The disintegration of the American empire

[xerx]

Why then do the wokies love the Mohammadians? The followers of Islam are some of the most homophobic and misogynist people you could ever imagine. Why then do they seem to join hands in common cause against the likes of me? Simple. Once you realize their true enemy is Christ it all makes sense. The enemy of my enemy is my "friend" after all.

Or at least, they are an ally. I forget who said it but the quote "The Left doesn't have friends. The Left has allies" really put it best. All those groups pushing for "leftists" ideologies absolutely hate each other to the very marrow of their bones and once that common enemy is vanquished they will engage in a genocide so complete and unmerciful it'd make enen the funny mustache man puke!

However... for now they do have that most potent of glues that can hold most any ragtag bunch of degenerate fools together. A common enemy. That enemy is Christ. Take from that what you will...

Also, as I did mention the Funny Mustache Man, the Holy Church did do it's best to try and kill the fucker. They may have failed but fact remains they did try and try in earnest. The Church had one hell of an intel network going for it at the time and it used it to try and kill the funny mustache man on many an occasion. They did fail, but holy hell did they try to off the bastard even as bishops shook his hand and thanked him. As they say in one fictional universe: "The bigger the smile, the sharper the knife!"

Most leftists would acknowledge the fact that homophobia exists in the Muslim world. Many may argue that those evils aren't unique to Islam, but it would be absurd to deny the existence of such egregious human rights issues (and if you've followed the news for even a little bit, you'd know that casual homophobia isn't even the worst thing there). What leftists actually advocate is for the protection of Muslims as a minority, as they do for every other minority (including homosexuals).

Incidentally, Muslims don't hate Jesus. He figures very prominently in their religion as a prophet. In certain Muslim eschatologies, Jesus' return is the central event of the apocalypse. And while it seems to vary in accordance with difference interpretations, another man — the Mahdi — will return to lead the armies of Jesus Christ in the final battle against the armies of evil.

[FreelancePoliceman]

You are largely correct but you're missing a few key data points or, at least, you are probably not realizing how vital the data points you are overlooking are. In a very real sense, they are acting very rationally. Again, as Mammon gives way to Moloch rationality gives way to blind, fervent and religious zeal.

Not everyone is Catholic so I'll spell this out for everyone going forward. "Mammon" is the demon of Greed. Get paid above all else! Sell out your own family for a pile of gold.

Moloch, however, is even worse. Want to survive or have a good life in this world? Offer unto me your children whom I will gladly consume with fire. Carthage was all in for Moloch and it's likely the reason why "Cathargo Deldenda Est" was uttered by the Romans and carried out to the point of salting the Earth of that accursed land. Earnest and well meaning Pagans can into basic bitch morality and yeah, the Romans didn't like that shit one bit. Kinda telling whose legacy the wokies are most intent on dragging through the mud I'd say. How dare anyone have the gall to stop the child sacrifices to Satan!

I've always had sympathy for the Carthaginians, personally.

You seem to have an interesting idea of the Romans' morality. The Romans themselves were pagans, abandoned their babies to be eaten by animals or killed by exposure, raped their slaves, and the Punic Wars were only a few of the wars the Romans fought with the purpose to kill, enslave, and plunder. Cato's use of that phrase came after the second Punic War, when Carthage was a defeated power, prohibited from raising an army, and paying tribute to Rome. If the Romans found the Carthaginians so abhorrent, they would have destroyed them during the second war. Instead, they preferred to take tribute, and only attacked once more after the Carthaginians paid the tribute in full, and were struggling to defend themselves from a Roman client state. It would be nice to believe the Carthaginians were a demonic people and deserved what was coming to them, and that terrible things don't happen to innocent people, but the Romans did not conduct that war from a sense of moral obligation.

Also, as I did mention the Funny Mustache Man, the Holy Church did do it's best to try and kill the fucker. They may have failed but fact remains they did try and try in earnest. The Church had one hell of an intel network going for it at the time and it used it to try and kill the funny mustache man on many an occasion. They did fail, but holy hell did they try to off the bastard even as bishops shook his hand and thanked him. As they say in one fictional universe: "The bigger the smile, the sharper the knife!"

So is your idea that the Church's collaboration with the Nazis was all part of an elaborate plan to kill Hilter?

As @xerx said, Muslims don't hate Jesus. Most Muslims also don't hate Christians, even many fundamentalist types that do hate atheists/atheism. And taking the culture war on its own terms too seriously is probably a mistake.

[End]

Most leftists would acknowledge the fact that homophobia exists in the Muslim world. Many may argue that those evils aren't unique to Islam, but it would be absurd to deny the existence of such egregious human rights issues (and if you've followed the news for even a little bit, you'd know that casual homophobia isn't even the worst thing there). What leftists actually advocate is for the protection of Muslims as a minority, as they do for every other minority (including homosexuals).

They are all remarkably silent about what's going on in South Africa right now or what really happened in Zimbabwe. Look into that before you tell me they're all about all minority rights. Strikingly different tone they seem to take once that minority is of a pale tone and European descent genetically speaking. Funny that eh?

I haven't read his works yet but he did post a solid thermite level burn about how and why people like me, well meaning and rational people, are pretty much justified in assuming you all wokies no matter any and all other considerations: https://monsterhunternation.com/2021...a-broad-brush/

At this point, it's not unfair I'm sad to say. Wish it was, but it no longer is. Either tell your literal commie/death cultists friends to stop calling for the death of all cis het white males to their face and/or pass a witch test. I'll take either or and the latter is what I'd actually prefer but hey, the former leads to the latter.

I've always had sympathy for the Carthaginians, personally.

So is your idea that the Church's collaboration with the Nazis was all part of an elaborate plan to kill Hilter?

