Friday, June 15, 2007

Catholicism—anecdotal conservatism

We can compare the Catholic Church to the European Union. A super-national super-organization, a hungry beast that always has to be fed and grow. It's like with Robert Michels' iron law of oligarchy. All organizations degenerate, especially large and complex organizations, regardless of how well it worked initially for its original purpose. And the representatives no longer represent their mandators and their interests, but instead only themselves and their own interests. The organization will no longer work for its original purpose, what it was originally designed to defend and promote, but instead for the organization itself. We end up with an organization representing nothing but the organization itself, its elite and its eternal expansion.

Today the European Union no longer represents Europe, it represents the European Union and its commission and its many politicians who profit from it. It's a hungry beast that need to be fed, that needs to grow, so that's why it considers Turkey being such a juicy steak. Likewise with the Catholic Church. It is already predominantly a Third World organization, and therefore in all aspects already represent those interests. As an open border lobby group for more mass immigration from the Third World. Urging its adherents to do good Christian deeds with regards to the "poor" and "vulnerable" illegal immigrants. All in all, as bad as any other universalist NGO we know about.

We can compare Catholicism to Sweden. Both well-greased machineries that worked excellently in the old days when the leadership worked for substance and success, and not for civilizational suicide as today. Why did it work? Because of--in spite of other superficial differences--the very authoritarian mentality of the organizations. Strictly hierarchical, where the people at the bottom never question the decrees of the elite. Why does it fail so miserably today? For the very same reasons. The suicidal commands of the elite is followed just as blindly as they followed the good leadership in the old days.

We can compare Catholicism to George W. Bush. In both cases we have the phenomenon of anecdotal conservatism. Bush takes a "courageous" stance against stem cell research, while pushing for national suicide by mass invasion of Mexicans into the U.S. Only having the cognitive capacity to understand miniature issues such as stem cell research or abortion, but not a single clue about how to rule a country; the importance of enforcing the law and upholding the national sovereignty. Not a single clue. Anecdotal conservatism is the ideology for political illiterates, an ideology which literally strain at the gnats and swallow the camels. And since 99% of the people on this planet are political illiterates, this kind of anecdotal conservatism is also what they perceive as real conservatism. Most people never seriously asked themselves the question "How to rule a country?". They think that politics is about personal attitudes, image and fashion. The think of politics in relation to their person, and not in relation to a country and how to rule it--they are the political illiterates.

Catholicism is perfectly another example of anecdotal conservatism, only taking firm positions on miniature issues, such as birth control, while being completely blind on the capital conservative issues, such as enforcing the law, upholding national sovereignty, defending our civilization. And just as Bush they are worse than blind. Once the perversion has gone as far as to strain at gnats and swallow the camels, perversion becomes the ruling principle. And therefore the Catholic Church, quite as Bush, effectively act as the enemies of our civilization. The combination of clinging to miniature issues combined with universalism, makes them use their miniature issues as a battering ram to break our nations. As when Bush says "family values do not stop at the Rio Grande". Or the Vatican's position against use of birth control, which has no effect in Europe, but only makes the population explosion in the Third World get worse; and of course by embracing Islam, and being maybe the most influential open borders lobby.

Challenging the obvious, Steven claims that the Vatican is not into politics. And I'm sure this is a true axiom in the Catholic mental universe. This is all captured in what Pope Benedict said to Erdogan when visiting Turkey: "We are not political but we wish for Turkey to join the EU". Catholicism is as much in denial about being political, as America is in denial as being an empire. But it is political; by pushing for open borders, by lobbying for Third World interests, by adding to the injury of the population explosion in Africa, by encouraging its adherents to break the law by helping illegal aliens "out of Christian charity", by embracing Islam, by encouraging Turkey's entry into the E.U., by advocating multiculturalism and political correctness, and giving speeches against "racism", "xenophobia" and "exaggerated nationalism".

But by being in denial about being political, the Catholic Church has never articulated a single serious political thought. Therefore the disastrous effects of its actions. In the old days, before the age of the French Revolution, political leadership worked, European civilization was not suicidal. The Vatican, then as now, was only concerned with miniature issues. But then it worked, and could at best lead to a perfect symbiosis between the political leadership and the Church. It appears that the Catholic Church never had a clue of what conservatism is; what is the substance of our civilization. When the West turn left, the Church turned left too, and as I pointed out before was even the vanguard in pushing for culturally leftist positions (it's inherent in the Christian ethics), such as multiculturalism.

But the sad part is that the Catholic Church is equally clueless about simple family matters, what is often referred to as "family values". If they would care about the birth rates in Europe, they would not put the emphasis on taking a position against birth control, but instead focus on the issue of the unbearable situation for European couples to have children. By being over-taxed, over-stressed, both have to work, rampaging feminism, etc. it becomes too expensive and too stressful to have as many children as desired.

But the Catholic Church of course never ever cared about birth rates in Europe (and here Steven is completely misguided). It's simply a dogma of Catholicism that it's a sin against life as preventing a human child from coming into the world. There no thought behind it, whatsoever. It's just a dogma that is followed blindly. The Catholic Church does not care the least for the survival of European civilization and if the births take place in Europe. At the same time they are happy to encourage and add to the injury of the very problematic exponential population explosion in the Third World. The Catholic Church wants as many souls in its organization as possible, it doesn't care the least where they are coming from. Christian values is behind one of the worst disasters of the time we live in: the exponential population explosion in the Third World. It's not until we leave Christian ethics, that we will be able to deal with it.

