What's your opinion of Father Charles Coughlin?

>>131346642
He's very religious.

>>131346642
Quick roundown for non-yanks

>>131347152
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXKeiTTN7Wc

>>131347152
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Union_for_Social_Justice_(organization)

>>131346642

Where did the priest touch him, and where as a priest did he touch the children?

>>131347308
Ten seconds of skimming, he sounds like a good guy.

>>131346642
Looks like a fag.
>priest
Definite day and scumbag.

>>131347152
> Catholic priest based in Midwest
> Had radio show in 30s
> Reached up to 30 million listeners a week
> Initial supporter of FDR and New Deal
> By 1934 withdraws support accusing FDR of being too close to bankers
> Establishes organization called National Union for Social Justice
> Calls for monetary reforms, the nationalization of major industries and railroads, and protection of the rights of labor
> Starts hinting at attacks on Jewish bankers
> Begins using radio program to issue antisemitic commentary, starts supporting the policies of Hitler, Mussolini and Emperor Hirohito
> American bishops and Vatican wanted him silenced
> After outbreak of WWII Roosevelt bans his radio program and his Social Justice news pamphlet

Listen for yourselves gents
https://archive.org/details/FatherCharlesE.Coughlin-24ChristianFrontRadioBroadcasts

>>131347676
So much to freedom of speech in America. He sounds preety based.

>>131349291
You hear a lot of blather about the 2nd Amendment, which is equally important, but in a different way. The 1st Amendment is truly the most important thing to ever happen to humanity. I really hope it manages to be codified in to law in Europe and the rest of the world. Unfortunately, it's being smothered these days, even here.

>>131349291
FDR was oddly totalitarian despite his image. He was the guy that broke tradition and ran for a third term after everyone before him understood the term limit without needing a law.

>>131349706
So why FDR did not tolerate father Coughlin 1 st Amendment rights?

>>131350398
FDR was the person that tried to pack the Supreme Court with 15 Judges instead of 9 so he could force a majority. Soft totalitarianism. He failed at that. We had a series of bad hombres in the early 20th century, and a huge Communist/socialist movement in the '20s and '30s. The thing that broke us of that was WWII, which put domestic politics aside and took us out of the Great Depression. Then we elected a popular conservative General from WWII (Eisenhower), and then had dedicated anti-communists in Congress like McCarthy, which kept them from fully asserting control.
Starting in the '60s, they began using backdoor methods to worm their way in to government, but it never managed to take a majority foothold in the national electorate. That's how we managed to have Nixon (a good President despite what the commies have tried to do to him), Reagan, and Trump. We've also managed to survive globalists like Kennedy and Clinton, as well as outright marx-types like Carter, Johnson, and Obama. Who knows what the future will bring? They still need a Constitutional Convention to abridge free speech, regardless of what the Supreme Court says. They can only interpret for now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

File: image.jpg (875KB, 2000x1100px) Image search: [Google]

875KB, 2000x1100px

>>131346642
he's burning in hell

>>131351484
https://archive.org/details/FatherCharlesE.Coughlin-24ChristianFrontRadioBroadcasts/Cec19381211JewsSupportCommunism.mp3#

You really think so?

File: huey-long-memorial-picture.jpg (519KB, 1428x1834px) Image search: [Google]

519KB, 1428x1834px

>>131347676
Forgot to mention he was a Huey Long supporter

>>131351203
There was a large communist movement in America back in the 30s? I have never could imagine that.

With all due respect I do not believe that the people in Us have a say to the government. It is more a plutocracy and nobody can confirm how acurate are the election results.

The 1st amendment sounds good but at the end it does not affect the elite and it is more for the entertaining of the plebs.

>>131346642
A very clever and articulate man who unlike many others saw the power of radio.

Wasnt much more than a curiosity without Huey Long though.

>>131352106
I totally understand where you are coming from. One thing to remember in the US is that Congress, specifically the House of Representatives is the most powerful branch of government. There's a guy in my office who used to be in the House, it's not a glamorous or difficult position to achieve. They can stop pretty much anything from making it to the point of legislation.
We were given the tools to prevent the Plutocracy from ever happening, and you should watch Eisenhower's farewell address as he warns us against this. He specifically mentioned the military-industrial complex:
https://youtu.be/CWiIYW_fBfY
Right now we are depending on the provisions of our founding documents that prevent us from being overtaken by the plutocracy. See popular vote vs electoral vote and the outcome last November. The protections our Founding Father's gave us are the only reason that 56% doesn't mean South Africa tier government. It will stay a free nation until 3/4 of the population can be cowed in to accepting a limit to liberty.
As for the communist party USA. See the Wiki article history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA#History and also see Ann Coulter's article about the Venona Papers http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-08-08.html

What tripe. Listen to archbishop Sheen instead.
It'll give you more joy and more orthodox Catholicism, without all the retarded political bullshit of Coughlin.

>>131353805
This is a politics board, not a religious board though.