As @xerx said, Muslims don't hate Jesus. Most Muslims also don't hate Christians, even many fundamentalist types that do hate atheists/atheism. And taking the culture war on its own terms too seriously is probably a mistake.

It actually was. Punch "Church of Spies" into a search engine. You'll get the book I was referencing. Sadly, the devil himself was apparently the bastard's guardian demon. If memory serves a Vatican assassin literally got a fucking bomb into the car the funny mustache man got into and then hit the detonator.... Click. Click click click click! Damnit! A dud/faulty detonator! Now! Really! Fuck!!!!

As for @xerx, they still ultimately deny the divinity of Christ. This is the heresy of Arius known as "Arianism". Literally "Santa Clause" Saint Nicholas knew what to do with/to his ilk. He went "You know what fuck it: Fist." and punched him in the face as hard as he could at the Council of Nicia. His attitude would be echoed in more modern times by Pope Pius X. I quote: "Kindness is for fools! They want to be treated with oil, soap, and caresses, but they ought to be beaten with fists!"

Remember these facts the next time someone tries to tell you Christianity is a "pacifist/weak" religion. Case in point: "Kill them all and let God sort them out" is a quote from Pope Innocent III. Again, in response to a most blatant and serious heresy.

And say what you will about the Romans. At least they didn't Sacrifice their young to their capricious and cruel gods. That's a thing Carthage cannot claim. The Roman's weren't saints by any measure, but at least they could claim that moral high ground and they worshiped Saturn. A bit telling that they universally refused to echo that god's example I'd say. Not even Nero and Caligula sought to literally eat their own children to secure their thrones...

[xerx]

They are all remarkably silent about what's going on in South Africa right now or what really happened in Zimbabwe. Look into that before you tell me they're all about all minority rights. Strikingly different tone they seem to take once that minority is of a pale tone and European descent genetically speaking. Funny that eh?

I haven't read his works yet but he did post a solid thermite level burn about how and why people like me, well meaning and rational people, are pretty much justified in assuming you all wokies no matter any and all other considerations: https://monsterhunternation.com/2021...a-broad-brush/

At this point, it's not unfair I'm sad to say. Wish it was, but it no longer is. Either tell your literal commie/death cultists friends to stop calling for the death of all cis het white males to their face and/or pass a witch test. I'll take either or and the latter is what I'd actually prefer but hey, the former leads to the latter.

I don't know too much about South Africa. Aren't White South Africans still in charge of important businesses and industries? And don't the middle classes self-segregate into gated communities? If there is discrimination happening against Whites, my feeling is that it's experienced by the economic lower classes, hand-in-hand with similar discrimination (and for similar reasons) experienced by the Black lower classes. Correct me if I'm wrong.

RE. Zimbabwe: I can agree that Mugabe was a thug.

It actually was. Punch "Church of Spies" into a search engine. You'll get the book I was referencing. Sadly, the devil himself was apparently the bastard's guardian demon. If memory serves a Vatican assassin literally got a fucking bomb into the car the funny mustache man got into and then hit the detonator.... Click. Click click click click! Damnit! A dud/faulty detonator! Now! Really! Fuck!!!!

As for @xerx, they still ultimately deny the divinity of Christ. This is the heresy of Arius known as "Arianism". Literally "Santa Clause" Saint Nicholas knew what to do with/to his ilk. He went "You know what fuck it: Fist." and punched him in the face as hard as he could at the Council of Nicia. His attitude would be echoed in more modern times by Pope Pius X. I quote: "Kindness is for fools! They want to be treated with oil, soap, and caresses, but they ought to be beaten with fists!"

Remember these facts the next time someone tries to tell you Christianity is a "pacifist/weak" religion. Case in point: "Kill them all and let God sort them out" is a quote from Pope Innocent III. Again, in response to a most blatant and serious heresy.

And say what you will about the Romans. At least they didn't Sacrifice their young to their capricious and cruel gods. That's a thing Carthage cannot claim. The Roman's weren't saints by any measure, but at least they could claim that moral high ground and they worshiped Saturn. A bit telling that they universally refused to echo that god's example I'd say. Not even Nero and Caligula sought to literally eat their own children to secure their thrones...

So, just to clarify: You believe that heresies like Arianism (and by extension Islam) should be opposed with force, and that the killing of heretics is wholly consistent with Christian (especially Catholic) dogma. Is that a correct reading of your position?

[FreelancePoliceman]

@End

Am I understanding you correctly that killing your child because the child is inconvenient to you is better than killing your child because you believe it pleases the god you worship? If so, would you care to explain why that is?

[End]

I don't know too much about South Africa. Aren't White South Africans still in charge of important businesses and industries? And don't the middle classes self-segregate into gated communities? If there is discrimination happening against Whites, my feeling is that it's experienced by the economic lower classes, hand-in-hand with similar discrimination (and for similar reasons) experienced by the Black lower classes. Correct me if I'm wrong.

RE. Zimbabwe: I can agree that Mugabe was a thug.

I'm more making reference to how the whites are getting butchered on the regular with exactly zero coverage in any form of the MSM. Y'know how "lynching's" by the KKK happened? Now reverse the races and make the Klansmen really hardcore sadists. Yeah, that's happening in South Africa. Look it up.

So, just to clarify: You believe that heresies like Arianism (and by extension Islam) should be opposed with force, and that the killing of heretics is wholly consistent with Christian (especially Catholic) dogma. Is that a correct reading of your position?

You must try to convince them first. Give them one last chance. I am sadly not fully aware of all the multiple heresies the Church chose to use that nuclear option on but I know the ones I mentioned aren't the only ones. Thought outside literal inquisitions they didn't hunt down heretics so much as excommunicate them. Of course, if said heretic chose to keep spouting their heresies after getting excommunicated well the closest analogy I can think of is the heretic is violating a restraining order. Violently.