But it doesn't end there. Pope John Paul II, in his book The Gospel of Life, equated immigration restrictions with the sin of preventing a human child from coming into the world, both practices of what he calls the "Culture of Death". David Simcox wrote:

Papal pronouncements here and in Rome, such as the Papal Letter on the "Gospel of Life" early in 1995, increasingly imply a morel equivalence between immigration restrictions and practices of what the Pontiff calls the "Culture of Death;" abortion, contraception, capital punishment, euthanasia and assisted suicide.

And Lawrence Auster summarized it as:
the insane dictum of the late pope that to prevent an illegal alien from coming into your country is as grave a sin against life as preventing a human child from coming into the world.

Anyone who still wants to claim that the Vatican is not political? Surely the Catholics deny that their positions of Christian charity and Christian goodness are political. But it doesn't stop it from having an immense political effect. And Catholicism is worse than suicidal liberalism, since it is suicidal liberalism made into a religion. And if you ask me, the origins of suicidal liberalism is found in Christian ethics. I'm not at all surprised that the Catholic Church was the vanguard in pushing for a culturally leftist agenda of the destruction of European civilization.

And we see this materialized in how Catholic Senators overwhelmingly vote for national suicide. We see it represented in the comments of Steven, cluelessly rallying for banning birth control as the way to save European civilization. And when it comes to the kill-America-by-mass-immigration bill, his only comment is "poor America becoming a bit too Mexican". Poor America, by not enforcing its laws and by being flooded by tenths of millions of Mexicans, and yet more tenths of millions to come, is losing its national sovereignty, and is ceasing to be America. What Steven hasn't understood is that the issue is not about Mexicans. Whenever the issue is brought up, all he talks about are Mexicans. This makes it abundantly clear to us that Steven does not understand the nature of the issue. The issue is about America. But to Steven, as with other liberals, America, as a nation, does not exist in his mental world. This suggests to us that Steven never seriously thought about the question of "How to rule a country?". This is a white area in his mental map, so he will always gravitate away from it. As for other liberals and Catholics, the only things that exist are sacred individuals and super-national NGOs. Nations do not exist in their mental universe--so how would they ever phrase the question "How to rule a country?"

A position I share with Fjordman and Lawrence Auster is that the way to stop the civilizational suicide is to shift from the mentality of "saving the world" into "saving ourselves". We cannot reform Islam, and its not our responsibility. We can only separate ourselves from it, or defeat it. The "save the world" mentality leads to false paths such as global warming activism, open border policies, and providing Third World people with Western money and medicine to facilitate their exponential population explosion. All against the common good for this planet. The "saving the world" mentality leads in the opposite direction from the issues about saving ourselves, such as national sovereignty, law enforcement and civilizational defense.

It's clear that we have to stop saving the world, and start saving ourselves. But the concept of "saving the world" is hardwired into the Catholic Church. It seems itself as a universal organization (by name and by nature) with its purpose to save as many individual souls around the planet as possible, i.e. to make the Church grow in power by numbers. There is no ourselves for the Catholic Church, so it is an impossibility for this organization to do the shift from "saving the world" to "saving ourselves". Protestantism and Orthodox Christianity are differently politically organized, so they stand a chance. Especially the Orthodox Church with its national organizations, but also American Christianity, with its vitality, stand a chance. But Catholicism is doomed to forever being a dead branch of European civilization, at least unless the Second Vatican Council is fully repudiated.

This was my last post of my series about Catholicism. Here are the other posts of this series:
Catholicism—Vatican II embracing Islam
Catholicism—the open borders lobby
Catholicism—birth control and birth rates (part I)
Catholicism—birth control and birth rates (part II)

33 comments:

Steven said...

Ciao Cons. Swede,
We can compare the Catholic Church to the European Union. A super-national super-organization, a hungry beast that always has to be fed and grow.

I think you're beginning to rant. I started out saying that the church had the courage to make a decision right smack dab in the rising sexual revolution that was obviously going to be unpopular, that would make her lose adherents. She took it and she was right.
Perhaps you are describing certain Multi-nationals, certain economic systems, but certainly not the 2000 year old Church that has been through thick and thin; that was banned in France, Spain and Mexico; that had its artworks carted off by Napoleon.

It's like with Robert Michels' iron law of oligarchy. All organizations degenerate, especially large and complex organizations, regardless of how well it worked initially for its original purpose.

The Catholic church has certainly been through ups and downs. It's at a low ebb (in Europe recently), though vocations are on the rise again. But again, I remind you that it's 2000 years old and therefore not just what you might call an "organization" that degenerates, but a spiritual force that has even been through worse times and seen Europe through similar suicidal heresies.

And the representatives no longer represent their mandators and their interests, but instead only themselves and their own interests.

Yes, and that is why Catholicism remains against Birth Control, gay marriages/ adoptions, why she's against aggressive capitalism, fatalistic socialism... to remain in power even when those things are wildly successful / popular. BTW, the mandator is called Jesus Christ... there are no other mandators. Naturally as an organization (providing more health services in certain areas than any other) it too suffers the sin of wanting to survive. Sorry about that.

The organization will no longer work for its original purpose, what it was originally designed to defend and promote, but instead for the organization itself. We end up with an organization representing nothing but the organization itself, its elite and its eternal expansion.

