The medium is the message, and the message is progressivism

New wine in old bottles.

A couple of weeks ago, I attended the Roman Catholic church of one of my sons. He seemed quite satisfied that it was preaching Roman Catholicism, rather than progressivism.

The service was presided over by three people: A white male, a black male, with blackness much emphasized, and a woman. Which is to say, presided over by diversity and consensus.

I suppose that to the eye of faith, and to one sufficiently expert in Roman Catholicism, there were various indications that they were not presiding equally, that one was a priest, and the other two were not, or maybe the two males were priests, and the female was not. But such indicators were subtle.

Theoretically they were talking about the Eucharist, though the black man made a big deal out of the fact that his name was unpronounceable by white people. He seemed mighty proud of the fact.

But words don’t matter much unless congruent with deeds, and symbols. And the deeds and symbols were not the Eucharist, were diversity and consensus, rather than hierarchy and ancient ritual connecting the congregation to the apostles and to all co-religionists, living, dead, and not yet born.

I suppose that it was preaching Roman Catholicism – in words – but the words were incongruent.

Tags:

134 Responses to “The medium is the message, and the message is progressivism”

  1. Jack says:

    The Talmud proclaims Africans to be about half-human and half-chimp. It has plenty of other politically incorrect stuff, such as regarding the descendants of Japeth, traditionally considered to be Europeans, as in charge of beauty. Some sort of HBD/ethnic realism is certainly there. Most modern Jews disavow those parts. The problem is that Ashkenazi Jews refuse to apply HBD thinking to their inferior correligionists, who have more in common with the Palestinians than with the Ashkenazim. An insane race will reap an insane reward. Funny: in 1948 most of Israel was Ashkenazi and socialist, and triumphed indisputably time after time. Today Israel is still strong, mainly due to decades of Ashkenazim being in charge of everything, but slowly it weakens. Good thing Israel is 20%+ Arab Muslim, otherwise the Mizrahim would have revolted against Ashkenazi waycisssm long time ago.

    • k says:

      Jewamongyou’s blog has a lot of interesting Ashkenazi nationalist material

    • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

      >The Talmud proclaims Africans to be about half-human and half-chimp
      You’re gonna have to provide a source.

      • Jack says:

        Couldn’t find a Talmudic reference. However, Maimonides calls negroes “beneath the level of humans and above the level of apes” in Moreh Nevuchim, part 3, chapter 51. Which is close enough.

  2. […] went to mass and drew some lessons from the experience. I go to church for the sacraments. I wish I could go for reasons other than that. I’m […]

  3. Alan J. Perrick says:

    There are a lot of South American “bishops” for the way they, using guilt, smushed the genotypes together, into an indistinguishable blob. Thank goodness low church Protestant Christianity is setting up shop there; perhaps some of the genetic capital can be saved. Then again, chances are dim…

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      I mean to say that they’ll go to Hell for pushing “assimilation”- a code word for White Genocide!

      A.J.P.

    • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

      Latin America never developed the racial ideas that (Protestant) America and South Africa developed. Do you have a specific reason to think this was religious?

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        Of course, but are you actually interested in hearing a pro-Protestant position? Your mind seems made up.

        A.J.P.

        • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

          I am a Protestant, buddy.

          You seem to think that anti-Puritan sentiment is equivalent to pro-Catholic sentiment. That’s silly.

          The strongest resistance to Progressivism in the US came from Mormons and the South. Outside of Cajun country, the South is Protestant. And during the 1800s, was a bastion of the traditional Anglican church.

  4. Alan J. Perrick says:

    “Jim”,

    I don’t think the pope system of Christianity has really been a good one since the Middle Ages. It seems that the Renaissance was its last gasp with the colonisation of what became known as Latin America, but it was already far along in its unscriptural Magesterium. With the Marian doctrines being enforced in the 18 and 19 Hundreds, it was regressing farther away from Patriarchy until at this point, basically all of its priests are homosexual and fewer people are showing up for church than ever before. This might have been a good thing since the Bible is a very popular book throughout Western Civisation and so people could have transitioned away from pope-ism, but the papists are trying to bring down the rest of the white world with them.

    The Cathedral, everyone.

  5. B says:

    If your religion consists of stuff made up for marketing purposes like the Eucharist, it’s not surprising that people will keep making stuff up for marketing purposes. Same principle as the natural expansion of a limited franchise.

    • spandrell says:

      It only took 2000 years. But it was bound to happen!

      Kinda stretching it here, no?

      Did you marry again? Shouldn’t you?

      • B says:

        They collapsed the Roman Empire in a few centuries, then launched the Crusades (completely bonkers,) then had the Cathars, then the Hussites, then the Reformation and ensuing wars…it’s something crazy every couple of hundred years, when some crazy asshole get up on a chair and starts yelling and the mob goes, “yeah, you know, he’s got a point, get the pitchforks!” Next to Luther and Calvin, Jim’s gay black priest is less competent but also less insane.

        Remarrying soon, thanks for asking.

        • jim says:

          Denouncing the crusades reflects the typical Jewish suicidal and self destructive tendency.

          Jews, by and large, picked the wrong side in the crusades – the Muslims were not grateful, and the crusaders were pissed. Most Jews alive today are descended from those few Jews that picked the right side.

          The crusades were necessary, justified, and just, because the Muslims had conquered vast swathes of Christian territory, enslaved vast numbers of Christians (they were particularly keen on enslaving Christian women) and were coming within reach of Rome. Hence the Pope’s sudden rediscovery of the doctrine of Just War.

          And religious Jews, by and large, picked the wrong side in opposing Zionism. Still pick the wrong side in opposing universal conscription, despite the clear Talmudic mandate for the obligation of all Jews to defend the Jewish state.

          • B says:

            The Crusades happened long after the conquest of the area involved by Muslims. They involved the idiotic waste of hundreds of thousands of European lives (see: the destruction of hundreds of thousands by Arslan Kilij,) the fratricidal fighting of alliances of Christians and Muslims against other such alliances, the eventual unification of the Muslims and the destruction of the Crusaders, followed by the extension of the Muslim conquest to their greatest extent.
            That is what happens when you follow the craziest retard to get up on a soapbox and start hollering. Obviously, you blame the Jews of Jerusalem for being burned alive en masse by Crusaders for not throwing the gates open. The only flaw in your theory is that those Jews knew these Crusaders had massacred the Jews of the Rhine and had no reason to expect different treatment.

            • jim says:

              Your history is ignorant hate filled Islamic bunkum. Muslim victories shortly before the crusades gave Islam control of the mediteranean, shutting down Christian trade, raiding lands very close to Rome for slaves, and putting Rome on the front lines. The crusades pushed Islam back from the sea, back from Rome. The pope declared the crusades because he was in considerable danger of losing his head and seeing his people carried off into slavery. The crusades were declared as an immediate response to active Islamic conquest that was touching the shores of Italy.

              Islam had been steadily and rapidly expanding, and the crusades were declared because there was imminent danger that the Pope would have to get the hell out.

              The crusades were a response to ancient Islamic conquest, recent Islamic conquest, and the quite immediate threat of more Islamic conquest reaching Rome.

          • B says:

            >Muslim victories shortly before the crusades gave Islam control of the mediteranean, shutting down Christian trade, raiding lands very close to Rome for slaves, and putting Rome on the front lines.

            What are you babbling about?

            The lands very close to Rome were protected by the Byzantine Empire, which the Crusades undermined and robbed to the extent that the Byzantine Emperor found himself forced to make alliances with Muslims!

            >The crusades were declared as an immediate response to active Islamic conquest that was touching the shores of Italy.

            You are completely ignorant. Sicily was conquered by Muslims almost 200 years before the Crusades were launched, and reconquered by Normans from 1061 to 1072, with the last Muslim stronghold falling in 1091, 4 years before the Crusades were launched.

            • jim says:

              >Muslim victories shortly before the crusades gave Islam control of the mediteranean, shutting down Christian trade, raiding lands very close to Rome for slaves, and putting Rome on the front lines.

              What are you babbling about?

              Actual history, instead of hate filled ignorant fake PC history that demonizes Christianity and excuses Islam.

              From 1071 to the first crusade, the Muslims were occupying the formerly Christian Asia Minor and Antioch. The Byzantine Empire was reduced to Greece. This gave Islam dominance in the mediteranean, shutting down Christian trade, and exposing the shores of the mediteranean to Islamic slave raiders, and threatened Constantinople with imminent fall. Without the Crusades, Constantinople would have surely fallen in eleventh century as a result of the fall of Asia Minor.

              The Crusades were not only a plan to recover long lost Christian lands, but to save Constantinople from imminent and immediate collapse, and provide security for Christians on the European shore of the mediteranean.

              The lands very close to Rome were protected by the Byzantine Empire,

              You don’t know shit from beans. The Crusades were declared because the Byzantine empire was collapsing, incapable of defending itself, let alone Rome.

          • B says:

            >From 1071 to the first crusade, the Muslims were occupying the formerly Christian Asia Minor and Antioch.

            Antioch is in the top right-hand corner of the Mediterranean. How the Muslim occupation of it was more dangerous to the Christians around the Med than their former control of Sicily is a geopolitical mystery to me.

            >Without the Crusades, Constantinople would have surely fallen in eleventh century as a result of the fall of Asia Minor.

            The 11th century had four years left to run when the Crusades were launched. You have it confused with the 12th century.

            Regardless, even after the Crusaders conquered and sacked Constantinople in 1204, and the Byzantines had to reconquer it from them, the Byzantine Empire lasted almost 3 centuries. Why the Muslims, who were fractured into the several pieces of the former Seljuk Empire, the Danishments, the Artuqids, the Fatimids, the various Syrian kingdoms and who knows what else, would have been able to conquer the Byzantines had the Crusaders not shown up is a mystery to me.

            >The Crusades were not only a plan to recover long lost Christian lands, but to save Constantinople from imminent and immediate collapse, and provide security for Christians on the European shore of the mediteranean

            Well, that was mighty white of them. It is a slight mystery why they refused to return Antioch to the Byzantines, why they captured and sacked Constantinople, why Joscelin and Raymond betrayed the Byzantine Emperor during the Siege of Shaizar, why Bohemond of Taranto had spent the decade prior to the First Crusade attacking the Byzantines, taking Corfu and Dyrrhachium from them….

