Friday, 4 July 2008

4 July: Freemasonic Dependence Day?

The 4th July is the day when Americans celebrate Independence Day - independence from Great Britain.

There is much that is good in America that is worth celebrating but not everything is rosy in the tale of American history.

This American Revolution was engineered by a collection of Freemasonic Deists, Unitarians and revolutionaries who were largely very anti-Catholic in their outlook. Even the one nominal Catholic amongst the revolutionaries, Carroll of Carrollton, was a prototype Irish Liberal Catholic. They sought to become independent of their lawful Sovereign by means of a revolution which no traditional morality had, or could, ever endorse. In so doing, they became dependent upon an entirely new philosophy largely predicated upon the false ideas of the anti-Catholic English philosopher and Freemason, John Locke.

The Declaration of Independence of the rebellious and anti-Catholic American Colonials


Indeed, one of the so-called "intolerable acts" of King George III cited in the Declaration of Independence was the Quebec Act which granted and guaranteed religious freedom to Catholics in Quebec. This was "intolerable" to the American revolutionaries!

The Quebec Act establishing Roman Catholicism in French Canada, called "intolerable" by the Freemasonic anti-Catholic American revolutionaries


From these beginnings, began the United States of America. Of the Founding Fathers, most kept slaves and endorsed the slave trade, shortly to be solemnly condemned, once again, by the Roman Catholic Church, this time by Pope Gregory XVI in his Apostolic Constitution, In Supremo Apostolatus, of 3 December 1839.

Thomas Jefferson had children by his own slaves and then enslaved these very children of his own.

Freemasonic Brother Thomas Jefferson, drafter of the Declaration, begetter and enslaver of children by his own slaves and later US President


On 2 December 1823, US President James Monroe created the Monroe Doctrine which said that the European powers were no longer permitted by the US to take any further economic or political interest in any part of the Americas, north or south. This meant that, in effect, the United States gave itself the sole right to colonise – albeit economically – Latin America and exploit it for their own use. This policy had the outward appearance of “neutrality” between European disputes and “anti-imperialism” whilst actually being a far more manipulative and exploitative form of dollar-imperialism in which the backyard of the USA was to be considered to exist for the economic benefit of the USA.

President James Monroe first stated the doctrine during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to Congress, a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States.

Freemasonic Brother James Monroe, US President and inventor of the "Monroe Doctrine" which established US Dollar-Imperialism and the rapacious exploitation of foreign revolutions for the selfish gain of rich Americans at the expense of poor foreigners


This later resulted in the USA supporting Secular Fundamentalist, anti-Catholic, revolutionary movements all over Latin America, not least the brutally murderous Marxist regime of Plutarco Calles, the butcher of the Catholic Cristeros in Mexico.

Later came General, later President, Andrew Jackson, the founder of the US Democrat Party. He had spearheaded the US annexation of Spanish territory and wars of aggression against the Mexican Empire. He later ordered the compulsory movement to the West of the Cherokees, Seminole and Creek Indians, many of whom died en route. This was an illegal act. Most of these Indians were US citizens (having been guaranteed such status in the treaties between the US and Mexico). They had appealed to the US Supreme Court against their removal and had been upheld by pre-eminent US Chief Justice, John Marshall.

Jackson said: "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it!". This was genocide, US-style.

Cartoon of Freemasonic Brother, US President Andrew Jackson, he who illegally and unconstitutionally forced the Cherokee, Seminole and Creek Indians west of the Mississippi in an act of virtual genocide


Famously, long after slavery and the slave trade had been condemned throughout the civilised world, it continued in the USA.

Lincoln is held out as the "Great Emancipator" of the slaves. But was he? Was that really his motivation in the War between the States?

One of Lincoln's most representative public statements on the question of racial relations was given in a speech at Springfield, Illinois, on 26 June 1857. In this address, he said:

"There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas..."


US President Abraham Lincoln, who believed in racial segregation and the deportation of slaves back to Africa


Racial separation, Lincoln went on to say, "must be effected by colonization" of the country's blacks to a foreign land. "The enterprise is a difficult one," he acknowledged, but, said Lincoln:

"...where there is a will there is a way, and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favourable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be."