You're ranting, Cons. Swede. It is the only religious organization that defends and promotes human values and not its own popularity. Not that she's against being popular / gaining adherents.

Today the European Union no longer represents Europe, it represents the European Union and its commission and its many politicians who profit from it. It's a hungry beast that need to be fed, that needs to grow, so that's why it consider Turkey being such a juicy steak. Likewise with the Catholic Church. It is already predominantly a Third World organization, and therefore in all aspects already represent those interests. As an open border lobby group for more mass immigration from the Third World.

You're still confusing a 2000 year old Church with a political movement, a fine Marxist interpretation, but off the mark. The Church is borderless, but that does not mean she is for open borders in a political sense. The Church is not a predominantly Third World Organization, she is the Church period... at present stronger in the Third World because Europe went secular, but she is practically illegal in many parts of the Third World, much of which is also going secular (again).
Just about a month ago Italian Catholics organized "Family Day" in Italy, one of the biggest manifestations ever. It iced the leftwing government's plan to ruin the holy sacrament of marriage. Political interference? Perhaps... but someone's gotta defend the nuclear family against the rationalist/atheist/Barbarians.

Urging its adherents to do good Christian deeds with regards to the "poor" and "vulnerable" illegal immigrants. All in all, as bad as any other universalist NGO we know about.

You're ranting, dear Cons. Swede. Comparing a 2000 year old ethos to a modern NGO.

We can compare Catholicism to Sweden. Both well-greased machineries that worked excellently in the old days when the leadership worked for substance and success, and not for civilizational suicide as today.

First she's a hungry beast, then she's a deranged NGO, then she's like the European Union and now she's like Sweden. What's next? Like Coca-Cola? Not a bad idea. There are plenty of Catholics upset with Vatican 2 (New Coke) and would like the Church to go back to the vastly more popular Traditional Coke. Plus you're reasoning is getting askew. Call her misguided, but actually WORKING for civilizational suicide (that is with civilizational suicide in mind) for defending family values, personal responsibility, traditional virtues, working in hospitals, etc.?

Anyhow, we have different opinions on the meaning of civilizational suicide (which apparently you see merely in racial terms) and its real causes. Never mind the fact that as far as Europe is concerned the Church created the civilization that others are killing... starting from the so-called Reformation that turned much of Europe into Homo-Ecomomicus. Just say it: civilization for you means production, commerce, unlimited personal freedom. You are still not poignantly aware of the New Barbarity because it wears white smocks, is market-savvy, hip. I say 50% of British kids born out of wedlock is Barbarity. I say 70% divorce rates is barbarity. I say loss / massification of culture is barbarity, I say the woeful state of our Universities and school systems with their utter disrespect for the past is barbarity. And of course the usual spiel about widespread immorality... and what's worse, amorality (that is, the entire moral sphere taken over by Big Govt. / Big. Corporate decision makers).

If the Catholic Church is to blame why is Holland in such a mess with more Dutchies leaving than immigrants coming in? Why the mess in England? Sweden? France? Are these countries slavishly following Catholicism or even Christianity for that matter? No, my friend. They are ENLIGHTENED, unencumbered by faith, totally focused on economic concerns... The only ethic is a work ethic. Holland and probably Sweden could do away with their national languages and go straight to English with little loss or complaint. Though civilized, they don't really even have a culture to defend anymore.

Why did it work? Because of--in spite of other superficial differences--the very authoritarian mentality of the organizations. Strictly hierarchical, where the people at the bottom never question the decrees of the elite. Why does it fail so miserably today? For the very same reasons. The suicidal commands of the elite is followed just as blindly as they followed the good leadership in the old days.

Morality, like math is not democratic... it IS very authoritarian, so the Church can only be hierarchical (reflecting the early hierarchy of ancient Rome). Orthodoxy and Dogma despite the dirty sounding names, are very exciting themes. And in the past, sometimes the Church was "reformed" from bottom up and not always from top down. There is a hierarchy and there is a level where obedience can be demanded, but even at the purely political / racial level that you're into there is much freedom and debate.

We can compare Catholicism to George W. Bush.

I guess I was wrong. I said: "First she's a hungry beast, then she's a deranged NGO, then she's like the European Union and now she's like Sweden. What's next? Like Coca-Cola?" No, not Coca-Cola, but like George Bush no less! Excuse me while I slap my knees!

In both cases we have the phenomenon of anecdotal conservatism. Bush takes a "courageous" stance against stem cell research, while pushing for national suicide by mass invasion of Mexicans into the U.S. Only having the cognitive capacity to understand miniature issues such as stem cell research or abortion, but not a single clue about how to rule a country; the importance of enforcing the law and upholding the national sovereignty.

The Mass Invasion of Mexicans to America is not a Catholic issue, it's an American Issue. And don't even blame it on George Bush, blame it on a system of runaway economic expansion. There are Catholics and important ones, like Pat Buchanon who are completely on your side... but they also have the good sense to see what makes all those foreigners, legal / illegal vital to the economy (all that matters in the USA and again - wake up! - let us not fool ourselves one nano-second).

It's simply not a Catholic issue. In the anectdotal conservatism department, you're the one who's telling stories.

Not a single clue. Anecdotal conservatism is the ideology for political illiterates, an ideology which literally strain at the gnats and swallow the camels. And since 99% of the people on this planet are political illiterates, this kind of anecdotal conservatism is also what they perceive as real conservatism. Most people never seriously asked themselves the question "How to rule a country?". They think that politics is about personal attitudes, image and fashion. The think of politics in relation to their person, and not in relation to a country and how to rule it--they are the political illiterates.