Of course, all modern mainstream sources are in the hands of the Great Enemy and of course they'd happily lie and reframe the direct violator of a restraining order they brought upon themselves as some helpless victim of a fanatical "witch hunt" as it were. Speaking of which, I've said it elsewhere but the dumbass Puritans could have done an accurate and successful Witch Hunt had they been Catholic. The Priest (not invoking prayers/rites of exorcism BTW) would just ask the accused to confess that Jesus is the Christ and God has risen him from the dead. That's the trial. Easy enough for any non-witch to pass no matter what anyone else says or believes. Well, unless they're literally possessed. That's when those invocations actually would get used and failure of the initial test would lead to that possibility being looked into. You gotta try to end up on that stake in earnest before we actually burn you alive for being a witch.

But I digress. If the heretic insists they are right, will not publicly recant, and (in the case of Islam in particular) will answer your refusal to ascent to their heresy with violence you may justifiably kill them all and let God sort them out.

@End

Am I understanding you correctly that killing your child because the child is inconvenient to you is better than killing your child because you believe it pleases the god you worship? If so, would you care to explain why that is?

What have I always said? That we all have a "god" even if we say we don't? Killing that baby, your baby we'll say for rhetorical and argumentative reasons, was done in the name of that god. It could be Moloch, Feminism, yourself, etc. but it is an act of devotion to whatever god it is you truly worship.

Essentially, you are making a distinction without a difference here. You killed the baby because you thought/believed it would benefit you more than whatever that baby's existence would. Yeah, kids consume a lot of resources to raise and all, but the payoff man. Not in monetary terms but in emotional and spiritual terms. Again, demons are real and this is yet one more data point proving it.

[xerx]

I'm more making reference to how the whites are getting butchered on the regular with exactly zero coverage in any form of the MSM. Y'know how "lynching's" by the KKK happened? Now reverse the races and make the Klansmen really hardcore sadists. Yeah, that's happening in South Africa. Look it up.

I Googled it. Some farmers were murdered (and those events have been absorbed into a bigger political dispute over uneven land ownership, as White farmers still own most of the farmland) but I didn't find stories describing what I presume to be a "race war".

You must try to convince them first. Give them one last chance. I am sadly not fully aware of all the multiple heresies the Church chose to use that nuclear option on but I know the ones I mentioned aren't the only ones. Thought outside literal inquisitions they didn't hunt down heretics so much as excommunicate them. Of course, if said heretic chose to keep spouting their heresies after getting excommunicated well the closest analogy I can think of is the heretic is violating a restraining order. Violently.

Of course, all modern mainstream sources are in the hands of the Great Enemy and of course they'd happily lie and reframe the direct violator of a restraining order they brought upon themselves as some helpless victim of a fanatical "witch hunt" as it were. Speaking of which, I've said it elsewhere but the dumbass Puritans could have done an accurate and successful Witch Hunt had they been Catholic. The Priest (not invoking prayers/rites of exorcism BTW) would just ask the accused to confess that Jesus is the Christ and God has risen him from the dead. That's the trial. Easy enough for any non-witch to pass no matter what anyone else says or believes. Well, unless they're literally possessed. That's when those invocations actually would get used and failure of the initial test would lead to that possibility being looked into. You gotta try to end up on that stake in earnest before we actually burn you alive for being a witch.

But I digress. If the heretic insists they are right, will not publicly recant, and (in the case of Islam in particular) will answer your refusal to ascent to their heresy with violence you may justifiably kill them all and let God sort them out.

Thanks for clarifying that.

[End]

Thanks for clarifying that.

Can't help but detect that you're trying to attack me on this front. It should be clear that we only whip out the reaping scythe once a given group has decided that they want us to actually use it to prove our point.

First you get the hint, then the warning, then the fucking "HAMMER". Hell, look up the how and why of the Crusades. By the time the first one even got underway the Muslims had been treating our kind terribly for centuries. Poor dumb fools thought us weak pacifists who'd never respond to their barbarous and satanic ways. Well, as they say, to fuck around is human, to find out is divine

[xerx]

Can't help but detect that you're trying to attack me on this front.

My response was somewhat cheeky, I'll admit. But I truly do appreciate candor.

It should be clear that we only whip out the reaping scythe once a given group has decided that they want us to actually use it to prove our point.

First you get the hint, then the warning, then the fucking "HAMMER". Hell, look up the how and why of the Crusades. By the time the first one even got underway the Muslims had been treating our kind terribly for centuries. Poor dumb fools thought us weak pacifists who'd never respond to their barbarous and satanic ways. Well, as they say, to fuck around is human, to find out is divine

I'm no historian, but IIRC, a lot of the "why" also involved straight up ransacking and pillaging.

[FreelancePoliceman]

What have I always said? That we all have a "god" even if we say we don't? Killing that baby, your baby we'll say for rhetorical and argumentative reasons, was done in the name of that god. It could be Moloch, Feminism, yourself, etc. but it is an act of devotion to whatever god it is you truly worship.

Essentially, you are making a distinction without a difference here. You killed the baby because you thought/believed it would benefit you more than whatever that baby's existence would. Yeah, kids consume a lot of resources to raise and all, but the payoff man. Not in monetary terms but in emotional and spiritual terms. Again, demons are real and this is yet one more data point proving it.

Well, I'm confused because you were saying the Romans, who killed their babies, attacked the Carthaginians because the Carthaginians killed their babies in a more ritualistic way. Now you're saying that the two acts are identical.

If the heretic insists they are right, will not publicly recant, and (in the case of Islam in particular) will answer your refusal to ascent to their heresy with violence you may justifiably kill them all and let God sort them out.

End, as I recall, Jesus' instructions on what to do if someone wouldn't accept his apostles was:

And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town.

