Tema: Spain's Black Legend

I just want to point out that when we mean "liberals" we don't necessarily refer to today leftists such as most US democrats, as the term is usually understood in the US. We rather mean -in historical terms- those who you would as a US citizen consider conservative heroes and defenders of christian Civilization (they were never such thing). US Founding Fathers such as George Washington or Benjamin Franklin, who are regarded there as being heroes and conservative, were in fact liberal extremists, anticatholic freemasons and pioneers of this New World Order (Novus Ordo Seclorum), the consequences of which we are suffering. This must be hard to admit by a US patriot, but that's just how it is. I admit that their revolution (to which we Spaniards unfortunatelly contributed) was better than the French one and not so bloody, but it still was the beginning of this liberal, secular, anti-Church and anti-God political parties system they want to impose upon every single country in the world, which ended up violently with our traditional catholic Monarchies.

Iniciado por Rodrigo

I just want to point out that when we mean "liberals" we don't necessarily refer to today leftists such as most US democrats, as the term is usually understood in the US. We rather mean -in historical terms- those who you would as a US citizen consider conservative heroes and defenders of christian Civilization (they were never such thing). US Founding Fathers such as George Washington or Benjamin Franklin, who are regarded there as being heroes and conservative, were in fact liberal extremists, anticatholic freemasons and pioneers of this New World Order (Novus Ordo Seclorum), the consequences of which we are suffering. This must be hard to admit by a US patriot, but that's just how it is. I admit that their revolution (to which we Spaniards unfortunatelly contributed) was better than the French one and not so bloody, but it still was the beginning of this liberal, secular, anti-Church and anti-God political parties system they want to impose upon every single country in the world, which ended up violently with our traditional catholic Monarchies.

You seem to be confusing the Founding Fathers as being a pack of atheistic jackals, which I can assure you sir they were not. I've read the private writings of Washington several times and, while not a member of the Catholic/Christian faith as you might understand it, he was no infidel. Washington had a very deep belief in God and held deistic views. Christian deism is largely an outgrowth of the English mind- the sort of deism that you see in France is due to its rejection of Christianity (especially Catholicism).


Sir, what makes you think America's Founders thought that they were defending Christendom? Only some neoconservative evangelical idiot believes this; they were fighting to be rid of the tyranny of the British monarchy and not to defend the Christian religion.

Do you consider Washington et al. to be liberal extremists simply becaused they refused to bow to a king? Or that they said that the people, guided by laws and common sense (with the blessings of the Almighty and Providence), are sovereign over any monarch or pople or tyrant? I largely spit on the Brits to this day because my ancestors were advised to avoid "English mannerisms," which the colonial English-Americans equated to effeminate behavior.

How can deism be christian? I don't consider them to be liberal extremists simply because they sought independence from their king, I call them liberal extremists because that's the accurate way to call them and their ideas, since that's what freemasonry and liberalism was and still is about. And you have to admit that their way to put it in practice was extreme.

Of course for us a liberal and protestant monarchy which laws forbid the monarch to be catholic, convert to catholicism or marry a catholic is not the ideal monarchy, as well as it is not ideal a heretical monarch that considered and still considers herself to be the Head of the Church. That doesn't mean I believe North American anglosaxon colonists were really oppressed as the Irish were. I guess they had their reasons to betray and make war against their king though, but the real problem here is the political parties system they introduced and the "Freedom above everything" mentality.

Iniciado por Rodrigo

How can deism be christian? I don't consider them to be liberal extremists simply because they sought independence from their king, I call them liberal extremists because that's the accurate way to call them and their ideas, since that's what freemasonry and liberalism was and still is about. And you have to admit that their way to put it in practice was extreme.

English deism was born from the minds of Christian Englishmen like Matthew Tindal and Edward Herbert:

Matthew Tindal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edward Herbert, 1st Baron Herbert of Cherbury - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These men, like the latter Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and so on were reacting anomng other things to what they perceieved as the absurdities and contradictions in the doctrines of the churches of England and Rome. The only one to have openly reviled Christianity was Paine, for which he was thought of as an infidel.