Cultural / moral deracination anyone? Did the Catholic Church magically take over all the press, the universities, the Mega-Corporations? From ranting, you've begun to rave.

Catholicism is perfectly another example of anecdotal conservatism, only taking firm positions on miniature issues, such as birth control, while being completely blind on the capital conservative issues, such as enforcing the law, upholding national sovereignty, defending our civilization.

The Catholic Church, a Global presence, only teaches what you call the "miniature issues" (like morality, temperance, fraternity, patience, family, community, charity, etc.) You know, that useless, unmuscular, old-fashioned crap.

To enforce the law and uphold national sovereignty she has an elite corps of Swiss Guards holding Halberds.

Allow - as has been done - your societies to lose the little, insignificant, unmuscular old-fashioned crap and to ride run-away trains of wealth and personal freedom to the detriment of social balance, families, communities and quite literally you'll have the devil to pay.

And just as Bush they are worse than blind. Once the perversion has gone as far as to strain at gnats and swallow the camels, perversion becomes the ruling principle. And therefore the Catholic Church, quite as Bush, effectively act as the enemies of our civilization.

Yeah, that's the ticket... The Catholic Church, the hungry beast, the deranged NGO, the corrupt European Union, the simil-Sweden, para-George-Bush is an enemy of civilization because she infiltrated the press, the universities, the youth culture and while running the Governments of Sweden, Holland, France, UK did not do enough to defend sovereignty. You're a hoot!

The combination of clinging to miniature issues combined with universalism, makes them use their miniature issues as a battering ram to break our nations.

It's getting better and better. The miniature issues are the very bread and wine of civilization... and frankly it's hard to imagine a religion (that's not into withdrawal, nihilism and cow veneration) not claiming its values as universal. I guess there should be a Caveat placed at the bottom of the Ten Commandments (not applicable within 40 miles of the Rio Grande, the outskirts of Rangoon, and the Lower Jutland)...

And the same should go for Corinthians... (Warning: the baloney about "speaking in the tongues of men and of angels, but not having love and being only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal" it doesn't apply in Northern Massachussets, Goteborg and the Samoan Islands.)

As when Bush says "family values do not stop at the Rio Grande". Or the Vatican's position against use of birth control, which has no effect in Europe, but only makes the population explosion in the Third World get worse; and of course by embracing Islam, and being maybe the most influential open borders lobby.

It ain't over until its over. It was ignored in Europe and Europe was left to rue (though the issue at hand is far vaster). More than condoms and pills it's always been a matter of education, wealth and culture. Artifical birth control combined with a culture of personal licentiousness in which the only serious sphere is the workplace was not good for Europe... as it would not be good anywhere. The Church will say the same thing in Vietnam, China, the Congo.

Challenging the obvious, Steven claims that the Vatican is not into politics. And I'm sure this is a true axiom in the Catholic mental universe. This is all captured in what Pope Benedict said to Erdogan when visiting Turkey: "We are not political but we wish for Turkey to join the EU".

Not quite... and obviously you are not versed in the language, ways and wiles of diplomacy. For Turkey to enter she would have to "respect the principles of religious freedom and equal justice under law".... in effect, renounce Islam as the state religion. You're a literalist.

More later...

Conservative Swede said...

...but certainly not the 2000 year old Church that has been through thick and thin

This tradition was disrupted by the Second Vatican Council--cancelled, terminated, finished. This 2000 year old Church does not exist anymore. It's time that you wake you to that fact. That Vatican can be very pleased to have such a zealous fan club member as you, but it's really about time that you start thinking outside of the box.

The intensive way in which you repeat how I'm "ranting" suggests to me that you are too emotionally hurt by what I write, to be able to see clearly in what way it is written. So I see it as for the best that we end our discussion here.

Steven said...

Ciao Cons. Swede,

...but certainly not the 2000 year old Church that has been through thick and thin

This tradition was disrupted by the Second Vatican Council--cancelled, terminated, finished. This 2000 year old Church does not exist anymore. It's time that you wake you to that fact. That Vatican can be very pleased to have such a zealous fan club member as you, but it's really about time that you start thinking outside of the box.

The intensive way in which you repeat how I'm "ranting" suggests to me that you are too emotionally hurt by what I write, to be able to see clearly in what way it is written. So I see it as for the best that we end our discussion here.


Yeah, we might as well, I'm not much into the low-budget psycho profiles you're dishing out. However I assure you that I'm not emotionally hurt at all, but engaged in robust debate.

Furthermore I like boxes... and to be the fool that pops out of them. I think you're being the fool who instead is trying to pop into a new box... which in truth is not new at all, but very old and stifling: "the church is finished, Kaput! Time for the enlightenment!" (Now why is that so familiar?

So we disagree. So what?

Furthermore I have a different idea of allegiance. I'm hardly a slavish defender of everything pronounced by the Church, which has in its midst a wide range of debate, from asshole Franciscan Friars to others actively warning against Islam and doing so well before Oriana Fallaci ever came around to her idea of Christian Atheism... and to the Pope himself who asked: "what did Mohammad bring that wasn't evil and murderous?"

