Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 3      Prev   1   2   3   Next
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #16 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ContraTerrentumEQR
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers
The neat thing about sovereignty is that other's thoughts on the matter are of no importance.


Sovereignty comes from God Himself, ergo no sovereign can make any binding or legal establishments or decrees contrary to the divine and natural laws. Thus, I must conclude that you are affirming my dismissal of matriarchy and the imaginary right of any tribe, person, government, or body to establish or maintain it.

The Divine law does not speak directly to question of gentile tribes and the determination of their members. 

In fact, with Timothy as an example, it appears that Paul supports the idea of descent of the Heritage and Traditions (which weigh more heavily than mere dirt do they not?) of the Chosen People of God through the young man's Mother and Grandmother.

The 'Natural Law' is by definition fallen, the 'laws ascribed to it' most often merely prejudice.

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
KYMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 4,853
Reply with quote  #17 

The Native Americans such as the Iroquois who maintain matrilineal descent have done so since time immemmorial. Kindly keep your imperialist nose out of their culture.


__________________
"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
ContraTerrentumEQR

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #18 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KYMonarchist
The Native Americans such as the Iroquois who maintain matrilineal descent have done so since time immemmorial. Kindly keep your imperialist nose out of their culture.


The natural law is older than the Iroquois and any tradition they created or will create. Kindly speak only when you have something worthwhile to say and are not making a transparent effort to be inflammatory. You go out of your way to speak ill of Catholics and belittle the dogmas of the Catholic Faith because the prospect of submission to Our Lord Jesus Christ made you uncomfortable enough to become an apostate to neo-paganism. I do not say that with any malice and am only pointing out what everybody already knows and why your vitriolic and contrarian rhetoric can be tiresome.

__________________

PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO CHRISTI

ContraTerrentumEQR

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #19 
Another good thing about the Indians is that so many places can be renamed after them (thus superseding the names given during the dark period of misrule under the gnostic principles of the American revolutionaries). Comancheria and Huronia are my favourites.
__________________

PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO CHRISTI

ProudCanadian

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,289
Reply with quote  #20 

Since the Native Americans never claimed North America in the first place, they don't have very much claim now. European empires were, overall, relatively friendly with the Natives. It was the US that was responsible for most of the genocide against Natives and was in fact one of the major causes of the US existing (looking into American history explains why it is not taught very thoroughly in US state schools).

ContraTerrentumEQR

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #21 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProudCanadian
Since the Native Americans never claimed North America in the first place, they don't have very much claim now.


That is a myth. It depended on the tribe. For instance, the ancestral lands of the Navajo were between the 'four sacred mountains.' Why would there be tribal conquest and territory if they did not believe in borders (perhaps not as understood by early modern Europeans, but borders nonetheless) ? War and slaughter was common. Some of the Indians, especially the Sioux, were nomads and so on, but others were farmers who would defend the land of their fathers. I am not making some politically correct appeal to anti-imperialism or something; I am saying that it would be better and more organic to incorporate the Indians naturally into a Christian monarchy.

Quote:
European empires were, overall, relatively friendly with the Natives.


Well, the French and Spanish were, mixing amongst them (creating métises and mestizos) and forming alliances. The British were a bit less friendly.

Quote:
It was the US that was responsible for most of the genocide against Natives and was in fact one of the major causes of the US existing (looking into American history explains why it is not taught very thoroughly in US state schools).


What you say is true. They almost exterminated the American bison for the sole purpose of starving the Indians and destroying their economy, thus clearing the plains.

__________________

PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO CHRISTI

ProudCanadian

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,289
Reply with quote  #22 

Way I remind you that the British were apparently "too friendly", so the US saw fit to exist.

ProudCanadian

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,289
Reply with quote  #23 

"We have the maximum gun and they do not."

ContraTerrentumEQR

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #24 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProudCanadian
Way I remind you that the British were apparently "too friendly", so the US saw fit to exist.