So much for the emancipator of the slaves!

The history of American oppression of the Native American Indians is even more telling. This was a war of sheer, unmitigated greed and aggression started by the American Colonists as a naked land grab of Spanish and Indian territory. It was dressed up with all the racist hypocrisy of a nation that saw itself as the coming power, pharisaically claiming to be blessed by Providence and entitled to crush all before its inevitable progress.

Ironically the British government had treated the Indians with a large degree of fairness and many Indians were loyalists during the War of Independence.

Once America became a separate nation, it sought to annex nearby land from the Mexican Empire and from the Indians, treating the latter as virtually sub-human and, all too frequently, to be simply turned out of their land and even shot on sight. This was a foretaste of the racist hegemonism that was to come with many progressive, "liberal" whites claiming a natural superiority of race which meant that "inevitably" the Indians must die out and be replaced by superior whites. It was yet another example of how the liberal, progressive mind-set is essentially an oppressive one.

This was not Colonialism but something very, very different. It was the beginning of a return to heathen ideas of might over right and even of genocide.

So arrogant did some Americans become that they under-estimated the courage, integrity and strength of the Indian tribes, many of whom were, in fact, Christians and Catholics, having been converted by Spanish and French missionaries in Mexico, California and Canada.

One result was the Battle of the Greasy Grass (aka Little Big Horn or Custer's Last Stand) where Colonel George Armstrong Custer's 7th US Cavalry was wiped out by the Sioux, Cheyenne and Arapaho confederation under Crazy Horse and Chief Sitting Bull in 1876.


Colonel George Armstrong Custer of the 7th US Cavalry was fairly typical of the kind of free-booting American who thought that it was America's destiny to defeat or eliminate the native American Indians and grab their land. He was stopped in his career of adventurism at Little Big Horn in 1876


Revenge was later obtained by the 7th Cavalry when they massacred Indians at the infamous Battle of Wounded Knee in 1890.

After the Civil War in which the North seized immense power from the States, political corruption reach hitherto unheard-of heights (even in America) with the scandals of Tammany Hall, the corrupt Democrat Party machine in New York City run by "Boss" Tweed.

Cartoon and photograph of Freemasonic Brother William "Boss" Tweed, the chief beneficiary of the Tammany Hall swindle which denuded the City and citizens of New York of more money than had probably ever before been corruptly obtained anywhere


Democrat President, Woodrow Wilson, after World War I forced a settlement upon Europe that prepared the way for Hitler and World War II.

Freemasonic Brother and US President Woodrow Wilson whose harsh and imprudent demands at Versailles, after World War I, prepared the way for World War II


Democrat President, Franklin Roosevelt, married to Communist fellow-traveller, Eleanor Roosevelt, naively allowed himself to be fooled by Stalin and so unwittingly helped deliver yet more parts of the globe into Communist hands.

Freemasonic Brother Franklin D. Roosevelt, US President whose naivete toward Stalin guaranteed the long term enslavement under Communism of most of Eastern Europe


Democrat President, Harry S. Truman, taking over during the War, ordered the dropping of the Atom Bomb upon defenceless women and children, not least upon Catholic women and children when the B-29 Bockscar dropped its "dirty", highly-radioactive bomb almost on top of the Catholic Cathedral of Japan in Urakami.

Freemasonic Brother Harry S. Truman who, as US President, ordered the mass murder by atomic bomb of innocent women and children, especially the Catholics of Nagasaki, whilst claiming publicly that they were "military bases"


The first Catholic President of the USA, Democrat John F Kennedy, was most notorious for his almost pathological womanising. Kennedy personally ordered US agents in Vietnam to withdraw support from Catholic President Ngo Dinh Diem, giving support to the Buddhist revolutionaries and conniving at the later assassination of President Diem.

US President John F. Kennedy who connived at the murder of his former ally, Catholic President Ngo Dinh Diem of Vietnam. Was Kennedy also a Freemasonic Brother? No-one knows but it would not be a surprise.