            • jim says:

              >Without the Crusades, Constantinople would have surely fallen in eleventh century as a result of the fall of Asia Minor.

              The 11th century had four years left to run when the Crusades were launched. You have it confused with the 12th century.

              Without the crusades, Constantinople would likely have fallen within a year or two, which is to say, fallen around 1095, 1096. The crusades came in the nick of time to save Constantinople. Islamic aggression at the time of the crusades was alarming, menacing, and terrifyingly successful. Over the past twenty five years Islam had been militarily expanding steadily and rapidly, and if not checked, was due to take Constantinople then and there, and Rome not long afterwards.

              It is a slight mystery why they refused to return Antioch to the Byzantines

              Christians were united by the imminent and immediate threat of Islamic conquest. As soon as the threat receded, suddenly rediscovered theological differences.

              The ultimate objective of the crusades was to win back land lost centuries ago, but the immediate objective was to win back land lost yesterday, and prevent Constantinople from falling tomorrow.

          • B says:

            >Without the crusades, Constantinople would likely have fallen within a year or two, which is to say, fallen around 1095, 1096.

            Nonsense.

            >The crusades came in the nick of time to save Constantinople.

            Nonsense.

            > Islamic aggression at the time of the crusades was alarming, menacing, and terrifyingly successful. Over the past twenty five years Islam had been militarily expanding steadily and rapidly, and if not checked, was due to take Constantinople then and there, and Rome not long afterwards.

            Pure gibberish. As I said, and as you refuse to acknowledge, in the 25 years preceding the Crusades, the Muslims had been pushed out of Sicily. Contrary to your bullshit about Rome being threatened, there were no Muslims anywhere near Rome. The Muslims of Anatolia, Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt were completely fragmented and fighting each other. The major threats to the Byzantine Empire in the years immediately preceding the Crusades were the Pechenegs and Cumans, as well as, of course, the Normans, whom the Byzantines had been fighting for 50 years. You are obviously ignorant of all this.

            >Christians were united by the imminent and immediate threat of Islamic conquest. As soon as the threat receded, suddenly rediscovered theological differences.

            There was no threat of Islamic conquest in 1096, neither of Constantinople, nor, as you claimed, of Rome. What actually happened was that the Byzantines convinced their enemies, the Normans and their Western cousins, to go to war against their other enemies, the Seljuks, in typical Byzantine fashion. The Normans double-crossed them.

            >The ultimate objective of the crusades was to win back land lost centuries ago, but the immediate objective was to win back land lost yesterday, and prevent Constantinople from falling tomorrow.

            The immediate objective for the Byzantines was to set the Normans and Turks against each other, and for the Normans to outflank the Byzantines. For the typical crusader, the objective was to get a chunk of land, since not being a firstborn son, he wasn’t eligible to inherit. The only people who believed that “ultimate objective” shit were the idiots like Peter the Hermit and his raggedy mobs, which ended up enslaved or dead.

            Of course, as a result of the Crusades, the Byzantines ended up weakened, the Muslims ended up unified, the Balkans ended up fragmented and easy pickings. Far from saving the Byzantine Empire, the Crusades led to its eventual demise.

            • jim says:

              Pure gibberish. As I said, and as you refuse to acknowledge, in the 25 years preceding the Crusades, the Muslims had been pushed out of Sicily. Contrary to your bullshit about Rome being threatened, there were no Muslims anywhere near Rome. The Muslims of Anatolia, Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt were completely fragmented and fighting each other.

              You are just obstinately pig ignorant about history. Your history is just plain lies written to glorify Islam and demonize Christianity.

              After the Battle of Manzikert , the writing was on the wall for the Byzantine empire. Muslims conquered all the lands of Byzantine empire south of the Mediteranean, expelling, subjugating, and enslaving the Christians. The crusades were declared in large part because Muslims had reached the walls of Constantinople, and it was therefore obvious that Constantinople would fall next. All that Constantinople had left was Greece.

              Between the Battle of Manzikert, and the first crusade, Muslims conquered all the formerly Christian lands in the Levant, North Africa and Asia Minor, till pretty much all that remained was Constantinople, and it obviously not long to fall.

              Twenty five years previously, Anatolia had been Christian. Islam was advancing, and had reached the gates of Constantinople. The crusades were a reaction to rapid Islamic expansion since the battle of Manzikert, and the threat of continuing rapid expansion. That is just simple historical fact.

              A short time before the crusades Asia Minor and vast areas of the Levant and North Africa had been Christian. At the time the crusades were declared they had ceased to be. As a result of the crusades, they became christian again. That is just a simple fact of history.

          • B says:

            > Between the Battle of Manzikert, and the first crusade, Muslims conquered all the formerly Christian lands in the Levant, North Africa and Asia Minor, till pretty much all that remained was Constantinople, and it obviously not long to fall.

            What formerly Christian lands did the Muslims conquer in North Africa between Manzikert and the Crusades? You’re talking out of your ass. You are also moving the goalposts-you started off talking about how Rome was threatened in 1096, and now are claiming that Constantinople had been about to fall.

            The Byzantine Empire survived for 200 years after the Crusaders left (actually, it had to reconquer Constantinople from them.) For about half that time, its strategic position was much worse than it had been in 1096, because it was facing a Muslim enemy which was much more cohesive than that of 1096, and which had a presence on both sides of the water, in Thrace and in Anatolia. Constantinople did not fall for a century after that, and when it did fall, it was no easy thing. But for some reason I’m supposed to believe that the Byzantine Empire of 1096, which had immense strategic depth through the Balkans and was facing a Seljuk empire split into 5 warring fractions, was about to fall? Come on.

            • jim says:

              What formerly Christian lands did the Muslims conquer in North Africa between Manzikert and the Crusades?

              Between Manzikert and the Crusades, Islam conquered pretty much everything south of the Mediterranean. Thus obviously Constantinople was about to fall, for Constantinople was reduced to possessing only Greece.

              People focus on the conquest of Anatolia, not because that was the only area lost, but because there was mass population replacement in Anatolia, while in the rest of what is now the middle east, only rather transitory change of rulers, which people on the ground probably did not much notice in the short run.

              At the same time, Muslims were raiding the Northern shores of the Mediterranean, shutting down Christian trade, and abducting Christian women, so Rome was obviously next.

              When people say “Anatolia” the don’t mean that Constantinople continued to possess anything. They mean that not only did Constantinople lose Anatolia, but that individual Christian farmers lost their lands, their freedom, and their lives in Anatolia.

              But obviously if Anatolia, then Greece and Italy next.

              My apologies for accidentally editing down your comment. This was not censorship, but hitting the wrong button.

              You make a big deal out of Islam losing parts of the North Mediterranean. But what happened there is that the turks killed off the empire that formerly held those areas. And then set to work reconquering the that empire. So the loss was unlikely to be permanent – it was just collateral damage in the transition between a decadent caliphate, and a dynamic caliphate.

            • jim says:

              the Byzantine Empire of 1096, which had immense strategic depth through the Balkans and was facing a Seljuk empire split into 5 warring fractions, was about to fall? Come on.

              The Byzantine empire had lost its strategic depth, being reduced to possession of Greece and Constantinople. It regained strategic depth as a direct result of the crusades.

          • B says:

            >Between Manzikert and the Crusades, Islam conquered pretty much everything south of the Mediterranean.

            South of the Mediterranean is North Africa.

            Muslims took North Africa three centuries before Manzikert.

            Your history sucks.

            >But obviously if Anatolia, then Greece and Italy next.

            Then Germany and Sweden, followed by Iceland and Greenland. The only thing that kept the Muslims out of the Yukon and the Amazon were the Crusades!

            The actual reality was that in the 30 years prior to the Crusades, the Seljuks had fractured into competing pieces, the Catholics took back Sicily, leaving the Muslims nowhere near Rome or Italy in general, and the main strategic threats to the Byzantines came from the Latin Empire, i.e., the Romans, attacking it in the West, and the Cumans and Pechenegs attacking it from the North. It’s very difficult to fight on two fronts, let alone three. Had the Christians of the West been so concerned about the Islamic threat, they would have not spent the 30 years prior to the Crusades attacking the main Christian bulwark against it.

            >But what happened there is that the turks killed off the empire that formerly held those areas.

            What are you talking about? What empire? The Byzantines had not held any land in Sicily since 965, 130 years before the Crusades.

            >And then set to work reconquering the that empire. So the loss was unlikely to be permanent – it was just collateral damage in the transition between a decadent caliphate, and a dynamic caliphate.

            You, as usual, have no idea what you’re talking about. The caliphate was nowhere near the Byzantines. It was a nominal institution in Baghdad. By the time of the Crusades, nobody owed it anything more than symbolic allegiance. When it regained power, it was still nowhere near the Byzantines, being separated from them by the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum-which it was fighting!

            The only thing that unified the Muslims to any extent was the Crusades, and of course, the systematic stabbing of the Byzantine Empire in the back by the Western Christians, culminating in the Fourth Crusade.

            >The Byzantine empire had lost its strategic depth, being reduced to possession of Greece and Constantinople. It regained strategic depth as a direct result of the crusades.

            Amazing logic. The Byzantine Empire of 1096, with Constantinople and the Balkans, had no strategic depth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Byzantiumforecrusades.jpg

            The Byzantine Empire of 1210, with no Constantinople and no Balkans, and a rump state in Western Anatolia, had strategic depth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Crusade#/media/File:LatinEmpire2.png

            Do you know how to read maps?

            • jim says:

              >The Byzantine empire had lost its strategic depth, being reduced to possession of Greece and Constantinople. It regained strategic depth as a direct result of the crusades.

              Amazing logic. The Byzantine Empire of 1096, with Constantinople and the Balkans, had no strategic depth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Byzantiumforecrusades.jpg

              Reading that map, in the context that mass population replacement was happening on the border adjacent to Constantinople, looks like Constantinople was about to fall any day.

          • B says:

            I have no idea what you’re talking about WRT population replacement. The vast majority of Turkey’s population today, 900+ years later, is genetically European. The Seljuks did not replace the population-they administered it.

            In any case, the two maps speak for themselves. You’d have to be smoking crack to look at them and conclude that the Byzantine Empire’s position IMPROVED as a result of the Crusades.

          • B says:

            >They were genetically European before they expelled and exterminated the Christian populations of the Middle East, ISIS style.