And.. There's nothing extreme about the revolt of the colonies from England, it was the inevitable outcome. Parliament and the crown refused to properly listen to our list of grievances (the Quartering Act, the Stamp Act, the Sugar Act, and a host of other burdens that the citizens in the colonies had to deal with in addition to, say, being taxed to help fund England's imperialistic adventures). Hardly extreme when the monarch treats men and women who thought of themselves as a free folk like serfs (the freemen ideal goes back a long way in the Anglosaxon mindset).

Robespierre is a better example of a villianous revolutionary. Washington et al. merely wanted to kick George III, so to speak, out of the colonies. Robespierre had the king of France guillotined, if I recall, and then he and his gang terrorized the French until they all got sent to the chopping block.

Of course for us a liberal and protestant monarchy which laws forbid the monarch to be catholic, convert to catholicism or marry a catholic is not the ideal monarchy, as well as it is not ideal a heretical monarch that considered and still considers herself to be the Head of the Church. That doesn't mean I believe North American anglosaxon colonists were really oppressed as the Irish were. I guess they had their reasons to betray and make war against their king though, but the real problem here is the political parties system they introduced and the "Freedom above everything" mentality.

We regard it as the crown betraying its responsibilities to treat its subjects as subjects and not as serfs.

Political parties were held in low esteem by the Founders due to what you'd expect: dissension and party politics. They also held the very word democracy in low esteem. Washington had very strong opinions on the matter, best seen in his Farewell Address of 1797.

Founding Fathers: Political party affiliations

"Freedom above everything" is not what was intended, not should be seen as what was intended. To me "freedom" means, to quote Reagan from memory, "The ultimate in individual liberty that is consistent with law and order."

Iniciado por Annuit Coeptis

English deism was born from the minds of Christian Englishmen like Matthew Tindal and Edward Herbert:
Matthew Tindal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Edward Herbert, 1st Baron Herbert of Cherbury - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
These men, like the latter Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and so on were reacting anomng other things to what they perceieved as the absurdities and contradictions in the doctrines of the churches of England and Rome. The only one to have openly reviled Christianity was Paine, for which he was thought of as an infidel.

Being both Christian and deist is one absurdity and contradiction, the so called Church of England itself is another absurdity and contradiction. The one holly catholic and apostolic Church is no absurdity and bears no contradiction.

Iniciado por Annuit Coeptis

And.. There's nothing extreme about the revolt of the colonies from England, it was the inevitable outcome. Parliament and the crown refused to properly listen to our list of grievances (the Quartering Act, the Stamp Act, the Sugar Act, and a host of other burdens that the citizens in the colonies had to deal with in addition to, say, being taxed to help fund England's imperialistic adventures). Hardly extreme when the monarch treats men and women who thought of themselves as a free folk like serfs (the freemen ideal goes back a long way in the Anglosaxon mindset).

Sorry, but I don't think what you exposed is enough to consider English-Americans as being oppressed by the British Crown. The Irish weren't allowed to own lands in their own country if they were catholic, that's oppression. The North American revolution was indeed extreme and an act of violence as all wars necessarily are.

When you say imperialistic adventures the US-Mexican war of 1846-1848 (that resulted in the USA taking away from Mexico 900,000 square miles of land) and the US-Spanish war of 1898 (that resulted in the USA taking away from Spain more than 7,000 islands in the pacific ocean and the caribbean sea, which comprised all together more than 160,000 square miles) come to my mind. If you're going to answer that their intention was to free the natives think first about the Indian wars and the US-Philippine war of 1899. It's hard to imagine bigger imperialistic adventures than those only two. As you know, a lot more followed during the 20th and 21th centuries.

Iniciado por Annuit Coeptis

Robespierre is a better example of a villianous revolutionary. Washington et al. merely wanted to kick George III, so to speak, out of the colonies. Robespierre had the king of France guillotined, if I recall, and then he and his gang terrorized the French until they all got sent to the chopping block.

We don't know what would have happened if the North American rebels had been able to reach London. They would have probably done with George III the same as Cromwell did with Charles I.