Classically, America (together with revolutionary France) led the way in the Social or Structural Revolution of the 1960s when hippiedom, student revolution, drugs and random sex were extolled as "liberating" by the youth leaders of the new revolution. Soon after came a massive new wave of drug-fuelled serious crime which has accelerated, ever since, at an alarming rate.

Drug-extolling, anarchists, revolutionaries and self-worshipping hippies, Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman, exemplars of the 1960s student revolution: the apotheosis of Americanism and the American Revolution? They certainly thought they were.


Drugs became such a widespread phenomenon that one is tempted to call the day that celebrates the rise of the new American revolution by a new name: Drug Dependence Day.

"Americanism", in fact, came to be the name of a new heresy, condemned by Pope Leo XIII in 1899. This new heresy claimed to set up a new kind of Church in America which was to be different and better than the Church as it had hitherto been. In an ironic and bizarre kind of way this has, indeed, happened since the new, post-Vatican II Church of America has - notoriously - been a leading example of disloyalty to the Pope and Catholic teaching as an endless stream of priests, nuns and religious abandoned first their vows and vocations and then, in some cases, even common decency and morality as evidence of the clerical child-abuse scandal began to grow and grow.


Pope Leo XIII,
Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church, condemner of oppression, murder, exploitation, injustice and Freemasonry and the Pope who strongly encouraged Thomism and the recitation of the Holy Rosary.



Here is what Pope Leo had to say of the error of "Americanism":

"…The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them. It does not need many words, beloved son, to prove the falsity of these ideas if the nature and origin of the doctrine which the Church proposes are recalled to mind…

These dangers, viz., the confounding of license with liberty, the passion for discussing and pouring contempt upon any possible subject, the assumed right to hold whatever opinions one pleases upon any subject and to set them forth in print to the world, have so wrapped minds in darkness that there is now a greater need of the Church's teaching office than ever before, lest people become unmindful both of conscience and of duty...

First, all external guidance is set aside for those souls who are striving after Christian perfection as being superfluous or indeed, not useful in any sense — the contention being that the Holy Spirit pours richer and more abundant graces than formerly upon the souls of the faithful, so that without human intervention He teaches and guides them by some hidden instinct of His own…

And shall any one who recalls the history of the apostles, the faith of the nascent church, the trials and deaths of the martyrs — and, above all, those olden times, so fruitful in saints — dare to measure our age with these, or affirm that they received less of the divine outpouring from the Spirit of Holiness?

…This over-esteem of natural virtue finds a method of expression in assuming to divide all virtues in active and passive, and it is alleged that whereas passive virtues found better place in past times, our age is to be characterized by the active. That such a division and distinction cannot be maintained is patent — for there is not, nor can there be, merely passive virtue...

From the foregoing it is manifest, beloved son, that we are not able to give approval to those views which, in their collective sense, are called by some "Americanism."

...if this is to be so understood that the doctrines which have been adverted to above are not only indicated, but exalted, there can be no manner of doubt that our venerable brethren, the bishops of America, would be the first to repudiate and condemn it as being most injurious to themselves and to their country. For it would give rise to the suspicion that there are among you some who conceive and would have the Church in America to be different from what it is in the rest of the world...

But the true church is one, as by unity of doctrine, so by unity of government, and she is Catholic also...

Given at Rome, from St. Peter's, the 22nd day of January, 1899, and the thirty-first of our pontificate."




St Michael the Archangel, be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the Devil...

...

14 comments:

Ottaviani said...

I thought John Kennedy and Lincoln Abraham were the only two presidents of the USA, were were not Freemasons?

Stephen D. said...

Tribunus,

On a commemoration such as Independence Day, I wanted to read your reaction as I believe you offer an important counterpoint to post-Enlightement assumptions. Though I find myself in sympathy with what you expressed, at the risk of being nitpicky, I must first correct you on a few details of American history, as such inaccuracies can lead people to prematurely dismiss an otherwise meritorious viewpoint.