            Really? The Oghuz and Seljuk Turks, who came from Central Asia a couple of generations before, were genetically European? Amazing. Why is it that their Turkmen relatives who didn’t move West but stayed in Central Asia are not genetically European? Why is it that the majority of Turks today, even after the 20th century expulsions of Greeks and Armenians from Turkey, have European and Near Middle Eastern haplogroups: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_the_Turkish_people#Haplogroup_distributions_in_Turkish_people

            >And what the two maps say is that immediately before the first crusade, Christians in the middle east were reduced to Constantinople and Constantinople was about to fall any day or any hour

            This is not what they say. Constantinople is a massive city with great fortifications. Even without the Balkans, it survived 100 years. With the Balkans, it could have survived indefinitely.

            >and after the fourth Crusade, Christians controlled a good chunk of the middle east

            Beautiful move of the goalposts. “Christians” and “Byzantines” are different. You claim that the Crusades were launched to save the Byzantine Empire, then when I point out that the outcome of the Crusades was that the Byzantine Empire was dismembered and had Constantinople stolen from it along with the Balkans by the Crusaders, you claim that this was OK because there was a Latin Empire (which was weaker than the Byzantine Empire of 1096, territorially speaking, and less stable politically,) and a rump state Nicean Empire.

            • jim says:

              >And what the two maps say is that immediately before the first crusade, Christians in the middle east were reduced to Constantinople and Constantinople was about to fall any day or any hour

              This is not what they say. Constantinople is a massive city with great fortifications.

              If you have no hinterland, you cannot support a massive city.

        • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

          >They collapsed the Roman Empire in a few centuries, then launched the Crusades (completely bonkers,) then had the Cathars, then the Hussites, then the Reformation and ensuing wars
          Let’s take these one at a time.

          Christianity didn’t collapse the Roman Empire. That’s an Enlightenment-era claim, related to the idea that “Christianity caused the dark ages”. Rome was in decline long before Constantine, and the causes of it’s final collapse (low birth-rates, breakdown of the military hierarchy, german immigration) were not related to Christianity in any clear way.

          It’s likely that the collapse of paganism allowed Christianity to control Rome, and the collapse of paganism partially caused Rome’s military/political collapse. But this is not “Christianity caused the collapse”.

          >Crusades
          Totally reasonable wars, if poorly executed. The Pope was a sort of emperor, and emperors are entitled to fight off invaders. If the Crusades were successful, then Byzantium might not have collapsed.

          >Cathars
          A small percentage of Southern France, who were totally crushed. Jews have had their heretics, too. Muhammad, Paul and/or Jesus come to mind.

          >Hussites, Protestants
          And the Protestants are bad? They built the most advanced civilization known to man. Jews fled Europe and Islamic countries to live in Protestant America, and (American-controlled) Israel.

          >it’s something crazy every couple of hundred years, when some crazy asshole get up on a chair and starts yelling and the mob goes, “yeah, you know, he’s got a point, get the pitchforks!”
          What exactly is the complaint here? That Christian doctrine fluctuates? So has Jewish doctrine. Check with Reform Jews, or the Sadducees.

          Are you complaining that Christians kill people over religion? Christians have probably killed more people than Jews, but the primary reason for that, is that Christians have controlled the government. In the years between Pompey and Hitler, Jews fought very few religious wars, because they didn’t control the government.

          Prior to Pompey, Jews fought a lot of religious wars, and even killed each other in large numbers over religious disputes. You’ll notice the Torah actually requires the killing of apostate Jews, and several religious (or semi-religious) wars are recorded in the history books of the Old Testament.

          After the founding of Israel, Jews have been constantly involved in religious wars. With a religious group that splintered off from Judaism 1400 years ago.

        • spandrell says:

          Congrats.

          Nostalgia for the Roman Empire is something I didn’t expect from a Jew.
          The crusades were win/win. If they weren’t out there killing Arabs they would’ve been killing each other in France.

          • B says:

            I’m not nostalgic for the Romans. I’m pointing out that the internal craziness of Christianity had a big part in their downfall-see Prudentius.

        • B says:

          I provided you a clear map. In 1096, their hinterland ran for 500 km North, 800 km west and about 50 km east.

          Furthermore, Constantinople sat astride the Marmara Sea, controlling commerce between the Med and the Black Sea. Even without very much of a hinterland, they held out for 100 years against the Ottomans from the mid 14th century onwards.

          So to say that in 1096 the Byzantines, with a massive empire, in the middle of the Komnenian Restoration, were about to fall is ridiculous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komnenian_restoration

          • jim says:

            So to say that in 1096 the Byzantines, with a massive empire, in the middle of the Komnenian Restoration, were about to fall is ridiculous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komnenian_restoration

            The key strategy and tactic of the Komnenian restoration was to solicit the crusades. No crusades, no Komnenian restoration, no Komnenian restoration, Constantinople falls.

          • B says:

            That is foolish. The Komnenian Restoration had been well in progress before the Crusades. For instance, Komnenos had defeated the Pechenegs (who were more of a threat than the Seljuks) using the Cumans. The Byzantine strategy in the Crusades was to use the hostile Normans to defeat the hostile Seljuks.

            • jim says:

              Again, you are making up your own history to suit yourself. There is a reason why no has heard of the Pechenegs, and everyone has heard of the Seljuks.

    • jim says:

      Most of the Catholic stuff is a lot older than most of the Jewish stuff. Judaism has been changing with disturbing speed.

      Still waiting for any indication of pre twentieth century objections to transporting babies through boundaries, or any early indication of cleaning meat vessels separately from cheese vessels.

      My reading of the Talmud is that if the cook said “no cheese flavoring in this meat dish”, the rabbi believed the superior expertise of the cook.

      • B says:

        >My reading of the Talmud

        thank you, we’ll certainly take that into account

        >Still waiting for any indication of pre twentieth century objections to transporting babies through boundaries, or any early indication of cleaning meat vessels separately from cheese vessels.

        I gave you a dozen quotes from the Mishna, 2nd-3rd century CE, on the subject, which went right in one ear and out the other, and don’t really feel like wasting 3 days doing it again.

        • jim says:

          I gave you a dozen quotes from the Mishna, 2nd-3rd century CE, on the subject, which went right in one ear and out the other, and don’t really feel like wasting 3 days doing it again.

          You tortured the text. It was like the supreme court finding umbras in the constitution and the umbras have penumbras and the penumbras have emanations.

  6. […] history. The new man (and also). Odd comparisons. The medium is the message. Pan-nationalism (and ideological genetics). Restoring virtue ethics. Why I am not a […]

  7. […] history. The new man (and also). Odd comparisons. The medium is the message. Pan-nationalism (and ideological genetics). Restoring virtue ethics. Why I am not a […]

  8. bomag says:

    It is so quaint to look back and consider that many thought that a Catholic like JFK should not be president because he would put the Pope’s decrees above any secular ruling.

    Now the Pope is anxiously following every secular edict the progressives cast his way. He is completely owned, right down to the ball gag and gimp suit.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      “Bomag”,

      He did it when he started pushing for “Civil Rights”. He wanted to make sure that the Anglo-Saxon Protestants of the United States would not be able to exclude papists from the levers of power. The negro inclusion was practically a side effect.

      Best regards,

      A.J.P.

      • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

        This anti-Catholic rhetoric no long makes sense. The Pope may have had plans to control the US in the 1800s. Since Vatican II, he clearly hasn’t.

        Protestants won. The Pope endorsed religious liberty, mass in the common language, denied extra ecclesiam nulla sallus, and nearly every major doctrine that distinguishes Catholics from Protestants.

        Hell, all recent Popes have personally given communion to Protestants.

        The Pope may have an intense affection for the brown-skinned. Partly because he’s a progressive, and partly because he’s helping his tribe, who (in the USA) tend to be Latino.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          Protestants won? You would have a hard time explaining how that is when there are exactly zero Protestant Christians on the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet you will find six (2/3) papist “Catholics” there, along with three Talmudic Jews (the remaining one-third of the court). The U.S. is around half Protestant Christian per census.

          And, during the last Republican debate, widely publicised because of the Trump phenomenon, wasn’t there a situation in which a papist asked a papist about a papist? The Irish woman Kelly, asked Cuban man Rubio about the Irish “cardinal” Dolan at one point of the debate. And then the rest of Fox News looks like a who’s who of the Vatican invite list, more and more Vatican-Romans, a list that I’ve saved and which you may see here: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMKpQBBWwAElUWo.png

          On Mr Trump again, his campaign manager quit immediately after he backed off that gross Irish woman Kelly…And, no surprise another papist. Mister Roger Stone had even worked the J.F.K. campaign in his youth.

          We also see the Judeo-Papist alliance in the Comedy Central line-up that corrupts the brains of white America’s youth. The Colbert Report was a spin off of the Daily Show and they are both unfortunately top-rated shows.

          From Ellis Island to today, white ethnics have been a huge burden and with their insistence at being included in a traditionally Anglo nation it’s a recipe for disaster, equalism and other atrocities…Let’s sell people on an aristocracy that resembles the founding of the U.S., and join the other English speaking countries in co-operation and alliance. The Cathedral in other linguistic ethnicities can handle it their own way, or they can copy the format we are applying here. Anglican tradition allows services to be said in the vernacular, English isn’t required, by the way.

          But standing by while a pagan papist hierarchy sets itself up is not a solution for NRx. Latin America extended farther north means the end of the white genotype here, because the white elites cannot indefinitely surf the mass of brown bodies that they rule over. Ancient India and Egypt stand as testament to that truth. Stop White Genocide, throw out the traitors and aliens!

          A.J.P.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >there are exactly zero Protestant Christians on the U.S. Supreme Court
            There are nine Protestants on the US Supreme Court.

            Most historic cultures have had secular law, and religious law. The US pretends to only have secular law. But a lot of it’s “secular” law looks quite religious.

            >Yet you will find six (2/3) papist “Catholics” there
            Now, the Catholic church rejects the concept of religious liberty. Some Protestants endorse religious liberty. How many SCOTUS justices reject religious liberty?

            The Catholic church rejects the idea of divorce. Protestants sometimes permit divorce. How many SCOTUS justices permit divorce?

            The Catholic church rejects the idea that there is a natural right to usury (loaning money at interest). How many SCOTUS justices have adopted this legal principle?

            >along with three Talmudic Jews
            The Talmud is a legal book. How many of them derive their judicial interpretations from the Talmud?

