Integralism, sometimes called Catholic integralism or Christian integralism, is the revival of one of the oldest concepts in Christianity. The very simple definition of integralism is that worship is essential to the common good, therefore political authority, in order to maintain legitimacy, much recognize and promote the religion of the people. Since this is primarily a Christian concept, at least in this context, the religion must be Christianity or in the case of Catholic societies, Catholicism.
At first blush this may sound like theocracy, but that is not the case. Instead, it is both a critique of and reform of liberal democracy. In the most general sense, liberal democracy is a set of rules that ensures that the general will of the people is expressed through the state. In theory, at least, liberal democracy is silent on the nature of the social arrangements of the people, as long as those arrangements are arrived upon through the mechanism of the ballot box and marketplace.
Integralism is first and foremost a critique of this definition of liberal reality. They point out that in every liberal democracy, an ideology evolves to limit the choices at the ballot box and in the marketplace. Homosexual marriage is the most obvious example. The public rejected it, so it was imposed. Often, the liberal-democratic ideology limits or removes choices within the family. For example, parents are forced to put their sons on mind-altering drugs in order to please the public schools.
For the integralists, the first line of critique is observable reality. Liberal democracy, whatever it claims in theory, results in degeneracy and the destruction of the social capital of the people. A system that is supposed to be devoid of morality is quickly consumed by a destructive civic ideology. This defect, according to the modern integralists, is the absence of morality. A system constrained by and subordinate to a Christian moral code would not make war on the people.
The aim of the Catholic integralist is the integration of religious authority and political power. This is not some fringe idea promoted by people living off the grid. Leading integralists include Edmund Waldstein, Patrick J. Deneen, Gladden Pappin, and Adrian Vermeule. Notre Dame’s main journal posted a long essay explaining Catholic integralism a couple of years ago. This was written by the aforementioned Edmund Waldstein, who is a Cistercian monk from Austria.
Catholic integralism has a traveling partner in the Protestant sphere that is called Christian reconstructionism. This is a 20th century movement, rooted in prior reform movements, which argues that modern government should be ruled by divine law, including the judicial laws of the Old Testament. The Christian Right in the United States, the home school movement and various other social conservative movements sprung from Christian reconstructionism in the last century.
The main criticism of integralism in all its forms is that not all people are Christian in modern Western societies. Jews, for example, would oppose any effort to integrate Christian ethics into secular law. Darren Beattie, the right-wing critic of multiculturalism, is very opposed to integralism, calling Vermeule a dangerous joke. Nationalist Yorham Harzony opposes any role of Catholicism in modern society. Neocons, of course, oppose anything with the hint of decency.
From the Jewish perspective, this is not a small thing. A society limited by Christian ethics, even broadly defined, is one that will encourage the inclusion of Christians and the exclusion of non-Christians. Mormons will support their fellow Mormons. Baptists will support their fellow Baptists. Being of the faith will be a qualification for access to power and authority. Jews understand all too well the nature of tribal identity, so they must oppose any role of religion in a society, other than Israel.
There are, of course, secular criticisms of integralism. Right-wing Progressives like David French argue that it is just Christian authoritarianism. It is a curious claim from someone who favorably compares himself to Christ. Civic nationalists and constitutional originalists oppose the idea of introducing morality into the law. They make rather curious claims about the nature of modern society, like we are governed by the written law, in order to defend the current kritarchy.
All of these criticisms of integralism miss the mark, because they refuse to acknowledge the reality of liberal democracy. America is now an ideological state, closer to a theocracy, rather than the liberal ideal. The debate is not about whether the state and its agents, private and public, will impose a moral order on the people. The question is the source of that morality and how will it be imposed. To pretend otherwise is to live in the realm of fantasy. Morality is part of what defines every society.
The integralists, however, come up short and for a similar reason. One big elephant in the room is the open society. You cannot, in fact, have an open society, as it is quickly overrun. The integralist insist that you can maintain the open society, just as long as it is governed by divine law. This is not a lot different from what civic nationalists argue with regards to immigration. If every newcomer agrees on the rules, then why not let everyone move to wherever they think is best for them?
America has a long experience with this reality, as the country has been multiracial and multicultural from the start. Blacks in America are every bit as Christian, more so, in fact, as whites, but the races continue to live culturally separate. The typical black neighborhood is nothing like the typical white neighborhood. Black culture remains stubbornly immune to modernity. The truth is, God may love us equally, but he gave us different continents as homelands for a reason.
The same critique of liberal democracy can be made of integralism, in that both have the same plank in their eye. That is biology. The Christianity of one people differs from that of another people because the people are different. They have a different past, a different set of ancestors and different sense of who they are as a people. The same is true of the people’s sense of civic duty and their relationship to their society. New England remains alien to Appalachia because of biology.
That said, given the choice between integralism and civic nationalism, biological reality will come down on the side of the former. If one accepts that the divine law of one people will differ from that of another, integralism is an excellent critique of liberal democracy. It offers a moral argument in response to the ideological claims of the current ruling elite. More important, those moral arguments are rooted in something with genuine moral authority, rather than the general will.
For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!
wonder if you read this before this essay, Mr Zman – a based Catholic politely dissenting with the usually smart (but sadly blue-pilled on race) E Michael Jones. what i like best is his quotes from traditional Catholic sources that validate the concept of genos and heredity while staying within Catholic orthodoxy. https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2019/12/10/ethnos-needs-logos-and-genos/
particularly liked this quoted excerpt from 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia:
Character is the expression of the personality of a human being. . . . A man’s character is the resultant of two distinct classes of factors: the original or inherited elements of his being, and those which he has acquired. On the one hand, every human being starts with a certain nature or disposition—a native endowment of capacities for knowledge, and feelings, and tendencies towards volitions and action—which varies with each individual. This disposition is dependent in part on the structure of the bodily organism and especially of the nervous system which he has inherited; in part, perhaps, also on his soul which has been created. . . . The transmission from parent to offspring of hereditary dispositions, therefore, involves no conflict with the doctrine of the creation of each human soul. (Catholic Encyclopedia, “Character”)
There is nothing more central to man than his character. Character is the truest manifestation of who a man is, a direct expression of his moral temper. And, character is partly derived from heredity. It is based on temperament and formed by the habitual action of the will, which decides between courses of action. (Temperament can be thought of as the natural inclinations of a person, manifested especially in his personality, with a strong hereditary component.) Character is the “group of internal dispositions, issuing from heredity, environment, education, or deliberately formed habits, which preside over one’s habitual conduct.” (Attwater, A Catholic Dictionary, 96; emphasis added)
—
the more and more i read, the more i feel the post-Sixties world started when (((they))) infiltrated the Church. i know JFK was mostly a sellout, but him being a Catholic leading the strongest nation inn the world, and getting shot ending the American Golden Age, kind of seems like a reverse crucifixion, from Judas’s friends wanting to exact revenge…
also, i’ve noticed that Catholic integralists also tend to reject race because they fear the Thor-tree-burning and Priapus-loving Euro-pagans coming back to throw us to the lions again. fair enough, but with enough evangelization (dare i say censorship) we can keep them and (((others))) at bay while hanging onto their better hero stories for literature and national pride; specially since these tend to riff off the Christian themes, sometimes better than other pagan myths elsewhere.
even then, i never cared for Beowulf for example, though i understand why it was important and inspires some, and at any rate knew about Saint George vs the dragon first… of course, Catholics of other nations, tongues, and races, have different saints and national hero/folk stories, but also know when to ally with fellow Catholics of other nations and races – best of both worlds, when it works right…
But look (((who’s))) really winning. Hate crime online.
https://www.unz.com/sbpdl/how-deep-does-the-anti-white-rabbit-hole-go-twitter-post-calling-picture-of-white-mom-with-her-four-white-children-really-dark-goes-viral-getting-44000-likes/
A pretty good discussion of this issue from one of the few remaining decent Jesuits:
https://maritain.nd.edu/ama/Human/Human303.pdf
Life is Tribal, Always was, always will be. Go to prison, you’ll figure that out in 5 fucking seconds without a college professor explaining it to you. The Jews integrated and co-opted your political, banking, educational and media systems and now they’re Mindfucking you with the biggest Psyop in history. Go back to the Christian ideals of your ancestors, the basic Truths.
What’s good for Israel is good for y’all:
https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/82693/sanhedrin-blesses-trump-calls-president-uphold-seven-noahide-laws/
Adam Green (Know More News) says maybe not:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/er4S0xQzOUNj/
There are very few Christians left in the US. There are still a lot of people who go to church once in a white and others who claim to be Christian but they are not. They don’t really believe. They belong to a “community” or a club. They do not belong to God.
And so, they are very frightened of death. You could never have panicked my grandmother’s generation (she was born in 1918) with this mild version of the flu as people then knew they would die someday and were prepared to do so. Death before dishonor.
The leaders of Orange County Florida are talking about needing to “double down” and keep restrictions in place for another year or two. And yet no one has tried to hang them.
“It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged. ” ― G.K. Chesterton
why do you have to give a name for your beliefs. David Bazelon was probably the most influential circuit court judge of the 20th century. He didn’t have a name for his philosophy. He just called it like he saw it.
Hmm.. the son of Lena (Krasnovsky) and Israel Bazelon.
“Bazelon had a broad view of the reach of the Constitution.Conservatives viewed the judge as dangerous for his tendency to rule in favor of the lower class, the mentally ill, and defendants.”
“Bazelon authored many far-reaching decisions on topics as diverse as the environment, the eighteen-year-old vote, discrimination, and the insanity defense”
Seems pretty obvious what his (((beliefs))) were. Anything to undermine the traditional Anglo common law and saving the “oppressed”.
Give me a break. Same old same old.
the insanity defense that keeps Charlie Manson alive. (((brilliant))).
Good article.
My takeaway from all this is is that our societies can’t be preserved by integralism or civic nationalism.
This is because big universalist anything, business, state, church , media is poison and the only good it does in terms of long term human well being is sometimes to protect smaller societies from other cultures big ideas.
In terms of large parts of Europe intergralism is as ludicrous an idea as bringing back haruspication or the old Religio Roma . When the elite and the people alike no longer believe in something in large numbers its no basis for any society.
Ireland is becoming non Catholic and these are ethnic Irish folks.
And yes religion including Christianity can and will stay around but it will become a folk thing as it was for millennia.
The US will have a tougher time of it of course, Europeans have an identity, Americans do not.
Now as to the LDS issue, they are perfect example of getting too big.
The Church wants to grow and can no longer do that with many kids, high retention strategy and so in order to go above the 14 million mark go out and recruit all kinds of people who lack the social traits to be good Mormons.
The smart play would have been to live with the smaller numbers but big wrecks everything.
Now locally our Baptists are getting into the door to door soul solicitation business for some reason as well too. Probably retention is way down.
Its not going to help.
As for a fix, there isn’t and easy one but the most workable is to get homogeneous which can be hard when the imperial society is trying to destroy that ideal but its the only solution and it will either happen in peace or by war.
On the good end I suppose Corona Chan will make this much easier for regular folks to equate crowds and foreigners with sickness and even death.
Our ruling class will probably learn little to nothing from this as you can’t teach someone something his job requires he not know and as they weaken, and they will, this leaves room for clever little mammals to avoid those lumbering dinos as they build something worthwhile.
yeah, and the Irish are not going back to Celtic folk customs, instead they just waste away at pubs watching rugger or footie. not to mention, some of the few neopagans tend to be annoying Trump-hexing feminist wannabe witches.
we are already back in the Religio Roma times. the current Caesars of the world just back whatever bread and circuses and fake idol worship desired by the elites. lest we forget, the folk religions of the ancient world were actually very top down, the emperor was pontifex maximus of all accepted cults and doted patronage on many contradictory ones, whose followers then went into mini-civil-wars all the time trying to curry the emperor’s favor. i mean, Nero had a Jew wife.
and that’s not counting the many who worshiped the Caesar himself, or who set up their own petty cult such as Eleagabalus.
all that instability finally ended when the Church took over, though it was also too late to stop the demographic change – which actually helped the Church, as Greeks and Germans converted too, while the domain of the Roman people only remained in the Papal States. on the other hand, in other times, the Romans and their language and religion would have been totally wiped out by the new conquerors – but the Germanics adopted the Faith and instead Latinized, while keeping their nation and enough local custom, and alongside other allied/converted nations the Christian civilization was born.
that’s why both the volkish pagan and low church strategies eventually fail. yes, you could huddle up with your Roman/Germanic/Celtic pantheon, or your KJV, in some hilly wilderness small nation somewhere. this could work for a while (it still does for the Maori for example – though idk if you wanna go that far, it may be necessary to be so backwards to be left alone – and even then, some few Maoris do occasionally cross over and do and use whitey/Christian things, and talk on NatGeo cameras about the importance of a diverse world while shrinking a head or something) but eventually this nation will become populated and intellectual enough to have dissenting readings on the KJV, or worse, wildly varied pantheons that oppose each other enough times to cause trouble. each pastor, or pagan preacher, wants more favor from you, and the competition among them rock the social fabric; and after all, you wanna be a popular nationalist ruler, so you cave in. and on top of that, the nation next door has a religion that is so popular (or, UBI for immigrants if secular lol) that is causing those on your nation to leave; with this problem, or any other problem that needs nationwide unity, you need a united people with a united credo, and trying to buy out increasing numbers of denominations or pagan temples only gets them to want even more members to add to their clout – and that’s when they start saying that their pantheons or churches can be attended by citizens of more than one nation, whether by peaceful mission, inviting, or conquering… even the Jews have their Greater Israel idea. ergo, you end up a secular ruler of today, trying to deal with multiple cults from home and beyond, and therefore using materialism to crush them all – and your whole society in the process.
either that bad scenario, or you cave in further and grant one of these cults the official status; either you control the chosen cult further and further and it becomes corrupt, or the cult controls itself and you have to deal with it but at least can make it work. again, you could keep the control and have your monoreligious nation for a while… until the official cult is either doing so well that it attracts followers abroad, or so bad that it has to go and get them. you might be having to eventually subsume the cult in the state to avoid this, but again, corruption seeps much easier through centralized bureaucracies and both you and the cult could lose favor. if you do let the official cult to control itself though, and since it has no competition on the ground that the cult could use as a shield, it must have some way to escape your control, which can go wrong; the best way to do that is for that cult to have offices somewhere else, outside any national government control actually. it was going international, so might as well. which is how Mussolini kept the Church alive with the Lateran Treaty – and how he kept Italy from being ruled by either the Pope or the King’s bishops, as well.
ergo, might as well stick to Catholicism – it is the fulfillment of all Revelation, ergo the fulfillment of all other cults. true, it’s pozzed as of now, as increasing uselessness only increases the pedos, and viceversa; but localist Anglicanism and volkish neopagans also have got bitten with the fake and gay bug, so Catholic mild universalism cannot be the only factor. and yes, Catholic universalism was actually historically moderate on biological matters, acknowledging of heredity and nations (ergo, some deserving of empires, some deserving of submitting to empires, and some deserving of quiet freedom) and concentric circles of society (on which the Church’s political model of Corporatism/Integralism was built, precisely). it is only post Enlightenment that we forgot all these things. the Enlighteners loved Antiquity, which makes sense, they brought back the worship of the state and its leaders through bread and circus idols. and once the Church was treated as just another idol, it could also now just dispense bread and circus. thus we have today.