>>131351203
Fairly accurate except for the part about WWII taking us out of the Great Depression. WWII prolonged the Great Depression for a decade longer than it should have lasted. Increase in taxation/war bonds (war effort) = less money in the pockets of producers and consumers = economy unable to grow. The result was, as with all wars, an increase in government debt, increase in weapons providers, and the detriment of all others. There was rationing in the US for the entirety of the war. If Europe hadn't been blown half to hell and had to rely on the US to rebuild it (positive cash flow to private hands) we would've been fucked. Instead we were able to outgrow it, at least until Johnson's Great Society programs which mortally wounded the economic giant that was once the US. We've been bleeding out for decades, the only question is when we'll finally crash and burn.

>>131353948
It was my impression that the socialist policies of FDR were not really doing much. The Hoover Dam and the Tennessee Valley project weren't going to take us out of the Depression. I always thought it was the ramp up of the industrial war-machine that finally kicked the economics of the '30s. I could be wrong, though. I'd really be interested to hear your take.
You are right about the financial drain Europe put on the US post war. What's really amazing to me is how prosperous we were despite the anchor of NATO and the cold war on our economy.

>>131354401
Remember also that technologies were getting more advanced in this era. Perhaps this increased productivity, which helped America climb out of the depression.

>>131354635
I'd think that the industrial revolution and assembly line made a bigger impact than anything prior to electronics. The technology of the '50s really wasn't that much more advanced than the '40s, just directed at civilians.

>>131353034
How can you be sure that Soros or let say a rich dude like me do not decide to bribe many representatives?

As for the electoral college. I might be wrong but it was established for different reasons than you think.

Look what the "democrats" did to you. They are turning you to Brasil 2.0 in terms of demography. The ebul totalitarian regime would never do something like this.

>>131355543
I'm sure a certain number of Representatives can be bought. It's not so easy to do when you have quite a bit of turnover every two years. They are all up for election every two years. As for our immigration policy, that was a Democrat congress with a Democrat president. Ted Kennedy sponsored the Immigration act of 1964. At the time the rest of the world was very far away, and I don't think people realized what it would do to the country demographically. I can guarantee you that if the internet had existed back then it never would have happened. They saw their opportunity and ran with it.
It's like the war in the Balkans. Can you imagine if /pol/ had been around back then and there was a Balkans General /bg/ every night? It would have changed a lot of things and prevented a lot of lies that have become mainstream.
Unlike the UK, we can still speak out against it. I've also been excited about the rumor of Kennedy retiring this year. That would give Conservatives a 6-3 majority in the Supreme Court. This is why we elected Trump. Ginsburg isn't going to make it another 3 years either. I'm going to predict that Trump leaves office with a 7-2 Conservative majority in the SCOTUS.

>>131353873
They are connected though. Just as a nation necessarily consists of both blood and soil, so too are a nation's culture and politics informed by it's metaphysical outlook (religion), as well as economics, and people. A nation cannot succeed if any of those three things are lacking.
Examples: Liberia, Rhodesia, Haiti lacked the proper people and failed.
The USSR lacked both religion and economics and failed.
The Nordic states and South American countries lack the proper economics and have/will fail.
The Middle East, especially oil-rich nations, should be success stories, yet they fail. They aren't terribly genetically different from Europeans (massive inbreeding aside), they are at least nominally capitalist, yet they still fail. Why? Because their religion does not allow for the necessary freedom, work ethic, or internalized morality for a society to thrive (Christianity is all about a personal relationship with God, knowing you are held to an impossible ideal and striving to attain it anyways. This allows for high-trust societies as it can be assumed that everyone will act morally. Islam can only function under threat of force: it's all about being in the in-group, subjugating the out-group, and conforming or else).
Similarly, China and India should be far more influential and powerful than they are, but they are not. Why? Because their culture's metaphysical assumptions do not reflect a respect for human life, dignity, honor, trust outside of their immediate families. That's why the Chinese try to fuck over every single person they do business with.

>>131356466
I agree with you, but a moderator or janitor probably wouldn't. A thread about a guy who does sermons on the radio would be deleted pretty quickly. This is about the pre-ww2 political nature of the US. It's about politics. Feel free to start a thread on >>>/b/ or a Christian board on the other chan.

>>131356466
How would you disprove your hypothesis?

>>131354401
You are right that FDR's socialist policies were not doing anything to lift us out of the depression, in fact they prolonged it. Taking productive people's money through government and using it to pay for jobs created out of nowhere always results in a deadweight loss for the economy. However it's a pervasive misconception that war is any different. The result is exactly the same, just with different uniforms: government taxes money from productive individuals in the free market, creates jobs out of nothing (soldiers for war) and pays them with taxes from the productive economy. Same equation, same deadweight loss. The only difference is that a war effort can be worth the economic loss, if it's a just war. The depression didn't truly end until the late 40s early 50s as a result, but that history has been whitewashed to comply with the Keynesian economic outlook, which was and remains the primary economic outlook of most first-world nations. Why? Because economic policy-creators are government employees. Keynesian economics is all about taxing and spending, rather than letting the free market work. If you're a person in government or one of the people with the levers of power, it's no wonder they choose to subscribe to a theory that says they should have more money and more control over where it goes.

>>131356643
I mean yeah this is a poor thread topic for sure, I just think religion has a place in political discussion.