            The members of the Supreme Court are Protestant. Or at least, their judicial interpretations are entirely Protestant. The only way in which they are “Catholic” is their attendance of Mass on Sunday morning. Which is not very consequential, if their religion doesn’t impact their judicial decisions.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            There are nine Protestants on the US Supreme Court.

            It seems you’ve broken down mentally. It’s time for me to call it a day. If you ever run into me on this blog again, you should know that I remember things about past discussions…Why not change your screenname again?

            Best regards,

            A.J.P.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            You didn’t respond to the content of the post, and just called me mentally unbalanced. A more articulate version of “ur a fag”.

            >Why not change your screenname again?
            I like being Richard Nixon’s Ghost.

  9. Zach says:

    I thought this post was beautiful in its lack of pretension. Subtle impressions, with not a lot of emphasis.

    Seems an honest portrait. Haven’t read a comment yet, but it will be interesting to see what minds will mine from the rubble of nothing in particular.

    (I’m still being required to enter a valid email address after trying to use the fake gmail one I’ve used for years)

    • jim says:

      I don’t know how to turn that off. I assume that it is my spam filter. Try using the entirely real email address jim@jim.com. All email sent to that address is silently discarded.

  10. vxxc2014 says:

    Find a Tridentine Latin Mass, the web will show you.

    It doesn’t matter how many churches in your zip code have the Tridentine mass, it matters that it’s said.

  11. viking says:

    Among other stupidity the church allowed the seminaries to be taken over by fags this drove out the already diminishing cohort of straight priests exacerbating the problem not only did this cause the molestation scandal [which BTW is a problem not of pedophilia but of fag priests hitting on young sometime quite young men oddly the straight priests seem not to hit on the young women}one of the solutions was to bring in African and south american priests which doubly served as PC PR. The thing is its to be expected Christianity is a decidedly leftist religion and a few reactionary historical moments wont change this fundamental truth. DENTX would do wello to rid itself of the delusion that we can pwn christianity and re purpose it.And I say this not as an anti christian atheist but as a lapsed catholic that has sentimental affection for the church of my youth.

  12. Mark Citadel says:

    In my time in Orthodoxy (and admittedly I have not been to too many churches), I have never encountered a black priests.

    • Napoleon Dynamite says:

      Dang! Lucky!

    • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

      I’m guessing you haven’t been to an Ethiopian Orthodox church.

      Ethnic churches have their benefits. Though you’re not supposed to like the fact that they’re ethnic. That’s phyletism or some such heresy.

      • Bruce says:

        He means Eastern Orthodoxy. The Ethiopian Church is non-chalcedonian and is not considered orthodox to the EO. Not the Church in other words.

        • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

          >is not considered orthodox to the EO
          Depends on which EO guy you’re talking to. Outside of the ROCOR, most of them are ecumenical, and consider the Ethiopians to be Orthodox.

  13. Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

    >I suppose that to the eye of faith, and to one sufficiently expert in Roman Catholicism
    I think someone called this a “dog whistle”. The dedicated Roman Catholics can hear it, but the outsider cannot. The average regular attendee can partially hear it.

  14. CuiPertinebit says:

    Well, I’ll just point out the obvious: what you saw wasn’t a Catholic service, but a Conciliar service. It certainly has replaced the Catholic Faith in formerly Catholic temples and institutions, and you are right to say that it is dangerous. My only point, is that whatever it is, it is not Catholic.

    Pope Leo XIII affirmed the infallible teaching of the Church from ancient times to the present: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium” (Satis Cognitum). Pius XII confirmed this in “Mystici Corporis,” where he said that heresy and apostasy (and schism) are such sins as “of their very nature” to sever one from the Church. These are just authoritative confirmations in our day; it is continually and ubiquitously taught in Catholic doctrine from the Bible to Pius XII.

    The Progressive victory was to commandeer the apparent institutions of Catholicism, and, availing itself of a specious Ecclesiastical authority, to throw the Catholic faithful into confusion. Perspicacious Catholics at the time called it “The French Revolution, now inside the Church.” Because authority (and the papacy) are so central to Catholicism, and especially on the heels of Vatican I and the dogmatic definition of Pastor Aeternus, an erroneous notion of unquestioning obedience to everything from the Vatican arose. But the Laws and doctrines of the Catholic Church are very clear about what to do, and what happens automatically, when heresy arises. Public heretics, even merely material heretics who err in good faith, lose membership in the Church automatically. Catholics are very confused on this topic, especially as it applies to the papacy, but the Church’s teaching is really very cut and dry on the topic.

    The Scriptures speak of the great apostasy near the end, when also there would be “a great delusion, such as will deceive, if possible, even the elect.” In my opinion, this sort of willing submission to a false church with the mere appearance of Catholic authority is a central part of this delusion. Even sister Lucia referred to the “diabolical disorientation” that would overwhelm the Church after 1960. The apparition at La Salette warned that “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of Antichrist.” Those who read the Third Secret of Fatima, warned of an apostasy that would start “at the top.” It is my belief that, until the Catholic faithful take the time to set aside their theological pre-conceptions in favour of always supporting whatever clown wears a white cassock and calls himself pope, and choose instead submit to the Magisterium’s clear teaching on the fact that public heretics have already, without declaratory sentence, been ejected from the Church – so that we can get about the business of solidifying an orthodox hierarchy, performing the consecration to Russia, etc. – there will be no recovery.

    I have no doubt that it will be set to rights, somehow. But I also think that God has passed a richly-deserved judgment upon Western Civilization, just as He did formerly upon the Jews who apostatized. St. Robert Bellarmine taught, in fact, that the end-times would be marked by this mass defection of the “gentile” Christians, who would show that perfidy, treachery, race-treason, etc., was not unique to Jewry. Indeed, as Glenfilthie says: when civil society breaks down into the inevitable race wars, whites will have the most to fear from other whites. I would say that sane whites should almost forget about all their other enemies, and focus only on the cancerous liberals, whether of apostate “Cucktianity” or elsewhere. History shows us that lesser peoples are rather easily subdued and ruled; the only real threat to peace and security, will be the traitors in our midst.

    • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

      >whatever it is, it is not Catholic
      Including women and blacks in ritual, is very “Catholic”. Though not very Christian (at least with Women). In American history, many Progressives originally identified themselves as Universalist Christians.

      Obviously, your use of the word “Catholic” does not equal their use of the word “Universalist”, but the concepts are similar in nature. To be a Universalist means that you believe that all humans, from every creed, color and sex, are saved. To be a Catholic means you believe that all humans, from every creed, color and sex, can be saved, and ought to be saved. You may contrast this with ethnic religions, racist religions, and religions that avoid converts. For an example of all three, try Judaism.

      To actually believe the ecumenical councils of the Roman Catholic church, will put you on a lonely path. Even the founder of the SSPX didn’t quite believe.

      Council of Florence – Bull of Union with the Copts:

      “[the Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives”

      Archbishop Lefebvre – an address given in Rennes, France in 1972

      “This does not mean that none among other religions may be saved. But none is saved by his erroneous and false religion. If men are saved in Protestantism, Buddhism or Islam, they are saved by the Catholic Church, by the grace of Our Lord, by the prayers of those in the Church, by the Blood of Our Lord as individuals, perhaps through the practice of their religion, perhaps because of what they understand in their religion, but not by their religion, since none can be saved by error.”

      • B says:

        >You may contrast this with ethnic religions, racist religions, and religions that avoid converts. For an example of all three, try Judaism.

        This is a phenomenally stupid statement.

        Judaism is not racist. There are Jews of all races.

        Judaism does not “avoid the convert.” To love the convert is a commandment in the Torah. There are many converts in our days.

        What Judaism does NOT do is to push itself down people’s necks, to go out there and force/convince people to convert.

        • Ron says:

          His statement wasn’t stupid, it was evil. It was a statement made in willful denial of the obvious truth. Which is that when someone joins our faith we are twice as obligated to show a convert love as we are to a born Jew. And not only that, but they and there descendents can rise to lead the entire nation.

          Rabbi Meir was the grandson of a famous Roman, rabbi Akiva was descended of Gentiles, Aquila, nephew of Hadrian literally wrote the book on the interpretation of the Torah we’ve used for nearly 1400 years, Shmaya and Avtalyon the sages who led the nation spiritually and temporally were both descended of converts, the list goes on.

        • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

          >Judaism is not racist.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham#Early_Judaism_and_Islam

          Blacks have been the slaves of the Mediterranean and Middle East for Millennia. If the idea that blacks have some inherent association with slavery is racist, than everybody, from Muhammad to the Pope to the Talmud is racist.

          Obviously, Judaism is not racist in the same way it is ethnic. Jewish ethnicity is a central part of the faith, racism is not.

          >There are Jews of all races.
          And there were black Christians in the antebellum American South. Your point?

          >Judaism does not “avoid the convert.”
          I am no expert in Judaism, but from what I have read, Jews deliberately discourage conversion. Isn’t there something in the conversion ritual about requesting conversion, and being denied 3 times?

          Also, you’ll notice the whole “Noahide Gentile” thing. Where gentiles are encourages to practice some parts of the Jewish faith, without fully entering it.

          You are acting as if “avoiding the convert” is a bad thing. It’s not. Especially in the modern era, lots of people float from religion to religion. This is undesirable. In it’s early days, Christianity actually made it quite difficult to convert. Catechumens had to spend years in the church before they could be baptized.

          >To love the convert is a commandment in the Torah.
          Sure. But that doesn’t mean you encourage conversion. A married couple can love their children, while using birth control to prevent having more children.

          >What Judaism does NOT do is to push itself down people’s necks, to go out there and force/convince people to convert.
          And for that we are grateful.

          @Ron
          >Which is that when someone joins our faith we are twice as obligated to show a convert love as we are to a born Jew
          Where did I deny this? Conversion to Judaism is far, far more difficult than conversion to modern Christianity/Islam. This difficulty is deliberate. Is that a controversial point?

          Historically, most religions have made conversion difficult. Any religion which considers itself “sacred” is probably not going to be easy to join.

          • B says:

            The Curse of Ham has nothing to do with race. For instance, the Canaanite Nations were Ham’s descendants, and the ones that survived in the land by making a deal to be woodcutters and water carriers, the Gibeonites were Hamites. But absolutely nothing is said in the Torah that suggests that they were black. Moses’ wife, Tzipporah, was a Kushi.