Why do you think Jesus said this, and not "go out and kill whoever won't accept you?" Why can't God kill his own heretics? Jesus explains God's stance on those who won't accept the gospel in Matthew 13:

the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’

He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ But he said, 'No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, "Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”

The Master is saying here that heretics and unbelievers are not to be disturbed until the Day of Judgement. If the Catholic Church preaches something else, that church is in direct contradiction of Jesus' words.

[FreelancePoliceman]

My response was somewhat cheeky, I'll admit. But I truly do appreciate candor.

I'm no historian, but IIRC, a lot of the "why" also involved straight up ransacking and pillaging.

And the "how" involved cannibalism.

[End]

I'm no historian, but IIRC, a lot of the "why" also involved straight up ransacking and pillaging.

That they did and we admittedly answered sin for sin and while that wasn't the "right" thing it was the understandable thing. Point is we had essentially just "turned the other cheek" for a good long time before we didn't. It's a common observation. People are X... until they are not. And then they're really not. Christians, real and honest ones, fit that description. Like I said, it takes a lot for us to finally go on a Crusade. Once we do embark upon one? Ho boy, you fucked around and now you're gonna find out the hard way why you don't fuck with God's people.

@FreelancePoliceman Now we're really into the meat and potatoes of the Quasi-Identical relationship. We are utterly misunderstanding each other and I'd start getting angry but the way you're putting it all just underlines your honest misunderstanding so I still can't get all that mad.

I am sadly not one who has the Bible memorized word for word so I'll have to look up the specific gospels and verses you are quoting to make/give you a definitive answer but for now I'll say you're at best fundamentally misunderstanding scripture and at worst maliciously trying to browbeat me with my own moral code and holy word. If I thought you were doing the latter on purpose I'd immediately issue you a Witch Test. That last line of yours is on dangerous ground for you make it sound like members of the church should just let Evil happen because "Only God can judge" or some other heresy/BS you think is part of the Catechism that says the people of God are pansy ass little bitches without spines or any real morals beyond "Let's be nice to everyone even if they rape my sister and murder my parents in cold blood!".

Yeah, that ain't how it works. There are sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance y'know. Murder is but one of them.

If you'd dare go up to a Catholic Priest and try and argue with him. A trained Catholic lay theologian would also suffice. Provided they don't glow in the dark so radiantly you'd see them from Pluto or something I'm afraid you'll get intellectually bitch slapped so hard you may well become a convert

[xerx]

That they did and we admittedly answered sin for sin and while that wasn't the "right" thing it was the understandable thing. Point is we had essentially just "turned the other cheek" for a good long time before we didn't. It's a common observation. People are X... until they are not. And then they're really not. Christians, real and honest ones, fit that description. Like I said, it takes a lot for us to finally go on a Crusade. Once we do embark upon one? Ho boy, you fucked around and now you're gonna find out the hard way why you don't fuck with God's people.

I meant that the crusaders were motivated by ransacking / pillaging / raping / whatever. They even sacked Constantinople, weakening arguably the strongest Christian bulwark against Islam.

[FreelancePoliceman]

@FreelancePoliceman Now we're really into the meat and potatoes of the Quasi-Identical relationship. We are utterly misunderstanding each other and I'd start getting angry but the way you're putting it all just underlines your honest misunderstanding so I still can't get all that mad.

I am sadly not one who has the Bible memorized word for word so I'll have to look up the specific gospels and verses you are quoting to make/give you a definitive answer but for now I'll say you're at best fundamentally misunderstanding scripture and at worst maliciously trying to browbeat me with my own moral code and holy word. If I thought you were doing the latter on purpose I'd immediately issue you a Witch Test. That last line of yours is on dangerous ground for you make it sound like members of the church should just let Evil happen because "Only God can judge" or some other heresy/BS you think is part of the Catechism that says the people of God are pansy ass little bitches without spines or any real morals beyond "Let's be nice to everyone even if they rape my sister and murder my parents in cold blood!".

I've mentioned this on the forum before, but I was raised evangelical. I am trying to browbeat you with your supposed moral code, because you sitting there trying to gloat about a moral code you supposedly follow which you aren't even familiar with irks me as someone who spent a lot of effort browbeating myself with it.

And the last line in that quote is interesting. Tolstoy made the observation that of all the Christians he met, not one was familiar with the first sentence of Matthew 5:39, and almost all denied its existence when he quoted it to them. That sentence reads:

Do not resist evil.

Alternatively,

Do not resist one who is evil.

You are obviously not familiar with that verse either. The reason for that is that that tiny sentence contextualizes virtually the entire history of the Church for what it is: not only a gross deviation from Jesus' teachings, but a moral abomination. You cannot find a justification for the Crusades, or the burning of heretics, or the persecution of religious minorities in Jesus' words.

If you'd dare go up to a Catholic Priest and try and argue with him. A trained Catholic lay theologian would also suffice. Provided they don't glow in the dark so radiantly you'd see them from Pluto or something I'm afraid you'll get intellectually bitch slapped so hard you may well become a convert

Having attended a Catholic university and taken a few courses on theology, I'm curious where you got the idea the Church currently argues for killing heretics.

From Gaudium et Spes:

Respect and love ought to be extended also to those who think or act differently than we do in social, political and even religious matters. In fact, the more deeply we come to understand their ways of thinking through such courtesy and love, the more easily will we be able to enter into dialogue with them.
This love and good will, to be sure, must in no way render us indifferent to truth and goodness. Indeed love itself impels the disciples of Christ to speak the saving truth to all men...God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts, for that reason He forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone.(11)

The teaching of Christ even requires that we forgive injuries,(12) and extends the law of love to include every enemy, according to the command of the New Law: "You have heard that it was said: Thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thy enemy. But I say to you: love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who persecute and calumniate you" (Matt. 5:43-44).