But it’s all going swimmingly.
I strolled through the living room yesterday where the wife was watching “Good Morning America” or similar and pointed out that she was being told how to celebrate Easter by a bunch of Jews.
She looked at me funny.
So the the real message of easter they were suggesting is to find some guy preaching against ursury and nail him on a wooden scaffold?
In the Roman’s defense, eliminating an insurgent element is pretty sound strategy. Just is always guaranteed to work.
He gave His life for His friends.
also, Pilate wasn’t threatened, he couldn’t care less about the Sanhedrin Jews’ religious insanity, and at least interested to learn more about “Truth”.
but, by the same token, he was indecisive, weak and thus easily convinced by the perfidious Jews to stick to the script and believe in Caesar’s earthly/idolatrous power only.
food for thought.
Trump still waffling on ;’reopening’ the economy. Trump cares more about about medical experts, media , political and business elites , than small & medium-sized business owners. Trump has made no effort to reach out to those most affected, that being businesses owners, who are also some of his biggest supporters. Over and over, Trump keeps trying to warm up to the very people who in 2015-2017 wanted him to fail, and still likely do.
I think SBA= The Hunger Games.
Although – incredible if it happens the Fed is looking at direct lending to biz up to 10K employees.
IOW the Fed does for business what it does for banks.
Grey;
I think today’s media run Prog Party plan is to embrace the current authoritarianism, thinking that they can run out Trump in Nov and take the fearsome new machinery over intact. They will use the same technocrat scares they have been so hooked on for the last 30+ years. They act like they think they have Trump trapped: If he relaxes our 30 day free trial of socialism, people will die of COVID (they will anyway); blood is on his hands he’s toast in Nov.; OTOH, if he stays with the lockdown, the economy collapses and he gets voted out in favor the hidden hands animating Biden, the senile sock puppet. Either way the Transformation of America that Trump so crassly interrupted in 2016 can resume in strengthened form.
So what’s the obvious counter-move_? I’d say he (gasp_!) embraces Federalism, pulls back on the Fed-Bucks-for-Shriekers program, makes Cuomo own when N Y opens (or its economy craters), makes Newsome own when CA opens, etc. Any blood’s on the Prog Gov.’s hands, not his. And all the Prog Govs. have rich backers that are currently suffering too.
I think this is the play that Trump needs to make. He needs to stop talking about opening things back up and just do it. Then Cuomo, Newsome, and all the other granstanding little shits are forced to own the economic collapse in their states.
If the Constitutional order of the Founders can devolve into the current order, so will this Integralist order. But when that happens Christianity will be tarnished. Separation of Church and state was supposed to benefit the church as well. Scandal and corruption inevitably follow power. Look at the Catholic perderast sex scandal. “My kingdom is not of this Earth”
I encourage everyone to read The Grand Inquisitor. http://www.online-literature.com/dostoevsky/2884/
“Knowest Thou not that, but a few centuries hence, and the whole of mankind will have proclaimed in its wisdom and through its mouthpiece, Science, that there is no more crime, hence no more sin on earth, but only hungry people”
i recommend the whole novel, at least once before dying, like Tolstoy did.
Integralist are not pro open society. I think it was a bad choice of word.
We are against racialism. What is the proper civil and legal relation between races under the common good, is a different subject than state/religion relation of an integralist society.
Catholicism condemn some racial view explicitly (like the famous encyclical against nazism). But more moderate racial policy have not been condemned by the magisterium to my knowledge. They might become so. and historically, catholic theology and legal tradition is very communitarian : https://www.academia.edu/217551/Domestic_Slavery_in_Renaissance_Italy
But the subject is open to debate, disagreement is legitimate. I oppose your views on the proper relation between the race, because they tend to have racialist bases, and because I just do not find the argument quite convincing. I doubt you find the catholic canon law focus on inter religious marriage important. But that is much more important to us than race.
i recommend this article below. i do agree though, that Catholics are not idiots who think “there is no such thing as race”. they simply do not pay attention to the concept as much, but still do so. specially since Catholicism expanded through many multiracial areas which had to be segregated for centuries (even in medieval times, Jews and Moors had their own quarters).
the problem is more at least since last century or two, and specially after V2 pretty much gave the Church’s power to its suicidal Marxist equalizing universalist wing. these radicals, backed by apostates and (((others))), not only besmirched the doctrine in oh so many ways, but also attacked the white Catholic ethnicities that (although lacking in faith a lot sometimes) have kept the deepest Traditions for so long, and which are not deserving of extinction any more than any other of God’s tribes. thus, not enough thought has been devoted to race among Catholics.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2019/12/10/ethnos-needs-logos-and-genos/
No offense but the occidental observer is not really something I read, more ethno-centric than I am. And I got some stress right now to deal with. Maybe later. If you need to know my position on it in a more detailed manner, basically something between Edward Feser and sancrucensis. Not asking you to read it, the summary is simple : a sober middle ground between nationalism and internationalism.
https://sancrucensis.wordpress.com/2017/02/04/the-needy-immigrant-nationalism-globalism-and-the-universal-destination-of-goods/
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/10/liberty-equality-fraternity.html
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2019/10/john-paul-ii-in-defense-of-nation-and.html
Read secular by design by Alan W Cecil
At least the Amazon blurb. Thanks for tip.
We stopped living or perhaps pretending we were a liberal democracy a month ago.
We live in Venezuela early 2000s.
The Shopkeeper middle class, working class Fronde du Trump is over.
Trump is now a puppet and presides over the Hunger Games for 80% and Hallmark Cards for the top 15-20%.
Trump is now “Presidential” meaning complying with the Ruling Class through the Veil of The Experts.
The Hunger Games Events; PPP and Disaster EIDL relief.
And the checks.
2/3 are fixed and farce.
The last one the checks will continue.
The Follow on Hunger Game; EXIT.
I talk to people from Venezuela from all over the world, but never from Venezuela. Asia, Australia, Europe, but never Venezuela. They ran.
And so will the rest.
We’re about to see who’s serious about Exit and who isn’t, the moment they can they will flee to Uruguay, Australia, anywhere but here. I certainly can’t leave out Israel. Watch.
As for the Hallmark Cards upper 15%:
Here’s $10T and counting, let us know if you need more.
This formula will work, it always has.
Not even the Founders would have fought the British if they could have run and started over.
Z; your criticisms are valid but the altar without the Sword and Throne is a pathetic remnant. If the Church were a pet we’d put it down.
Learn to code. En Espanol.
Watch, I know cowards when I see them. Our middle class will run if it can. They’re broken. So is Trump.
Without leadership the masses are nothing. There will be no mobs, not even Vibrants. The Vibrants mobs were always the violent side of “Civil Rights.” About as spontaneous as Jewish Lightning, er I mean Arson for the Insurance money.
I’m doubting even the Civil War re-enactors are allowed to return (they’ve been quarantined in particular).
Civil War Re-Enactors::The Church.
Same effect.
PPP SBA EIDL are The Hunger Games for the Middle Class.
The actual Hunger Games mass participation; EXIT.
I suggest you run immediately if you are so inclined. Slots are limited. One more thing – transfer your loyalties (such as you have) immediately. You don’t want ties coming back this way.
The unrelenting hostility shown to Christianity by mainstream American and globalist culture seems like a recent development. Where does it come from?
I was born in an America where a general Christian-Protestant ethos was assumed, approved, and supported.
That was superseded by a secularist America, where Christianity was perceived as just one of many religions, all equally mixing truth and myth. It was a status downgrade, certainly, but not an outright negation.
Arguably, the perception of Christianity that currently prevails throughout the culture is no longer a secularist one, but rather a Jewish one: i.e., that Christianity is uniquely false, mistaken, and dangerous.
At its most generous, this perception takes the form of bemused condescension towards those gullible children, the goyim (this is what you see from the Neocons). At its worst, it excuses hatred and resentment: the “give it to them before they give it to us” attitude that’s been expressed with increasing boldness on the Left.
In between, there’s that Woody-Allenish hybrid of suspicion, mistrust, and jealous desire, inspired by the freedom of Christian practice, and the beauty of its practitioners.
To be clear, what I’m saying is that this negative perception of Christianity, which was once characteristic only of the Jewish minority (whether rightly or wrongly), has now been adopted by the mainstream-“majority” culture. Perhaps when it was limited to a distinct minority, the Jewish opposition to Christianity could play a useful role in American society. But as adopted by the commanding cultural heights, it’s proven irrational and oppressive.
It’s true that Gentile Christians have historically treated Jews with prejudice. But in the last century Gentile Christians also suborned their own tradition in order to be inclusive of Jews, out of a sense of decency and a desire to rectify past injustice.
It would be beneficial to our society to see that generosity acknowledged and reciprocated in a public way.
(((Where does it come from?)))
(((Who can say?)))
It’s older than it seems. Paul in Athens is a good start, as well as the other Martyrs of the Church. Christianity makes what seem to be unreasonable demands upon people – to accept their own rebellion and ask for mercy, without ever getting an answer from God. To many people across the ages, the loss of Pride one must take to do this is unthinkable. Hence Islam and “everything that happens is the will of Allah” on one end, and the Atheist “there is no reason anything happens” on the other.
“But Thou knewest not, it seems, that no sooner would man reject miracle than he would reject God likewise, for he seeketh less God than “a sign” from Him”
Nuts and bolts. Religion (in all it’s varieties) is the codification of ancient wisdom that evolved in each distinct environment of ancestral evolution. You don’t get the exact same panoply of wisdom everywhere; each locale is unique. Over the long run, wisdom adopted and passed along will help each cohort of our species survive and thrive in their ancestral environment. And then everything gets mangled and chaotic when people are moved out of their ancestral home.
Agree.
A number of dissident content creators are doing a string of movie reviews on YouTube.
The Announcement:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=114&v=PPl_PMxI19U&feature=emb_title
The Lineup and Schedule:
https://guidetokulchur.org/
Very cool! Thanks for sharing; I will be sure to partake in the content.
That’s a really good lineup. Looking forward to the shows! Thanks!
Well argued…certainly, the West cannot survive without Christianity as the dominant and State religion, which means the West is in a steep nose dive and shows no sign, except perhaps in Russia and Eastern Europe, of pulling out….
Meanwhile, in the stealth libertarian paradise of Arizona, traffic this morning is approaching normal levels, so a lot of people are going to jobs they are not supposed to have….
Deneen in particular elegantly elucidates the trajectory of liberal democracy, as it “progressively“ subverts first Authority, then Tradition, and finally Nature itself.
Unfortunately, like most Integralists, Deneen rejects biology as determinative, and retreats into a Dreher-like neo-monasticism. Even if such communities are in some sense viable, Globoschlomo will not leave the monasteries in peace, anymore than Cromwell did.
Excellent essay Z.
besides, the monastics lived in a time where if you got lost in the wilderness you may truly get lost. ergo, they had an easier time escaping Globoschlomo. and, they always returned to the world to preach, give aid, even influence politics.
as for race, the Integralist majorites that are cucked on it seem to be too influenced by the American Catholic “we are the world” experience; forgetting that it was Americanist ideals such as this and others, which led to modernism infiltrating the Church and the Latin Rite being suppressed. ironically, the Latin Rite survived longer in America precisely because the competing Catholic communities of many languages could only come together to pray in Latin and join in prayer with the Pope in Rome* . which is why i don’t mind if Sarah becomes pope, as long as he restores Latin (sure, keep the vernacular but optional), traditional morals, freedom of association, worldwide migration moratorium, and anti-globalization.
*by the way, if Peter was sent to Rome, then Providence must have wanted whites not only to live and prosper, but to carry the banner of the Church first and foremost towards the world. obviously it doesn’t mean invite rapefugees** over, but rather send missionaries/crusaders so some might be saved among the other races and perhaps even better their nations too. some will be higher or lower on the levels of heaven and hell, but all will get what they deserve.
**no high-IQ newcomers either, even less so Asians – IQ doesn’t prevent sin, in fact it may just change sins around. a black dude can be jacking a white guy who thought he just wanted some change and got closer than he should have; a Jew can loan the black guy money so he makes a record about it; and an Asian wearing a facemask just avoids trying to stop the violence and flees into his lonely apartment to work 5 more hours after leaving work.
Some broader thoughts, or voicing doubts more accurately: The first problem is: How do we define what is moral? Yes we can agree on various standards, and these may find their way into rules and laws. But the problem with any democracy is: Is it fair for the majority to enforce their collective will upon the minority? Rather than dogmatically answer that “yes” or “no”, I’ll make a quick aside note that Dogma is a chronic problem in all human regimes. Religion has plenty of faults to answer for, but as Z notes, liberal democracy functions in many ways like a theocracy. Others have claimed that officially “atheist” States (Soviet Union) operated as if Communism were the State religion. I think you’ll find that for all practical purposes it was. A primary red flag of a totalitarian system, whether it was set up by Bolsheviks or the Roman Catholic Church, is that dissent, free thought, etc must be suppressed. Brutally. As bad as religions were (and still are), I would bet some money that that Soviet and Chinese communism killed more people in the 20th century than religions did in the the past 500 years.
Actually, isn’t the difficulty to arrive at agreed-upon standards an argument for freedom of association? Groups should be voluntary, as far as is possible. This is, in part at least, what was the ideal of the young USA: if you wanted to have a plantation slavery based economy, that was ok (until ~1860). Roman Catholic church official State religion? No problem (think of Maryland), while New England could have its wacky Protestant faiths, late of witch-burning Massachusetts. These and many more have changed in three centuries, generally at creeping growth of Federal control. And even many “legal” definitions can be questioned: Yes, I agree that gay marriage might be an issue. But why should a Judeo-Christian tradition (one wife, no divorce) be given the force of law BY A SECULAR STATE? If a Muslim wants to have four wives, what of it? We did (and still do) get upset by how our public schools are run. Rather than battle over that, why not just do away with public schools? Again, leave it up to States, but perhaps leave it up to smaller units. Again, my ideal is the closer to an all-voluntary group, the better.
OK, this post is already too long. My theme is this: morality and what is “right” is whatever you think it is! Except within limited cases, like a hypothesis easily testable and verifiable by laws of science, many things are not easily decided? For example, is abortion killing an unborn human? Certainly this can be argued. But, at the other extreme, is it really a social good for Juan and Maria, good Catholics though they may be, to have ten children when they can’t support 1/5 that number? Notice I am not taking a position, but I AM showing there are no easy answers to many questions. Perhaps, the best thing we can do is to get into voluntary groups (tribes?) and rule over ourselves. And we can blame the “Other” for all evils 🙂
My theme is this: morality and what is “right” is whatever you think it is!
Congratulations on being thoroughly modern and degenerate. That’s the Hollywood and academic script regurgitated like a good puppy.
Ben has learned to love Big Brother.
“Notice I am not taking a position, but I AM showing there are no easy answers to many questions.”