One remains patriotic all the same and one reforms. I don't like throwing out the baby with the bath-water approaches. And I certainly cannot agree that this 2000 year old church doesn't exist anymore or that Christianity needs to be reformed by the USA, or that Lumens Gens called Mohammad a prophet of God. Or that the Church is like a wild beast, Sweden, an NGO, a European Union, a George Bush...

Take care

Conservative Swede said...

"the church is finished, Kaput! Time for the enlightenment!" (Now why is that so familiar?

This is why this discussion leads nowhere, because you do not bother the least to see what my position really is.

The enlightenment is at the core of what I criticize and want reversed. While the traditional substance of the Catholic Church is something I defend, and which I think is an inspiration for us. Something I never seen you defending. The only thing I've seen you defending is the enlightenment infested Vatican II. But the Vatican II is not Catholicism, it meant the end of Catholicism, the moment when Catholicism definitely caved in for the enlightenment.

Quite as serious conservatives will have to choose between either the substance of conservatism or the waving to President Bush at parades, as a fan club member; calling him "our man", having idol photos of him on the wall, etc. It's not possible to have both. To defend conservatism, Bush has to be fully repudiated and opposed.

In the same way serious Catholics have to choose between either the substance of Catholicism or the joy of waving to the Pope at parades, as a fan club member; calling him "our man", having idol photos of him on the wall, etc. We live in times when it's not possible to have both. To defend Catholicism, the Vatican has to be fully repudiated and opposed.

Steven said...

Ciao Conservative Swede,

I'll have to get back to you on this issue, which is quite complicated (anything concering the Church is). Suffice it to say that within the Church herself there is a huge groundswell against much of Vatican II, which BTW I am no fan of. The most scathing considerations, replete with actual facts and figures showing the negative effects (especially in Europe) are from within the Church herself.

It is odd (well not really) that many of those who have spent "Part A" of their lives denigrating the values of the Church, now in the "Part B," demand that she become more "despotic," (authoritarian). I am such a one.

I came here admiring her steadfast and rather lonely stance on certain bottomline issues that made her and continue to make her wildly unpopular and "illogical." In other words, despite all, she is the only important source of moral orthodoxy left on the planet. By important I mean with a cultural past (2000) years, a billion plus adherents a worldwide presence, and a leadership structure (Hierarchy).

The church is with man, around him and above him: every man, not just Western man from thriving zones of the world; not just whites or yellows or blacks. It's always been that way... even way back in time when the danger to civilization was coming from the Vikings, Magyars and Muslims.

This is an uncomfortable position, for she will always be accused of aiding and abetting the enemy, or working for both sides, of not being patriotic, of being weak-willed.

In the European wars there were priests on both sides, giving extreme unction to Catholics often killed by each other. Only to a rationalist-barbarian and purely-politically-inclined mind is there a contradiction there.

You my dear friend are still - in part - a rationalist-barbarian.

And by "Enlightenment" I didn't mean that silly, egalitarian and altogether murderous thing invented in France.

I'll have to better explain what I mean, but I need time and I have over-indulged in Internet debate to the detriment of my health, family and job. (Compulsive behavior!!).

Just keep in mind the baby and bathwater metaphor... and perhaps the reasons for Oriana Fallaci's dying day reconciliation with the Church, (and not just vis-a-vis the Islamic issue).

Conservative Swede said...

This is an uncomfortable position, for she will always be accused of aiding and abetting the enemy, or working for both sides, of not being patriotic, of being weak-willed.

In the European wars there were priests on both sides, giving extreme unction to Catholics often killed by each other. Only to a rationalist-barbarian and purely-politically-inclined mind is there a contradiction there.

You my dear friend are still - in part - a rationalist-barbarian.


You compare giving unction to the "wrong side" in medieval European wars, with the Vatican's embracement of Islam? This suggest that you are not even close to having absorbed the full significance of the vast destruction caused by Vatican II. The Church has sold its soul to the devil, and it gave away your soul for free, Steven.

All practicing Catholics are now praying to the same god as the Muslims when they pray. The last prayer of a Jihadist before he blows himself up killing a heap of innocent people, it goes to the same god as the god you cherish at the depth of your heart, Steven. All according to this satanic contract written and signed by the Vatican II, which also invites this Jihadist to Heaven.

Of course it's not "rationalist-barbarian" or "purely-politically-inclined" to point out that it's dead wrong to join Muslims in prayer and invite them to Heaven. That's absurd.

It is too painful for you, Steven, to take in the real meaning of the horrible betrayal of the Vatican against you and other Catholics. So you have been blocking this out from your mind, been running on auto-pilot in this debate, fighting an imaginary fight against an imaginary straw man. Just because to see what the real issue is, is too painful.

The Catholic Church has committed harakiri by caving in to Islam, and finally swallowing Muhammad's bait that his followers worship the same Abrahamic god. A fraud designed to destroy the Church. A bait that the Vatican II swallowed hook, line and sinker.

The only thing that is left since the Vatican II is the kind of Potemkin Catholicism. The substance is gone. What else but a ghost existence could be left of the Vatican, after it sold its soul? The miniature issues it continues to bring up is just part of the Potemkin facade. But it is all hollowed out. It has become a vehicle of dhimmitude.

Steven said...

