Wednesday, 28 October 2009

Guarding The Guardian

This man is not only a purveyor of dated drivel, but, in his disparaging references to Pope John Paul II's Polishness, he is the authentic voice of the age-old Teutonic racism against the Slavs. Shame on anyone who gives him a platform.
Posted by at

20 comments:

  1. Achilles28 October 2009 at 14:35

    His article makes no reference whatsoever to Pope John Paul II's Polishness, disparaging or otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  2. David Lindsay28 October 2009 at 15:08

    But his published works certainly have in the past. He only gets away with it because he is Swiss. Well, in that case, he would be perfectly easy to ban from these shores.

    ReplyDelete
  3. JJGM28 October 2009 at 16:12

    Not quite sure why he should be banned from Britain, except that you dont like him.
    To those of us with a longer history of Catholicism the man is a Hero.
    And much loved and respected in Ireland. He spoke at Clonard (Redemptorist Monastery) in West Belfast some years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  4. David Lindsay28 October 2009 at 16:18

    No, not only is his theological system now a museum piece (if it were that alone, then he would be a mere irrelevance), but he used to go on and on about how John Paul II was an unlettered Polish peasant. He never quite said "untermensch", but he may as well have done. A deeply, deeply unpleasant man.

    ReplyDelete
  5. JJGM28 October 2009 at 16:32

    A very pleasant man actually.
    And youre absolutely right he DID NOT say "untermensch" at all. But you did. And as an imperialist its a theory that underpins your philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. David Lindsay28 October 2009 at 16:42

    The very reverse.

    The remaining serious Irish Nationalists are on their own on this one. Practically everyone else historically related to Britain cherishes the ties. Including most people in the Irish Republic these days, possibly always.

    In Zimbabwe, for example, most of them voted for a party openly funded by Britain, soon after the Catholic Archbishop of Bulawayo had called publicly for a British invasion. Just as the enemies of much the same cause in Fiji keep having to stage coups, so it took vote-rigging and organised violence to prevent the installation of that for which the Zimbabwean people had consciously voted, a British government in all but name.

    Or, to coin a phrase, a British government by proxy.

    People know when they were well-off. And they know when they are not.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Achilles28 October 2009 at 16:54

    Got any references on the "unlettered Polish peasant" stuff?

    ReplyDelete
  8. David Lindsay28 October 2009 at 16:56

    Oh, there are endless lines in his books about "but then came a Pope from Poland", "a Pole, from a culture that experienced Modernity only at second hand", and so on. We all know what an ethnic German means when he writes something like that.

    And Modernity, eh...?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Kolbe28 October 2009 at 17:01

    All you need do is look up JP2 in any of the indexes.

    ReplyDelete
  10. MDC28 October 2009 at 17:15

    You have a readership here in Zim. Yes you are right. We were better off before the UDI never mind under Thatcher's choice, Mugabe. Everyone knows the MDC is funded by Britain. That is in no way a secret. We voted for it on that understanding. Where is the government we voted for, without Mugabe? Mugabe's backer is China as always. A proxy Chinese government or a proxy British government, hardly a tough question is it?

    No surprise with Archbishop Ncube. I remember many years ago the Catholic missionaries telling us that the really Catholic side in Ireland was the pro-Treaty side that favoured ties to Britain. They went off to fight Communism in Spain then Nazism in the British Army during the War while the anti-British side became more and more Soviet influenced.

    ReplyDelete
  11. David Lindsay28 October 2009 at 17:32

    And more and more Soviet-funded, MDC. As you yourself might put it, "a proxy Soviet government or a proxy British government, hardly a tough question, is it?"

    The Blueshirt tradition to which you refer was, I suppose, on the fringes of European Fascism, at least early on. But it held the line against anti-Semitism when Mussolini tried, in a process boycotted by Hitler, to bring about unification. And the Blueshirts favoured Commonwealth membership, often going on, as you rightly say, to fight in the British Armed Forces during the War, when more people joined up from the Free State than from Northern Ireland.

    I don't see the Spanish Civil War as a fight in which we really had any dog, although it is worth noting that Franco was never a member of the Falange, never attended the whole of any of its conferences, and was loathed by real Fascists such as the Fuerza Nueva. There was nothing Nueva about him, nothing of "Modernity". So I don't really judge those who went from Ireland to fight against the creation of a Soviet puppet state in Spain, which, considering what alliances were in 1939, would have entered the War as a de facto member of the Axis, rather than staying out of it as Spain did under Franco.

    That tradition became subsumed into Fine Gael, and would that what has become that Eurofederalist, increasingly social-liberal party of global big business were rather more conscious of its roots.

    On the other side going back to the Irish Civil War, I have more than a suspicion that Dev was the Tsvangari of his day, his party actually funded by Britain along with Fine Gael and Labour, so that when Sinn Fein called all Dublin governments "British by proxy", it was telling the literal truth. But that - including Dev's hangings of the IRA - was clearly what people wanted. Well, a British government by proxy, or a Soviet or Libyan government by proxy?

    Now, can we get back on-topic, please.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous28 October 2009 at 17:47

    Do you really have a following in Zimbabwe?

    ReplyDelete
  13. David Lindsay28 October 2009 at 17:48

    So I have repeatedly been told, including on here from time to time.

    But seriously, back on-topic.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous28 October 2009 at 18:00

    Kueng is really very antisemitic, very condescending in his attitude to Judaism and which forms of it he considers acceptable, and hostile to Jews who freely choose to accept Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  15. David Lindsay28 October 2009 at 18:03

    Once again, he only gets away with it because his Swiss. Imagine if a German or an Austrian were publishing this material. But then, while Austria is another matter, no German academic would do so these days. Not even "wouldn't dare". Just wouldn't. Yet Kueng does all of this from a Chair at Tuebingen. A non-EU national, how has he never been dealt with? Because he is Swiss, I suppose.

    ReplyDelete
  16. McVitie28 October 2009 at 18:06

    I seem to remember that you inadvertantly caused a storm on the Zimbabwe blogs last year by making a reference to Mugabe at which certain of his heavies, who were monitoring this website, took offence.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Texcrom28 October 2009 at 18:07

    "a Pole, from a culture that experienced Modernity only at second hand"

    Is that a direct quote? Where's it from?

    ReplyDelete
  18. David Lindsay28 October 2009 at 18:18

    McVitie, oh yes, great fun. I don't know why I am of interest to them, but clearly I am. They are paranoid to the point of insanity, I suppose.

    Texcrom, it's from memory, but it's by him. Possibly from an article rather than book, but certainly by him. As Kolbe says, look up John Paul II in the indexes of Kueng's books. His attitude could not be clearer. And nor could its true character.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous28 October 2009 at 19:06

    Is Sinn Fein now being funded by Britain as the next stage in the process?

    ReplyDelete
  20. David Lindsay28 October 2009 at 19:10

    Undoubtedly.

    But, and I don't know why I'm bothering, back on-topic, please.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)