In general, I agree with you. I’m an atheist, for the same reasons cited by Jean Meslier long ago, and more recently by the likes of Coyne, Dawkins, and Ehrman. In short, it makes no sense to me to try to explain complicated things we don’t understand by assuming the existence of a God, an even more complicated thing we don’t understand. When it comes to the quote above, I would claim that there are not only no easy answers, but no objective answers at all. Westermarck explained why in his “The Origin and Development of the Moral Ideas,” which may interest you, and is available free online. He is virtually forgotten today because of the very power of the emotions that are the “root cause” of all human moralities. Atheists like Dawkins and Coyne cannot follow him to the logical conclusion of atheism – that morality is subjective. When challenged, they will admit that it is, but then go on to spout pious moral judgments as prolifically as the best televangelists. In other words, they may say morality is subjective, but act in ways that are completely irrational absent the assumption of objective morality. I know of not a single exception to this rule among modern atheists, postmodernists, or any other flavor of prominent philosopher.
That said, atheism does not imply that “everything is permitted,” for the simple reason that such a claim itself is a moral judgment. Morality is rooted in powerful emotions that exist by virtue of natural selection. Mother Nature didn’t care a whit about the fact that there are not really any objective moral laws “out there,” independent of individual human minds. She created the powerful illusion that such laws do exist, not because they are real, but because they promoted our survival. It is extremely difficult for us to escape the illusion.
Atheism hardly means that we cannot create an “absolute” morality based on the attempts of our brains to make sense of our moral emotions. In fact, that is how our species has always done morality; whoever is best at manipulating moral emotions wins. They decide the “moral law.” Integralism is one such gambit. Its chances seem slim against the promoters of equalist dogmas, highly skilled manipulators who, at least for the time being, are calling the tune.
> The typical black neighborhood is nothing like the typical white neighborhood. Black culture remains stubbornly immune to modernity. The truth is, God may love us equally, but he gave us different continents as homelands for a reason.
Blacks and other groups are good at using and embracing technology even if they may not be smart enough to create it, have you ever seen a back person without a cell phone? But plenty of white ppl don’t have one. A lot of SWPLs take pride in not using or minimizing technology , as some sort of act of social defiance. The differences between the raucous black church and the more subdued white church tell you all you need to know.
in short, the Church can be everywhere, just don’t expect the details to totally match from ethnonation to ethnonation (whether segregated or not).
This good post definitely exposes the lie that is the concept of “Judeo-Christian” anything, for if the Neocons and their like actually believed it, why would they object to integrating some Christianity into society, since (according to Ben Shapiro) it’s just “emended Judaism” with a scaffolding of post-Messianic compassion grafted onto it? It may be true that in the past the main problem for Jews was that Christians didn’t care for them, but now it seems that Jews’ main problem (at least in America) is that they don’t care for anyone or anything, except themselves, getting revenge for the past, and promoting subversive, mocking, and scatalogical sexual humor, as well as a kind of anti-aesthetic revolt against art, and a pursuit of transitory material pleasure. I don’t know why I always come back to him (since he’s only half-Jewish) but Bill Maher is such a good object lesson of where this leads, which is nowhere. Money, fame, atheism, misery and no posterity. No meaning.
This country was very much tied to faith many decades ago, even though we’ve never had a state religion. So what happened to Christianity? Over many decades, long before we were born, it happily gave its moral authority to the state. The Christians of the time (and today) no longer wanted the burden of taking care of the weakest in society. The government happily took that mantle. It then went even further and gave handouts, in the form of grants, to religions. So in a way, the church is part of an “integral” authority, not as decision maker, but generator of hollow platitudes that support the state, while doing very little for its surrounding society that doesn’t require yet another government grant. What do you get when this happens? Repugnant, Pollyanna like, so called Christians like Billy Graham, counselor to Presidents, who found inner good in ever President and Senator, washing off their sins with a garden hose of platitudes. Whether it be the Vietnam War or the insertion of a cigar into a young intern’s vagina, all is forgiven. Christianity, in its modern form, is as useless as teets on a bull. A Christian of even 200 years ago would find it completely alien. A den of emotive, spineless, gelatinous creatures attempting to sedate their consciences and fear of mortality. Our nation will return to a real, robust Christianity, but not before filling the streets with blood, and crating a future that we can really be sorry about.
I blame women.
No, seriously. Since the day of Christ, women were highly influential in churches, freely giving their money to the church.
Their push for political participation shifted their do-gooder behavior from the church to the state. I guess they saw the state as a more powerful partner in their goals (and one that put fewer limits on them). Hypergamy.
J.R.;
I put some time into trying to understand how the Mainline Protestant denominations apparently went from Power to Pozz in just one generation. My take is that it wasn’t just a generation or even two. For a common-sense historical chain, more like 250 – 300 years are required. Here is my stab at a timeline and a (certainly not the) causal explanation. NOTE: *Dates below are notional only.*
Tl/Dr: There has been a centuries’ long secular assault on Christian belief, particularly as the basis for morality. This assault put on the guise of science as (unwarranted) argument from authority as to why religious belief was ‘irrational’. These attacks were often (usually) made in bad faith. As Z Man says, the need for morality arises from human nature and not from ‘science’ or ‘reason’, of which there is laughably little to be seen. Christianity provides a historically tried and tested anchor for morality.
Denomination Historical Overview:
Reformation (early 1500’s) > Protestant State Churches > Puritanism in UK (early 1600’s) > Methodist Revivalism in UK & US (mid/late 1700’s) > Unitarianism US (early 1800’s) > Progressivism (late 1800’s) > Modernism (post WWI) > Universalistic Nominalism (post WWII) > Powerless Pozz (mid-late 1990’s) > Dissolution (ongoing).
There was a parallel intellectual/theological transformation enabling the above that undermined the people’s confidence in their religious convictions and it didn’t only involve the usual suspects folks hereabouts are so fond of blaming for everything.
Enlightenment skepticism & attack on scriptural accuracy (late 1600’s) > German U Higher Criticism on scriptural historical integrity (early 1800’s) > Marxism & Darwinism attacks on scriptural accuracy (mid 1800’s) > Progressivism attacks on scriptural utility (late 1800’s) > Cultural Marxism/Feminism attacks on scriptural morality (1960’s on) > Gaystapo subversion of denominational hierarchies (1980’s on) > Powerless Pozz (mid-late 1990’s on).
In retrospect, the Enlightenment’s attacks were laughable: ‘Because we have clocks and mathematical astronomy now, we are mastering the secrets of the universe through reason. So there is no reason to believe in God.’ The scientists seeking to master the universe not only haven’t done so, they’ve come up with a pretty good proof of the ontological argument for the existence of God.
In most cases listed above these attacks were bad-faith attempts to undermine political enemies (Enlightenment, Higher Criticism, Marxism, Progressivism) or to set aside cultural, moral barriers to the amoral, libertine lifestyle that the attackers favored (Marxism, Feminism & Gaystapo). Bottom Line: There is NO reason for Christians to quail at Prog attack. Rather it is to be expected and it will ultimately be ineffective.
As evidence, there is plenty of Protestant vigor to be found right now, it’s just not (often/usually) found in mainline denominational churches. Our Evangelical fractional, recombinant nature has, ironically, protected us (as a whole) from pozz subversion. When any individual church starts getting taken over by feminists. etc., we leave for another one and that first church (deservedly) dies out and eventually closes its doors.
I agree with you and I like your timeline. Especially women on the pulpit, an early chump move by Progressive era pastors. Every church needs one of those old Vaudeville canes to drag them off. The one place where I disagree is that there is vigor in the evangelical fraction. I believe this is cracking as well based on the latest demographics, and as someone who has changed churches like shirts, I see glass jaws on a lot of them. A lot of “prosperity gospel” has taken hold among the evangelicals. The whole Dave Ramsey faction. As millions of them fall on hard times, the prosperity gospel will be quite destructive in their ability to process severe distress and I see a lot of them shaking their fist at God over it. Having done A, B C and D, they’ll get Q from God when they expected E, especially when the recommended Dave Ramsey mutual funds are down 80%.
J.R.;
Can’t disagree about Dave Ramsey’s religious component too much. As a practical matter, he’s helped a lot of people take back their lives from the consumption virus. FWIW, he’s actually *not* a Prosperity Gospel guy, per se. Prosperity Gospel is actually a damnable heresy because it implies that one’s poverty is due entirely to ones’s own spiritual (not behavioral) deficiencies that can be easily cured solely by sending money.
Ramsey’s looking to get paid for his proven useful *behavioral* work showing the simple-minded how to stop being slaves to debt. Avoiding debt *is* Biblical, after all. A maybe too fine distinction, but a distinction none-the-less.
I look at Dave Ramsey like a chiropractor: Highly useful in specific situations of trouble, but not universally so. But once the back pain is gone, there’s no need to keep going back to him for further ‘adjustments’ and it’s self-serving for him to suggest/recommend it.
And don’t get me started on ‘The Seeker Sensitive Church’.
Somebody mentioned the 7 Churches in Revelation. These are an excellent illustration that shows that there have always been and will always be accelerating shortcomings in individual congregations and even denominations. That’s why the inerrancy of Holy Scripture is so vital as a corrective, as Revelation states. And that’s also why inerrancy is so constantly under attack, as outlined above. The devil *is* “the price of this world”, after all.
I’m taking bets! Zman said, “Catholic integralism has a *traveling partner* in the Protestant sphere that is called Christian reconstructionism” (asterisks added). He uses the term “traveling partner”! Yet there’s absolutely no doubt that he is thoroughly acquainted with the linguistically homologous term “fellow traveler.” So here’s the bet: I bet he specifically considered using the term “fellow traveler” inside his beady head, but instead consciously chose to use the alternative phrase “traveling partner”. And he did so for a very specific reason. Anyone care to take the other side of the bet? Anyone? Anyone? 🙂
Christian Reconstructionism does not aim to be a fellow traveler with the Roman soi-disant “Catholic” Church.
Reconstructionism has an old time Protestant attitude about R.C.’s. Reconstruction means about the same thing as “Reformed” or Reformation” in the older lexicon. In other words, “not Roman Catholic.”
he means it’s a reactionary movement among Protestants, just like Integralism is reactionary Catholicism (many Integralists want confessional states back, the last Catholic monarchists among them too).
Our society is no less religious than any other. Religion does not cease to be religion when it begins to be called by other names.
If the essence of religion is the ascription to Nature of that which is in fact a work of Art, then religion has grown more powerful and more total than ever before.
art is natural. so is religion.
of course, nature can also (be made to) degenerate.
ergo, degenerate art, ergo degenerate religion.
yeah, about black “christianity”. there are interesting articles/essays on just how blacks observe their version of christianity. it’s really just a thin veneer on top of african animism. they see jesus as a get-out-of-jail card, that kind of thing. in short, they don’t practice christianity at all.
I’m not one to Cuck for the Blecks, but:
As long as they’re following the core doctrines correctly (ie Virgin Birth, Death, Burial, & Resurrection, No other way to heaven save shed blood of Christ), how they “do church” is their own business.
you didn’t graduate high school, did you.
I remember reading something similar about a Public Defender in the US who recounted a story of how it was not unusual for gangs of blacks to pray to Jesus for protection just before a court appearance. Even when they knew they were guilty.
yep, and their female relative would reject plea bargains because jesus would get their men folk off.
True dat. A point might be made, however, that when they are “following the core doctrines correctly” Africans as a whole make for better Africans. The differences are more stark in Africa.
yep, my experience is the same. even those silly nwords who praise the Lord for avoiding a possession or rape charge, they’d be much worse of a threat if they just believed in Ochun giving them magical powers/PCP to shoot up all the white devils in a bank. even among blacks you can tell the usually secular or Christian discriminate against the more African ones and their more backward customs; they just join ranks and play up the wewuzkangznshiet to spite whites (another example, black Muslims who use Islam as an antiwhite vehicle but are otherwise considered nonlegit by other Muslims and creepy by other blacks). this is why we should rather send missionaries over there than attempt to discipline them here. might have avoided at least some capsized boats in the Mediterranean, and some knife attacks…
we specially need the kind of missionary who legit worked his priestly ass off, like the Jesuits in Paraguay, or Spanish California. of course, decolonization has happened since then – so maybe it was better to keep a lid on (at least some) colonies for longer? we are heavily subsidizing them now anyway, and i wonder aloud if a white colonial viceroy isn’t cheaper than a black dictator for life.
of course, bringing an effective occupying/settler force with the ability to head a racial caste society and not die trying… can be done*, but barely ever has been, it’s quite the steep hill. so if this idea is ever reconsidered, strictly voluntary crusaders/legionnaires only. if no takers, let the missions keep grinding…
*(examples: most Russian minorities don’t mind European Russians ruling, for example – then again, those with enough ethnic pride and manpower do rebel. also, Singaporeans allowing Chinese to act as a dominant caste in exchange for prosperity – then again, it is Singaporeans and Chinese, not Irish and blacks straddling along tenuous hood borders in Southie in Boston)
This is likely the article you refer to:
https://www.amren.com/features/2014/05/confessions-of-a-public-defender/
great essay, Mr. Zman. very Easter friendly.
i’d just like to add that, just like you mention in the last paragraph, Integralism can readily admit the race constant into the equation. it’ll simply mean some of the 7 levels of Heaven in Dante’s telling will be lighter and more immersed in contemplative prayer, while other levels will be darker and more immersed in gospel worship. yes, some will be higher than others, but everyone will be at their right place and not complain.
besides, up until Caudillo Franco’s death at the latest, many conservative Catholics believed strongly in racial segregation whether the country was multi or monoracial; this thought was only abolished due to Anglo-Masonic-Prot influence on the liberal parties of Latin America and the Continent, with the somewhat valid excuse of eliminating serfdom and slavery (which to be honest still exist – otherwise, try not paying mortgage and credit cards). then however came the eventual pozzing and mixing of the populations by these liberals, who couldn’t understand why without serfdom and slavery the races (and classes) were still unequal. thus came then the darkie-loving (((socialists))). yes, the Irish and the Italians got married in America for the sake of marrying a Catholic, but they wouldn’t have done so in pre-EU Europe; and still stand apart quite often from Catholic darkies. although the latter phenomenon is also because immigrants communities post-1965 America were scrambled all together thanks to desegregation into either the new post-60s secular whitey culture or into the ghetto culture of blax and spix. (even Asian-Americans do, if we compare Japs and Thais, for example). thus it was easier for the elites to divide between haves and havenots, as well as sending whites who fell into poverty down to intermarriage. it happened in Latin America last century, and (((they))) want this for North America as well, with all the increase of intermixing propaganda and examples. true, most people won’t intermix, just like most people won’t watch porn or do dope – but, unlike autistic libertarians, we Integralists know we live in a society, and that enough pushing at the edges means enough freaks will join the infertile weirdo ranks and destabilize society.
Deus vult regardless, always. even if the Pope might be black on occasion from now on, most won’t be if the Latin liturgy is kept and practiced more often than the vernacular option. i was raised in the vernacular era, but unless the post-V2 rite gets much more disciplined and traditional like the Latin one*, the vernacular should be a lesser option (make it the Sunday afternoon mass for the casuals). and yes yes, the Church even if without pedo scandals would be a soft UN of sorts, but in a good way – otherwise we get each country’s church trying to outdo the other one in being tools of the state, whether low-church (Billy Graham was cozy with every president) or high-church (pozzed race-mixing Anglicans, Muslim-rapefugee-loving lesbian Swedish bishops… who aren’t even hot!).
Easter season blessings.
*from what i see in the news, the opposite is coming – what a mess that Amazon synod was
The divine law is the same for all peoples. Its implementation, however, will vary among them.