I mentioned Thomas Jefferson in a previous comment on this blog, and despite his being an anti-clerical deist/Unitarian, there is no evidence that he ever joined the Freemasons. It would also be unfair to paint him as the lothario of Monticello (where President Bush was actually heckled yesterday) who indiscriminately fathered children by a number of enslaved women. The evidence suggests that there was only one enslaved woman with whom, as a widower, he had children. As to painting him as the agent of their enslavement, it is important to note that long before Jefferson's birth, Virginia law established that children born to an enslaved woman inherited her status, no matter who the father was. Jefferson did free his enslaved children in his will, but he had to petition the Virginia legislature to allow them to stay in Virginia for longer than a year following their manumission. If you are willing to allow that men like Robert E. Lee were caught up in an unjust system from which it was not an simple matter to extricate themselves, you should extend the same courtesy to Jefferson, whatever other personal or philosophical shortcomings.

Also, John Marshall was not the first Chief Justice, but the fourth, appointed by John Adams in 1801. Interestingly, he was a cousin of Jefferson who irked him by asserting the Supreme Court's power of judical review to enhance federal authority.

Shifting to the topic of Catholic British subjects under King George III, it is my understanding that he opposed Catholic Emancipation in the British Isles as he saw it as a violation of his coronation oath to uphold the Church of England, leading Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger (who supported Emancipation) to resign in 1801. As to the earlier Quebec Act of 1774, was George III's support necessary for its passage? If so, why would he support allowing his Canadian Catholic subjects to hold public office, but not his British or Irish subjects? Was it just a matter of having an ocean between them and the political expediency of not wanting them to join the rebels to the south?

Finally, regarding President Harry Truman and his use of the atomic bomb on Japan, it is certainly an important point of moral debate, but if he had not done so, what would you have proposed as the alternative?

Cordially,
Stephen

Stephen D. said...

As to my last question about Japan, you essentially answered it to a previous respondent to an earlier post. Thank you for the shedding light on some realities of which I was unaware.

Oliver McCarthy said...

Oh dear!

In a responsum to an 1866 dubitum, the Holy Office noted: 'Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons. It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given. The purchaser should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave.'

That dog don't hunt!

You cannot deplore America for anti-imperialism and imperialism at one and the same time. Yes, America has been an imperial power, as well as colonial. The essential flaw in Americanism though lies in the false principles of liberalism and democracy (and to a certain extent in republicanism as well), not in some sinister agenda she may have to "enslave" the world with the mighty dollar.

For all of John Locke's undoubted wickedness, moreover, it's worth bearing in mind that he was at least a thinker in the English empiricist tradition (Christ Church, indeed!) - and thus, unlike his opposite numbers amongst the philosophes on the Continent, at least to some extent rooted in experience, the Real World, and common sense. (Try to imagine what the American Revolution would have been like had the Founding Fathers been Cartesians! A guillotine on Capitol Hill, perhaps?)

Tribunus said...

Thanks all for interesting comments.

Abe Lincoln originally applied for membership of the Tyrian Lodge, Springfiled, Illinois in 1860 and would certainly have joined but for his assassination in 1865. He is claimed by Masonry in the USA.

Since Freemasonry is a secret society it is hardly surprising that there is little evidence for Jefferson's membership. Nearly all his friends, allies and family were Masons and he exemplifies the Masonic spirit so fully that it is unlikely that he was not a member. But even if he weren't, his outlook and views were so paradigmatically Masonic that the result is the same.

I know of no evidence that Robert E Lee ever had a child by a slave. Jefferson did. The fact that the law meant the child was a slave can hardly have been unknown to Jefferson. Nevertheless he begot slaves by his own slaves. This is not a matter for congratulation.

Stephen is right about John Marshall - correction made, and thank you.

The Quebec Act could have been stopped by King George III, albeit with some difficulty. Why Canada? I think it was partly a matter of having an ocean between them and the political expediency of not wanting them to join the rebels to the south. The interesting thing is that the allegedly so "principled" American revolutionaries thought the Act "intolerable". So much for their dedication to "liberty"!

There is no obligation to provide an alternative strategy when objecting to a President committing a grossly evil act.

Evil is evil - alternative or no.

However, there was plenty of evidence to show that the Japs were on the point of surrender and it was only a matter of time. Indeed, they had already sent overtures via Stalin who simply concealed them.

In any event the answer to the question is this: carry on defeating Japan but do so by attacking their military forces and not frying innocent women and children.