Note the bolded. If you deny this, as you seemed to in your last post, you are a heretic or at least a schismatic.

From Dignitatis Humanae:

2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.
It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth. However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded...In the exercise of their rights, individual men and social groups are bound by the moral law to have respect both for the rights of others and for their own duties toward others and for the common welfare of all.
...
9. The declaration of this Vatican Council on the right of man to religious freedom has its foundation in the dignity of the person, whose exigencies have come to be are fully known to human reason through centuries of experience. What is more, this doctrine of freedom has roots in divine revelation, and for this reason Christians are bound to respect it all the more conscientiously. Revelation does not indeed affirm in so many words the right of man to immunity from external coercion in matters religious. It does, however, disclose the dignity of the human person in its full dimensions. It gives evidence of the respect which Christ showed toward the freedom with which man is to fulfill his duty of belief in the word of God and it gives us lessons in the spirit which disciples of such a Master ought to adopt and continually follow. Thus further light is cast upon the general principles upon which the doctrine of this declaration on religious freedom is based. In particular, religious freedom in society is entirely consonant with the freedom of the act of Christian faith.

Despite my dislike for the Catholic Church, I suspect you are the one in need of a conversation with a priest if you think what you've been saying is doctrine.

[End]

I've mentioned this on the forum before, but I was raised evangelical. I am trying to browbeat you with your supposed moral code, because you sitting there trying to gloat about a moral code you supposedly follow which you aren't even familiar with irks me as someone who spent a lot of effort browbeating myself with it.

And the last line in that quote is interesting. Tolstoy made the observation that of all the Christians he met, not one was familiar with the first sentence of Matthew 5:39, and almost all denied its existence when he quoted it to them. That sentence reads:

Do not resist evil.

Alternatively,

Do not resist one who is evil.

You are obviously not familiar with that verse either. The reason for that is that that tiny sentence contextualizes virtually the entire history of the Church for what it is: not only a gross deviation from Jesus' teachings, but a moral abomination. You cannot find a justification for the Crusades, or the burning of heretics, or the persecution of religious minorities in Jesus' words.

I actually am familiar with that one. He wasn't referencing evil in general, but rather, persecution from the world and revenge. Followers of the faith will be persecuted for it. Rising up and fighting this persecution with violence is almost always going to be pointless and counterproductive (e.g. A Roman Centurion, with the full backing of the state and military, will see and use your violence against them as justification for yet more persecution and possibly full on extermination/purging). His instruction was about how to endure it with dignity and, possibly, make followers out of those who persecute you. This is also part of Just War theory. If you don't have a serious chance of winning that war you ought not start it as A)You're going to lose anyway and B)In starting such a pointless doomed war you're bringing into the world more evil and suffering than just enduring the suffering patiently. Also, no vengeance. It is God's, not yours. Besides, revenge never really ends well for either side. History itself and too many stories from all cultures to count show the how and why of that.

There was a key part of my argument you overlooked however. I said, as the final addendum, that the heretic is going to use violence to promulgate and spread their heresy. Like I said, if your refusal to ascent to their drek is going to result in them trying to cut your head off you're justified in cutting theirs off right back. If they aren't about to kill you or anyone else that refuses them than you aren't justified. Instead, you pray for them.

Now, as for the Church being an abomination that's a protestant and atheist thing mostly. What denomination are you if you are one? I am admittedly not all that familiar with protestant denominations or how and why their doctrines differ with/from my own. I do know a lot of them hate on the church as a matter of principle though and just do it because that's what they've always done. They also tend to be way more stuffy and unforgiving in my experience. I can see why you came to dislike Christianity if you were raised in a family/community that constantly thumped you over the head with a bible whenever you fucked up instead of giving you a hug and lovingly telling how you made a mistake, why it's bad, and how you can best avoid doing it again like they were supposed to do.

Tangent: I've been harping on about attachment issues for a bit and you experiencing the former over the latter means you to got em' good and hard and, among other things, they prevent you from truly understanding God's love towards us all. Difference between us on this front is I'm actively trying to fix mine and you might not even realize you have them within yourself and mistakenly think yourself "healthy" in your self-inflicted hell. Plenty of BS movements nowadays teaching people to embrace and deepen their issues over actually trying to fix them and heal themselves. Give me a few more data points and I may actually be able to help you despite being in your "enemy" quadra.

If you're an atheist I'd like to hear your refutation of the arguments laid out by Saint Thomas Aquinas. You'd be the first to successfully manage the feat. Of course, you could also be a hardcore nihilist. I will grant you that it does have one thing going for it. It is internally consistent. It's wrong, but it is consistent.

I also do fully agree with the religious freedom thing. Spreading the True Faith by the sword is definitely something Christ would not and did not want. Mainly because (among many other things) it doesn't really make true believers. If I've got a gun to my head and getting frog marched to a mosque I'll go through the motions and all, but in my heart of hearts I'm not down for the cause and once the meanies go away I'm going right back to Jesus and no amount of time spent forcing me to pray towards Mecca (or for any other religion) is gonna change that. And hey, if they threaten to kill me if I don't recant my own then I'm a martyr and they go straight to heaven so I still win in the end.

One of the big things about the faith that really made me believe is that there is both theological and practical reasons behind it all. Even if you didn't like or even believe the theological stuff you'd be hard pressed to argue against the positive practical effects acting on Church/Christian teachings has on both life and society at large.

Despite my dislike for the Catholic Church, I suspect you are the one in need of a conversation with a priest if you think what you've been saying is doctrine.

I may have made some mistakes here and there I will admit that. I am no trained theologian nor an ordained priest so my pronouncements carry no true authority and should not be taken as "official" in any way. If I was about to go on public TV or something like that you're damn right I'd run everything I want to say past one though. Publicly spreading error intentionally is not at all a good thing and is probably a grave sin.