Disagree. We immediately get into problems when we assume that anything “divine” exists. Only the physical universe exists. Its (known) laws are precise, immutable, implacable. Anything supernatural, by definition, cannot be part of the natural universe.
If there were some “divine” law, we would already be following it. This is one thing the Adam & Eve myth* gets right: the choice of good versus evil, really it’s about the power to choose. We can choose whether to obey a moral (human-created) law. We cannot choose whether or not to obey Gravity, Electromagnetism or the sodium/potassium ion exchange at the cell membrane.
*People miss the value of a narrative, even if it is a legend. Usually these stories have some teaching value. The fundamentalist will declare: You MUST believe that there was a snake and an apple! Woman’s fault! Why not just take the story as a teaching similar to what I gave above? It is an explanation of the “sin” if you will, but we have the power, indeed the requirement, to make choices in our lives. Blame Satan if you like, but that won’t absolve you from the need to make decisions or participate in the results of those choices.
If I may, I would re-word your post like this: The laws of the universe are the same for all peoples. Your success or failure in life directly depends upon you understanding them, and basing your decisions accordingly.”
The universe’s known laws are anything but precise at the quantum level.
Your aggressive and probably willful misunderstanding of the term “divine law” seems characteristic of your style.
I don’t presume to speak for wiseguy, but in my case, never “reword” anything I say. I don’t need you attempting to interpret my own thoughts for me.
The physical universe is no less devine than the human attempt, probably more so. The entire universe is supernatural. It’s like your nose, which you can’t see because it’s on your face. Because you can now, thanks to others, understand light, to a degree, electomagnatism, gravity, and relativity, to a degree, you take them for granted, as a given, and furthermore nobody and nothing gave it! Even Albert didn’t think that.
Yeah, damn that Biology. I guess another way of looking at the biblical verse of “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?“ is the current day commandment, “Thou shall not Notice.”
One of my favorite parables. The problem with many so-called leaders — business, political or moral — is that they have an entire lumber yard in their eye! 😀
Absolutely the entire lumber yard.
Yeah they got the lumber yard, the forests, the whole thing.
Chances are they keep it.
please read the following verses after that. it clearly says, after you remove your own plank, help your brother. means that you can still tell your brother he is a lazy bum… after you stop being one with him.
and bringing it back to race, that’s something i’ve noticed, in that the reverse of this verse occurs, almost Satanically: instead of helping brothers*, whites don’t look at any specks in their own eyes, and even enjoy them, while looking at the specks in blacks’ eyes and removing them. yet, not minding that the lower average black IQ makes at least many of them blacks more prone to get their eyes dirty (and/or in different ways than whites), the whites keep wiping the specks, even ignoring when blacks want to wipe themselves, even ignoring when there cannot be any more wiping done, they just need to get those blacks’ eyelashes right – for they think their virtue is in the process of wiping and not in the clean eyes. kind of like atheists who believe in a process like evolution, or libertardians who believe in market processes, or communists who believe in dogmatic Marxist processes, and not in actual first or last things. meanwhile the specks accumulating in white eyes have left them blind already.
*notice the language, he didn’t say stranger or acquaintance or even friend – dare i say Jesus was speaking within concentric circles of consanguinity – family, tribe, nation, race, faith?
An excellent, insightful essay, but discouraging in the end: The many problems with Christian Integralism are limned with it being bashed by the usual suspects (and then some). In the end it is found to be wanting—no surprise there—even as we are presented with an unfortunate either-or choice: Integralism or civic nationalism. Integralism, it is said, carries the day despite its many, many faults.
There’s gotta be another way, a better way. There’s got to be another choice.
@Jim Smith – there isn’t. The world must be confronted as it is, not through an ideological prism. Integralism comes closer to solving the big problems we have right now.
It is the open society that is the enemy. The sooner we admit it, the better.
One of the excellent observations in Reno’s “Return of the Strong Gods,” was that even the conservatives were pitching the Open Society as the ideal. So, the Great Books programs at places like U. of Chicago, with its conservative emphasis on the Western canon, emphasized that canon _so that_ the Open Society could be preserved. From this perspective, the problem with the Left was that they were, when you really think about it, opposed to the Open Society. If this sounds like the sophisticated version of Dems Are the Real Racists, that’s because it is.
But all the smart conservative kids have this disease. Chris Caldwell writes a book about how the elimination of freedom of association was the kill shot for the US, but doesn’t follow his own claim. IForgetWHo wrote a book on American secession – how it would be totally legit and a piece of cake and totally not bring back Jim Crow, because that would be wrong.
So, the integralists have the same problem, looks like. My perspective is that, like Caldwell or Reno or whoever, the heavy lifting of explaining how the liberal democratic project has failed cannot help insofar as, having made the claim, the conclusion follows. Cynically, all these guys may be smart enough to know the implications of their own thinking. I have to view it as a win.
Of course, the Originalists will be given every chance to recant before punishment.
Further contemplation has brought several questions. What is the role of the church in our thing? Do we have allies within the church? Could they be useful as a conterbalance to the worst impulses of the jews? I’m so far removed from the church scene i’ve no idea where we stand. Integralism is too esoteric, academic and probaly ambitous . what are the practicalities and potential allainces that exist within the church?
The American church unfortunately has been infiltrated by Christian Zionism. Pence and Pompeo just two examples of conservative Christian Zionists in high places. Much of the rest of Protestantism has been captured by modernity. On the other hand Catholicism is damaged by the boy tiddling communists.
The Christian church is very weak in the West.
And I consider myself a Christian but it appalls me how weak that we have become.
We either shill for Israel or shill for the feminized homosexual version of the church.
Thus the easily conquered societal value system we call liberal democracy but is actually just a religious competition to other forms of religion.
Now based on my understanding of Chrsitianity, Jesus did not advocate buggery, but he WAS in so many words, a communist. If you are not familiar with the Bible, read no more than the book of Acts and tell me that the early Christians described therein, sharing communally according to need and so forth, were anything else? To this may I add: it is an example of a VOLUNTARY community. In political systems, you rarely find that participation is optional. This is a critical difference. Perhaps there are others.
Ah yes, here’s one…
Unlike the modern church, where they sprinkle some water on you (or should they dunk you?), say some magic words and viola, your saved, the early Church didn’t let just any swinging dick join. There was a long process of learning and vetting. There was (and always will be) the problem of the wolf in sheep’s clothing. But today, most churches just give the wolf a sheep suit at the entry!
Ben – Go layabout and give the aggressive atheism a rest, please. The adults are trying to have a discussion here.
they still had private property, just shared it (or sold it and shared profits) with the other members of the community as needed. so yes, a voluntary community, with several stakeholders, in fact kinda like a current non-profit CORPORATION? geez, it was Catholicism who invented the term.
also, do you even know what happens at Baptism? you are not saved yet at all. the Church never believed that, that’s why we have 7 sacraments, and the emphasis on “faith without works is dead”.
(sure, the “get saved now” denominations will claim otherwise, and thus they treat their baptismal rites kinda like a mental, watery, useless penance; but that is why they are full of sheepskin wolves).
Probably the best you could get from churches is in rural churches that already have a strong sense of community. If you can empower them as the backbone of the community, more-so than the city government, I think you could get somewhere.
1 Corinthians is pretty detailed on how a church should order itself… and it parallels well with how a new nation can be formed, as well. Capitalizing on what rural churches are already doing (reproducing, teaching their children, supporting their poor) and steering them to what else they could be doing, I think would make them powerful central allies.
There’s a lot of “ifs” here, though. I’d simply be happy to see a dissident Christian get the preaching bug and start his own local church. Be your own missionaries.
Do we have allies within the church?
The church is the main motor behind the open borders movement, they’re worse than the kayaks.
Read the Bible, never forget its knowledge.
If you can’t find a pozzed church just keep reading the Bible. BTW even at the conservative Evangelical church I attended almost none of the men were virgins (except the ugly ones) and I suspect most of the women weren’t either.
Modern society is an ugly beast.
at least for Catholics, one can try to observe pre-Vatican 2 traditions, which were not abrogated as the council’s conclusions were pastoral and not dogmatic.
and even then, you have to tread carefully, as race is the hardest red pill and many have not taken it – even if they can kinda feel it when they attend services with Gregorian chant only and look at how pale and quiet mostly everyone is.
(still, i think blacks can attend the Latin Mass no problem – though again, in their own communities, and probably most will need some more centuries of discipline with it… and sure, a better vernacular rite for those who cannot help but needing to sing and clap; can’t have the pastors throwing the Holy Spirit DBZ-style all over though, sorry…).
> Christian ethics into secular law. Darren Beattie, the right-wing critic of multiculturalism, is very opposed to integralism, calling Vermeule a dangerous joke.
Vermuele is worse than a joke. He’s likely a fed. He wrote a paper on cognitive infiltration and the last several years he has just started personally implementing it.
That’s why he says edgy stuff like imprisoning Lutherans for his fringe creds while promoting the wider claims of globohomo in regards to the authoritarian administrative state and mass third-world immigration.
When the framers of the Constitution discussed “liberty,” they meant “ordered liberty,” liberty within moral limits. Freedom of speech didn’t mean the right to peddle pornography. But the other liberal core principle of “equality” kept going and going like the Energizer bunny, undermining the idea of a higher authority. After all, if everyone is equal, no one has the right to tell you what to do and what not to do. You are your own moral authority.
Funny that David French’s podcast is called “Ordered Liberty”…
Are we even capable of bring this to an end on our own without complete collapse?
Even left to ourselves the current social arrangements would be disastrous. It is what put us on the path to our present troubles. Adding the needs and concerns of Jews and other outsiders to this is suicidal. “Is it good for white people as a whole or is it destructive to our group’s evolved symbiotic structure?” This is the only question we should concern ourselves with. The “other” have their own homelands. Sending away those who don’t belong here and who undermine our nations is only a first step. The more difficult step will be the long process of regenerating a civilization worth the effort.
I don’t think there will be major change until we are standing at the edge of the cliff. I hope that society doesn’t go off the cliff.
I think that there will be civil war. Not like the War Between the States, but like The Troubles in Northern Ireland. Terrorism, sabotage, kidnappings, etc.
Being the cynic, I would say there won’t be any changes until the survivors, groaning after the fall, extricate themselves from the tangle of bodies at the bottom of the cliff 🙁
yes. sometimes sacrifice is needed
Here is Jefferson’s definition of liberty
so in short, you are only free when equal, and equal when free.
left-libertarianism. the worst of both worlds.
but hey, Louisiana purchase.
In America the colonies had different official religions. There were issues with that. With the opening of USA inc. the operating assumption became religion would form the individual who represented government, which worked for a time. As we see on these pages the religion of govenrnment has infiltrated most of the Christian religions in America.
Tocquevilles thoughts–“As long as religion relies upon feelings which are the consolation of every suffering, it may attract the human heart……(but) by uniting with different political powers, can…form only burdensome alliances.
In Europe, Christianity has allowed itself to be closely linked with the powers of this world. Today these powers are collapsing and it is virtually buried beneath their ruins. Unbelievers in Europe attack Christians more as political enemies than as religious opponents.
Under the Empire the Church took no part in politics ; after the Restoration it became a political party in itself. It joined the most ardent votaries of absolute monarchy, and often declaimed from the pulpit in its favour.
The result was fatal. Almost all the liberal party, that is, the great majority of the nation, became irreligious on political grounds. Impiety was a form of opposition. Excellent men were furious when religion was mentioned; others, notoriously immoral, talked incessantly of restoring altars, and of inculcating reverence towards God.”
The Founders were the greatest and most prepared class of political theorist to appear at one time. But they were theorist. The last hurdle they had to jump to get to a united state was size. The dead man they most relied upon, Montisquieau, stated the one thing a republic cannot be is large. They thought to overcome this problem with federalism. However we try to overcome the proven gravity of our form of government, gravity absorbs us back into it. Size matters.
the problem with Tocqueville is that he assumed republic (and learned liberals) always good, and monarchy (and dumb conservatives) always bad. not even Star Wars is so infantile. he couldn’t see that “the powers of the world” were going to infiltrate secular republics as well, even easier than under Christian monarchy, which took (((them))) centuries to unravel.
also, the Second French Empire was clearly Catholic, so obviously when it fell the Church wanted to keep their influence, in spite of the rabid secular Third Republicans. eventually the Church lost the struggle and had to sign the laicite compromise, by which Notre Dame was allowed to burn last year amidst the laughter of many local Muslims*.
*and no, i don’t refer to white (French) Muslims, but to Muslim Arabs and Berbers born and raised in “secular” France. though judging by the backwardness of Bosnians and Albanians, white Muslims cannot be much better. meanwhile Christian blacks tend to be the least nocive of their kind – but again, we can send them missionaries, no need for mixing it up.
He believed no such thing. He wrote that freedom was found in many different forms of government and it was not exclusve to democratic government, rather, when freedom was not a part of democracy it was the most dangerous tyranny.
well i was just responding to the quote, where he seems biased to democracy. then again, the Church at the time was too close to absolutist royal power for its own good too, forgetting the more balanced medieval monarch ideal envisioned by Saint Thomas Aquinas.
not to mention, the political post-Enlightenment concept of freedom isn’t always the same as divinely ordained freedom. but yes, a democracy needs more of it than a monarchy, which really just needs freedom to revolt and/or some sort of periodical plebiscite/vote of no-confidence that sends the king home for a period if needed. you know, like timeouts in hockey… for some reason it makes sense, yes.
i may even add a periodic jubilee in which debts are cancelled and the royal dynasty is free to chase the highest quality commoners to mate, ergo refreshing bloodlines.
James;
I don’t see how you can say that “under the (Holy Roman) Empire the (Roman Catholic) Church took no part in politics”. To the contrary, its representatives were at the very core of its politics.
As evidence, 3 of 7 Prince Electors (who elected the next emperor when the old one died and had some legislative power) were Catholic Prelates. Specifically, these were The Archbishop of Mainz, who was titular head of The Imperial Diet, The Archbishop of Cologne and the Archbishop of Trier.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Diet_(Holy_Roman_Empire)
I don’t think that religion and politics have ever existed truly independent of each other in actual practice, however we might wish otherwise.
You may be right and Tocqueville wrong. Or, the church at that point exercised a fraction of the power it gathered over time.
Tocqueville was speaking about Napoleon’s nephew’s Second French Empire. and even then he was wrong, the Empire was ultra-Catholic.
No, he wasn’t. Tocqueville did not live to see that short lived Empire.
Morality is a part of any society and I take pleasure in pointing out to anyone who will listen that our current construct of morality is so backwards it must be disobeyed. We must fight today’s bizarre version of morality because the chief purpose of any society is to perpetuate itself and our current society is not breeding. In fact, many of today’s most sacred rights prevent reproduction. (Women’s liberation, abortion, etc)
Your views on these issues are really irrelevant because, since personality and political views are inherited, your ancestors will not be around to perpetuate your views on morality. And therefore, your society ends while the ones who hold the beliefs that are conducive to reproduction remain. Mormon population projections confirm this reality. The future is not female, is is radically anti-feminist and may actually prove The Handmaiden’s tale to be prescient.
I have Mormon friends and made a point of learning about the Church stands for.
The Mormon patriarchy is quite mild, like what existed in 1950s America. The Church still stresses wholesome living, celebrates motherhood and promotes pre-marital chastity and marital fidelity for both men and women. Heartiste’s fans wouldn’t like that.