As to you, Ollie, you are simply being a contrarian!

Of course, there is a Dollar Empire and of course it's sinister, not least because it claims not to be an empire and, indeed, to be against all empires.

It is ridiculous to compare the mere property relation that the Church speaks of when it allows it, and the kind of chattel slavery that the Church has always and everywhere condemned as degrading, inhuman and immoral.

Finally, the fact that Locke was not as bad as Descartes does not make him in any way good. The man was an anti-Catholic bigot and his ideas of liberty and toleration are anything but.

Tribunus.

Tribunus said...

Oh, and Ollie, what the heck are you doing referring us to a crazy, bigoted Neo-con diatribe of a website like the one you get your slavery quote from?

No wonder you are taken in by Locke and Americanist Dollar-imperialism!

If you love America (as I do) then reject the Americanist heresy which is undermining it.

Remember last Sunday's reading: beware the Mammon of Iniquity!

Tribunus.

Oliver McCarthy said...

Just because people use the dollar (e.g. as their reserve currency) doesn't mean they are somehow subjects of an American Empire - any more than eating hamburgers and wearing jeans means one has to pledge allegiance!

If the Church was against slavery then why was Bl Pius IX the only secular world leader to recognise the Confederate States of America and address President Davis as such?

I linked to that blog because I was googling for the text of the Holy Office's responsum. (For some reason it's not on the Holy See's website!) I've no idea whether the blog itself is any good.

In as far as America upholds moral order domestically and internationally - which to a certain extent it clearly does - then it is a Good Thing. Apart from that it's just a nasty Protestant concept uniting a nasty little bunch of rebel colonies.

Locke was a protestant and a Freemason and an empiricist. If he'd been a Catholic and a Frenchman and a rationalist he'd have been a good deal worse.

Stephen D. said...

Tribunus,

Thank you for your reply. My comment about extending Jefferson the courtesy of allowing that he, like Lee, was caught up in an unjust system from which extricating himself was difficult, should perhaps have been qualified by the phrase "to the extent applicable." Both men ran plantations using chattel slavery with all of its inherent indignities. Because of that fact alone, many people would unfairly condemn both men as being unworthy of admiration. But I did not mean to imply that the demonstrated character of both men was equal, or that Jefferson's fathering of children with Sally Hemings should be congratulated. I know that there is no evidence for such an occurrence in Lee's life.

My impression of Lee was that he was a genuinely Christian man of admirable leadership qualities who was capable of recognizing sin within himself. Jefferson, not being a Christian, I see as more easily falling into self-deception when it came to his assessment of his own virtue. As he was one the loudest "yelpers" for liberty in the cause for independence and further revolutions, it is difficult for him not to appear as the most hypocritical of American icons, given his other role as the master of Monticello. I also concur that, insofar as he is the primary American mouthpiece for the Enlightenment, he exhibits the Masonic spirit, whatever lack of evidence for his actual joining them. One of the purposes of Freemasonry seems to have been to provide the Enlightenment with its own mystical rites (contra-Catholicism), but as Jefferson didn't demonstrate much affinity for mystical rites, perhaps that was one variance.

Though you may have found my comments about Jefferson's enslaved family to be quibbling, they were in the interests of not unduly villainizing him. Therefore, it's better not to refer to plural "slaves" when mentioning his sexual relations and to acknowledge that the enslaved status of the Hemings children was not the factor of Jefferson's will alone. However, as you point out, he certainly would have known what status Virginia law would ascribe to those children. So in addition to his own personal sin of fornication, the sins of his forefathers would be visited upon those children, however equal in dignity they be before God. I think Jefferson did feel the dissonance between his professed beliefs and his lived reality, and as fellow human beings who can fall into self-deception, we should pray for him and for ourselves (as I'm sure you would concur).

Thank you again for helping me learn more about the vicitms of the bombing of Japan as well as other factors in play at the time in the geopolitical realm.

Shifting gears, I don't know much about Father Hidalgo and establishment of Mexican independence. What are your thoughts on that?