            >And there were black Christians in the antebellum American South. Your point?

            My point is that there is absolutely no distinction in Judaism between a black or Asian Jew and a European Jew. Unlike the South, where White Christians owned Black Christians in perpetuity, a Jew can have a Jewish servant for a strictly fixed amount of time and has massive obligations to that servant, and there is no difference made by skin color.

            >I am no expert in Judaism, but from what I have read, Jews deliberately discourage conversion. Isn’t there something in the conversion ritual about requesting conversion, and being denied 3 times?…Also, you’ll notice the whole “Noahide Gentile” thing. Where gentiles are encourages to practice some parts of the Jewish faith, without fully entering it.

            The point is that Judaism has a very extensive set of requirements for Jews and a pretty concise set for Gentiles. It is better that a Gentile be a good Gentile than convert and be a bad Jew. He must also understand that if he converts, he is exposing himself and his children to potential persecution to the extent of murder. In the meantime, there is nothing wrong with being a Gentile-that’s how G-d created him. So this way, if he really wants, he has the right to convert, but he has to understand what he is getting into.

            >A married couple can love their children, while using birth control to prevent having more children.

            According to Judaism, a Gentile couple can’t use birth control, and a Jewish couple generally should not.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >The Curse of Ham has nothing to do with race.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham#Early_Judaism_and_Islam

            >According to one legend preserved in the Babylonian Talmud, God cursed Ham because he broke a prohibition on sex aboard the ark and “was smitten in his skin”;[39] according to another, Noah cursed him because he castrated his father.[40] Although the Talmud refers only to Ham, the version brought in a midrash goes on further to say “Ham, that Cush came from him” in reference to the blackness,[41] that the curse did not apply to all of Ham but only to his eldest son Cush, Cush being a sub-Saharan African.

            >nothing is said in the Torah that suggests that they were black
            I didn’t say that. But the Talmud…

            >My point is that there is absolutely no distinction in Judaism between a black or Asian Jew and a European Jew.
            When you say “absolutely no distinction”, what do you mean? Obviously there is a distinction. They look different, if nothing else.

            Do you mean that there is no legal distinction? I don’t doubt that.

            Do you think that Obama would read the Talmud, and declare it “not racist”? Do you think Martin Luther King would have? Are you failing to realize that pretty much all White people are racist? And that Jews are generally White?

            >According to Judaism, a Gentile couple can’t use birth control, and a Jewish couple generally should not.
            I was not aware the rules were different for Gentiles and Jews. Where is this from?

          • B says:

            >that the curse did not apply to all of Ham but only to his eldest son Cush, Cush being a sub-Saharan African.

            There is no distinction made in halacha between black and white non-Jewish slaves, or Jewish ones for that matter. The Gibeonites, destined to be hewers of wood and carriers of water, were Canaanites.

            >>nothing is said in the Torah that suggests that they were black
            >I didn’t say that. But the Talmud…

            Doesn’t make a racial distinction that I know of. Obviously, people were aware that lots of slaves came from Subsaharan Africa. Later, lots of slaves came from the Slavs. So what?

            >Do you mean that there is no legal distinction? I don’t doubt that.

            Right. Just as there is no legal distinction between tall and short Jews, blue eyed or brown eyed. “But the LORD said unto Samuel: ‘Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have rejected him; for it is not as man seeth: for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.'”

            >Do you think that Obama would read the Talmud, and declare it “not racist”? Do you think Martin Luther King would have? Are you failing to realize that pretty much all White people are racist? And that Jews are generally White?

            Yes, sure, but I do not care what Obama or MLK think. The point is that we make a general distinction between Jew and non-Jew, and various distinctions between different kinds of non-Jews are secondary. Of course, every nation has its own distinct character, destiny, historical purpose, etc.

            >According to Judaism, a Gentile couple can’t use birth control, and a Jewish couple generally should not.
            I was not aware the rules were different for Gentiles and Jews. Where is this from?

          • B says:

            I don’t remember where I learned about different rules on sex and contraception. For sure there are different rules for abortion-a non-Jew is liable for the death penalty for it, while a Jew is forbidden to abort except to save the mother’s life (as is the non-Jew) but is not put to death if he does so.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >but I do not care what Obama or MLK think.
            The meaning of a word is how it’s used. If everybody refers to Pelicans as “Elephants”, and whenever someone hears the word “Elephant”, they think of the bird, than the word “Elephant” means the aquatic bird, not the African mammal.

            Obama and MLK define the word “racism”, because they rule the world. Judaism is racist. You can construct your own private definition of “racism”, and declare Judaism to be “non-racist”. But don’t make the mistake of thinking your definition trumps MLK’s definition.

            >no legal distinction between tall and short Jews
            Wasn’t there something about Dwarf priests in the Torah?

            • jim says:

              The meaning of a word is how it’s used. If everybody refers to Pelicans as “Elephants”, and whenever someone hears the word “Elephant”, they think of the bird, than the word “Elephant” means the aquatic bird, not the African mammal.

              Obama and MLK define the word “racism”, because they rule the world. Judaism is racist.

              Yep. And since the state religion of Israel is progressivism, not Judaism, Jews have a problem, which they seem reluctant to deal with.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >There is no distinction made in halacha between black and white non-Jewish slaves
            I wasn’t claiming that. I was claiming that the Talmud associated black skin, the curse of Ham, and slavery. Which is definitely racist, by any normal definition of the modern word “racist”.

            I am not claiming that Jewish law or legal interpretation uses any sort of racial test to determine it’s rulings.

          • B says:

            A priest with physical blemishes (dwarfism being one) can’t serve in the Temple. But this has nothing to do with race.

            Obama is here today and will be gone tomorrow. The idea of racism, that you can judge men primarily by their race (as opposed to their belonging to a particular people or religion) is a 19th century invention, and long predates Obama. To control people’s thinking, you must control the meaning of their words, and by allowing the Cathedral to control what words mean, you allow them to control your mind.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >Obama is here today and will be gone tomorrow.
            And he’ll be replaced with someone who believes very similar things. Different person, same beliefs.

            >A priest with physical blemishes (dwarfism being one) can’t serve in the Temple. But this has nothing to do with race.
            You said that Judaism doesn’t distinguish between short people and tall people. I brought up dwarfs.

            >The idea of racism, that you can judge men primarily by their race (as opposed to their belonging to a particular people or religion)
            I’m don’t think “judging men primarily by their race” is a clear concept. Judging them in what capacity? Criminal law? Suitability for employment? Suitability for socializing with your kids?

            Even in the antebellum American South, blacks were convicted of criminal charges for primarily non-racial reasons. The criminal justice system was certainly not equal, but it wasn’t THAT biased.

            >that you can judge men primarily by their race (as opposed to their belonging to a particular people or religion) is a 19th century invention

            That’s rather silly. Firstly, the racial ideas that dominated the American South are considerably older than 1800. Secondly, “race” didn’t really exist prior to modern travel. If you look at human genetics, there is a very large genetic difference between sub-saharan Africans, and Eurasians. The genetic difference between, say, Vietnamese and Swedish is small, compared to the genetic difference between sub-saharan African and Swedish.

            Prior to modern travel, very few subsaharan Africans lived outside of subsaharan Africa, and the ones that did, tended to get genetically mixed with the surrounding population in a few generations. In other words, the racial situation we saw in the antebellum American South is unique in human history.

            >To control people’s thinking, you must control the meaning of their words, and by allowing the Cathedral to control what words mean, you allow them to control your mind.
            Nope. Just the opposite.

            You do not control what the word “racism” means. So if you argue that “Judaism is not racist” in the way you just did, then your children (and people listening to you) will think that Judaism SHOULDN’T be racist.

            But you’re wrong. Judaism is racist, using any typical definition of the word “racism” today. And your children are likely to find this out – if nothing else, progressives will tell them. So, they will have learned from you, that Judaism SHOULDN’T be racist, and have (correctly) learned from the TV that Judaism IS racist.

            For example, a few years ago, the President of South Africa condemned “world apartheid”. He was referring to the wealth concentrated in White countries (including Israel), and the poverty concentrated in Black countries. The implied solutions to this, are large-scale Black immigration to White countries (including Israel), and foreign aid to Black countries.

            To combat the Progressive framework, the proper response to an accusation of “racism”, is to carefully take a pro-racist position. In this case, clarify that you don’t believe Jewish law should have a racial element, but reject any international obligation imposed on Israel or Jews.

            Also, it’s significant that anti-Muslim attitudes are (by most definitions) racist. This is of particular importance to Israel.

            • jim says:

              I have been telling B for a long time that progressives pown him, pown Judaism, and pown Israel. To win, Israel, Jews, and Judaism need memetic sovereignty.

              If you want to know whether we are ruled by Jews or progressives, look at Gaza.

          • peppermint says:

            » The idea of racism, that you can judge men primarily by their race (as opposed to their belonging to a particular people or religion) is a 19th century invention,

            the idea of the idea of racism, that you want niggers and mudslimes to run a train on your wife, first became a prominent, media-approved fetish in the 20th century

            the idea that a people can be of more than one race is also a 20th century invention; to come up with it, the idea of a people had to be brutally raped until unrecognizable

            inb4 ‘would you consider a half-jew half-nigger a jew or a nigger’ or something retarded like that

          • B says:

            >And he’ll be replaced with someone who believes very similar things. Different person, same beliefs.

            Eh, we survived the Romans, we’ll survive the system that produced Obama.

            >You said that Judaism doesn’t distinguish between short people and tall people. I brought up dwarfs.

            Yes, fine, Judaism distinguishes between really short priests and normal priests. What is the point?

            >I’m don’t think “judging men primarily by their race” is a clear concept. Judging them in what capacity? Criminal law? Suitability for employment? Suitability for socializing with your kids?

            In any capacity.

            >Firstly, the racial ideas that dominated the American South are considerably older than 1800.

            Eh, I don’t think that the American South was primarily racist. Blacks could be free men or slaves. And there was a relatively brief period where ONLY blacks could be slaves. Prior to that, there were plenty of white slaves. The crucial distinction in the American South was between freemen and slaves, not between races.

            >Secondly, “race” didn’t really exist prior to modern travel. If you look at human genetics, there is a very large genetic difference between sub-saharan Africans, and Eurasians. The genetic difference between, say, Vietnamese and Swedish is small, compared to the genetic difference between sub-saharan African and Swedish.