The LDS have gotten very cucky on race. Give it a generation and they’ll go full Espiscopalian.
I noticed that, too. Unfortunately, but isn’t that true of most if not all mainstream Christian denominations? Perhaps the Eastern Orthodox Churches are exceptions.
Some. Some are just as pozzed. The vast gulf between Seraphim Rose and David Bentley Hart is striking.
I was a member for a while at a very conservative Evangelical church. Very based on all points except race. Oh well, it was 90% white and was promoting good morals for its congregants and promoting childbirth.
Problem is that most of the young people in the church are also cucked. And even feeling white guilt. The old people are awesome but they will be gone soon and I give it a 0% chance that the “future leaders” of the church will do anything remotely controversial or anti-poz. really sad.
If the typical response to the demands of the CV19 gestapo by most all churches regadless of where they stand along the evangelical…ecumenical spectrum is any indication – quite sad indeed. There was something said (and it wasn’t good) in The Revelation about the church at Laodecia that may well apply to many churches today.
The American Church is fixin’ to be spit right on out….Lukewarm is too kind a term.
Ris – the Moron patriarchy also heavily promotes multiculturalism, because the entirety of their growth comes from non-Whites. They are busily importing thousands of Samoans and Mexicans and other flotsam and jetsom into their previously orderly society and marrying them to their lovely blonde daughters. The results are not pretty. Look into the crime rates in Salt Lake City. Once again, people here are missing the point – religion – ANY religion – is downstream from race and culture.
I dunno man, seems like alot of Anglos just don’t have the ethnocentrism required to survive in the modern, diverse world. No doubt some of us do (places like Z blog exist) but we will see lots.
How long until the Amish start welcoming in Africans (as long as they learn Pennsyvania Dutch of course – LOL)..
I suppose in a pre-industrial society white ethnocentrism is not needed… 95% of non-whites would be completely useless to an Amish community, for instance. You don’t even need to be racist they would just fail on their own and drop out.
It’s your GENETICS that dictates your performance and life on EARTH. Your belief in Jesus Christ (RELIGION) is what guarantees you eternal life in heaven. I don’t know WHY so many whites conflate the two.
the thing of it is, belief is measured in performance in the end. faith without works is dead, and all that. then again, performance in the materialist world is not the same as avoiding sin. treasures on heaven, treasures on earth, and all that.
besides, it’s not like Christianity exacts humongous demands, compared for example to others who have to make pilgrimage to a sandy Mideast city to be saved. “my yoke is soft, and sweet”.
and at any rate, IQ scale don’t necessarily match the sin scale, rather different sins are committed by different IQs. a black bum squatting in an abandoned house but otherwise decent may go to heaven, a white property owner who price ranges young white families out while inviting Asian grads over to talk about that Parasite movie may burn in hell.
yes, but apparently they don’t want none of those nice things for the rest of us, and so they gave us Mittens for president.
those 2012 GOP debates drained the soul of whoever watched them. i saw a couple minutes once and just wanted for Rick Santorum to declare we would live in theocracy or something crazy to wake up everyone. how dark were the times, before the golden escalator.
the orange escalator, some might say
yes, orange-we glad he came along… if only to buy us some more time due to his many flaws, but oh well… we need to keep plowing along either way…
If the events described in the Old Testament had actually taken place— if King Solomon had reigned as the wisest man in history, whose wisdom was acclaimed throughout the ancient world; if the Hebrews had spent 400 years enslaved in Egypt, during which time one of their own had ascended to second-in-command to Pharaoh, and saved the country from famine; if the Red Sea had swallowed the entire armor-clad Egyptian army, chariots and all, including the Pharaoh; if 600,000 men (plus women and children) had spent 40 years wandering a relatively-small section of desert; if those Hebrews had conquered ‘the promised land’, razing and burning several cities in the process— *then these events would surely have left some trace in the historical-archaeological record*
And indeed, the first generation of archaeologists— aptly called ‘Biblical archaeologists’— set forth to find these sites, using the Old Testament accounts as their guide. But what they found was…. nothing. Not a trace of the evidence which surely would have remained, had the events described in the OT actually taken place. So the only reasonable conclusion to draw is that the OT is a conglomeration of myths, composed by humans for purposes of their own. There’s nothing “divine” about it.
Now that we have the findings of evolutionary genetics, biology, and psychology, to inform us as to who we are as human beings, and how we came to be the way we are— *surely we no longer need to rely on iron-age mythology— or the integralism which derives from it— as the basis of our common morality*
Some slightly non mainstream historians make a convincing case that the Jews are really the Hyksos who were expelled from egypt after invading and ruling Northern Egypt for a few hundred years.
The exodus of these people was north into palestine and it seems basically the Old testament is a mish mash of these times in Egypt, an accountant of the Hyksos pharonic lines and creation out of whole cloth of a history of persecution to make them into the victims, from a people that spent a long time as an occupying force in another land.
it seems to me instead that the Israelites and other tribes of Canaan were conquered by and/or made tributaries of Egypt. then they gained favor, possibly being the Hyksos, before being resented and all that Exodus stuff.
at any rate, atheists losing their minds about exactly 600 thousand Jews in the Sinai Peninsula, or 6 days of creation, or whatever, is what we get with ultra-literalist Prots, which wouldn’t have existed without the sola scriptura fallacy.
not to mention, too many Prots love the (((Masoretic))) texts.
Spot on. You are a modern Voltaire! If you need skepticism of religion, read him. Even though nearly 300 years old, he noted many of the points you make in your posting.
Have you ever noticed that the only unpardonable sin in many religions is to question the tenets? Even our own once-fine country’s founding documents, which overthrew a prior government, make it a serious offense to overthrow a government 🙂
There’s Religion, then there is religion. All have a religion. Some have a Religion. But don’t pretend for a minute that anyone has ‘transcended’ religion. The “I F-ing Love Science” people would like a word.
Myth is not the same as Fact, and to claim that Religion has no value because of some myths and allegories is boring, base, uncreative atheism that Aquinas could bat aside even as a child.
Agree. The degree that the West believes (or pretends to believe) the Jews “History” is astonishing.
Their line about spending 40 years wandering around a sand filled Walmart parking lot has always made me smile.
Its almost like the monotheistic aspect of the religion was invented quite recently and written just post Rome (relatively speaking ). As lots of stuff like the zodiacs on the floors of 1st century AD synagogues in Judea have been conveniently forgotten.
Chesterton talks about this in the Everlasting Man. Polytheism is the invention of civilization. Monotheism is older than dirt.
the archaeologists found Sodom and Gomorrah. but sure, more handwaving and you can make that go away too. they were influenced not to find anything, anyway, by (((certain people))).
about the other findings… surely?
we haven’t found squat. all we found is we inherit some things and learn others. no such thing as common morality without faith, save the Noahide law – and even that was law from above.
tacking “evolutionary” in front of it doesn’t solve anything. evolution is a process, neither a particular nor a universal, and thus not a basis for anything.
Good essay. I think of my now deceased father who grew up in the 1940’s and 1950’s rural America. Neither he nor his father and mother went to church or attended Christian services, they ran a pool hall.
Yet my fathers morality was immersed in Christian ethics and the ether of a Christian society.
We have lost most of that now.
Liberal democracy and its secular ethics, it’s diversity God , glorification of homosexuality and the multicultural religion has taken us into a different culture devoid of inner strength in my opinion.
The screeching of the hysterical media over this virus and how quickly the population gives up its freedoms is proof of a new western religion in my opinion.
Unfortunately the new western religion appears to be a mass suicide cult, but rather than waiting for the end of the world, they are actively trying to make it so on earth.
We have arrived as we allowed our own openess to be exploited by a systemic attack on chrisitianity driven via mass media. It is no coincidence the rise of TV was used as an agent of intentional destruction.
I don’t care if the goverment promotes a particular religion. I’m more concerned that the denominations uncuck themselves and start fighting for thier congregations intersts. The papist have grown completely impotent and appear to be headed by a marxist jesuit. The baptist aren’t far behind. Who are calling out the pornographers and cultural subversives? Need reform- then start fighting. The boy diddlers need to make way for the warrior monks. It seems to me people would be prepared to flock to some ol timey religion. In short i would be happy with just one based instition to arise so that i could throw our support behind it. Nobody appears to be on our side.
Men are supposed to do God’s will. If God’s will isn’t being done, that’s men’s failure. Keep it simple. Don’t try to be God, don’t eat the fruit of the tree when women tempt and cajole you. Just do what you’re supposed to do, and things will work out. In other words, have faith.
Yeah that sounds fundamentalist, but look around at this feminized world, and ask yourself if it’s so bad to be a little fundamentalist.
Short and sweet, and that about sums it up. We can either listen to God or try to play God, there’s really no other choice. That’s what the story of the forbidden fruit is all about. Evil comes into this world through women, via the weakness of men.
Sure, women are uniquely evil. Ackshually, the Fall is sometimes interpreted as a happy fault or Felix Culpa for all the Latin aficionados, the genesis of man’s free will and moral agency and the restoration of man to a better state of supernatural grace.
Sung at Easter vigil:
“O happy fault,
O necessary sin of Adam
which gained for us
so great a Redeemer!”
My inner nerd had to look this up:
Faust: We usually gather from your names
The nature of you gentlemen: it’s plain
What you are, we all too clearly recognise
One who’s called Liar, Ruin, Lord of the Flies.
Well, what are you then?
Mephistopheles: Part of the Power that would
Always wish Evil, and always works the Good.
It’s not that women are evil, but they seem susceptible to that kind of logic. Also Enlightenment soyboys like Faust, apparently.
That evil enters the world through the capriciousness of women is not to say that women are evil, only that they beguile men into holding open the door through which evil passes.
You’re right, though. Man’s fall is necessary in order for us to fulfill our mission of learning how to love God. If we were merely animals, we would do what we’re programmed to do without the capacity to grasp His protective grace. By giving us the choice in Eden, God knew that although we would necessarily fall, we would then become aware of the difference between Good and evil, thus providing us with the ability to fully appreciate His love.
well of course Adam is mentioned in that chant, because Christ is the new Adam.
i’d also argue that the Fall wasn’t happy, but that the chant considers it thus only insofar as the Redeemer came. as you say, it was the beginning of free will and moral agency, but the restoration was not instant – Patriarchs, Law and Prophets had to come, then the Redeemer.
also, the chant doesn’t mean Eve was not the first one to sin, or that men aren’t meant to lead women according to the Apostle (and consequently proven by biology).
*of course, in exchange for letting Christian men lead naturally, Christian women were allowed to keep property, receive aid (specially if widowed), avoid husbands divorcing them at will, and keep virgin if they so desired (in Antiquity, with arranged marriages and without soap or medicine, this was a big deal – specially to Roman women who wanted to keep themselves to Christ and away from pagan/barbaroi leaders). heck, Saint Nicholas (and others) even collected money to pay the dowry for women who couldn’t afford it and wanted to get married; not to mention that Christian men often gave work to each other, and gave alms to be distributed to those in need.
we need that Christianity back… but people get in pretzels over ad orientem.
“Blacks in America are every bit as Christian, more so, in fact, as whites, but the races continue to live culturally separate. The typical black neighborhood is nothing like the typical white neighborhood. Black culture remains stubbornly immune to modernity. The truth is, God may love us equally, but he gave us different continents as homelands for a reason.”
Kin > Tribe/Ethnicity > Race > Community > Ideology
The first 3 = biology. The last 2 = religion, in the modern sense.
Divorcing religion from kin, ethnicity and race can work – look at any modern denomination – but it’s catabolic, a mouse-utopia that starts to produce bizarre, unnatural behaviors over time.
From personal experience, NuCatholic services are a sea of non-Whites, with the White minority smiling glassy-eyed in beatific self-sacrificial joy, a land of lotus-eaters. Every time I Notice this, I think “they feel like they believe Jesus felt right now. They’re Jesus in their own eyes in this shining moment of pathological altruism.”
This isn’t theology. This isn’t sociology. This is addiction – the famous hamster, pushing the button for more sweet dopamine & oxytocin hits, yea unto death.
From a Christian perspective (as Z has noted re: Mr. French), they are high on Pride, apple-bobbing deep in the wellspring of sin – the infernal First Thing that led Lucifer to demand that God (((tikkun olam))) Heaven to Lucifer’s specifications.
The success of pre-modern Christianity among White/European peoples was the result of a humanizing, tribalizing, racializing pagan Germanic infusion in the late Roman and early feudal ages. The inheritors of the Roman world transformed its religion as much as it transformed them – a syncretism.
This integral union of White biology and religion terrifies its (((competition))). To the extent you accept the idea of “Judeo-Christianity,” Germanification amounted to taking Their Thing and making it Ours.
This is why they’ve spent so many years and so much effort on promoting the aforementioned divorce. As above, so below – this divorce is now reflected in broken families as well as broken faith communities.
Islam will be the next Abrahamic faith brought down by weaponized (((liberalism))). To the Chosen, there can be (and always has been) only One.
Christianity differs from all other religions in that it is highly syncretic, meaning it can be practiced “correctly” in any cultural context so long as certain key doctrines remain intact.
Black churches will always be full of clapping, drums, and not a whole lot of intellectual depth.
The Voodeo-Christian canonization of St. King in America suggests a certain moral laxity and the native-African churches get up to some witchy stuff. The last real “African” Catholic was a Med from Hippo.
This is why religion makes a bad First Thing to unite a society. The biology will tell over time. Religion’s well downstream from biology in the true order of things. Once your syncretism passes a certain unmarked, intangible point, it’s no longer “real” to more Trad believers – especially in the unifying sense. Likewise for the “heretics.”
I’m not going to travel Nigeria alone armed with only a rosary, that’s for sure.
All certainly true. The Orthodox get it correct here by having congregations with reflect shared biology and shared faith.
the problem with the Orthodox is that whenever ethnic disputes arise in the congregations, they divide further instead of uniting, which may keep the peace in the short run, but doesn’t help when faced with larger threats. thus the Orthodox end up not needing a pope, but a full blown Caesar, either in Constantinople or in Moscow/Petrograd, who can keep all the multiplying patriarchs and eparchs in check, but who also is resented by Orthodox of other lesser nations (example the nasty split between Ukrainian and Russian Orthodoxies due entirely political matters). Catholicism lost Morocco and Algeria, but then won many more lands elsewhere. meanwhile the Orthodox nearly lost everything, most specially 3 ancient patriarchates including the holy places; we rescued Greece and the Balkans later due to Russian Caesarism, plus the outside help of Great Britain and France (albeit with more secular interests than anything), and the evangelizing efforts of the Habsburgs and other Catholic Mitteleuropeans – Jan Sobieski, for example.