True enough, though the Indians did side with the French against the British during the Seven Years' War / French-Indian War. And, of course, the Quakers were friendly to the Indians. Frankly one of the most prominent problems with America has always been those insufferable Puritans. Their influence has bred the lethal combination of the steely manners of workaday capitalist drudgery, an artless disdain for alcohol and dancing and splendour, and bigoted hagiographical romanticism about their own greatness. While I do believe in prejudice and proscription, I have to say that these people have no sense of the joy, humour, or curiosity.

__________________

PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO CHRISTI

ProudCanadian

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,289
Reply with quote  #25 

The "Puritans" in the US weren't technically Puritan, they were separtists.

royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,829
Reply with quote  #26 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContraTerrentumEQR
Frankly one of the most prominent problems with America has always been those insufferable Puritans. Their influence has bred the lethal combination of the steely manners of workaday capitalist drudgery, an artless disdain for alcohol and dancing and splendour, and bigoted hagiographical romanticism about their own greatness. While I do believe in prejudice and proscription, I have to say that these people have no sense of the joy, humour, or curiosity.


For once we're in full agreement.

Too bad the "traditionalist Catholic movement" has not been spared their influence... 
ContraTerrentumEQR

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #27 
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContraTerrentumEQR
Frankly one of the most prominent problems with America has always been those insufferable Puritans. Their influence has bred the lethal combination of the steely manners of workaday capitalist drudgery, an artless disdain for alcohol and dancing and splendour, and bigoted hagiographical romanticism about their own greatness. While I do believe in prejudice and proscription, I have to say that these people have no sense of the joy, humour, or curiosity.
For once we're in full agreement. Too bad the "traditionalist Catholic movement" has not been spared their influence... 


It pains me to say it, but you are right. If I were ever in a position of influence in the 'movement,' I would take very purposeful steps to purge it from our ranks. I have noticed, though, that there seems to be a correlation between monarchism and immunity to Puritanism. Perhaps it is because monarchists are extremely self-aware Americans. As Maistre says, 'Before, monarchism was instinct; now, it is a science.'

As an aside, I suspect that you and I see the Puritan influence in different places.

__________________

PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO CHRISTI

BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #28 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContraTerrentumEQR
Quote:
Originally Posted by KYMonarchist
The Native Americans such as the Iroquois who maintain matrilineal descent have done so since time immemmorial. Kindly keep your imperialist nose out of their culture.


The natural law is older than the Iroquois and any tradition they created or will create.

"Natural Law" is an oxymoron.
It doesn't exist.
If it did it would be a law of the fallen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ContraTerrentumEQR

Kindly speak only when you have something worthwhile to say and are not making a transparent effort to be inflammatory.

It is his job....

............

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #29 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContraTerrentumEQR

........... I am not making some politically correct appeal to anti-imperialism or something; I am saying that it would be better and more organic to incorporate the Indians naturally into a Christian monarchy.

??????
Incorporation of a sovereign people 'naturally' into another's Kingdom??????

Or do you mean Christianization of the existing Tribes as independent Kingdoms?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ContraTerrentumEQR

Quote:
European empires were, overall, relatively friendly with the Natives.


Well, the French and Spanish were, mixing amongst them (creating métises and mestizos) and forming alliances. The British were a bit less friendly.

Did you ever read the Proclamation of 1763?


__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
ContraTerrentumEQR

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #30 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContraTerrentumEQR
........... I am not making some politically correct appeal to anti-imperialism or something; I am saying that it would be better and more organic to incorporate the Indians naturally into a Christian monarchy.
?????? Incorporation of a sovereign people 'naturally' into another's Kingdom??????


There is no such thing as a sovereign 'people.' There are only sovereign persons.

Nihil potestas a populo. Omnis potestas a Deo.

Quote:
Or do you mean Christianization of the existing Tribes as independent Kingdoms?


Incorporation by fealty as independent fiefs, such as duchies and counties and so forth. It is not as if such a thing has never happened before, especially in Europe.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContraTerrentumEQR
Quote:
European empires were, overall, relatively friendly with the Natives.
Well, the French and Spanish were, mixing amongst them (creating métises and mestizos) and forming alliances. The British were a bit less friendly.
Did you ever read the Proclamation of 1763?


No, actually, I have not. I would be very interested in doing so.

__________________

PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO CHRISTI

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.