Here we go again: yet another Yank who knows no history - not even his own...

 The Yankee myth of "manifest destiny" led to oceans of Native American and Spanish blood

It is becoming a familiar theme: the American wide-eyed innocent who does not know the history of his own country and cannot understand it when he hears it for the first time.

I said, in relation to Stonewall Jackson's pre-battle address in the film "Gods and Generals" in the previous post, that "I don't agree with the example of the "second war of independence" since the first one was not a just war".

Mr Dumb-ass, Innocent Yankee replied to me (see combox) with all the usual completely ill-instructed, woefully ignorant nonsense and propaganda that the world has become accustomed to from a certain type of chauvinistic Yank.

Mr Innocent Yankee asks:

"Why was the first one not a just war? The states broke away from the British crown because the British crown was obstinate in its refusal to recognise their ancient rights as freeborn Englishmen. It was plenty just."

"Plenty just" is not, of course, English but it is is an indication of this guy's understanding of history and morality.

I need only repeat the story of the gentleman who met Lincoln and was chaffed by him for not supporting the war against the South.

"Well, Mr President", he said, "If secession be a valid principle then I say 'long live the South' but if it be a false principle then I say 'God save King George' ".

Lincoln could not, of course, answer since the gentleman had an unassailable point.

How could the Union refuse the right to secede from the Union if they themselves believed it was right to secede from Britain? If it was not, as a matter of principle, right, then they certainly could argue no ground for secession from the British Crown.

Mr Dumb-bunny Yank thinks Britain refused Americans their rights as "free-born Englishmen".

That is pure poppycock.




King George and the English government did no such thing. On the contrary, they gave the Colonists too much leeway. The Boston Tea Party was organised by those rebels who stood to lose fat profits if foreign competition was allowed to bring tea into America. So they staged the Boston tea party and pretended it was all about civil rights.

The Founding Fathers of the USA were largely Unitarians and Deists, not Christians, and they believed in slavery, racism and their own arrogantly racist so-called "manifest destiny".

They were also virulent anti-Catholic bigots.

Jefferson even had children by his black slaves and then enslaved his own half-caste children!

Yet, Mr Dumb-bunny Yankee thinks that slavery was only an issue in the South.

More Poppycock.

Lincoln himself believed the black race to be intrinsically inferior, was not opposed to slavery and, at one point, considered "solving" the issue by forcibly expelling all blacks to Liberia.

Our ill-instructed Yank didn't know any of that, did he?

He just believes the propaganda he got fed at school.

Our dummy Yank also thinks that the War was about the "equality of man".

How equal does he think the industrial poor of America were with the immensely rich fats cats of America who lived off their labour? This came about AFTER the War far more than before.

If revolution is right then why should not any group of people who feel hard done by simply overthrow the legal and constitutional government?

Well, Mr Dumb-bunny?

What's the answer?

If the Muslims of America feel hard done by does that mean they can overthrow the US government?

According to your view of revolution - apparently yes.

The fact is that your position is completely selfish, illogical and chauvinistic and all too typical of quite a lot of Americanist Yankees who do not bother to think or question propaganda but simply swallow it whole and undiluted.

You are so ill-instructed in your own history that you think that blacks in the South fought for the South simply for the right to own other black slaves. Wrong again! The vast majority of blacks who fought for the South were slaves themselves.

The industrial slaves of Capitalism which came after the Union victory do not earn Mr Dumb bunny's sympathy. Why not? Well, because he, himself, has profited from that Capitalist exploitation of the poor so... that makes it OK, then!

See how that works, folks?

Yep - there really are few things quite as dumb, blind and selfish as an Americanist Yankee bigot. It tends to reflect poorly upon an otherwise great nation.

Sad, really.


...

Gods and Generals: General "Stonewall"Jackson

Lieutenant-General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson was one of the greatest of Confederate generals.

His death was a body blow to the Confederate cause. He did not favour slavery and ran a Sunday school for black children when he was younger.

Here is a clip from the film Gods and Generals which is a fine example of motivation by a general of his troops.

I don't agree with the example of the "second war of independence" since the first one was not a just war.

However, the War between the States was a war against centralisation and the abolition of the rights of the States and therefore had much more justice about it.

Although sensible politicians on both sides should have done their best to prevent it, regrettably the 19th century was an age when absurd revolutionary ideas held sway causing wars all over the civilised world and leading to the unnecessary deaths of all too many.

The War between the States was not primarily about slavery, contrary to Yankee propaganda. If it were, then why did so many blacks fight for, and support, the South. Were they all just "Uncle Toms"? To say so is simply to insult them and is, already, a form of racism.

It is the case that many black Americans fought for the South and were proud to do so.

Slavery would eventually have died out but it was already being replaced by the modern form of slavery - that of the industrial workers of the machine age who were already being enslaved in dark mills and factories by the plutocrat Yankees of the North whose primary interest was in enriching themselves regardless of the rights of others.

Was that really "progress"? Was this "justice"? Or was it just hypocrisy?

The music in this film is a bit too schamltzy but the speech is good:



Jackson was a zealous Presbyterian and had some flaws but overall he is an impressive personality, especially as he appears to have suffered from narcolepsy and even fell asleep sometimes when eating. He overcame this disability with steely tenacity and went on to greatness.

He was a fine general and his loss - accidentally shot by some fellow Confederates - was a serious blow to the Confederate cause.


...

What is the Vatican ruling on transferring the Feasts to Sunday? Simple: you don't have to do it!

Here is what the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (housed on the ground floor of the Palazzo Sant'Uffizio, above) has ruled on the issue:

"1. The legitimate use of the liturgical books in use in 1962 includes the right to the use of the calendar intrinsic to those liturgical books.