Iniciado por Annuit Coeptis

Political parties were held in low esteem by the Founders due to what you'd expect: dissension and party politics. They also held the very word democracy in low esteem. Washington had very strong opinions on the matter, best seen in his Farewell Address of 1797.
Founding Fathers: Political party affiliations
"Freedom above everything" is not what was intended, not should be seen as what was intended. To me "freedom" means, to quote Reagan from memory, "The ultimate in individual liberty that is consistent with law and order."

I didn't know that. That's interesting. But they were still pioneers of the masonic anti-catholic New World Order we're living in, as I said before.

Being both Christian and deist is one absurdity and contradiction, the so called Church of England itself is another absurdity and contradiction. The one holly catholic and apostolic Church is no absurdity and bears no contradiction.

I don't see anything contradictory about being both a Christian and a deist. I wasn't born and raised within the strictures of Catholicism so I don't have the awe or the veneration of the Holy See that you seem to possess.

Sorry, but I don't think what you exposed is enough to consider English-Americans as being oppressed by the British Crown. The Irish weren't allowed to own lands in their own country if they were catholic, that's oppression. The North American revolution was indeed extreme and an act of violence as all wars necessarily are.

Or perhaps the British crown found it easier to intimidate Irishmen closer to home than Englishmen in the colonies across the Atlantic?

When you say imperialistic adventures the US-Mexican war of 1846-1848 (that resulted in the USA taking away from Mexico 900,000 square miles of land) and the US-Spanish war of 1898 (that resulted in the USA taking away from Spain more than 7,000 islands in the pacific ocean and the caribbean sea, which comprised all together more than 160,000 square miles) come to my mind. If you're going to answer that their intention was to free the natives think first about the Indian wars and the US-Philippine war of 1899. It's hard to imagine bigger imperialistic adventures than those only two. As you know, a lot more followed during the 20th and 21th centuries.p

The war with Mexico resulted from the issue of Texian independence from Mexico; the southern states which later formed the Confederate States of America were the main instigators of this conflict because they wanted to bring Texas in as one of the slave-holding states.


The war with Spain resulted from meddling in the issue of Cuban independence, which had been an ongoing problem in the U.S. since at least the administration of President Grant. In 1871 there seems to have been a bit of a conspiracy in the U.S. Congress, masterminded by Congressmen from the southern states, to push the U.S. into supporting the Cuban rebels. Grant hastily put an end to this plot and carried on a diplomatic correspondence with the presiding Spanish monarch at the time through official channels.

We don't know what would have happened if the North American rebels had been able to reach London. They would have probably done with George III the same as Cromwell did with Charles I.

They never had any intention of invading the mother-country. Spain and France were the two countries that were considering an invasion of British soil as a part of the Bourbon Family Compact. As I've said the colonists simply wanted the redcoats out of North America.

I didn't know that. That's interesting. But they were still pioneers of the masonic anti-catholic New World Order we're living in, as I said before.

I'm sorry but what does this phrase actually mean?

Rodrigo,

Let me pull your coat for a moment. The initial topic of the thread was the Black Legend against Spain and Cathlocism.

If the U.S. was founded by masonic anti-Catholics, I still lack a proper understanding of the term, why is the U.S. the fourth largest Catholic nation in the world at the moment?

Study finds US Catholic parishes growing larger, more complex | National Catholic Reporter

The study said that the number of Catholic parishes -- which peaked in 1990 at 19,620 -- dropped by 1,359, or 7.1 percent, in the latest decade to almost the same number as in 1965. The U.S. Catholic population is currently about 77.7 million, about 75 percent higher than it was 40 years ago, when it was served by roughly the same number of parishes, the study said.

It projected that by 2050 the nation’s Catholic population could range from a low of 95.4 million to a high of 128 million.

America has about 30 million more Catholics in it than there are people in Spain itself, and these are Catholics from a variety of ethnic backgrounds: Hispanic, Irish, Italian, Syraic, Ukrainian, etc. There's also a wider diversity of Catholic parishes here than in other countries of the world (I can name at least two Latin Mass churches in my hometown alone; the rest are more conventional and prefer vernacular services) but the Catholic Church in the U.S. is in full communion with Rome. This is in a basic context altough, specifically, I don't know the ins and outs. There are Catholics here who support Sedevacantism and reject the investiture of Pope Benedict; many do not.