And yes, I can already hear people saying that posting on this forum is "in public" or something. The time of priests and theologians is quite precious (especially priests) and I'm pretty sure most of them would get a bit annoyed if I was asking about something "because of an argument on the internet". If I was publishing a book that could potentially get read by millions and I wanted to make sure I wasn't accidentally spreading error on the other hand they'd probably take that appointment.

[FreelancePoliceman]

I actually am familiar with that one. He wasn't referencing evil in general, but rather, persecution from the world and revenge. Followers of the faith will be persecuted for it. Rising up and fighting this persecution with violence is almost always going to be pointless and counterproductive (e.g. A Roman Centurion, with the full backing of the state and military, will see and use your violence against them as justification for yet more persecution and possibly full on extermination/purging). His instruction was about how to endure it with dignity and, possibly, make followers out of those who persecute you. This is also part of Just War theory. If you don't have a serious chance of winning that war you ought not start it as A)You're going to lose anyway and B)In starting such a pointless doomed war you're bringing into the world more evil and suffering than just enduring the suffering patiently. Also, no vengeance. It is God's, not yours. Besides, revenge never really ends well for either side. History itself and too many stories from all cultures to count show the how and why of that.

There was a key part of my argument you overlooked however. I said, as the final addendum, that the heretic is going to use violence to promulgate and spread their heresy. Like I said, if your refusal to ascent to their drek is going to result in them trying to cut your head off you're justified in cutting theirs off right back. If they aren't about to kill you or anyone else that refuses them than you aren't justified. Instead, you pray for them.

All Christians seem able to do is to interpret the Gospels in some light that make Jesus not mean what he said. "Do not resist evil," sure -- but Jesus really meant "unless you face a heretic."

Now, as for the Church being an abomination that's a protestant and atheist thing mostly. What denomination are you if you are one? I am admittedly not all that familiar with protestant denominations or how and why their doctrines differ with/from my own. I do know a lot of them hate on the church as a matter of principle though and just do it because that's what they've always done. They also tend to be way more stuffy and unforgiving in my experience. I can see why you came to dislike Christianity if you were raised in a family/community that constantly thumped you over the head with a bible whenever you fucked up instead of giving you a hug and lovingly telling how you made a mistake, why it's bad, and how you can best avoid doing it again like they were supposed to do.

I was raised episcopalian, though I should clarify that in the US there's a more "evangelical" branch of episcopalianism more culturally similar to mainstream evangelical Christianity and a more "traditional" or so-called "Anglo-Catholic" branch, which seems to be more like what the church is in the UK and Canada. My family belonged to the evangelical branch. I'm an atheist, if it's not clear.

Tangent: I've been harping on about attachment issues for a bit and you experiencing the former over the latter means you to got em' good and hard and, among other things, they prevent you from truly understanding God's love towards us all. Difference between us on this front is I'm actively trying to fix mine and you might not even realize you have them within yourself and mistakenly think yourself "healthy" in your self-inflicted hell. Plenty of BS movements nowadays teaching people to embrace and deepen their issues over actually trying to fix them and heal themselves. Give me a few more data points and I may actually be able to help you despite being in your "enemy" quadra.

Lol, I'll be happy to talk to you; what would you like to know? And I think too much is made of opposite quadras being "enemies" or something like that.

If you're an atheist I'd like to hear your refutation of the arguments laid out by Saint Thomas Aquinas. You'd be the first to successfully manage the feat. Of course, you could also be a hardcore nihilist. I will grant you that it does have one thing going for it. It is internally consistent. It's wrong, but it is consistent.

Which arguments?

One of the big things about the faith that really made me believe is that there is both theological and practical reasons behind it all. Even if you didn't like or even believe the theological stuff you'd be hard pressed to argue against the positive practical effects acting on Church/Christian teachings has on both life and society at large.

As I've said, I've known many Christians (and Catholics included), and I'm skeptical that these have made them better people. I suppose you would say these weren't "real" Christians/"real" Catholics.

I may have made some mistakes here and there I will admit that. I am no trained theologian nor an ordained priest so my pronouncements carry no true authority and should not be taken as "official" in any way. If I was about to go on public TV or something like that you're damn right I'd run everything I want to say past one though. Publicly spreading error intentionally is not at all a good thing and is probably a grave sin.

And yes, I can already hear people saying that posting on this forum is "in public" or something. The time of priests and theologians is quite precious (especially priests) and I'm pretty sure most of them would get a bit annoyed if I was asking about something "because of an argument on the internet". If I was publishing a book that could potentially get read by millions and I wanted to make sure I wasn't accidentally spreading error on the other hand they'd probably take that appointment.

No problem.

[FreelancePoliceman]

New York is using race to determine access to limited supply of life-saving COVID treatements

But the policy then states that anyone who is non-white — regardless of age, health or underlying medical conditions — is automatically deemed to have met the requirement that one must have “a medical condition or other factors that increase their risk for severe illness" in order to receive this treatment (“Non-white race or Hispanic/Latino ethnicity should be considered a risk factor."). That means that a healthy twenty-year-old Asian football player or a 17-year-old African-American marathon runner from a wealthy family will be automatically deemed at heightened risk to develop serious COVID illness — making them instantly eligible for monoclonal treatments upon testing positive and showing symptoms — while a White person of exactly the same age and health condition from an impoverished background would not be automatically eligible.

[End]

New York is using race to determine access to limited supply of life-saving COVID treatements

[/FONT][/COLOR]

Hahaha! Well, I've made this prediction elsewhere and while I am saddened that people once more live down to my lowest expectations, well, I did say that shit like this would happen. The wokies claim that In-group preferences are a sin and that we're all one race: the "human" race and all that BS.