Catholicism instead united big and small white countries (and polite enough friendlies) under the banner of the papacy*… for better and worse. on one hand Catholicism can resist better institutionally, as the collective yet fraternal hold means all parties have a vested interest in keeping it. on the other hand, if this institution fails in any way, or fails to acknowledge natural national characteristics (the good kind, not the sinful ones that have to be erased instead of accommodated, like idk pachamama idolatry lol), or has way too overbearing big shot nations (Spain, most specially France), the member nations try to go their own way…
*that said… there is a line of thought among some monarchical Catholics (which are the reactionariest of them all already) that says there should be not only restored Catholic monarchies (difficult, not impossible – we are at the end of democracy anyway, and dictatorship can be hereditary as needed) but also a Holy Roman Emperor again. technically the Empire was abolished post-Vienna Congress and the Emperor gave up the crown. however it could be said that if the Empire had a spiritual dimension, it did not cease to exist, and ergo the throne is vacant. what dynasty and what nation indeed could reclaim this imperial mantle though? instead of this convolutedness i would rather have the Pope crown a new “Emperor”, albeit one that would only have ceremonial head of government functions in every Catholic nation. nearly all of these lack monarchies, and those who do, like Spain or Belgium, could be knocked down a peg in the pecking order due to their globohomo attitudes. who knows, depending on the staffer, the Emperor could be a glorified ambassador or a fierce force or at least a big megaphone – and, may get in fights with the popes a lot. so maybe this revival could only be done on occasion when the temporal realm of the Church (not just the holy See, but the Catholic nations) is heavily attacked in any material or spiritual way, instead naming a “captain of Christian forces”, like Don Juan de Austria or the aforementioned Sobieski.
then again, with the current direction, Francis or his successor might as well crown a rabbi, or a Muslim rapefugee, or his atheist interviewer friend, or an Amazonian pretending to be the Incan Emperor, or Greta Thunberg.
oh and of course the Prot and Orthodox countries wouldn’t care for this new Emperor. meanwhile (((they))) all obey different rabbis, but know when to stick together, as they believe in one chosen people ruling over heathen others. (Muslims and other pagans are the same, and in the ethnic realm the darker ones tend to have higher desire for outbreeding too). meanwhile, we used to believe in one baptism allowing for all distinct natural peoples to pursue the same God, and thus avoided (((their))) claws. food for thought.
“The last real ‘African’ Catholic was a Med from Hippo.”
Cardinal Sarah begs to differ.
“I’m not going to travel Nigeria alone armed with only a rosary, that’s for sure.”
The Society of African Missions, The Spiritans (Congregation of the Holy Spirit, C.S.Sp.),The Augustinians (Order of Saint Augustine, O.S.A.), Missionary Sisters of Our Lady of Apostles, St. Louis Sisters, Salesians of Don Bosco Salesians of Don Bosco (SDB)], Missionaries of Africa, Pontifical Mission Societies of Nigeria (PMS Nigeria), Aid to the Church in Need, Missionary Society of St. Paul, Order of Preachers (Dominicans), Order of Discalced Carmelites, The Franciscans, Society of Jesus (Jesuits), The Cleratian Missionary Fathers, The Oblates Of St Joseph, The Redemptorists, Daughters of St. Paul, Oblates of the Virgin Mary, and Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate beg to differ.
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2019/12/robert-cardinal-sarah-the-day-is-now-far-spent-jerry-salyer.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_Nigeria
None of these people refute the argument that Catholicism is being Africanized. None of this makes me any more inclined to travel in Nigeria b/c Cardinal Whosis or Father Somebody.
I knew there would be X number of Catholics here who would ackshually me on this – didn’t want to muck up the post addressing outliers or nominal exceptions. I stand on my points.
I’m not inclined to travel to Nigeria, either, but this does not negate the fact that there is still a strong Catholic presence and missionary activity there. Nor does it negate the fact that Augustine was certainly not the last real African Catholic. Why the disdain for the Paleoconservative Eminence? He’s on your side, ackshually. “Globalized humanity, without borders, is a hell. The standardization of ways of life is the cancer of the postmodern world. Men become unwitting members of a great planetary herd, that does not think, does not protest, and allows itself to be guided toward a future that does not belong to it.” The African Church also tends to be more traditional than in the West. “African bishops also expressed strong opposition to US President Barack Obama’s positions on abortion and same-sex marriage, compared to American bishops who opted to ‘cooperate’ with the administration on those contentious issues.”
https://www.christiantoday.com/article/christianitys-bastion-moving-to-africa-asia-as-west-falls-into-secularism/55727.htm
And, I must say, were it not for the no-votes of Third World-Methodist clergy, the First United Methodist Church would now be conducting heaumeaux weddings. And this gets to a point Eastwood made in Gran Torino–many Third World peoples are far more traditional than whites. Doesn’t mean we want to live in the Third World or that we want its inmates to inundate us here. But the Third World example should serve as an object lesson to whites who are blithely sauntering into Sheol.
absolutely everything is being Africanized. so who knows, maybe it would help rescuing white traditions, like Roman (!) Christianity. heck, even the white pagans make nice runes and stuff.
secular white nationalism is so dry by comparison, which is why it never leaves the blogs and the telegram chats and the stats. are memes and Laibach our highest art form? rephrasing that, are we inspired at all???? if anything, it seems secular whites are just trying to one up (((them))) in their established fields under their rules, thus eventually falling into their same errors.
then again, so did Christianity dry up, when it stopped being about lived rites and sacraments (which can be localized to a degree mind you) and started being about analyzing every verse to make sure the Pope (or Luther) was wrong, while outside degenerate forces like Voltaire or Marx or the Rothschilds ascended. so i get your point. however Christianity did hang around whites 10x longer than secularism, so perhaps it runs as a top contender for White First Thing at the very least.
Sts. Benedict the Moor, Perpetua, Felicity, Martin de Porres, and Peter Claver will be happy to join Cdl. Sarah in dissent from your mis-statement. Ever hear of “Google”?
Or any of these after 430 A.D., dad.
https://www.catholic.org/saints/black.php
Ever hear of rhetoric?
I could slog down the thread with 100 links about the African Church turning a blind eye to folk magic, FGM, etc… but I think most people get it.
This kind of pedantry and NAxALT is why so many on the Right can’t beat the Left at meta-politics. I’m not going to play whack-a-mole with your list of nominal Catholics.
At least the Church leadership in Africa is moving in the right (traditional Catholic) direction, pretty much as a body, even if they have to drag their flock behind them. Most all are like that. Honesty is not pedantry.
Bunny, with all due respect for your Catholic faith, you are missing the point here. You may hold up all the counter examples you wish, but the fact remains that Christianity – what we think of and believe as Christians today, did not develop amongst black sub-Saharan Africans. It developed amongst the Mediterranean peoples and, as Exile noted, then syncretized with Greco-Roman people and thought. Add in the Germans and other Europeans and you have a distinct strain of Christianity – what was initially the only strain – which we practice variants of today. Asian and African Christianity was an offshoot of that, via missionaries, and it developed its own characteristics based on its own biology and culture. Certainly today the rot is deepest in the American and European prelates of all stripes – but that comparison does not make the Africans virtuous paeans to traditionalist doctrines. There is no functional society that is multiracial/multicultural but uni-religious. Bring a sufficient number of your purportedly bible-believing, traditionalist Catholic Africans to America and you would be forced, eventually, to note the primacy of biology. That’s the tl;dr here – religion is ultimately downstream of biology.
Christianity developed among the Jews also, as many here would argue per its unfitness for your movement. And although different locales may have varying “flavors” of Catholicism, as long as they adhere to Church doctrine/dogma, those peoples are truly Catholic. The African Church is demonstrably and objectively more traditionally Catholic than the West, at least as far as the leadership is concerned. That is not singing paeans to them, it’s the truth. I’m not really concerned with the point (“This is why religion makes a bad First Thing to unite a society”), but with the veracity of the supporting “facts”. The point is yours to make.
the Africans are paeans to some traditionalist doctrines that we need to imitate… from afar. because due to their other practices (FGM, folk magic, cannibalism to get boners) and lower IQ, better send missionaries over there instead of bringing refugees over here.
what Bunny is against is this sort of whites-only Christianity that is ahistorical: the early Christian world was not only Greco-Roman, there were barbaroi from the Rhine and Danube, Semites, Berbers, Arabs, Indians even because St Thomas got all the way there. it is also heretical, as all races can go to heaven or hell, even if some more than others due to IQ (the effects of which may be ameliorated with segregation and discipline). not to mention, the idea of only-white Christendom is counterproductive in practical terms for a white people that has spread and diversified and freed its natural individualism so much, it is bereft of unifying symbols. meanwhile many browns already use liberal pozzed Judeo-Christianity as their creed of revenge against the “white Pharisee”, and will use it farther to marginalize both whites as well as traditional brown Catholic allies of whites.
alllllllll that said, there has always been multiethnic states with one religion, they used to be called empires. empires are fine, as long as the segregated caste order holds everyone together somehow. see India. of course, eventually probably all empires fall into their constituent nations, as they have historically. but, likewise, it cannot be helped to observe in history either that at least two or more nations have always allied or fought or even fused with each other, in some sort of imperial way, at some point. even the sane Prot Scandinavians imperialized each other and abroad, until last century. and lest we forget how Prussia stomped over the rest of German states and went as far south as Namibia, or Castile over the other Spanish kingdoms and the New World. the problem is not so much empires forming, but rather disestablishing them when the need for them ends. see EU.
of course, you all will say that in the nuclear world one cannot help but keep nations intact; maybe so, but i say, which nations? the nations with nukes are all empires (Russia, US, China), or used to be empires and still have some leftover splendor to afford their nukes (Britain, France, Iran lol), or are small proxy fighter nations supported by empires (Pakistan is supported by the West to keep a check on India, NK is supported by China, Israel is supported by the US and a worldwide diaspora). the rest, either get nukes, or strength in numbers – and maybe an emperor could help coordinate that. for example, a Latin emperor that installed the death penalty in Latin America, closed borders, and avoided serving either the US or Europe or Russia or China. one can dream, lol…
Exile Sir,
I’m going to poke you with a Naxalt (because I know how much you love those) and because I’ve met you, I like you and I respect your intellect greatly. You also know I stand firmly on Christian belief platform with a largely separate tribal integrity caveat. But mostly because it is funny.
I attended two Masses two weeks apart. One, given by a Dominican scholar where he flexed his theologian’s muscles with a Thomas Aquinas WOD. He laid out a defense in depth against atheist arguments and how to browbeat conversion with reason and logical entreaties. 95% of attendees yawned and gathered wool.
Two weeks later, in another state, an African priest on visitation boiled down conversions and communing between two souls to a hot dog. A hot dog. The man had known hunger. He understood biology in his own way. He had wisdom (and atrocious Latin). Riveted congregants.
Apropos to nothing. Well, other than Christianity can and should be molded to the specific tribe within parameters but can allow for fraternal interaction between those coreligionist tribes to some benefit.
agreed. Christianity can be internationalist, because it isn’t.
PM, you already agree it’s a NABALT example, so I don’t think we disagree on anything of substance.
Your example does prove the superior force of rhetoric to Scholastic-tier logic (which is self-referential and ponderous for all that it reaches a lot of good conclusions).
Getting lost in mountains of minutia and meticulous evidence lists is something they teach trial lawyers to avoid. When the jury starts yawning, you’re doing it wrong. The key to winning is to have a compelling narrative that tracks closely enough to jurors’ existing biases and the evidence alike. See Marcia Clark & Chris Darden vs. Johnny Cochran.
ideally we could combine both rhetoric with enough sprinkles of Scholastics to make the jurors feel smart too. if not, we end up just lawyering and narrativizing endlessly, abusing both the jurors and the evidence according to today’s materialist concern. just like (((them))) who sat at the side of Cochran and OJ.
but yes, a homily is not necessarily time for Aquinas. you gotta know your crowd. also, blacks can be riveting speakers and entertainers, within their frame of course. again, Cochran.
fair enough, but St. King was canonized by liberal whites, specially secular, and by (((others))) even harder. the ones strongest against him were hardcore segregationist Southern white Christians and their pastors. it was “real” to them, the National Guard had to come. some liberal Christians may have supported St King, but they were always the minority, even more so those days. also, high turnover among them as many just skip to agnosticism and beyond. many an SJW today notes that the same Southern churches opposed to gay marriage were opposed to legalizing miscegenation decades ago, even show it in memes… as if it’s supposed to offend.
again, racial segregation and ethnostates were NEVER a sin for American Christians, or any Christian, or anyone who wasn’t a One-World Marxist around the earth, until the Sacred Supreme Court at Brown v Board ruled thus. by then, the postwar had brought a secular (((intelligentsia))) to our shores that made for many lost souls among the elites. at the mass level, secular sellout Whig-Masonic nationalism had fused with the “City on a Hill” American Calvinist heresy and reaped the postwar prosperity to create the soft Boomers. it was a combination of things, not just Christians cucking. Catholics underwent a similar process. but again, can’t judge the whole 2000 years only seeing the last awful 200.
Jesus had a whip, and Crusaders had swords. they can go instead of you. we solve overpopulation a bit here, we stop a potential boat or knife attack coming from over there.
Christianity isn’t as highly regimented as Islam or Judaism. It focuses more on certain principles and doctrines and leaves the practical working out of these ideas to individuals and churches.
There is a wide differences in interpretation. There are Christian pacifists and Christian warriors, Christian capitalists and Christian communists, etc. Martin Luther observed that even the devil can quote scripture for his purposes.
Christian redemption is not limited to individual souls, but extends to families (1 Peter 3) and cultures (1 Corinthians 9:22).
yes. which is why a certain (((people))) will forever be cursed, every descendant, until they convert.
There are 20,000, 30,000 (depends on who’s counting) flavors of Christianity in the world. Probably Islam and the other religions are not too different. So, pray tell, how many “key doctrines” remain intact?
Let’s see:
-Virgin Birth
-Death, Burial, & Bodily Ressurection of Christ
-Jesus was who he claimed to be (the literal son of God)
-Entry into heaven is impossible without forgiveness of sin
-Jesus is the only way by which sin can be forgiven
Those are the big ones; any group that violates these isn’t Christian, period.
Where does the Trinity fit in here? Bishop Arius would like to know.
I’m a Trinitarian & I believe Trinitarianism is the best interpretation available of sacred scripture.
That being said, I would take non-Trinitarians on a case by case basis. Arias taught that Jesus was a created being, subordinate to the Father, which is a clearly unbiblical teaching.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only BEGOTTEN son…
Not sure where I stand on the trinity, but it confuses me and at least one of the apostles.
” Arias taught that Jesus was a created being, subordinate to the Father, which is a clearly unbiblical teaching.”
Please show us your Scriptural support for that premise.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
John 1:1-3 ESV
Don’t know how you get more unambiguous than that….
Being the Doubting Thomas here 🙂 my point was that there are few coherent, or even universal beliefs about religions in general. And these beliefs change over time. My criticism extends beyond whatever you define as correct Christianity: Islam or the ooga-booga animist faith of a spear-carrying tribe in a rain forest somewhere (not yet cut down by timber and farming interests) has no more claim to rationality. Finally some expose to competing views can broaden your mind, admittedly at the risk of weakening beliefs. Voltaire is amusing, if you are looking for skewering of religion. Some of this stuff is dated (What the hell is “Socinian”?) Less amusing is to learn that people were dying horribly (burnt at the stake) until just a few centuries ago over what today most of us would think of as trivial arguements. Do you really think mankind is any less mystical these days? Also, Voltaire provides excellent evidence that our “unchanging Church” or “faith” has in fact changed radically, as needed by the powers that be, throughout history.
Voltaire is the typical fiction writer that thought himself a good philosopher. his people just switched the stake to the guillotine and called it humane.
believing the races are equal and genders don’t exist is much more harmfully irrational than believing the virgin birth of a Galilean boy 2020 years ago. but such harmful irrationality is what the materialist, imperfect-senses-only world gives. mankind is no less mystical now than in Inquisition* times, as you say; therefore without God this mysticism becomes increasingly unfocused and harmful. because without God there is no roots, and without roots we are but atoms.