What're your thoughts?

Iniciado por Annuit Coeptis

I don't see anything contradictory about being both a Christian and a deist.

Well, according to my dictionary: Deism /ˈdeɪɪz(ə)m, ˈdiːɪ-/ ▶Noun. Belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. Does that really match Christian teachings?

Iniciado por Annuit Coeptis

The war with Mexico resulted from the issue of Texian independence from Mexico; the southern states which later formed the Confederate States of America were the main instigators of this conflict because they wanted to bring Texas in as one of the slave-holding states.

I don't care wether the instigators were southern US people or northern US people. Anglosaxon immigrants had been generously welcome in Texas (Mexico), a country that didn't belong to them, and they rose up against the legitimate owners of that region. Their fellow anglosaxon brothers of the U.S. could just have helped them secede from Mexico, but taking along also California and New Mexico sounded better.

Iniciado por Annuit Coeptis

The war with Spain resulted from meddling in the issue of Cuban independence, which had been an ongoing problem in the U.S. since at least the administration of President Grant. In 1871 there seems to have been a bit of a conspiracy in the U.S. Congress, masterminded by Congressmen from the southern states, to push the U.S. into supporting the Cuban rebels. Grant hastily put an end to this plot and carried on a diplomatic correspondence with the presiding Spanish monarch at the time through official channels.

What exactly was the problem in the U.S.? The US-Spanish war broke out 20 years after the war between Spain and the Cuban separatists was over anyway. Moreover, meddling in a foreign country's internal politics in order to obtain benefits and colonies is also imperialism. I hope you don't believe Spain sank the USS Maine, do you?

Iniciado por Annuit Coeptis

They never had any intention of invading the mother-country. Spain and France were the two countries that were considering an invasion of British soil as a part of the Bourbon Family Compact. As I've said the colonists simply wanted the redcoats out of North America.

I'm not saying they had, because it would have been impossible for them. But Cromwell was a predecessor of those same anti-royalist, anti-catholic, republican ideas and you know what he did.

Iniciado por Annuit Coeptis

If the U.S. was founded by masonic anti-Catholics, I still lack a proper understanding of the term, why is the U.S. the fourth largest Catholic nation in the world at the moment?

I think the English section of the forum lacks of more information about freemasonry and their "great contribution" to "human development". The fact that milions of catholics have been immigrating to the U.S. for work doesn't mean that the U.S. founding fathers weren't anticatholic or that catholics didn't use to be discriminated in the U.S.
Of course I think it's good that the catholic population is increasing there and I also think there's much more catholic activism there than here. But I also think it's hard to be a good north american patriot and a traditional catholic.

Iniciado por Rodrigo

Well, according to my dictionary: Deism /ˈdeɪɪz(ə)m, ˈdiːɪ-/ ▶Noun. Belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. Does that really match Christian teachings?

Not orthodox teachings.

I don't care wether the instigators were southern US people or northern US people. Anglosaxon immigrants had been generously welcome in Texas (Mexico), a country that didn't belong to them, and they rose up against the legitimate owners of that region. Their fellow anglosaxon brothers of the U.S. could just have helped them secede from Mexico, but taking along also California and New Mexico sounded better.

You ought to since most of the Anglo immigrants into Tejas et al. were southrons.

What exactly was the problem in the U.S.? The US-Spanish war broke out 20 years after the war between Spain and the Cuban separatists was over anyway. Moreover, meddling in a foreign country's internal politics in order to obtain benefits and colonies is also imperialism. I hope you don't believe Spain sank the USS Maine, do you?

From what I recall the official and unofficial conducted by by the States and Spain couldn' determine the proper reason as to why the Maine went under.

One of the popular conspiracy theories call it a false flag attack undertaken by the U.S. to provoke a war with Spain over Cuba. As I've said the Congressional Democrats (southrons) were looking for a long time to absorb Cuba and other Spanish possessions in the region.

I'm not saying they had, because it would have been impossible for them. But Cromwell was a predecessor of those same anti-royalist, anti-catholic, republican ideas and you know what he did.