Ciao Conservative Swede,

Oh come on, cut the "It is too painful for you" baloney... and the nonsense about worshipping the same God... Muslims, Christians and Jews worship One God... THAT - monotheism - is their commonality, but that does not make them some sort of blood brothers. I have no trouble at all saying God is Great. I'll even say it in Arabic just to get your silly hackles up: Allahu Ackbar! But reason and certainly not reasonableness or wisdom can be born from such an obvious tautology!

Islam is a Judeo-Christian heresy, there are bound to be points in common, just as there were points in common with Arianism and other heresies... even Communism and even the Homo Economicus workaholism of Calvinism.

I can hate many things about the present situation of the Church and still love and be faithful to her. It is precisely the "it is too painful" which I refuse. The cop-out, the run-away, the sense of hopelessness and refuge in cockamamie Spenglerisms or somesuch... the loss of first loyalty to things.

The Church is not just present-day policy or attitude (which anyhow you grossly mis-represent with the same ease and verve with which Internet Hindutvas read the New Testament and find only violence). They only violence and you only pusillanimity.

The same church that had radical-liberation clerics in her midst during the struggle against Communism, was ideologically instrumental in bringing down Communism (and had packed churches in the Communist countries).

A church does not nor cannot navigate simply by firing political cannon shots left and right, but by negotiating obstacles and bringing events slowly to its favor.

What made Oriana Fallaci the toughest, make her peace with the church before her death after a lifetime as a leftwing Journalist, the darling of the Literati?

There were reasons for all the ecumenicalism despite the firm stance on the basics, and they escape your uni-directional and hopelessly rational mindset, just as they now (for other reasons) piss off Catholic traditionalists who are by degrees regaining control.

You want direct political logic and newspaper speed. You see a Pope talking to Imams or placing a tiny folded note into the Wailing Wall or praying with a Lutheran or carrying on with a Tibetan Dalai Lama and you only think the obvious: Kumbayah. A New Age religion, a caving in instead of a necessary reaching out in a world which like it or not has become a global condominium controlled by others.

The only thing that's left of Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, Confucianism and eventually (stay tuned) rational-atheism will be THEIR Potemkins. They have all grown either hollow or rotten from the inside. The Church took on many of the trappings of the times, but remained firm and loyal in her fundamentals: Morality, family, sanity, moderation and moral, (free) unmassified man.

While others talk of "diversity," she alone really achieved it, but a kind that is real and not ideological or imposed. While the non-evangelical Protestants killed culture, Catholicism both included, shaped, accepted, refused and built.

Concerning Muslims, the Church knows them better than they know themselves... but religious struggles are not like political ones. And the enemies of the faith are not just Muslims. Left to their own devices, they the Muslims would be nowhere.

The culprit of relativism is to be found in scientific rationalism and not in the "Mother" church whose relativism is of an entirely different kind.

It was the cult of science that relativised morality and mindsets. Science is amoral by nature and since the scientific method, (so wildly successful in all the material concerns of the world) took hold, it merely applied its "amoral" orthodoxies and dogmas to the spiritual and human realm.

You were the one, on another forum that made me aware of my idiotic approach to Hinduism... idiotic, but sincere. And so I thought back on my Comparative Religions classes in high school (way back when)... and it suddenly occurred to me that THAT was the place where I stupidly learned (got indoctrinated with) my unquestioning respect for Hinduism... that is, for the belief system of a billion people mostly living in indescribable filth, with beggars dying out on the streets, with venerated bovines, widows tied to funeral pyres, and folks purifying themselves in the fetid waters of a polluted river. Then, after Hinduism, presented in the same spirit and with equal "absurd" merit came Christianity... and then Islam... all the same inasmuch all "irrational." And to be sincere, Christianity was presented as guilty of all manner of heinous crimes.

Our Judeo-Christian heritage was the only one that placed Morality (the sacredness of human life) over metaphysics. The scientific method successfully inverted that. And now we are merely "cultural" this or "cultural" that... but effectively hollowed out. It was rationalism that severed the umbilical chord and turned us into nonjudgmental observers, watchers. Just as no Biologist would ever "root" for a bacterium in his peetree dish, so too were we taught not to take sides, defend, believe. What a paradox to be deracinated by rationalism... but that is exactly what happened.

Anyway, CURSES! I don't have time... and there's much to say. But I guarantee you that I am not offended or left to rue over dashed hopes, beliefs and dreams. The Church is not dead. The other systems are... with the exception of Atheist-Rationalist-barbaric-hedonism which is still eminently capable of distracting and satisfying our mesmerized, sex-crazed consumer societies... Even more alive than the Church are the primitive Evangelicals, but that's a whole different chapter.

Bye for now... and give me a couple of weeks.

Conservative Swede said...

and the nonsense about worshipping the same God

It's good for you that you identify this as nonsense. Now take your message to the Vatican!

I have wasted all this words on you, and you still haven't gotten into your head that the position of the Vatican is that you worship the same god as the Jihadists. Clearly there is a psychological reason behind your disability for understanding such a clear message.

We see the same kind of syndrome as with the Bushite devotees. They just cannot get into their heads, either, that Bush screwed them. Just as you, and all other Catholics, have been screwed by the Vatican.

but that does not make them some sort of blood brothers

Take your message to the Vatican...

Steven said...

Ciao Cons. Swede,

and the nonsense about worshipping the same God

It's good for you that you identify this as nonsense. Now take your message to the Vatican!

What's this? Answering in quips? I already explained the concept to you. It's monotheism that Christians and Muslims have in common. And not just they. Just as it is belief in the transcendental that ALL religions have in common. For the rationalists it's belief in "abra-cadabra" and that is why they often lump all religions together with the same brio as you lump monotheists.

