Good Tucker Carlson Piece

Started by Philip G., January 02, 2019, 09:17:29 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Philip G.

This was a really good piece by Tucker today.  The whole thing was good, but the last half was really good. 

For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12

Maximilian

Quote from: Philip G. on January 02, 2019, 09:17:29 PM
This was a really good piece by Tucker today.  The whole thing was good, but the last half was really good. 



Wow, really excellent.

King Wenceslas

#2
Yes a good start. But (and I mean a very big BUT) he misses the point.

The basic problem is boom and bust cycles created by who? You guessed it, none other than your local central bank, the Federal Reserve. All central banks are for other banks. They are not there for the common man. They are there to create money out of thin air so that the well connected can buy on the cheap such as the Oracle of Omaha when he bought BNSF on the cheap. Near the bottom of the last bust he bought BNSF with cheap credit supplied by ultra low interest rates provided by guess who, the Federal Reserve. This will be repeated in the next bust cycle. Buffet will get cheap credit to buy on the cheap. Wash, rinse, repeat. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class gets wiped out.

Until you get rid of the very base problem with this economy the problems that Tucker talked about are NOT going away.

Philip G.

#3
King Wenceslaus - I agree.  Our fiat currency is asserted value by those whose temporal business it is to strip us of all our eternal valuables.  To think that they will not principally use currency to attain that end is insanity. 
For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12

Philip G.

#4
Hey, look who agrees with me.  I wonder if they saw my post.  I did beat them to it.  I've got the inside scoop.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/america-first-begins-with-families-first-tucker-carlson
For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12

Tales

The Fed is an enormous problem but in my eyes an even greater one is the country's foundation of liberty.  "Two consenting adults" is the basis of nearly everything in America - if two people consent to do it, then it must be ok.  This false belief has been idolized and it leads to all sorts of faulty thinking - drugs, sexual promiscuity, fake marriages, hollowing out the economy, debt slavery, etc.  It generally promotes everyone's vices to center stage.

Maybe I am way wrong here, but I do not see the concept of liberty in the Gospel.  We are to do God's will, not our own will.  We are to deny our will and conform ourselves to God's will.  Liberty is about putting ourselves first and doing what we want.  Satan told God he would not serve, he picked his own will, and he fell like lightning.  Again I may be very wrong here but I am suspicious that liberty is of the devil.

Now definitions are very tricky here.  For liberty is, by the books, freedom from enslavement, and thus God gives us liberty from the devil.  But in practice liberty comes to mean the philosophy of "two consenting adults" - where if people agree to it, it should be done.  It in practice means doing what one wants, free from all authority.

I would not even go back and say that America had liberty right ages ago and that it was perverted along the way.  The whole myth of freedom from taxation, even if true, does not conform to the Gospel.  The Church does not teach that we should rebel against governmental policies we do not like, it does not teach to strive for our will and try to exert our will across the land.  We are taught to pick up our crosses.

But specifically addressing the video, I think it is very interesting to see such commentary on national news.  It indicates how deeply stressed the system has become.

Philip G.

#6
David Blank  - EG - I think you are paying correct attention.  However, follow the money; "two consenting adults" is basically the criteria for Aquinas' approval of catholic participation in a usurious contract.  He taught that a catholic may be the lendee in a usurious loan so long as the catholic intends to use the loan for a subjective good purpose.  That sounds like "two consenting adults" to me.  And, it is interesting, he uses death penalty for heresy to argue it; which, if you ask me makes use of polar opposite criteria.  Is a born and raised citizen of the state turned heretic a "consenting adult" in the case of state orthodoxy?  No, that heretic was born in that land.  He is not a "consenting adult" strictly speaking, and does not deserve death at the hands of his king and last defense.  Such a complicit king only agrees at the insistence of empire hungry Catholics, who are not content with the only male power applicable, that of the Bishop to excommunicate.  Render unto Ceasar; masculine.

I wonder if the old testament policy of letting one flee to a different neighboring town in the case of life threatening disputes was a prefigure/type for how the church and state are to resolve their own separate life threatening dilemmas.  The church has always been the sanctuary for criminals fleeing the unjust state.  Why is it that the court should not be the appropriate counter sanctuary for a heretic fleeing the unjust church that seeks to go beyond excommunication?  It makes all the sense in the world. 