>>131356718
What do you mean? As in what hypothesis specifically are you referring to?

>>131357512
That actually makes a lot of sense. Government money directed to dead projects was diverted to government factories making tanks that will never be used after the war. I mentioned a bit up the thread about our Communist party problem about that time period. It's interesting how this narrative started. You've given me a lot to think on. I don't know where I first picked up on the "war brought us out of recession" meme, but it doesn't really make all that much sense, does it?
>>131357731
It does, and don't think I disagree with you, but purely religious topics don't last long around here, mostly because they aren't very political for the most part. I enjoy them though! God Bless!

>>131357969
"ust as a nation necessarily consists of both blood and soil, so too are a nation's culture and politics informed by it's metaphysical outlook (religion), as well as economics, and people. A nation cannot succeed if any of those three things are lacking"

Catholic elite want to establish a one world ecumenical religion, merging the world's faiths by way of Hegelian tactics and social justice. The Kikes and Catholics are mutual allies against God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVrgsbw_Nmk&index=14&list=PL6BB648B46654467F
copy/post for complete playlist

>>131356271
Of course it would be easy. You would not bave to bribe every single representative. It would be enough to bribe a party leader or some other persons who have influence on candidate selection. I am sure this already happens by you it is not yet discovered (How many fondations ciuld there be besides the Clinton?)

Also you are talking about Democrats as if they were implantend and not elected by the people. Hey man. Your own elected politicians sold you. Stalin would never do this.
also GOP politicians like Reagan turned California to a blue state because he tolerated illegal immigration.

You are also implying that you have lieing media the whole time. isnt that cintradictory to very supposed democratic society. And what for balkan lies now lol? did not your free media explained the situation.

Burger. Your system do not impress anybody more.

>>131353873
Fair enough, but Sheen wasn't completely apolitical anyway. In fact, he focused almost all of his political rhetoric against Communism, which was and is the more venomous poison to ever come out of Germany. Sheen just tended to speak from a position of providence, and God's goodness, and cosmic justice, which is why he was the one the Church threw it's weight behind.

(This being the pre-Vatican II church of desperate cuckedness)

>>131360241
Shoot me a link, I'm interested to hear him speak.

>>131358196
Ah okay. One could point to any sort of society that flourished lacking any of those factors, though I suppose it was meant less as a hypothesis and more as a definition. My reasoning was essentially trying to answer "what is a society?" A society is comprised of its people, what they do, and what they think/believe (essentially, why they do what they do). Which can roughly be broken down into people, economics, and religion. Obviously there is a lot of crossover and some subjects would be equally valid in place of the ones I chose, e.g. philosophy of the masses would have been equally suitable in place of religion, but religion is essentially just that. The way I figure it, if those are the three fundamental components of a society, then all must be present and in harmony in order for a society to flourish. So one could propose a different definition of society, different categories within it, etc. in order to negate my hypothesis.

>>131359203
I didn't say anything to impress you, I just didn't know how much you knew about our system. There are times I wish we were parliamentary so the small voices had a chance to be heard.

>>131346642
A good man who was tricked into following a Jewish traitor religion. The Jew pope (((Pius XII))) helped to shut him down as a favor to his fellow Jews on wall street.

File: Occultists.jpg (60KB, 204x374px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 204x374px

>>131346642

>charles coughlin
>cc
>33

He's even making a masonic hand sign in the photo! The occultist run all the political and religious movements.

>>131353805
Sheen was technically a heretic, dumbass.

File: Coughlin.jpg (41KB, 245x280px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 245x280px

>>131347152
blatantly anti-jewish corporatism and anti-communism

Pretty based

>>131347580
You cant even name a jew you non-country faggot

>>131360241
>In fact, he focused almost all of his political rhetoric against Communism
Because he was a liberal heretic, not because he promoted good political ideas.

>>131360935
I see you were not able to adress my other points, but its ok.

A parliamentary system (presumebly you are talking about the european systems) would be a very bad idea. It creates more power hungry politicians who would be easier to bribe.

It is not without reason why the EU insisted for every country to adopt it in order to join her.

>>131360860
>One could point to any sort of society that flourished lacking any of those factors,

Religion wise

Song China
Mughal India
Abbasid Caliphate
Ancient Carthage
Ancient Egypt
The Hittite Empire
Japan

What about a society that had all those factors yet collapsed?

Like

- the East and West Roman Empires
- The Spanish Empire
- The Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth
-The Swedish Empire
-The Russian Empire

>>131361964
To add to this where I question the helpfulness of the analysis is that its simplistic and favors new nations. It doesnt seem to address the role played by technology, environmental circumstances and the malleability of religions

>>131347676
/pol/ will suck any retard's dick as long as they say even vaguely anti-semetic things.

>>131356466
>China and India should be far more influential and powerful than they are, but they are not. Why? Because their culture's metaphysical assumptions do not reflect a respect for human life, dignity, honor, trust outside of their immediate families.
You have no idea what you're taljing about and Western growth was and continues to be based on expansion, subjugation and exploitation of other people and their resources. Hell, you still support slavery to this day, you just outsource it to other countries.