Ratzinger's "respect" for Islam as a religion is so low that he absorbed the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue into the Pontifical Council for Culture. Why? Because there is no religious Islam to talk to, that is, no God worth talking about, but only different local realities: the Islam of Tunisia, the Islam Pakistan, the Isam of Bosnia.

I have wasted all this words on you, and you still haven't gotten into your head that the position of the Vatican is that you worship the same god as the Jihadists.

Well, Conservative Swede, wasting words is the risk of blogs and forums. If you want your blog to be a Conservative Swede recruitment site, instead of a place for debate and exchange of opinion, just say the word.

Anyhow, your idea of God is indistinguishable from some material object. It's like saying: the Vatican and Jihadist worship the same pencil. Any Christian knows that the only way to the Father (God) is through Jesus (God)... That iteself is the answer to your uninformed, rationalist-atheist balderdash. Both Vinegar and Bordeaux believe in grapes!


Clearly there is a psychological reason behind your disability for understanding such a clear message.

Here we go again disepensing low budget psychological profiles. It's really tantamount to saying "the reason you don't buy my thesis is because you don't eat enough camembert." Okay, sure, fine... I'm all aquiver, traumatized and in great psychological pain. I worship the same God as Bin Laden, just as the Jews of Israel worship the same God as Hamas and Fatah... and not only that! The Jews not only worship the same One God, but like the Muslims, even chop off weenie-tips and eschew pork! (Boy if that doesn't clinch it, nothing does!) You don't even realize how silly your position is!

We see the same kind of syndrome as with the Bushite devotees. They just cannot get into their heads, either, that Bush screwed them. Just as you, and all other Catholics, have been screwed by the Vatican.

Oh you brutal man! Comparing the devotees of a 2000 year old religion with the diminishing group of neo-con American Republicans for a President who expires in a year! You're all out of perspective and balance, Cons. Swede. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is psychologically challenged and suffering syndromes. You don't even have a grasp on Vatican II (which I can heartily agree was not a good thing in the European Sphere) but which was anyhow promulgated well before the Muslim challenge. And you don't have the foggiest idea of what the Catholic Church is (I'll give you a hint: it's not the American Republican Party).

I see that you ignore the signficance of Oriana Fallaci's friendship with Ratzinger. I guess she too was suffering the psychological damage of that dreaded Bushite syndrome.

but that does not make them some sort of blood brothers

Take your message to the Vatican...

I think Cardinale Biffi of Bologna got there well ahead of me. Not to mention Don Gianni Badget Bozzo and about a 50,000 others. "What did Mohammad bring that wasn't evil and murderous?" Spoken like someone who worships the same God as the Jihadists!"

Conservative Swede said...

For the rationalists it's belief in "abra-cadabra" and that is why they often lump all religions together with the same brio as you lump monotheists.

I lump monotheists together??? This is beyond ridiculous.

With your way of reasoning, by pointing out that pedophilia is halal in Islam, I would be an advocate of pedophilia myself. It's the Vatican who lump monotheists together. I'm merely reporting the fact. But your Catholic mind is like teflon against such a simple fact.

It's one thing to stubbornly deny the fact. That's bad enough for rational discourse. But your way of, on top of that, persistently claiming things of this kind, which are the obvious opposites of my position, shows that you have not only left reason, but entered derangement. The kind of derangement when obvious opposites of the truth is the only thing left to intensively hold on to.

From the Nostra Aetate of the Second Vatican Council:

3. About the Moslems The Church regards Moslems with esteem: they adore the one God, living and enduring, the all-powerful Creator of heaven and earth who has spoken to people; they strive to obey wholeheartedly His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham did, to whose faith they happily link their own.

Lumen Gentium, §16:

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.

At the point when pope Benedict caved in after his Regensburg speech, we could read in the news:

Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone said the pope’s position on Islam is unmistakably in line with Vatican teaching--that the church "esteems Muslims, who adore the only God."

NB: Not any one god--the only god.

I have spent years in debates against Hindutvas and liberals who want to lump Christianity and Islam together. And still do it, unless its about Catholicism. By leaving the tradition of 2000 years (a tradition that non-Catholics as me are left defending), and lumping itself together with Islam, the Vatican has completely undermined my possibility to defend it anymore.

This is so disgusting and perverted, that emotionally it's understandable that you turn off your brain and decide to shoot the messenger instead. To me this betrayal is obvious, and I take it personally, because its a betrayal against me--in my defense of Christianity against attacks when Christianity is lumped together with Islam, in my defense of reason. But obviously Catholics are unable to see the betrayal, because they are on the inside, and too emotionally attached to the Vatican. They will let the Vatican screw them over and over again, while attacking the voice of reason with ridiculous nonsense. The same phenomenon as we see with liberals.

You nonsensical, anti-reason, performance here in the comment section illustrates perfectly why Catholicism is part of the problem and not of the solution. The Vatican has turned away from 2000 years of tradition, and made suicidal liberalism into a religion. The Vatican, by its betrayal, has turned the Catholic followers away from reason and sent them into the miserable state of derangement.

politisktinkorrekt said...

I do appreciate your posts on the Catholic Church. It needs to be pressured into more sensible stands on immigration and birth control.

Being in favor of lowering the limit for abortion in Sweden, down to the twelfth week of pregnancy, I'm curious about your view on abortion.

