Author Topic: Catholic groups contradicting one another  (Read 2221 times)

Offline dellery

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2839
  • Thanked: 1058 times
Re: Catholic groups contradicting one another
« Reply #75 on: September 23, 2020, 10:21:40 PM »
Greg makes a good point.  I was viewing things from the comparatively myopic perspective of Pontius Pilate, who was constrained into playing the kind of whack-a-mole which dellery speaks of against the protestors, mobs, and rioters in Judaea.  Whenever he quelled one revolt or Hebrew religious frenzy, another one would pop up.  In fact he was removed from his procuratorship because he had been too ruthless against a clamor of Samaritans.  But eventually the Romans came to realize that Pilate's manner of force had been necessary, as they would later have to appropriate it for themselves (and then some).  First they utterly destroyed the temple, and when that didn't work, when the Bar Kokhba revolt rose up, they massacred a ton of Jews, sold some into slavery, and banned the rest from Jerusalem.  That's called taking charge.

But underneath their radar, Hebrew religion was working to get its revenge on Rome.  It would be an ideological victory, not military.  As the homosexual Marxist Alan Ginsberg told the straights in the sixties, the conquest would be cultural: "we will get you through your children."

No he doesn't and his examples are terrible. Hitler's own people tried killing him several times. At the beginning of Barbarossa the Germans were viewed as liberators until the Wehrmacht and SS began the widespread and indiscriminate killing of civilians leading to the Soviet races absolutely overwhelming Germany and raping her into a state of near perpetual submission. The Nahuatis were so abusive to their people that when the Spanish landed thousands were ready to team up with the Conquistadores and crush the Triple Alliance. The NKVD couldn't even "kill them all" and Soviets had to primarily kill off millions of people with famine by proxy. They recognized the limitations of killing in their pragmatic rule, but that wouldn't didn't save them in the long run and they eventually fell even after mounting pressure forced them to stop killing people. It was too late.
Pol Pot came pretty close to "killing them all" but a war weary Vietnam, after years of fighting the West, deemed it necessary to fight yet another war for the sake of toppling his murderous regime. Speaking of South East Asia, we tried pretty hard to break the North Vietnamese and Vietcong's resistance by killing them all. Look at how well that worked out. They kicked our ass and turned many of our own people against us and our efforts in the process.
The Hutus started massacring the Tutsis and Tutsi resistance lead by Paul Kagame advanced with a new found zeal against them, breaking a stalemated civil-war and taking power.

Your Roman example is pre-Christian and my posts are referring specifically to contemporary Western morals. Furthermore, many times more advanced races bring with them advanced problems that isolated races are biologically unable to cope with. Doesn't mean there's a conspiracy to kill people, especially considering we've engineered drugs to save people from the very diseases we were supposedly so found of weaponizing.

If you think Christianity conquered Rome for the Jews you have no idea how power works. Christianity made Rome eternal and a cultural empire that has come to dominate much of the globe still to this day. Without Christianity Rome would've fell by the wayside like all great empires and would resemble something more like Greece.
Bean-Curd Tiger
The following users thanked this post: The Theosist