            Irrelevant. The worldview that distinguished primarily between Europeoids, Mongoloids, Negroes, Amerinds, rather than between nations or religions, is a product of the secularizing 19th century elites dealing with a world where sovereign G-d-appointed monarchs were no longer a linchpin of political structures. They also attempted to build a worldview which primarily focused on popular national identity, which had until then been secondary, but that seems to have collapsed with WW2, leaving the racially-focused worldview dominant.

            >Prior to modern travel, very few subsaharan Africans lived outside of subsaharan Africa, and the ones that did, tended to get genetically mixed with the surrounding population in a few generations.

            This is nonsense. Massive amounts of black slaves went to Muslim lands outside Subsaharan Africa, including the Middle East and South Asia. They formed distinct communities, some of which exist to this day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddi

            >You do not control what the word “racism” means. So if you argue that “Judaism is not racist” in the way you just did, then your children (and people listening to you) will think that Judaism SHOULDN’T be racist.

            My children will understand that the key distinction in Judaism is between Jew and non-Jew, which is the standard view of Torah Jews.

            >To combat the Progressive framework, the proper response to an accusation of “racism”, is to carefully take a pro-racist position. In this case, clarify that you don’t believe Jewish law should have a racial element, but reject any international obligation imposed on Israel or Jews.

            This is not a pro-racist position. It’s a Jewish position. And it’s the one that Torah Jews take and have taken.

            >Also, it’s significant that anti-Muslim attitudes are (by most definitions) racist. This is of particular importance to Israel.

            It is not only incorrect, as Muslims are not a race, but it’s irrelevant. The non-Jews will find any excuse to attack Israel until Israel starts consciously fulfilling its designated historical role. That the excuses today include accusations that we are racist does not mean that we need to dedicate any energy to rebutting those accusations.

            • jim says:

              Eh, we survived the Romans, we’ll survive the system that produced Obama

              Jews survived the Romans, and pretty much everyone, because their religious beliefs concerning hygiene were empirically accurate. Armies on the march were typically devastated by disease, and Mosaic law reads to me as if Moses (or the patriarchs from whom he claimed descent) had a pretty good idea how to prevent such devastation. With the nineteenth century rediscovery of germ theory, everyone started practicing sound hygiene. Because sound hygiene no longer differentiated Jews from gentiles, no longer a display of holiness, so since then Jewish law has been evolving away from genuine hygiene.

              Thus the miracle of past Jewish survival, is revealed as no longer a miracle, and not a predictor of future survival.

              Future high survival religions and ethnicities will have religious beliefs that ensure high fertility, rather than religious beliefs about food and food preparation. Observed high fertility ethnies have beliefs and practices about women that elicit severe Cathedral disapproval. The Cathedral then in various ways takes over the education of their female children, causing the “Demographic transition”.

          • B says:

            >Jews survived the Romans, and pretty much everyone, because their religious beliefs concerning hygiene were empirically accurate.

            Sorry, which religious beliefs were those? With quotations from the Torah. I believe the only one you’ll find is the commandment that an army at war must bury its feces.

            If you mean to tell me that this single commandment was the reason that we are around, unlike pretty much everyone else from that area, I call bullshit. You mean to tell me that nobody else figured out how to bury their poop?

            >Thus the miracle of past Jewish survival, is revealed as no longer a miracle, and not a predictor of future survival.

            Thank you, you’ve explained everything! It must be a burden to be so wise.

            >Future high survival religions and ethnicities will have religious beliefs that ensure high fertility, rather than religious beliefs about food and food preparation.

            I notice that my religious neighbors have 4-10 children, and the secular here have 2-4.

            • jim says:

              >Jews survived the Romans, and pretty much everyone, because their religious beliefs concerning hygiene were empirically accurate.

              Sorry, which religious beliefs were those? With quotations from the Torah. I believe the only one you’ll find is the commandment that an army at war must bury its feces.

              You don’t seem to know much about the Old Testament, just as you do not know much about the crusades. Everyone has to bury their feces, not just the army at war. Everyone has to wash their hands on exposure to uncleanliness or disease. You cannot eat animals that died of natural causes. Sick people get quarantined. Houses must be free from mildew. And so on and so forth.

          • B says:

            >Everyone has to bury their feces, not just the army at war.

            Quote, please.

            >Everyone has to wash their hands on exposure to uncleanliness or disease.

            Quote please, and keep in mind that ritual uncleanliness is not the same as uncleanliness in the secular sense-meaning, for instance, animal feces is not unclean.

            >You cannot eat animals that died of natural causes.

            So what? How much of a factor in the extinction of the ancient Greeks and Romans was eating animals that had died of natural causes?

            >Sick people get quarantined.

            No, not “sick people.” People who have a very specific sort of illness, “tzaraat” (usually translated as leprosy, but it was not leprosy.) There is no mention of quarantining anyone with any other sort of illness.

            >Houses must be free from mildew.

            Again, not mildew but “tzaraat.” The description of tzaraat as manifested by houses, clothes and other objects doesn’t fit any mildew I’ve ever seen. And when you got tzaraat in your house, you couldn’t just diagnose it, you needed a Cohen to do so. Do you need an expert to tell you you’ve got mildew? And if he did confirm that it was tzaraat, you would carry everything out of the house-not very conducive to quarantine.

            The Torah’s prescriptions for ritual cleanliness were completely irrelevant to the vast majority of illnesses that killed people in the preindustrial age.

            • jim says:

              As I said, you are reinterpreting the old testament contrary to its clear meaning to make it less like scientific hygiene – because if resembled scientific hygiene, no longer provides superior holiness.

              Mildew in the old testament sounds mighty like the mildew that affected my house due to poor seal in the shower compartment. Similarly, Leviticus 13, wash clothes and self after non leprosy skin diseases.

              Leviticus 11 requires one to wash oneself if exposed to vermin (in particular mice) and to wash vessels exposed to vermin. That must have saved a huge number of lives – probably more than anything except the requirement to bury poop.

              Leviticus 15 requires one to clean up after pus or similar secretions.

              The Torah’s prescriptions for ritual cleanliness were completely irrelevant to the vast majority of illnesses that killed people in the preindustrial age.

              Leviticus 11 (mice) and leviticus 15 (pus) would have prevented the vast majority of illnesses that killed people in the preindustrial age.

              Again, as usual, you are torturing the text to avoid the plain and clear meaning.

          • B says:

            >Mildew in the old testament sounds mighty like the mildew that affected my house due to poor seal in the shower compartment.

            Really? Because the “tzaraat” that appears on houses is described thusly: “it has greenish or reddish depressions that appear to be deeper than the surface of the wall.” You had reddish mildew that ate into the wall surface? I’ve seen all kinds of mildew in my life, but none like this. Interestingly, it says nothing about black mold, which is actually dangerous to one’s health.

            >Similarly, Leviticus 13, wash clothes and self after non leprosy skin diseases.

            The symptoms described in Leviticus 13 resemble no contagious skin disease in existence that I know of.

            >Leviticus 11 requires one to wash oneself if exposed to vermin (in particular mice) and to wash vessels exposed to vermin.

            Leviticus 11 specifically only talks about dead vermin-live ones do not contaminate. And vessels exposed to them are BROKEN, not washed. As usual, you can’t read.

            >That must have saved a huge number of lives – probably more than anything except the requirement to bury poop.

            The way that vermin kill you is either by transmission of plague via fleas, or the transmission of hantavirus and such through droppings. A miniscule number of people die from touching dead vermin. The Torah’s prescriptions do nothing to prevent hantavirus or plague infection.

            >Leviticus 15 requires one to clean up after pus or similar secretions.

            Leviticus 15 is specifically talking about gonorrhea and similar venereal disease, as can be seen from the context.

            >Leviticus 11 (mice) and leviticus 15 (pus) would have prevented the vast majority of illnesses that killed people in the preindustrial age.

            Your medical knowledge is as bad as your historical knowledge.

            Typically, what killed people were not epidemics but fecal contamination of drinking water, resulting in infant mortality through diarrhea and the occasional cholera outbreak. Burying one’s shit (which you have yet to provide a source that applies the commandment outside the war camp context, not that it matters) doesn’t prevent groundwater contamination.

            Here is a list of massive historical epidemics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics

            Tzaraat fits the symptoms of none of them, and is specifically described in the Torah as different from them in symptoms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzaraath#Symptoms_of_other_conditions

            The only disease that fits the description of tzaraat that we know of today is vitiligo, which is not a significant factor in human death rates throughout history.

            • jim says:

              Really? Because the “tzaraat” that appears on houses is described thusly: “it has greenish or reddish depressions that appear to be deeper than the surface of the wall.” You had reddish mildew that ate into the wall surface? I

              I have had greenish mildew that ate into the wall surface. That was wallpaper. Mildew also makes holes in whitewash. Obviously mildew is unlikely to eat into stone, but who knows how they surfaced interior walls in biblical times. It says clay, but if the clay was reinforced by an organic material, mildew could eat the reinforcement. If your surfacing material has an organic component or a lime component, mildew is likely to eat holes in it. Napoleon may have been killed by a mildew that ate his wallpaper.

              >Similarly, Leviticus 13, wash clothes and self after non leprosy skin diseases.

              The symptoms described in Leviticus 13 resemble no contagious skin disease in existence that I know of.

              That is because they are not symptoms of any one specific disease, but cover a diversity of ailments. Boils are one of the many diseases that fit the description. Any skin disease that results in scab formation or the emission of pus is going to fit the description

          • B says:

            >I have had greenish mildew that ate into the wall surface. That was wallpaper. Mildew also makes holes in whitewash.

            This is quite rare, and by the time things get to this point, you are likely to have been inhaling spores for quite some time. Most dangerous mildew is black, not red or green, and does not eat a hole in your wall.

            Needless to say, for the last 2000 years nobody has gotten tzaraat, either on themselves or in their houses (there are practically no cases brought in the Talmud, for instance,) so the anti-tzaraat prescriptions have nothing to do with our survival for the last 2000 years.

            >Napoleon may have been killed by a mildew that ate his wallpaper.

            Compared to the amount of people killed by cholera, smallpox, viral hemorrhagic fever, plague and all kinds of other stuff that the Torah’s prescriptions do not address at all, the amount of people killed by mildew throughout history has been miniscule.