Finally, I wanted to ask you if there is a political state today whose constitutional arrangement you think best fosters (or has the potential to foster) the values you advocate here. Taking into account the dominance of republics in the world today, and all of the various national histories that have led to that, is there some way that you envision the establishment or re-establishment of monarchies to be a possibility? If you've already posted about that subject, then you can just direct me there.

Tribunus said...

Ollie,

I never said that that "just because people use the dollar (e.g. as their reserve currency) they are somehow subjects of an American Empire".

You will not win your point by making a straw man to knock down!

There's much more to teh Dollar Empire than merely using their currency. Think about it!

Neither did I say that the Church disallowed all slavery. Another straw man! Do, at least, read what I wrote.

It is an open question the extent to which America upholds moral order domestically and internationally. Insoar as it does that is good. But that does not negate the Dollar Empire.

Locke was a nasty piece of work. Get used to it!

Tribunus.

Tribunus said...

Dear Stephen,

Lee freed his slaves and never treated them as chattels. I appreciate your desire to look benevolently on Jefferson but I'm afraid I consider him a villainous anti-Catholic who rejocied at the death of innocents in the French Revolution. I cannot admire such a man.

Hidalgo was a misguided individual who did a great deal of harm. I might do a post on him before long.

There are already monarchies in Europe and teh Spanish one was expressly revived - so it can happen.

Sadly tho' many are Catholic monarchies, their coutnries are far from Catholic. I cannot think of any substantial power that comes at all close to conforming to a proper Catholic Constitution.

Not so long ago many did. But we live in very different times, sadly.

Something to pray about!

Tribunus.

Stephen D. said...

Yes, I was aware of the Spanish restoration under King Juan Carlos and his contributions to bringing stability to Spain (as well his his amusing entreating of Marxist Hugo Chavez to "shut up" at this year's Ibero-American summit). And then in Asia, the Cambodian monarchy was of course restored after the Khmer Rouge, but we now a Marxist regime in place of Nepal's monarchy.

I look forward to your post about Hidalgo.

Moving to the subject of art and culture, I was wondering (as I didn't find any previous posts) about your thoughts on Catholic British architect Augustus Pugin and his project of Gothic Revival. I try to appreciate the merits of the Classical-Baroque (after all, St. Peter's is in that syle), and in terms of the Romano-Byzantine style, I especially like Paris' Sacred Heart Basilica and London's Westminster Cathedral, but I do find myself generally most inspired by the Gothic. And in terms of Thomas Jefferson's architectural philosophy, Pugin seems to be the anti-Jefferson. And I also was especially pleased to know that, in addition to the stunning interiors of the Palace of Westminster, the Catholic Pugin was responsible for the design for the iconic Clock Tower of Big Ben.

Tribunus said...

Dear Stephen,

De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum.

There is no accounting for taste.

I like all styles except the modern - particularly modern ecclesiastical architecture which seems to consist in nothing more than framing an ugly box.

I do like Baroque and Classical but I also like Gothic.

I like the sense of light and of airy, space in the Baroque-Classical styles and I like the fact that it is a Counter-Reformation style associated with the Jesuits and with the ancient Roman style.

Gothic has, unfairly, tended to become a little bit associated with Protestantism in England and Baroque with Roman.

The Baroque/Classical style sometimes seems to me at once more Roman and more royal and imperial.

On the other hand, the Gothic is often more artistically intricate, detailed and delicate.

I suppose it is easy to forget that Gothic churches would have been a riot of colour when first built and the slightly washed-out, colourless, bloodless feel of the statuary largely arises because the paintwork has worn off.

Tribunus.

Fred Preuss said...

I would still, a million times, rather live in the US than in a latin catholic country.
If Latin America, Brazil and Haiti are the best your religion can do, you have a serious problem.

Tribunus said...

If that were the best our religion can do, you might be right but it is the USA that has created modern, Freemasonic and Left Wing Latin America which is about as far away from the Roman Catholic religion as you can get.

Indeed, even the USA, far away as it is from Catholicism, is closer to it than quasi-Marxist and Freemasonic Latin America.

So, Fred, it looks like you are closer to the Catholic religion than you had ever imagined.

Watch out, my friend!