Once you tear away all notions of objective morality and objective reality as they have all politics and interpersonal relationships in general are is the direct and ultimately bloody business of rewarding friends and harming/punishing enemies. I.e. acting upon your own in-group preferences logic and reason be damned. Yeah, you objectively shouldn't kill everyone who doesn't look, sound, and believe like you for very good reasons. Sadly, we've just torn away all notions of objective morality and reality so the blood must (and will) flow. After all, utopia is just one more of "The enemy's" corpses away.

Funny thing about that though. The definition of who/what the enemy is changes by the hour for the servants of the greatest enemy. There always seems to be just one more person who has to die in order to "immanentize the eschaton" as we faithful put it. We abandoned that pursuit long ago. Sadly, it is such a tempting offer for those who lack the context and metaphysical understanding to realize why it's both impossible and a bad idea. Literal "heaven" on Earth as it were. What greater end is there? Surely any and all means are justified by it in retrospect yes?

I'll answer the other longer post/response you had later once I've got more time and am in a better mental state. Happy New Year regardless @FreelancePoliceman .

[FreelancePoliceman]

I'll answer the other longer post/response you had later once I've got more time and am in a better mental state. Happy New Year regardless @FreelancePoliceman .

Happy New Year to you.

[FreelancePoliceman]

Prosecutors move to dismiss charges against Epstein jail guards accused of falsifying records

The guards agreed to provide "truthful information related to their employment by the Bureau of Prisons, including about the events and circumstances described in the Indictment," according to a letter from federal prosecutors that was filed in court papers. The guards had to complete 100 hours of community service.
The agreement required the guards cooperate with a Department of Justice Inspector General review, authorities said in May.
Tova Noel and Michael Thomas have since fulfilled their part of the bargain, prosecutors wrote in a document posted to the docket Thursday.
"Under the agreements, prosecution was deferred for a period of six months during the term of Noel's and Thomas's good behavior, completion of community service, and satisfactory compliance with the terms of the agreement," the court document says.

These guards outright admitted to falsifying records. So why are they being let off?

[Adam Strange]

Prosecutors move to dismiss charges against Epstein jail guards accused of falsifying records



These guards outright admitted to falsifying records. So why are they being let off?

What records did they falsify?

The ones where they said they checked on him every ten minutes as required, or the ones where they said they didn’t strangle him with a bedsheet?

You know, video cameras are so cheap that you’d think that every cell would have a dozen or so.

[FreelancePoliceman]

What records did they falsify?

The ones where they said they checked on him every ten minutes as required, or the ones where they said they didn’t strangle him with a bedsheet?

You know, video cameras are so cheap that you’d think that every cell would have a dozen or so.

I meant the first, but lol.

[FreelancePoliceman]

The brazilianization of the world - but especially relevant to the US. I disagree with certain points but I'll quote passages I particularly like:

Precisely the same mismatch of ideas and reality is now being found in modern times. “Conservatives” encourage the forces that destroy things worth conserving (say, the family); liberalism means defending the illiberalism of surveillance apparatuses; hyper-indi*vidualism winds up reifying essentialist conceptions of race (such that group belonging is treated as logically prior to the individual person); the Left is increasingly the party of the highly educated and well-heeled. All around we’re confronted with deaptation, an idea the philosopher Adrian Johnston has taken from memetic theory to describe the way that an initially adaptive memetic strategy later becomes useless or even counterproductive.⁵ If liberalism was a set of ideas appropriate to the bourgeoisie’s rise and then consolidation—all in the name of freedom—it is today in a state of deaptation, wielded in defense of hierarchy and domination.

Or consider how personal services rendered in the domestic sphere reinforce this model of accumulation. Upper-middle-class households in Brazil have maids or drivers that service them—an economic relationship that could only be replaced by costly investment in public services and infrastructure (for example, industrial cleaning services or public transport). As a consequence, the Brazilian middle class has a higher standard of living in this respect than its equivalents in the United States or Europe. The exploitation of cheap labor in the domestic sphere also impedes any political drive for improvement in public services.
Are we not faced with precisely such a Brazilianization of the world today—with a growing array of “concierge services,” where*by the professional class and elite alike hire private yoga teachers, private chefs, and private security? An upper-middle-class household in San Francisco comes to replicate an aristocratic manor with a whole economy of services rendered in the domestic sphere, but now every*thing is outsourced: digital platforms intermediate between private “contractors” (formerly employees) and the new elite. Brazil’s social structure showed us our future.

The Brazilian elite, however—famously living in gated condominiums with private security guards—is merely a more grotesque version of elites in “advanced Western democracies.” The disavowal of responsibility for society finds its most outré example in Peter Thiel’s seasteading. But this process is much more widely distributed, and depersonalized, across the West.
When Brazil’s ruling class opts for diminished sovereignty in order to maintain their dominant position amid deep inequality, we should see its mirror image in the European Union. The regional bloc is best understood as an “economic constitution” which is devised to prevent politics from interfering with market regulation, thus locking in policy choices. When national elites opt for membership in the bloc—in spite of the EU’s neoliberal death spiral—they trade away national autonomy and with it political responsibility for social outcomes.
Just look at Italian elites’ desperation to remain part of euro, despite the penury to which it subjects the country and the destruction of any future for it. Just as Brazilian elites wish they could permanently decamp to Miami, for long the capital of Latin American reaction, so globalized elites in Europe and North America wish they too could escape the masses that “hold them back.” Italian elites wish they were German, British “Remainers” do likewise, and American liberal elites wish they were “European”—or at least that America’s flyover country might disappear.
Nowhere (except perhaps in China) do we find ruling elites pursuing any sort of “national project”—something that thereby implicates, and aims to integrate, the masses. Insofar as neoliberal elites have any project, beyond short-term crisis management and government-by-media, it is always anti-national. Brazilian president Fernando Hen*rique Cardoso, who sold off state-owned family jewels to investors at cut prices in the 1990s, had been right all along: the national bourgeoisie cannot be relied upon.