*the Inquisition mind you saw only relatively few hundreds of cases in its centuries long existence, as it was an appellate court with more leniency than the secular ones, and dealt with matters of faith only. it was pretty reasonable – of course, we wouldn’t even have the concept of reason if Catholic scholastics in their pursuit of Truth had not uncovered the classics from being forgotten. because, while the Greek philosophers had lots of wisdom, it was rootless elucidation and thus the people had mostly ignored it in favor of their useless but at least traditional pagan gods (if they didn’t deify the philosophers themselves, as happened to Pythagoras). it had to be Christianity, with its pursuit of Truth (as well as the implicit ethnic desire of the researchers to pursue more about the Europeans before them), that rescued classical knowledge. without Christianity, you could be worshiping Eleagabalus or Commodus, while Socrates would be stored and forgotten by a priest of the Muses in some dusty archives somewhere in Alexandria…
Pretty much what they came up with at that meeting in NIcea back in the 300’s. Works for me.
SJWs have taken over every major Christian denomination and turned them into a clown show. At the national level, there is not a single church that hasn’t gone full SJW and done things like endorsing sodomy and enforcing egalitarianism as dogma. There are individual churches within the denominations that basically ignore the POZ coming down from the national orgs, but they are few and far between and at total odds with the national orgs. Further, they are old and the leadership that has been trained to take their place are mostly fully on board with progressive churchianity.
Black Christianity is a lot different in practice than European Christianity. It is much more magical and concrete in the here and now. Praying for a winning lottery ticket is not frowned upon, nor is praying for God to intervene in your court case. Basically, it is Africanized. Same, to a lesser degree with mestizos.
A good way to put it is with Europeans, the ideal is that you are God’s servant, but with blacks and browns, God is your servant who grants miracles to help you in various ways.
“Praying for a winning lottery ticket is not frowned upon, nor is praying for God to intervene in your court case.”
You’d be surprised how many white Christians do the same, especially those of the prosperity gospel bent. Looking at you, Joel Osteen.
Nah, Osteen will tell you to buy a piece of worthless property and then pray that someone, possibly the government, comes along and offers you 5 times what it’s worth. See, nothing dodgy about that!
Tars,
I would posit SSPX as not being SJW’d. Yet. And they are punished for it.
I dont knock the black churchgoers for their childlike perception of God and Creation any more than I would expect a 7 year to be circumspect. The little girl will not pray (wish) that she be given that which she needs to be strong in her faith and the mere sustenance of a humble servant. She’s going to ask for the unicorn. Every time. It’s still faith. And… it is what it is.
😁
Bunny – You are better than this; please don’t resort to the fallacy of tu quoque.
I don’t even know what tu quoque is. I was just making an observation from experience.
tu quoque = you too. namely, the “whites do it too” thing about asking for money.
to be fair, you can ask God to intervene, just don’t expect miracles when you don’t deserve them. and, in some cases like asking for help in court when you are guilty, you are using the Lord’s name in vain.
kind of also like the sugarbaby who posts up pictures labeled “blessed” with her brand new Ferrari her daddy gave her. she’s been actually cursed.
you are right about Osteen and how silly some white Christians (mostly Prot, but also Catholics) can be, so attached to their beloved muh prosperity gospel that blinds them to every other rotting aspect of the world. however i would argue many white Christians are getting redpilled on this, and thankfully not losing the faith and ergo falling into despair (and only blogging about it) either.
Joel Olsteen is one of the worst churchian offenders and a straight up con man.
Honestly, this just comes across as a NAXALT (not all X are like that) fallacy. There are blacks and browns who are model Christians and model citizens and are fit to be examples held up for others to emulate and there are white people who are only fit to be bad examples. That doesn’t change the average.
Might want to take a looksee at LCMS and WELS.
Christianity began it’s decline when it stopped being Pagan Christianity. The old gods of the Europeans had been incorporated into the pantheon of saints. This gave the Western Church some things in common to all the European peoples and some things that resonated with the different peoples in their own regions, towns and villages. It bound the local to the civilizational. The weakening of these local bonds through an increased emphasis on “universals” is what started us on this path. Tradition and community were slowly diluted. Universals untethered by local ties lost their hold and meaning. An Altar no longer embracing a people but instead an institution and its rules became corrupted. People began to naturally seek meaning and identity elsewhere. Blood and history began to be replaced by abstract lists of particulars one could agree to and embrace. Once accepted you were now a member of a new club. The neighbors with whom you had shared a 1000 generations but who didn’t accept or were indifferent to the new particulars were now outsiders. We’ve been playing this game for so long it’s probably beyond our ability to undo all of the harm.
which is why saints are so important to Catholic culture, they are our vernacular expression of faith pretty much, and national sources of pride. although idk that the pagan gods were simply subsumed into Christianity, and at any rate the saints did actions and writings and miracles recorded in particular nations in history that will not change. thus each Catholic nation has different saints (as well as their own apparitions of Jesus and/or Mary and/or even Apostles), while also allowing all to intercede to God equally for themselves, their families, and nations.
meanwhile the Prots have as roots the current umpteenth Bible translation from ever-wealthier Prot Bible societies, full of (((literary critical theorists) to boot, or KJV-only brimstone pastors that may be stronger but not any deeper. if they are more high-church and/or national Prot churches, they barely fare any better, as they eventually deify whatever those who control their national state tells them. thus no wonder so many American Prots believe in globohomo, and how the conservative ones are duped by the (((3rd Temple))) heresy and other neoconnisms. why? because their establishment pastors tell them a bunch of verses out of context and mention that the Catholic prayer for the conversion of the perfidious Jews on Good Friday is not in the Bible. even though the Bible was written after Tradition and not before, but whatever, muh sola scriptura, muh personal interpretation.
it was Luther who made us into a rootless universal book-reading club.
(and the Orthodox, though they have apostolic tradition, sadly gave him the bad example of disobedience and disunion from the opposite end. they rejected the universalism, but instead focused too much on the local and mostly lost their civilization. hope we can all return to unity, not to miscegenation though lol)
Exile, you nailed it. “…services are a sea of non-Whites with the White minority smiling glassy-eyed in beatific self-sacrificial joy, a land of lotus-eaters. Every time I Notice this, I think “they feel like they believe Jesus felt right now. They’re Jesus in their own eyes in this shining moment of pathological altruism.”
This isn’t theology. This isn’t sociology. This is addiction – the famous hamster, pushing the button for more sweet dopamine & oxytocin hits, yea unto death.”
I’ve been there. Literally. My most interesting time was after leaving such a lunatic lockup as a child in a black neighborhood was what happened afterward. Walking home down an alleyway I was confronted by an actual specimen of the worshipped tribe. In order to pass through the alley I had to pass through him. A massive knot on my head and his front tooth on the asphalt later I rejoined my Eloi family and their beatific smiles. I never told my parents about the incident until many years later. They listened but offered no comments.
the Jews always promoted these divorces from reality among Christians, not just when they were majority European, but definitely more so after their Temple fell as predicted and was replaced by His Church. they came up with the Talmud, the Masoretic texts and claimed scripture didn’t validate Jesus, yet still accepting ghetto housing and allowed to profit by loaning money out. with their parasite position on lock, they then abandoned the Orthodox Byzantine Empire to its fate and ran to the Muslims, then funded both sides in the Reformation/Counter-Reformation wars. once apostolic/ideological unity was lost, which coincided with European unity, then they turned to dissolve the bioethnic/biolinguistic white nations that God in His wisdom had made both strong and free under Christianity, and which therefore held the Christian banner high. it is no surprise that after decolonization and lessened real missionary efforts (not the paid vacations of today), third worlders have been streaming into white Christian nations instead, and their faith has lessened even if still more faithful than whites.
your experience with NuCatholics is quite familiar, and revolting. i’ve seen white Brazilians take their colored maid with them to the pews, at least they admit it lolol
Secular by design Alan W Cecil systematically addresses and refutes all those assertions
great, because you cannot address or refute them it seems. or, my actual comment about historical developments.
if secular truth is so important and self-evident, why hidden in a commercial book? lol.
Agree overall. As the resident skeptic, I would amplify your comment about hypnotized (my word) church goers. For thought: would you expect any different in the congregation at a different religion’s service? I wouldn’t. Shouldn’t all humans have similar psychological make-ups?
It’d be wonderful if Islam would be the next faith to be de-fanged (my term). Perhaps then the ideal of a rational, peaceful world will emerge. Maybe not. Any messianic, utopian vision should be viewed very skeptically: including the secular humanist’s.
Alas, I agree with your last comment: In the end there can only be One. The trouble is, you must marginalize/reeducate/enslave/torture/kill off all those who disagree. 🙁
Ben,
I casually read Vox Day. It’s an occasional drive by stop because I like principled contrarians and grumpy people. Never gave much thought about his whole personality types (alphas, betas, sigmas, et al)… just sort of one size fits all and honestly a little uninteresting. It becomes pedantic and I am too busy to dwell in another man’s fixations. Until today.
He’s got his thing about gammas. I mean a real hard on for them. He goes on constantly about them so you can’t help but get the gist of what he’s on about.
I work in a world of men doing things and I tend to boil things down to “does that guy work or not, can his judgement be trusted or not, is he good for the team effort or not.” Simple.
It just dawned on me I’m looking at one of Vox’s gammas in the wild. Every post today…
1) Comes in with “special” secret knowledge (that is more “look at me!” than original or special)
2) When his pee pee gets slapped responds with the “I’m sorry if… (not apology)”
3) Gives tells about his being a Secret King, “As the resident skeptic, I would…” You literally just showed up on this blog and set yourself up as resident something or other.
4) You seem to be getting a narcissistic rush over the down votes by posting more of your special wisdom the more negativity you receive. We just aren’t seeing your secret royalty or getting your super special hot takes.
5) You add almost nothing to the efforts here but seem intent on sewing chaos for some weird little auto-gratification cycle.
… I stand corrected. Vox is on to something with that stuff. You made me realize I’ve got one on my team at work. I haven’t been able to figure this guy out. Make him work with my unit. He ingratiates himself with those of us in charge but the rank and file despise him. I spend half my time trying to get work done and the other half keeping the unit from tearing him a new one. Smart guy. I find him creepy but I’ve been spending my efforts thinking I can help him man up and get with the program. Just realized I’m spending inordinate amounts of time and effort undoing the little special seeds he can’t help but constantly sew.
Obviously, I’m not expert on this personality type stuff. But I will become one. Thanks for the exhibition. My eyes are open and I’m going to be able to spot this stuff a heck of a lot faster.
Being a skeptic requires that you be informed. I would describe you more accurately as a low grade atheist jerk off. Being a skeptic, by its definition would imply that you have grounds to be one. I shouldn’t be so harsh, I suppose – I was raised by progressive shitlibs as well, and like you, I was cultured and conditioned to reject Christianity wholesale without knowing a thing about it. Who, exactly, is being “hypnotized “? I’d suggest that if you want to be a skeptic… start by actually reading the bible and then make an objective study of it. As it is, you can’t even distinguish God’s doctrine from church doctrine.
Other Dissidents here are off on the wrong foot as well. There is no such thing as church doctrine, there is only God’s doctrine. When church doctrine is allowed to replace God’s… the churches fail. The media will never say it… but these novel new parodies of church with female pastors that do queer marriages and preach the pozz… they always fail and end up closing the doors. All the old big denominations are following suit. Real Christians are going underground in droves. They quietly walk the walk, live and apply their faith and need no approval from the likes of men like Ben.
Sigh. I suppose the Christians have the right of it in that too: if some internet moron wants to think he’s an intellectual and that Christians are hypnotized zombies… there is no harm in it. God put morons on this earth as well, he has a plan for them and all that matters to me is the path He’s placed before me. As someone new to the faith, I still find the distractions of this world difficult at times.
Contrary to Ben, I’d urge the Dissidents to think long and hard about God, morality and ethics. Our current leaders have rejected all three. Our big churches have too. They are reaping the consequences of that too. If you do the same… you will end up exactly the same way they are.
For an example of how race-realism and Catholicism are incompatible, see Dad & Bunny.
By-the-Book Catholicism is not a strong foundation on which to build a better society because they reject biology outright: “look at muh list of Black saints…” This kind of kumbaya Christianity is the exact problem we’re talking about.
Folkish Christianity can work – this can’t.
I was simply stating facts. Un-facts aren’t a good basis for argument or foundation for anything.
they ARE compatible, and they WERE compatible in the segregated Catholic New World until the twentieth century, and in the generally racially-unmixed Old World before air travel. mass emigration from Catholic countries only came in tragic or unexpected circumstances, such as the abuse of pilgrims in the Holy Places by Muslims, discovery of the New World (and even then, emigration wasn’t nearly as massive as from England, where wars of religion drove many away, in Spain the Inquisition kept peace), the potato famine in Ireland, the Prussian overtaking of Catholic Germany, the secular reunification of Italy, etc. otherwise Catholics were often accused of being basic people tied to land.
it’s only in the (((postwar Masonic world))) that the whole talk of refugees and humanitarian migration came.
as for volkisch Christianity (yes i know where the term came from, it’s ok), the problem lies in defining how precisely the volk can inform Christianity without both the volk and Christianity being corrupted by the volk’s leadership. this happens because the state tends to eventually fight the people’s religion to control it, even more so if local and volkisch. Christianity, true, can sometimes be too universal, but in reality it should be both local and universal. another problem is defining when to stop the volk from keeping around some unhealthy pagan customs. even the Germanics, they did not read or write at first, played around with dangerous herbs, didn’t bathe nearly as much as Romans, burned fir trees and other beings for the sake of idolatry, had unstable families due to polygamy and divorce. (it is sad to compare this to the teste-less Church nowadays that cannot even criticize idols from today’s pagans such as the Amazonians, while throwing the few traditional Amazonian Catholics under the bus). in short, i understand what you mean, it’s just that traditional Christianity SHOULD be volkisch already, if not (((perverted))) that is…
The Bible seems to assume that no tribe would be stupid enough to lose its own identity, and even promote competing tribes over the well being of your own!
Love thy neighbour is a great piece of advice. Tribes should stop going around genociding each other and get along! But modern whites think that you have to debase yourself in order to love others. You can be of different tribes, be segregated in daily life, and still accept the other tribe as Christian and even treat him well when a foreigner is coming into your tribe on business etc. But you never try to say he is one of your own.
And yes, Islam is next. They don’t stand a chance, unfortunately. Once European Christians are down, the world is the Tribe’s oyster as no other group can offer even a fraction of the resistance we did. Modern Muslim men are either low IQ, anti white radicals or degenerate Coomers just like whites and blacks. Muslimas are on the carousel too just one generation behind whites. It will be total poz for them in 30 years.
The sons of Ishmael are still the seed of Abraham.
It doesn’t matter if one hates the other- read the battle manual for the story of Joseph of the coat of many colors.
Working together, they fulfilled the god’s design and Joseph ended up defacto ruler of Egypt.
They bankrupted it, burned it in the fires of monotheist civil war, and then ran.
Egypt was broken as a ruling world power.
Why?
The Pharaohs had blonde and red hair.