            >That is because they are not symptoms of any one specific disease, but cover a diversity of ailments. Boils are one of the many diseases that fit the description. Any skin disease that results in scab formation or the emission of pus is going to fit the description.

            No, it won’t. You need to look at the description closely. And you need to look at what the Torah says are NOT symptoms of tzaraat, because they match the symptoms of plenty of bad diseases (like smallpox) which tzaraat doesn’t. Also notice that it takes a priest to diagnose tzaraat.

            Also notice that the Torah says tzaraat in houses only happens in the Land of Israel.

            This minimizes any medical benefit you would get from these measures. If you wanted to have tzaraat prescriptions protect people from actual diseases, you would allow anybody to diagnose it anywhere, and have a list of symptoms that are “including but not limited to.” Instead, the Torah says only priests can diagnose, the list of symptoms is exclusive (and there is a counterlist of symptoms which are NOT tzaraat,) and it only affects homes in the Land of Israel. So no protective effect from common severe diseases with dermatological symptoms, and no protective effect outside of the Land of Israel.

            • jim says:

              Compared to the amount of people killed by cholera, smallpox, viral hemorrhagic fever, plague and all kinds of other stuff that the Torah’s prescriptions do not address at all, the amount of people killed by mildew throughout history has been miniscule.

              Jews were relatively unaffected by the plague, presumably because of the rules against contamination by creeping things, and the quarantine rules.

              Burying your poop addresses cholera. Leviticus 13 addresses smallpox.

              That people who touched a dead or diseased animal or person – or even garments or secretions from a sick person – were to bathe and wash their clothes and avoid contact with others – that contaminated garments were to be washed or burned – addresses pretty much all of them.

              You are, as usual, torturing the text. In this case torturing the text to manufacture differences between religious hygiene and scientific hygiene, so that religious hygiene ceases to be scientific hygiene done imperfectly by bronze age shepherds and early iron age farmers, and becomes an arbitrary set of rules, that in fact Jews no longer follow while formally going through the motions.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >we survived the Romans
            Not really. If we looked at your ancestors c. 500 AD, a very small percentage of them would be Jewish. Genetically, the Jews haven’t really survived.

            Religiously, the Jewish religion has transformed itself in a lot of ways. It’s certainly not identical to how it was c. 500 AD. And I’ll remind you that the Zoroastrian and Christian religions survived the Romans, too.

            >This is nonsense
            Read the wikipedia article you cited

            >Shah et al. (2011) observed that Siddis in Gujarat derive 66.90%–70.50% of their ancestry from Bantu forebears, while the Siddis in Karnataka possess 64.80%–74.40% such Southeast African ancestry. The remaining autosomal DNA components in the studied Siddi were mainly associated with local South Asian populations

            As I said
            >”the ones that did, tended to get genetically mixed with the surrounding population in a few generations”

            And as a percentage of the world population, these pre-Columbian African-derived groups are relatively small.

            >The worldview that distinguished primarily between Europeoids, Mongoloids, Negroes, Amerinds, rather than between nations or religions
            Firstly, I am not specifically advocating that worldview. Secondly, I am not sure how closely that worldview is related to the racial ideas that dominated American society. What you’re describing seems to be a set of academic ideas, not the organic views on ethnicity/race that developed in various regions of the US.

            >This is not a pro-racist position. It’s a Jewish position.
            It’s both. Remember, Judaism is racist. To be pro-Judaism, is to be pro-racist, unless you significantly modify Judaism. For example, if you wish to end “global apartheid”, you must donate a tenth of Israel’s GDP to development in the Congo, and let any African who wishes, immigrate to Israel.

            And you should note the definition of the word “apartheid”. It means “the state of being apart”. You, a White Jew, living mostly among White Jews, are living “apart” from the wonderful diversity in Africa. This state of being “apart”, permits you to enjoy much greater wealth than if you were living with the African diversity.

            You may cite a religious reasons for that “apartheid” policy. But that just makes your religion “pro-apartheid”. Perhaps not intentionally, but it’s still “pro-apartheid”.

            >It is not only incorrect, as Muslims are not a race
            The root of the word “racist” is significant. But a word is not entirely defined by it’s root. It’s primarily defined by how it’s used. And in the common language, hating Muslims is (usually) racist. There is enough variation in how the word “racist” is used, that it isn’t always considered racist.

            Muslims are closely associated with certain ethnic groups. And a person who hates Pakistanis will often say he hates Muslims. Sometimes to avoid being explicitly racist. Also, it’s rather difficult to hate Muslims, and like Pakistanis.

            >That the excuses today include accusations that we are racist does not mean that we need to dedicate any energy to rebutting those accusations
            You don’t need to persuade me, because my opinion on Israel doesn’t matter much. But you need everybody in Israel to believe in Israel, especially those with influence over the government. And if they believe Judaism is racist (which it is) and that being racist is bad (which you are not explicitly disagreeing with), you guys are fucked.

            @Jim
            >I notice that my religious neighbors have 4-10 children, and the secular here have 2-4.
            How many kids do you have, Jim? Are we supposed to go by your rhetoric or your actions?

            • jim says:

              You don’t need to persuade me, because my opinion on Israel doesn’t matter much. But you need everybody in Israel to believe in Israel, especially those with influence over the government. And if they believe Judaism is racist (which it is) and that being racist is bad (which you are not explicitly disagreeing with), you guys are fucked

              Reiterating my argument with B about Israel. The state religion of Israel is progressivism. Progressivism requires Israelis to commit suicide. Hamas and the Palestinian Authority are suicide on the installment plan. For Israel to survive, needs a state religion that endorses its right to survive. Exile Judaism is not really suitable, for the reasons that the Nazis point out. It tends to be inherently subversive of its host society. Needs significant changes to return to being a state religion. (The Nazis incorrectly assume that the Jews are insincere. Unfortunately for the Jews, they are sincere, so Judaism remains inherently subversive of its host society, even when that society is Israel. As for example, the religious demand for exemption from conscription. Not all religious Jews are subversive of Israel. B certainly is not. But that is the way the wind blows. The Jews have returned from exile. Judaism has not returned from exile, and it needs to do so.)

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >Exile Judaism is not really suitable, for the reasons that the Nazis point out.
            The Nazi understanding of “Jewish subversion” bears little resemblance to any actual Jewish subversion.

            • jim says:

              True. But the main error in their understanding is that they fail to see that the Jews subvert themselves.

    • B says:

      >But I also think that God has passed a richly-deserved judgment upon Western Civilization, just as He did formerly upon the Jews who apostatized.

      Apostasized from what, your New and Improved Judaism?

      He brought us back to our Land, as He promised. And He has fought our battles for us. And even though we do not live up to His expectations, we are trying and He is helping us.

      You, well, good luck with your program, spread the Good News to those Syrian and Somalian refugees-are they not your brothers in Jesus?

      • jim says:

        Judaism has changed radically in the past few thousand years, and changed substantially within my lifetime. Talmudic Judaism is a substantially new Judaism starting AD 200-400

        The outward form of a religion is intended to be a sign and container for the inward nature. Thus one Jew sees another keep the sabbath, knows he will not be cheated by the Sabbath keeping Jew. Jews, in obsessing about the outward form (double dishwashers, babies cannot be transported through boundaries) have forgotten the inward substance. No longer do Jews have an advantage in the diamond trade, etc.

        • B says:

          blablabla

          “I read a quote from the Shulchan Aruch out of context online, now I’m an expert on Judaism. SA didn’t have double dishwashers!”

          good luck with your gay black priest, or Odin worship or whatever it is this week

        • Ron says:

          There are definitely qualities that have been lost in the exile, such as our extensive martial traditions which we see hints of throughout our literature. Also the dictates of our circumstances required us to create a culture that would seem odd to say a Jew coming straight from Yemen.

          But in essence, I don’t think you are correct.

          • jim says:

            Judaism changed a lot when the Jewish nation switched from anarchic tribal theocracy to monarchy, and it changed a great deal more when Judaism became a religion of exile, rather than the religion of a nation state.

            If Israel is to survive, Judaism must once again become a nation state religion. Currently Israels state religion is progressivism, and progressivism requires suicide. The Palestinian Authority and the withdrawal from Gaza are suicide on the installment plan. The change from a nation state religion to a religion of exile was radical change, and change back to a nation state religion will also be radical change.

            Anti semites are fond of saying that Judaism is hostile to its host state and host culture, parasitic upon them, and tends to corrupt them. There is much truth in that. What they don’t see is that the same is true when the host nation is Israel. Judaism remains a religion of exile, even though exile has ended. Hence the reluctance to reach out and take back the temple. Until Jews take back the temple, will not have the will to take back Gaza. Jews must return from exile spiritually, now that they have returned from exile physically.

        • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

          >Talmudic Judaism is a substantially new Judaism starting AD 200-400
          As somebody who knows Christian history, and the surrounding bits of Jewish history, the Pharisees practiced pretty much the same religion as the Talmud, with some obvious changes (i.e. not having the Sanhedrin around anymore).

          Historically, the largest changes in Judaism occurred 600-200 BC. For example, some of the Psalms are derived from Zoroastrian poetry. Of course, determining what Judaism looked like c. 800 BC is very difficult, because the period is not well-documented.

  15. glenfilthie says:

    The race war, when it comes, will see whites dangerously undermined by white traitors that havej been indoctrinated in such crucibles

  16. Wyrd says:

    Is there such a thing a traditional Catholicism if a negro can stand before a congregation and proclaim, “yo! I’m blickity-black-black-and-I’m-blacker-than-black”?

    • Bruce says:

      Yes. You won’t find it at the parish that’s closest to you. You have to seek it out. The Tridentine mass is best. You can also find traditional Catholicism in Eastern rite churches and the Anglican Ordinariate.

      • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

        I live in a city with around 50 Catholic churches. Only 1 uses the Tridentine Latin Mass. There are 2 Orthodox churches. Both use the liturgy of St John Chrysostom, in a mixture of English and Greek/Arabic.

        It must suck to be Catholic these days.

        • Bruce says:

          Unfortunately, many traditionalists have to drive far.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          The area where I live has at least three Continuing Anglican Churches-Apostolic, English, and liturgical. Try looking for one where you are to get even more on board with what this blog is about!