Cromwell was a gunpowder tyrant who had the king executed, hardly a role-model.

But I also think it's hard to be a good north american patriot and a traditional catholic.

Yes, because truly patriotic Americans reject such antiquated (as I see them) societal notions as excessive religiosity, feudalism, monarchism, papism/clericalism, etc. and are able to balance a belief in God with secular and political ideals.

"Every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshiping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience," George Washington, Letter, United Baptist Chamber of Virginia May 1789.

I'm not speaking flippantly; I was born, baptised, and confirmed into Wesleyanism (Methodism) and was a fairly pious Protestant up till about age 20. I dabbled in Catholicism for a bit, in addition to other creeds, but ultimately rejected it all. Why? A number of reasons: quislings at the pulpit and in the pews, a growing awareness of comparative religion, a changing opinion of Jesus, a changing view of God, etc.

Now, what does this mean? In my case, not a great deal, but within a national context:

From the point of view of human history, the way in which the Thirteen States became independent is of far less importance than the fact that they did become independent. And with the establishment of their independence came a new sort of community into the world. It was like something coming out of an egg. It was a western European civilization that had broken free from the last traces of Empire and Christendom; it had not a vestige of monarchy left and no state religion. It had no dukes, princes, counts, nor any sort of title-bearers claiming to ascendancy or respect as a right. Even its unity was as yet a mere unity for defence and freedom. It was in these respects such a clean start in political organization as the world had not seen before. The absence of any binding religious tie is especially noteworthy. It had a number of forms of Christianity, its spirit was indubitably Christian; but as a state document of 1791 explicitly declared, "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." The new community had in fact gone right down to the bare and stripped fundamentals of human association, and it was building up a new sort of society and a new sort of state upon those foundations.

H.G. Wells, The Outline of History.

Or a portion thereof. Once I began to undertake a study of secular American law and the Constitution... this was one of the main reasons why my view of things began to change. You're right, a traditional Catholic wouldn't make a good American patriot (and a good American patriot isn't a flag-waving Southern Baptist evangelical). The loyalties of the traditional Catholic are at odds with the loyalties of a patriotic American: Christ and the saints, the Madonna, the Pope, etc. in once sense and the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. in the other. I'd be extremely hard to harmonize the two, as the Catholic accepts things such as papal infallibility, divine inspiration of holy writ, etc. and the American, while believing in God in some way or another (as a deist, Catholic/Christian, religious seeker, and so on), has a natural mistrust and skepticism of such things. No, I don't mean atheism, which is a particularly noxious creed (atheists are one of the more despised minorities here), but that America's views of God, etc. are inseparable from our political and secular values. Catholicism can exist in America of course, but it'd be an exhausting struggle to prove that Catholicism can exist here precisely due to the secular values that many traditional Catholics seem to abhor (i.e. what seems to be called liberalism; liberalism in the U.S. has a different meaning than it does in Europe). The phenomenal growth of Catholicism in the U.S. owes itself to religious toleration on the one hand and a unified, organized doctrinal body on the other (as compared to the literal hundreds and thousands of non-Catholic denominations that proliferate around the land, which is like a parade of fools imo; Catholicism is at least consistent in what it teaches).

Liberty, justice: you seem to think that the Founders had the same political orientation as today's multiculturalists when they say the same words; nothing could be further from the truth. These dogs are political imposters who, to quote a bit of Paine out of context, taken the axe of universal democracy to the roots of American republicanism.

Iniciado por Rodrigo

I think the English section of the forum lacks of more information about freemasonry and their "great contribution" to "human development". The fact that milions of catholics have been immigrating to the U.S. for work doesn't mean that the U.S. founding fathers weren't anticatholic or that catholics didn't use to be discriminated in the U.S.

Where would I look for more information on this group and its motivations? Is it the same as, say, the Bilderberger group or the so-called Illuminati? The trouble is this: Americans are obsessed with conspiracies (i.e. the 2012 Mayan prophecy face, polar shift conspiracy, and so forth); when I hear of masonry my mind automatically connects it to conspiracy theories.