2. While in accordance with Canon 1246 §2 of the Code of Canon Law the Episcopal Conference can legitimately transfer Holydays of obligation with the approbation of the Holy See, it is also legitimate to celebrate the Mass and Office of those feasts on the days prescribed in the calendar of the liturgical books in use in 1962 with the clear understanding that, in accordance with the legitimate decision of the Episcopal Conference, there is no obligation to attend Mass on those days.

3. Thus, in accordance with nn. 356-361 of the Rubricae Generales Missalis Romani of 1962, it is appropriate to celebrate the external solemnity of Holy Days on the Sunday to which they have been transferred by the Episcopal Conference, as has been customary in many other countries hitherto."

So what does that mean?

It means that there is no obligation to attend on the weekday and no obligation to replace the Sunday with the Feast. You are simply obliged to attend one or the other.

That means that we do NOT, REPEAT NOT, have to change the Sunday to the Feast Day.

We can carry on as the Church always did in the past and celebrate the Feast day on its proper day and keep the Sunday as a Sunday.

The Bishop's Conference Secretariat, in saying the opposite and pretending that we were obliged in the traditional rite to celebrate the Feasts on the Sunday, were, and are, simply...

WRONG!

Given the ancient traditions of the Church and given the vicious tendency of too many bishops to do whatever they can to disrupt the celebration of the old rites, there really could never have been much doubt about this false proposal being anything much more than the usual wrecking amendment.

Let us not forget that these are the guys who have just appointed as bishop in charge of Catechesis the most heterodox bishop in the country, Kieran "You don't have to go to confession" Conry, currently pretending that he is Ordinary of Arundel and Brighton.

Catechesis? What? Are they kidding?

You might as well put Henry VIII in charge of restoring the Monasteries, or Julius Streicher in charge of re-building the Jewish Temple!

Kieran "Does this face look bovvered" Conry thinks we all go to confession too much.
He has his Novus Ordo Corpus Christi Mass on the Thursday, defiantly disobeying his own laws. Given his public and pertinacious adherence to public heterodoxy, does anyone really think this guy is still Ordinary of A & B?

To cap it all, our Kieran has so much contempt even for his own laws, that he is, in any case, celebrating Corpus Christi on the Thursday in his own Cathedral, including procession, even though it will be defiantly Novus Ordo. One rule for him, another rule for every one else, seems to be his motto.

How logical is that?

Go figure!

But then what do you expect from a man who has about as much respect and reverence for the ancient traditions of the Catholic Church as John Calvin or Martin Luther.

Sorry to say it but this man is simply a complete disgrace.

...

3 May: The Feast of the Invention (Finding) of the True Cross

Here is the Roman Empress St Helena pictured with the True Cross.

The Feast of the Invention (Finding) of the True Cross is another great feast that was done away with by the wrecker Bugnini.

St. Helena, mother of Constantine the great, is often depicted holding a cross because according to the tradition she found the true cross in Jerusalem.

The Roman Emperor Constantine was elected Emperor by the Roman Army at Eboracum (York in Britain) in 312, and in the following year, legalized Christianity with the Edict of Milan.

About this time, Constantine’s mother, St. Helena, converted to Christianity.

With the authority of her son, St. Helena went to Palestine in search of the Holy Cross about the year 324.

St Helena built churches marking the place of the Nativity in Bethlehem, and the site of the Ascension.

Three crosses were found in a rock-cistern as well as the titulus (the wood plaque inscribed with the words Jesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum in Hebrew, Greek and Latin - "Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews"). The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was built over the site.

Titulus Crucis
a sacred relic in the Church of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem, displayed in reverse so that the words can be better seen and an ancient reconstruction placed over the top of the reliquary showing what is written on the now very old wood of the Titulus proclaiming our Lord King of the Jews in the 3 sacred languages

A woman, dying from a terminal disease, was brought to the spot. She touched the crosses, one by one. After she touched the third cross, she was cured, thereby identifying the true cross.

St Ambrose preached that when St. Helena found the true cross:

"she worshipped not the wood, but the King, Him who hung on the wood. She burned with an earnest desire of touching the guarantee of immortality."

St Cyril of Jerusalem, in his letter to the Emperor Constantius (Constantine’s son and successor), stated "The saving wood of the cross was found at Jerusalem in the time of Constantine."

In his fourth Catechetical Lecture, he wrote:

"He was truly crucified for our sins. For if you would deny it, the place refutes you visibly, this blessed Golgotha, in which we are now assembled for the sake of Him who was here crucified; and the whole world has since been filled with pieces of the wood of the Cross."

Many of the older depictions of the crucifixion show a skull with two crossed bones at the foot of the cross. The tradition is that Adam was buried at Calvary. When our Lord died, His Precious Blood flowed down, through cracks in the earth, onto Adam's skull.

In the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem one finds the Chapel of Adam underneath the Chapel of Golgotha.

The Feast of the Triumph of the Cross, which comes much later on 14 September, is the feast marking the day when the Emperor Heraclius re-captured the True Cross from the Persians who had stolen it from Jerusalem.

It was on that great feast day that our Holy Father, Pope Benedict gloriously reigning, ordered the freeing of the traditional Roman rites which, he declared, had never been abrogated (numquam abrogatam).

A truly glorious victory of the Holy Cross indeed!

On these great feasts, let us remember the words of St. Francis of Assisi:

"We adore Thee, O Christ, and we praise Thee, because by Thy Holy Cross Thou hast redeemed the world."

+++