Brazil’s ignoble history of irresolution and indeterminacy, coupled with a dualized society in which hustling is essential to survival, gave birth to Brazilian cynicism. Increasingly, the West is coming to ape this same pattern. Not only does there seem to be no way past capitalist stagnation, but politics is characterized by a void between people and politics, citizens and the state. The ruling class’s relation to the masses is one of condescension. Elites call anyone who revolts against the contemporary order racist, sexist, or some other delegitimizing term. They also advance outlandish conspiracy theories for why electorates have failed to vote for their favored candidate—most visibly with “Russiagate” in the United States and beyond. This phenomenon, dubbed Neoliberal Order Breakdown Syndrome, only breeds further cynicism in Western publics, who are increasingly taken with conspiracy theories of their own. This is another Brazilian speciality: in a country with very low levels of institutional trust and plentiful examples of actual conspiracies, conspiracy theories flourish.

[xerx]

The brazilianization of the world - but especially relevant to the US. I disagree with certain points but I'll quote passages I particularly like:

Or consider how personal services rendered in the domestic sphere reinforce this model of accumulation. Upper-middle-class households in Brazil have maids or drivers that service them—an economic relationship that could only be replaced by costly investment in public services and infrastructure (for example, industrial cleaning services or public transport). As a consequence, the Brazilian middle class has a higher standard of living in this respect than its equivalents in the United States or Europe. The exploitation of cheap labor in the domestic sphere also impedes any political drive for improvement in public services.
Are we not faced with precisely such a Brazilianization of the world today—with a growing array of “concierge services,” where*by the professional class and elite alike hire private yoga teachers, private chefs, and private security? An upper-middle-class household in San Francisco comes to replicate an aristocratic manor with a whole economy of services rendered in the domestic sphere, but now every*thing is outsourced: digital platforms intermediate between private “contractors” (formerly employees) and the new elite. Brazil’s social structure showed us our future.

This is an important observation that can be aimed at liberal feminism. Women with high-powered careers hire poor women, often from immigrant backgrounds, to babysit their kids. These other women, in turn, spend less time raising their own children.

[Adam Strange]

The modern world is an incredibly complex place and few people can see the consequences of their prejudices, but one thing is certain. Humans exist on a slightly shiftable continuum that spans the range from trusting other humans a lot, to not.

[FreelancePoliceman]

Black Lives Matters' Millions Unaccounted for After Leaders Quietly Jumped Ship

Who to trust? The loudest voices seeming to advocate reform are themselves corrupt.

Everything of the digital spectacle is fake. What does that mean when people are plugging themselves into it increasingly? Nihilism? I don't think people are going to unplug, in general, barring a major disaster.

[Adam Strange]

The world seems to be past Peak Everything at this point (except Peak People), which means that there are, on average, more people with fewer resources available to them. Which means that, on average, we will all get poorer.

This is only an average, though. In some places, there are individuals who are richer than ever before.

I've just been reading about the economic development and demographics of China, and I'd say that the benefits of a vast slave labor force to the American consumer are pretty much over.

It was nice (for me) while it lasted.

[xerx]

[Poptart]

A thread to document and make light of the social/political unraveling of this country.

I'll start:

Joe Biden, unlike Trump, didn't take cognitive test in annual exam.



Meanwhile in reality...

omg you drama queen

[Metamorph]

You are obviously not familiar with that verse either. The reason for that is that that tiny sentence contextualizes virtually the entire history of the Church for what it is: not only a gross deviation from Jesus' teachings, but a moral abomination. You cannot find a justification for the Crusades, or the burning of heretics, or the persecution of religious minorities in Jesus' words.

End's real God as he calls it isn't God, it's "Western civilization." Even and perhaps especially in the cases where it wasn't so civilized. The first thing he assumes is that "the West is the best" and from there he infers Catholicism as being the religion of the West. It seems very Christenheit oder Europa-like to me. You can see in how he talks about religion it's almost never about what he thinks truth is and always about either identity politics or a sort of existentialism where Catholicism has purported benefits like following a keto diet. There's a word for choosing your religion just because you think it sounds good, I think it comes from the Greek word for "to choose" even.

[ILoveChinchillas]

It feels like imminent disintegration because America has come home from a failed war in Afghanistan, rethinking its posture since 9/11 more than 20 years ago.

According to Chomsky, America has been in decline since the end of WWII.

[Metamorph]

It feels like imminent disintegration because America has come home from a failed war in Afghanistan, rethinking its posture since 9/11 more than 20 years ago.

According to Chomsky, America has been in decline since the end of WWII.

I don't think so. I don't think America is declining even now. I think Americans are just inherently paranoid because Americans threw off the divine right of kings (good) for the divine right of themselves, and when you think you have divine right, you can never have too many guns, you can never be too suspicious, and you can never protect God's purported agent too much. WWII is when Americans got a lot of wealth, and with a lot of wealth they got infrastructure, and with more infrastructure they had more neighbors and more people not like themselves to be suspicious of and shoot with their stockpiled guns due to their paranoia. As America ascends the worst tendencies will only become more pronounced, rather than them signaling America's downfall, because there kind of is a form of American exceptionalism, it's just not all good (and America isn't the only exceptional country in existence, just it is seemingly an exception in this particular way due to America seeming to be the only country not founded on an aristocracy.) In America the grass grows greener and the weeds also grow thicker. It would not surprise me if America did not manage to maintain a position as a superpower (though not the only one) until possibly the end of the world.