism was a sane reaction against all the stuff the Church fought against (capitalism, socialism, usury and jewry, bolchevism, atheism, etc etc).
Gonzague de Reynold, a Swiss CATHOLIC monarchist, told in 1934, in his book L'Europe Tragique, that he wished the best for Hitler's Reich. Léon Degrelle, Catholic leader of the fascist movement Rex in Belgium, after being quite anti-nazi became fully hitlerist until his death, and never said it was contradictory.
In 1936, after visiting Germany, Alphonse de Châteaubriant, a Catholic convert and mystic that had contacts with Gilson (the famous thomist) became fully nazi until his death.
In 1940 Reynold said to Charles Maurras (a very anti-German monarchist) that Germany leading Europe was better than having the Jews leading us.
The books that depict Hitler as a pagan or anti-christian (Bormann for example) have been debunked.
Mason Gutierrez
Also about Mussolini, try to find his letters to Padre Pio, you'll see that he was an ardent Catholic.
Robert Williams
no, science, physics, and common sense are the exact same thing as religion. it is all truth that can teach and connect us to the rest of existence. i’m sorry you cannot perceive that yet.
Benjamin Russell
Interesting
have a bump
Hunter Cruz
As expected by Amerimutt you dont understand the "why" the absolute who is god (the trinity) and everything else that you are trying to associate with Religion And still we are not talking about truth
Brayden Nelson
Hey, do you know Hitler forbade this picture for being circulated? That there is no register of Hitler taking party in any catholic ritual? That Rudolf Hess, his deputy and second in command, was openly not christian as was Bormann his sucessor?
Hitler even did Kirchenkampf, and executed thousands of priests. Don't try to use Hitler, and the fact that even the pagans in the NSDAP hated atheism, to justify your own "catholicism" false solution.
Wyatt Reed
you’re not even OP- but nonetheless, your fucking sentence >As expected by Amerimutt you dont understand the "why" the absolute who is god (the trinity) and everything else that you are trying to associate with Religion wanna try again retard? come on, test your explanation skills einstein. speak E N G L I S H
David Lewis
Actions speak louder than words.
Mussolini is the very definition of statolatry, Hitler defines race as the end and doesn't give a fuck about anything else. I do feel sympathetic for him but he's cancer building upon cancer.
You are trying to merge two contradictions, which would explode right in your hands. There are more than two poles.
Mason Morgan
Von Papen was not a National Socialist. Von Galen opposing eugenics, in the middle of the war, and propping up militant groups like "The White Rose", effectively siding with the Soviets and the Rothschilds, over the European people is hard to justify. The only reason Hitler didn't execute him, like he did to many other priests during Kirchenkampf, despite the calls by NSDAP officials, was because it would achieve nothing but create more opposition from christians. Leon Degrelle, although formely political catholicism, was SS and initiated in Wewelsburg - the SS had a rate of 90% Gottgläubig, who formally left the church.
The books like the Table Talks were never "debunked", they were commissioned by Hitler himself, who tasked Martin Bormann, his closest aide and whom he described as his "most loyal follower" to collect. Bormann was given TWO secretaries at the Third Reich's expense.
All the contents of the Table Talks are corroborated by everyone else's remarks, like Speer's Table Talks and Otto Dietrich's memoirs. Out of the many people who knew Hitler and were present at these remarks, not a SINGLE one came out to denounce the table talks as a supposed forgery. Besides, his toughts there are entirely compatible with the NSDAP's actions, like Kirchenkampf and the persecution of churches, including, after 1941, the Rosenberg comission of a 30-point plan to create a national religion.
Seriously, stop spreading lies and nonsense to justify your "christian identity" faux-politics. It's a RACIAL identity, and it's National Socialism, not political christianity, a movement heavily persecuted by Hitler and condemned in Mein Kampf for siding with the Bolsheviks, that will lead us into the future.