For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12

Gardener

You're both confusing liberty with license — something the Founding Fathers of America did not do — and which the liberals do as well.

Liberty is centered in Catholic Teaching from Scripture to Papal writings.

I have some pictures of the text of a Fr. Ripperger sermon detailing the difference. If you want, I'll post it.
"If anyone does not wish to have Mary Immaculate for his Mother, he will not have Christ for his Brother." - St. Maximilian Kolbe

Philip G.

#8
"Where two or more are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them".  If the state is bound to confess Christ, why act surprised when non-catholic citizens term it liberty?
For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12

Tales

Quote from: Gardener on January 07, 2019, 12:05:00 AM
You're both confusing liberty with license — something the Founding Fathers of America did not do — and which the liberals do as well.

Liberty is centered in Catholic Teaching from Scripture to Papal writings.

I have some pictures of the text of a Fr. Ripperger sermon detailing the difference. If you want, I'll post it.

That would be great, thank you.  This is still an idea in development.

james03

QuoteThis false belief has been idolized and it leads to all sorts of faulty thinking - drugs, sexual promiscuity, fake marriages, hollowing out the economy, debt slavery, etc. .

QuoteI would not even go back and say that America had liberty right ages ago and that it was perverted along the way.

Yeah because these were all problems with America from 1776 to 1960.  Something changed.  What changed is that the Catholic Church got corrupt. Woodstock happened for a reason.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

Quaremerepulisti

Wow, didn't he give Conservatism Inc. the flogging it so richly deserves.

And he's so right: the idea that economic policies have nothing whatsoever to do with the state of families, a sacred cow of social conservatism, needs to be led to the slaughter.

Jacob

This follow up by John Zmirk is good:

https://stream.org/tucker-carlson-half-right/

The heart of the piece:

QuoteWhat Carlson's Too Smart to Say (But I'm Not)

Defenders of the free market such as Ben Shapiro and David French have chimed in to criticize Carlson for blaming these phenomena on the free market, and proposing government action. J.D. Vance offered an eloquent, qualified defense. But I don't think many commentators are cutting to the dark heart of the issue. And for good reason: it's radioactive.

The problem isn't a genuinely free market, but the unfree market that now prevails in America. That's been a problem at least since 1964. That's when Southern Democrats, trying to kill the Civil Rights Act, added "sex" to "race" discrimination as part of what we were outlawing. But Republicans went ahead and championed the bill, and it passed. Suddenly, private businesses that used to routinely pay more to attract that desirable quantity — a stable, reliable married man with mouths to feed — could no longer do so.
"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
--Neal Stephenson

james03

Be careful about addressing symptoms and not causes.

Feminism is a symptom, even though it itself causes a lot of problems.  It's not the root cause.

Let's suppose you correctly view the loss of American jobs and the loss of a healthy labor movement as a problem.  So in 2016 you adopted the "official" labor position and supported Hillary.  (Quick aside, I worked in a unionized environment and talked to the rank-and-file.  100% supported Trump, but ignore that.)  And let's suppose the rank-and-file supported the "labor" position and voted for Hillary.  She would have won.  And she would have approved of the TPP.  And the "labor" leaders KNEW she was going to sell us out.  These miserable faggots should be drug outside of their homes and tarred and feathered, but I digress.

Or consider the miserable fag who "represented" the workers at that Whirlpool plant.  The moslem Kenyan did nothing.  Trump, before he was president, called up Whirlpool and read them the riot act.  The factory stayed.  What did the miserable "labor" president do?  He complained that Trump had only saved 800 jobs, and not 900 jobs.  Of course he didn't say a word about Odumbo.

So what is the root cause?  The Fall of the Catholic Church.  When our society is a heathen society, why are you surprised when women end up kenneling their kids in the strangercare warehouse?  Why are you surprised when banksters run wild?  Why are you surprised that one of the worst enemies of labor are the leaders who supposedly represent them?
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

james03

Quotethe idea that economic policies have nothing whatsoever to do with the state of families, a sacred cow of social conservatism, needs to be led to the slaughter.
Yeah, look at the caravans fleeing leftist countries.  Kids given to coyotes in order to get them across the border.  Fathers and mothers separated.  All due to economic policies.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"