Their unwrapped mummies, today, prove this.
ps- blacks, civil rights to supercede constiturion
Yenta-led radical feminism
Those are obvious
But abortion?
We self-rejected eugenics and “racial purity” (which the usual suspects practice) in order to embrace miscegenation
abortion keeps whites having 0.5 kids instead of 3, and gives blacks 3 kids instead of 5.
and abortion-damaged women tend to bring all the other evils you mention.
Utah functioned pretty darn well as an integralist society for over a Century.
Alas, they were a victim of their own success as BYU was such a high-quality school it ended up producing a Globalist Vanguard more loyal to Davos than the men in Temple Square.
You reminded me of that basketball-American kid at BYU who got kicked off the team for premarital sex. I think that was during Obama’s second term and the height of intersectional leftism. I remember the media trying really hard to ignore the fact the young man was non-white.
“Utah functioned pretty darn well as an integralist society for over a Century.”
I would argue that America did the same for the most part.
The admixture of the society-rending Great War and the simultaneous mass arrival of the tiny hat people added a lethal injection to an ailing patient.
I wouldn’t disagree with your assessment. I mention Utah for two specific reasons:
1- the effect was very exaggerated, due to the state’s overwhelmingly Mormon population
2- it survived into our lifetimes
But again, your point is well-taken and valid
When speaking with a Christian Normie about the current state of affairs, one comment that had some red pilling success is “we have simply replaced one morality with another.”
Quickly followed with, “remember when we could say “Merry Christmas” to each other without the PC police descending upon us.”
People mock our ancestors for their “Victorian prudery” and our parents for their “1950s repression.” Oh, please. As a society, we are every bit as prudish, repressed, moralistic and judgmental as our ancestors were in the 1850s and our parents in the 1950s. We’re just prudish, repressed, moralistic and judgment about different things.
There are really only three issues that Liberals are concerned about: Diversity, Inclusivity and Equity (DIE). The Conservatives have thrown in the towel to the Liberals on social issues, except on abortion. Spawning a bastard and collecting welfare is now a legitimate (admittedly not ideal) lifestyle in the eyes of “Conservatives.”
I would say today’s society is 50% more prudish and 50% more debauched. You have to get signed consent before leaning in for a kiss, but thereafter you can perform whatever acts you wish on whomever you wish, and if a new life is created as a result, you can kill it up to the time it exists the birth canal, or sometimes even after.
Yeah, we’re still living in an Anglo-derived society after all. There will never be a “normal” period. Always some fad after the other. Some are good, some are bad. But we never do moderation.
Society is probably more prude in real terms than it was in the Victorian era. Officially the media pushes increasing degeneracy but the average male is having less and less sex. You think men policed their language, and sexual humor, and swearing and cursing during the Victorian era (in private settings)? My arse. We do censor ourselves now. Men drank alot more alcohol in the Victorian era. Did husbands get bossed around by their wives? Not unless they were dishing out a slap in return. Did they refuse to let their sons play sports because of fear of injury?
Yes, we are probably living in the most prude era of all time right now. With the exception of killing unborn babies and (pushed as normal by the media, not sure it’s so common IRL) hooking up with strangers. (And let’s be honest, it’s not like abortions didn’t happen in private, even back then, and that people didn’t have affairs).
“remember when we could say ‘Merry Christmas’ to each other without the PC police descending upon us.”
Not just Christian normies. Last December I was walking around a TJ Maxx (TK Maxx for our UK friends) with a woman friend who is religiously indifferent. (Claims to be an atheist, but that’s a function of English being her third language. Actually more of an agnostic.) Anyway, we walked by a big display stand full of Hanukkah stuff. She hit the roof. “What the hell? We’re not allowed to have Christmas decorations or to say ‘Merry Christmas’ because it might offend someone, and they have THIS? What the hell?” I had to take her elbow and walk her away from the triggering display. And I *am* ultimately responsible for that. Ruined the poor girl’s life, considering how she went from a “I’m not political. Work hard and the system will reward you,” type to the edge of dissident. Heh.
Moral neutrality has always been a myth or a lie. It is impossible to be morally neutral. All laws have as their basis some level of moral reasoning. To say otherwise is to be a mindless libertarian on the side of the road waiting to be beaten senseless.
As it says in the OT: Choose this day which god you will serve.
As a rationalist (secular humanist, whatever), I must argue exactly the opposite. As briefly as possible: In Nature, in the Universe does morality exist without man? No, of course it does not. Why not? Because a person, place or thing can only be judged as being moral, good or evil by a human being. The awful truth is that the Universe is completely indifferent to our human whims and even needs. Why is it so hard for people to accept that the world is controlled by physical laws, which are fairly well understood, and that no amount of prayer, incense (or witch) burning or wishful thinking will effect outcomes that are entirely decided by impartial, implacable forces of Nature?
Adding the idea of a supreme God to the mix changes nothing: It is still a human being, whether the one(s) who wrote your holy text, or the priest/imam/guru you rely on (or yourself) to interpret the words and decide what, if any, actions are appropriate.
Would you like to post something that is RELEVANT to the discussion?
forgive me. I would think that asking asking what is the origin of morality and laws is very relevant. I don’t claim to have any final answers, but I do claim that a failure to look at fundamentals is a primary cause of errors and disasters in human systems.
I agree, without an uncaused first cause, akaGod, all moral arguments are whimsical relatives
The prime mover, the creator, is not necessarily a law giver.
And even if the prime mover provides a morality, one can still examine it, although it may not be advisable if the creator does not suffer fools gladly.
Always good to keep Job 38:4 in mind.
Consciousness is a complete mystery to us. The world is hardly well understood at all.
RE: Consciousness-
“The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.“
Ben;
One thing for sure about the universe is that it is very finely tuned to support our existence. And it is also now clear that it was created ex nihilo (from nothing) in an instant, the twinkling of an eye, so to speak. The Cloud Folk have sent billions to Big U trying to refute these two claims to no avail.
You are stealing a philosophical base here. Christians never said the *universe*^ cared about us, despite your claim (which is common in atheistic circles). We say that *The Creator of The Universe* cares about us. It is, literally, a mind-staggering miracle.
God, being just, allows to human each soul the ‘freedom of the will’ and ‘sufficient’ information to accept or reject Him.^^ And He has been very clear about the consequences thereof. I implore you to reconsider.
_____________________
^Why atheists think that it’s a hot burn to tell Christians that the universe doesn’t care is beyond me. Christianity (and Judaism and Islam) claim the God exists *outside* of the universe and always has.
^^There is a vast literature of learned quibbling about what these two ‘indicated terms’ ‘really’ mean. But, unless one takes the Moslem position that God is completely arbitrary and capricious, in the end a Christian must reject the devil’s evil slander that God is a hypocrite who will not live up to His own principles.
Al del Norte,
Good bullet point defenses on the fly.
I’d boil it down a little further to squelch the inevitable preening secular humanist cycle that never leads to any conversions on either side and sidetracks the actual subject.
The topic is fitting a society/morality/religious ethos model together that works for a specific People. Whether it’s the John Lennon Imagine drivel or the techno/atheist USSR murderfest… anything along that spectrum won’t work because real live humans are involved. Genocidal hilarity always ensues.
Yup, religions can be murderous because they are also human-run, but the consanguinity of a religion (broadly)/ the tribe, their morality and their law giving are best for that people when there is an integration.
If God were just, He would not have put the forbidden fruit out where some silly woman could get it. Sort of like leaving a can of gas and a box of matches on the floor at a day-care center just to see what might happen. I’m inclined to think we are NOT being tested. Something else is going on. The ways of God are beyond our comprehension. Don’t make it complicated by trying to figure out why there is evil. Trying to write out the rationale for our existence is well above our pay-grade. It is enough to know our destiny lies elsewhere and that pursuing the path of goodness for its own sake is the greatest good of all.
By the same token a merciful God would not have put a pretty pair of T&A where the first Beta Male could fail to take up his leadership and pass on a stupid piece of fruit. Thirsty guys, amirite?
Men and women fail in distinctive ways according to their nature because of the first Epic Fail.
If you have kids, you get an inkling of why God did it. You can’t have real love without a tiny infinitesimal point of Now in a causal universe carved out of the inexorable and eternal divine will wherein we are free to chose
Ben,
Meh. Go be a beast of the field then. Live, die, rut, eat and deficate. Curiosity, self-awareness and awe are merely expressions of chemical reactions. Pray to the science-gods; that either you are the baddest mofo on the block or so many of us are foolishly mystified by the Sky-man… that we dont cast aside those arcane made-up prohibitions of the imaginary Super-Santa and take what is yours, cast your corpse aside and furrow your women.
Zman makes a salient point. I dont know where exactly he lies on the spectrum of spirituality. That’s not what he is talking about. He is relating a tailor fit meshing of morality/religious broad doctrine to a specific people.
Traipsing in with dandelion soft feet dispensing objectivist-laden platitudes in this subject is like a libertarian mouth-farting out absurd drug legalization schemes to a room full of ER doctors.
Groan.
The Libertarian Mouth Fart sounds like a good name for a rock band.
Badthinker,
I would absolutely celebrate LMF’s entire musical catalog. Huge fan.
Your argument is a non sequitur. Even if morality only exists in the mind of man, man still wants morality. That does not change man will implement one moral system or another, and that he is incapable of moral neutrality.
Anyways based on your logic
1. The physical is all that exists
2. Man is caused by physical laws
3. Man creates morality
4. Therefore, physical laws have created morality
“… the world is controlled by physical laws, …”
I think it is more correct to say that interactions within ‘the world’ are MEDIATED by physical laws. God the Tester has set constraint upon process, and how we deal with these are part of the test, both as individuals and as civilizations. Our forebrain behavioral choices, which we control, are manifestations of our moral code. That the outcomes of our choices will depend on natural law does not invalidate the moral component.
We are literally patterns that ingest new atoms and expel old ones. What percent of your biomass at age 60 do you think is original atoms that you had when you were 20? Our consciousness, the temporarily granted aspect of our divinity, lies in the pattern into which the atoms are arranged. Morality is a manifestation of the pattern.
yeah, man has moral agency unlike other creatures of God in the physical realm. so?
yeah, the Universe is so indifferent, we can do anything with it. inert matter right? right?
yeah of course humans have to interpret His designs. how else would we make it, if instead we couldn’t interpret anything? and if we can interpret, why so? why are we not just slugs, even if you are trying hard right now to reduce humanity to that with this comment? what and why made our genes so selfish? why would we not stay primordial soup forever?
oh but humans can be morally right and good just by themselves, you say. we invented morality for our own ends, and we can purify ourselves further through blessed evolution, etc.
that’s like saying Einstein invented relativity itself, AND ALSO WHATEVER UNCAUSED CAUSE PUTS IT IN MOTION, just because he figured out the general equation for it on paper.*
except he didn’t invent relativity, he could only observe it. same with the mystics who can observe God’s manifestations.
* and that doesn’t take into account the many more of those “scientists” these days who don’t get it right, like the ones who keep adding genders and letters to the alphabet soup, or those who told us the Arctic would be water and polar bears all dead by now. these people literally invent reality outside of the Universe.
meanwhile the real Maker surpasses what is real, without destroying it like the self-deified humans. we hope to be united to Him one day.
Read Aquinas, ya douchebag. This was discussed in 1250, for Chrissakes. Don’t act like you know something about philosophy without putting forth the effort to plow through (and actually UNDERSTAND) Aristotle and the Summa Theologica first. People a hell of a lot smarter than the black-glasses-with-neckbeards-and-tats-at-Starbucks crowd have wrestled with these questions centuries before you should have been a f–stain on your mother’s mattress.
Summa Contra Gentiles is even better, imho as well as Pascal’s Pensees.
And when those vested with ruling authority by the people ignore both the moral basis – and the will of the people, the people have a divine moral obligation to cast off those rulers.
Both their rulers and the Karens without whom their rule would be impossible to maintain…
It was Aquinas – no fan of democracy – who observed that a tyrant does not have the protection of the law. To rebel against a tyrant is no sin. The National Review types cannot think those thoughts. For them, so long as the tyrant became a tyrant _legally_ everything is cool. And even if he didn’t, the Supreme Court is the last word or morality for this sort of thing.
It is the people, the Legacy American, who is now defined as the tyrant. The moral order still exists. It’s simply been inverted.
The National review is a Marano publication. It pretends to be Secular but is just the same judaic pressure group in disguise.
Actually, NR is Catholic and pro-life, but libertarian/neocon on everything else. What a strange platform. I gave up on them when Trump gave them everything they claimed they wanted for decades, even more so than their sainted Reagan, and they hate him anyway. Trump is a mixed bag for us, but he gave them total victory on tax cuts, Israel, no real cutback in missionary warfare or immigration, very conservative judges, etc. He fought hand-to-hand combat in the trenches for them, and they pranced down from their think-tank tower with their perfumed handkerchiefs to their noses, only to criticize how he did it. They epitomize Zman’s line from a few weeks ago, that libertarian’s call the sidelines the high ground.
Which bit of Marano is confusing?
DLS, Where’d you get NR is Catholic? Seems pretty Evangelcal to me.
NR is Catholic in the same way that the ELC is “Lutheran” and the Church of England hierarchy are Christian.
They’re all wearing skin suits.
For fans of John C. Wright’s Everness, we’ve been invaded by the Selkies…
The evangelical movement was a psy-op by the usual suspects, co-opting the Christian political right.
It was a part of the soft Cultural Revolution of the 60s.
Why?
When their grip was strong, they were “Godless Russian Communists”.
When that grip slipped, they became “Soviet Jewry”, in need of saving.
And they promised the Third Temple in return.
There’s a meme going around on Gab right now. On the top, a bunch of vibrants are hooting and gibbering and capering on top of a trashed squad car and the caption is “When Blacks Chimp Out”. Underneath, a black and white photo of legions of German army marching in polished and precise lock step – and the caption is “When White People Chimp Out”.
We can have the mutually shared and enforced justice and law of Christianity. Or, we can have something else. If we are forced to go down that road by moslems, blacks, and Jews… they might not like the results. In fact, if history is any judge… I guarantee they won’t like it.
Christianity is what tempered whites’ bloodlust throughout history. The Christian morality still does today. Whites are degenerate and atomized today because they are no longer Christian. However, if whites were to snap there’s no Christian morality that’s going to stop anything this time, as it has in the past (ie. slavery). Basically (especially for the northern Euros) – we have little moderation and whatever we do, we commit to it fully. Right now it’s Globohomo. But in the future that can change.
Removing Christianity from Germanics and Anglos might turn out to be a big mistake by the (((elites))).
UFO,
“Removing Christianity from Germanics and Anglos might turn out to be a big mistake by the (((elites))).”
The Tribe has never shown much wisdom. Attempting to remake every society they infect inevitably backfires. Even (((their))) enforced communism couldn’t pull an undo on human nature.
To your statement above. I can’t remember which scifi writer I was reading but I remember there was a line something to the effect of warning hostile alien invaders that, “the reason we gave up war is because we were so very, very good at it.”
It made me think of Our People when I read that line. Add in your observation of what we’d be like without Christian doctrine informing our motivatuons… terrifyingly medieval prospect. Maybe your post’s warning should circulate among the elite’s gatherings.
As has been pointed out, when blacks riot, cities burn, and when whites riot, nations burn.