          Best regards,

          A.J.P.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      Not if you equate Catholicism with being in good standing with the Vatican.

      A.J.P.

      • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

        Even the Vatican doesn’t totally equal those two. There are a number of Catholic saints who resisted heretical and badly behaving popes.

  17. spandrell says:

    At this rate your grandchildren will be card carrying progressives.

  18. Dan Kurt says:

    Jim,

    Educate yourself and then your son on the subject of traditional Catholicism. Read the literature by the Society of St. Pius X: , http://sspx.org/

    No, the “service” you and your son attended was not Catholic but that of the Modernist heresy.

    Dan Kurt

    p.s. I am not a practicing Catholic but was raised Catholic.

  19. A pint thereof says:

    The Church has never claimed not to have bad priests.

    Indeed, it is said:

    “The road to Hell is paved with the bones of priests and monks, and the skulls of bishops are the lamp posts that light the path.”

    Personal sanctity is a particularly puritan trait.

    • jim says:

      I did not suggest these particular priests were bad. I said that having diversity and consensus on stage, instead of hierarchy, doctrine, and ritual on stage, projected a bad message regardless of the personal merits of the priests, and regardless of the words that they were ostensibly preaching.

      • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

        >I did not suggest these particular priests were bad.
        If they were good priests, they would not be performing the ritual that way. Having a woman take the role of a pastor/priest is wrong, and condemned by St. Paul.

        Do you think that church service would have gotten the approval from a Pope prior to 1914?

        The Catholic church is suffering from a lot of bad priests, and a lot of bad Bishops, and a bad Pope. Has had this problem for the past 50 years.

        • peppermint says:

          …and is unlikely to stop having that problem.

          The biggest problem the White race has today is not the mistaken view that genus Homo is radically different from the other races of animals, but what follows from it, White children being taught to channel their natural desires in unnatural ways. The Church is and has always existed to channel natural desires in unnatural ways. It is evil, as Rabbi Yeshua bar Yahweh once said, those who would teach Christianity to children, it would be better that a millstone were tied around their necks and they were flung into the sea.

          The biggest reason there wasn’t a racist revival in the ’70s and ’80s and ’90s was Christianity, and if Christianity stays, the White race on this continent and on our original continent is finished.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      Anti-Puritan means anti-white American.

      Get thee hence, papist.

      • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

        The only major military opposition to progressivism in government came from the Confederate states, and the Mormons. Do you think Robert E Lee was anti-White? Jefferson Davis? R L Dabney? Brigham Young? Joseph Smith?

        BTW, most Anglicans would be anti-Puritan, if they actually believed the 39 articles.

        • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

          Also, there has been no Catholic military opposition to Progressivism in the USA. During the war between the states, Catholics largely fought with the Puritans, and are very proud of that fact.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            All of the anti-Puritan argumentation is a mere smokescreen for the papist takeover of white North America. White Genocide continues apace, and all but the most apolitical see that it’s directly correlated with the growth of papist influence.

            Fools want to make Neo-Reaction entirely about Theonomy, R.N.G….Then people like myself kick them in the pants and remind them not to take their eye off the racial ball…of Ethno-Nationalism.

            A.J.P.

            • jim says:

              Progressivism is a puritan descended religion: puritanism (holier than thou) -> evangelicalism (holier than jesus) -> unitarianism (abolish jesus) -> militant atheism (holier than god)

              Roman Catholicism does not have influence. Rather it is being assimilated to a puppet directed by progressives.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Why is so hard to understand that what’s called Progressivism is a Republicanist descended political system? It’s as much an issue of Ethno-Nationalism and Techno-Commercialism as it is of Theonomy.

            I believe the answer is that because religion is in general a big target for non-believers, who feel smart that they can discuss a subject without sentimental, emotional or philosophical attachment. One religious critique or assertion makes conversation for days as the less astute take the critic seriously.

            A.J.P.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >papist takeover of white North America
            AHAHAHAHA

            That’s stupid. The Pope may have had plans to control the US in the 1800s. But he certainly doesn’t now. In the 1900s, the Pope lost control of most of Europe.

            >the racial ball…of Ethno-Nationalism
            You think religion and race are separate issues? That’s an idea imported from Catholicism/Progressivism. Except for Islam and Christianity, all religions are ethnic religions. Zoroastrians and Hindus don’t even allow people from other ethnic groups to convert.

            Go look up the history of the “curse of Ham”. You’ll notice that most Christians believed in it, including the Catholic/Orthodox church fathers.

            >puritanism (holier than thou) -> evangelicalism (holier than jesus) -> unitarianism (abolish jesus) -> militant atheism (holier than god)
            This isn’t very accurate. If you look at some group of uber-leftists, you won’t find many unitarians or militant atheists.

            Religions are like languages. Their rituals, laws, culture, etc have certain meaning, and those meanings shift over time. The uber-leftists tend to speak several languages. That is, they can express their leftism in Roman Catholicism, Evangelical Protestantism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, et cetera. Often, this get’s them categorized as “multi-cultural”, or “cultural relativists”. Although you’ll notice that they aren’t “cultural relativists” when it comes to Saudi Arabia’s treatment of women.

          • k says:

            Militant atheism fell out of fashion with progressives pretty recently. Consider how Dawkins is received now (adding another layer of irony to Moldbug’s essay)

    • I am so tired of this excuse.

      “Christianity is so great, and should be taken seriously as a force for good!”

      “Why does it seem so much that your church is run by Satan? Why are all your churches run by Satan?”

      “Oh we don’t claim to be perfect, but mumble mumble mumble something about 2000 years of history”

      “Ok whatever, as far as I can tell, y’all are working for the Adversary and have not figured it out yet. Call me when you do.”

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        Even though papists aren’t Christian, ensconced as they are in deleterious pagan doctrines, this is still a good argument because it tires you out. It is an anti-“Humanist” argument, because with this thing known as Humanism all human life and doings are supposed to be good…for the simple fact that they are human and doings of man!

        Saying that they acknowledge their sinful natures is jarring and uncomfortable for “Humanists” because it doesn’t play the game, it argues about the rules.

        Saint John Chrysostom was practically of the primitive church, though, and seeing a papist invoke him or his teachings is quite near blasphemy.

        A.J.P.

        • A Pint Thereof says:

          Prior to the Protestant revolutions, the Church kept its enemies well at bay. Spain fought the Islamic infidel with the tools of war, and knew that stability could never be achieved with Jews resident within the city walls. King Edward expelled the Hebrews from English shores in 1290, only for Cromwell to let them back in during the late 1600s. None of this is news to anyone here, but still needs reiterating.

          What happened after 1600 is a matter of historic record. Further revolutions (all contrary to the spirit of tradition and God) took place in Britain, France, America, Russia etc.

          The theorists that undermined Western civilisation didn’t come from the Frankfurt school. They came from Geneva, Basel and Worms. I don’t see how this isn’t so blatantly obvious.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Nice job stayin’ on the attack. Nevertheless, the papists are not Christians and woe be to anyone trying to save his soul through the Vatican institution.

            A.J.P.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >Prior to the Protestant revolutions, the Church kept its enemies well at bay.
            Nope.

            Most of the territory of Islam was conquered from Christians. North Africa was Latin Catholic. Egypt was Coptic Orthodox. Arabia had a large Nestorian population. Palestine, Asia Minor, and Syria were Greek/Syriac Orthodox.

            In fact, Christianity expanded more after the “Protestant revolutions”, than it did before. Subsaharan Africa, Latin America, et cetera.

            >The theorists that undermined Western civilisation didn’t come from the Frankfurt school. They came from Geneva, Basel and Worms.
            Sort of.

            You can’t properly undermine Western civilization, unless you control Western civilization. So if Western civilization collapses, the people causing the collapse will be Anglo-Saxon Protestants, not Polynesians. Because Anglo-Saxon Protestants rule the world, and Polynesians don’t.

            But that doesn’t clearly indicate there is any particular association between Protestants and the destruction of Western civilization. If there had been no Protestant reformation, we would have seen Catholicism dominate the globe, and any civilizational collapse would have come from Catholic leftists.

            You should notice that the Roman Pontiff is destroying Western civilization with as much vigor as the Archbishop of Canterbury, and with more vigor than the Patriarch of Moscow.

          • A Pint Thereof says:

            @Richard Nixon’s Ghost

            “Most of the territory of Islam was conquered from Christians. North Africa…Egypt…Arabia…”

            That’s not true at all. Only a small fraction of Moslem lands today were appropriated from Christian civilizations. They were stolen mainly from Hindi, Buddhist, Khazar, pagan and other cultures.

            What is significant is that the attempts to take back formerly Christian territories ended with the Protestant revolutions. There were no crusades after the 1500s, and the defence of Europe at Lepanto and other battles were coordinated by the Catholic Holy League et al.

            Protestant influence in the West has been devastating, whichever way you look at it.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >Only a small fraction of Moslem lands today were appropriated from Christian civilizations.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_East
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Church_of_the_East_in_the_Middle_Ages.svg

            Numerically, the Church of the East was once the largest branch of Christianity. It no longer exists, primarily due to Islam.

            Prior to Islam, Egypt and North Africa were Christian. Eastern Europe was almost entirely Christian. Asia minor and the Caucus mountains were almost entirely Christian. Palestine was largely Christian. Persia was heavily Christian.

          • A Pint Thereof says:

            @Richard Nixon’s Ghost

            This is sophistry. The Sasanian Empire was never a Christian empire. It was a Zoroastrian and pagan culture, and its lands were those of the kings and dynasties of Zoroastrianism and various pagan cults. The Moslem hordes didn’t appropriate them from a Christian civilization at all.

        • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

          >Saint John Chrysostom was practically of the primitive church, though, and seeing a papist invoke him or his teachings is quite near blasphemy.
          If you gave Saint John Chrysostom a time machine, and he was transported to 2015, he’d almost certainly join the Eastern Orthodox church. He would certainly not be on the side of the reformers.

      • Alrenous says:

        Christianity had one job: guard the souls of the flock.

        The instant there was a serious threat, namely when it was exposed to Sophism via the Arabic translations, it began to decline. It has declined monotonically from 1100 to now, and shows no signs of giving it up.

        One job.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          “Alrenous”

          And the most precipitous decline of all, sarcastically, was during the colonial period, when it curled up in a little corner and refused to go overseas.

          A.J.P.

Leave a Reply