In barbaric China abortions are carried out in the eight month or even later, if the baby is deformed or carries a serious hereditary disease.

The Chinese state doesn't want to spend money
on nursing invalids. The philosophy is similar to the eugenics program of Nazi Germany.

Steven said...

Ciao Conservative Swede,

Here... Sorry for the cut and paste, but this is from the Catholics, describing the Church's relationship with other religions.

In the wake of 9/11 it has become more important than ever that Catholics have an accurate view of Islam. A starting point, though not the ending point, is reading what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say. It states, "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day" (CCC 841).

To understand this, one both has to look at the original context of the quote. The Catechism is not a freshly drafted document. It is in large measure a synthesis of other documents, and one has to look up quotations in the original sources to understand them fully. This is the case for the Catechism’s statement about Muslims, which is taken wholly from Vatican II.

Many find the first part of the quote perplexing: "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims." To many this sounds like Muslims can be saved by adhering to Islam. That isn’t what it means, as shown by the original context.

If you look at Lumen Gentium (LG), the Vatican II document from which the quote is drawn, it becomes clear that the phrase is not meant to say that Islam is a method of salvation parallel to Christianity. The quote comes from LG 16, but it is part of a larger context in the document. To appreciate how it fits into the picture, one needs to go back at least as far as LG 13, which starts by proclaiming, "All men are called to belong to the new people of God"—i.e., to the Church. Section 13 concludes by stating, "All men are called to be part of this catholic unity of the people of God. . . . And in different ways to it belong, or are related: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, for all men are called by the grace of God to salvation."

All mankind is called to the "Catholic unity of the people of God"—in other words, to become Catholics. Some have done so, and so LG states that some "belong to" the Catholic Church while others are related to it "in different ways." Those who belong to it are "the Catholic faithful," while those who are related in various ways include "others who believe in Christ" (who are related to the Church in one way) and "all mankind" (who are related to the Church in a different way).

The next three sections of LG (14–16) are taken up with elaborating on these three groups.

LG 14 concerns itself with Catholics. It begins by stating: "This sacred council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. . . . Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved."

This of itself repudiates the idea that Islam or any other religions are as good as the Catholic Church. LG 15 turns to non-Catholic Christians and states, "The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety [e.g., Protestants] or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter [e.g., Orthodox]."

Note that it does not say that these Christians are part of the Church, only that they are "linked" to it many ways, some of which it then goes on to name (Scripture, faith in Christ, baptism). While noting that God works among them, LG does not say that it is okay for them to remain where they are: "In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and he prompts them to pursue this end." In other words, God’s grace leads them toward becoming Catholics too.

After this, the attentive reader will scarcely find it plausible that LG is going to present non-Christian religions as on a par with the Church, and it doesn’t.

LG 16 turns to the case of non-Christians, stating, "Finally, those who have not yet received the gospel are related in various ways to the people of God." The section speaks of the Jewish people in the first place, for they are more closely related to the Church than any other non-Christian religion. It is only after this that the text states, "But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims." Note that the subject under discussion is not everyone who is saved. The overarching theme of the passage is how various people are related to the Catholic Church, not how many paths to salvation there are. The Council has been describing people who are progressively more distant from the Church. The Council has already stated that the Church is necessary for salvation. And since it expressly places non-Jewish theists in a distant position from the Church, when we encounter the statement that "the plan of salvation also includes," we should not understand it as saying that non-Jewish theists are saved.

It means that God desires their salvation and has made plans for their salvation—plans that include giving them graces that lead in the direction of salvation and the Church. But that doesn’t mean that they can be saved by being nothing more than non-Jewish theists.

Within the category of non-Jewish theists, Muslims today hold the first place in that they are the largest such group and have a number of commonalities with Judaism and Christianity, several of which the council goes on to note:

(1) They "profess to hold the faith of Abraham." The operative word here is "profess"—they claim to hold the faith of Abraham. In reality, their faith is an imperfect version of the faith that comes from Abraham, but they are trying to follow in the footsteps of Abraham, and the Council gives them credit for that.

(2) "Together with us they adore the one, merciful God." For many, this statement is perplexing. However, as we saw in last issue’s "Brass Tacks" column, God is aware of and acknowledges all that is good and true in the worship offered to him, however imperfect an understanding of him a worshiper may have. While Muslims, like Jews, do not accept the Trinity, they do acknowledge that God is the only true God and that he is merciful. This means that they honor things that are true about God but have a limited understanding of him.

Christians have a fuller understanding of God because he has revealed more to us about himself: specifically, that he is a Trinity. This doctrine cannot be deduced by human reason; it can only be known by revelation.

Failure to accept this revelation of the Christian age does not stop Muslims from worshiping God any more than it stops Jews. It means only that they know less about God and that they have erroneous corollary ideas (for instance, that Jesus is not the Son of God).

To make clear how this works, allow me to take an example from pop culture: Suppose that you and I both knew millionaire Bruce Wayne. I might know, because he revealed it to me, that he is also Batman. You may hear this claim and reject it, in which case you adopt the false corollary belief "Batman is not Bruce Wayne." That does not mean that you don’t know and relate to either Bruce or Batman, it means only that you misunderstand the relationship between them.

In the same way, one may worship God and honor Jesus as a prophet (which he was) without understanding that Jesus is God. Indeed, many people in his own day did that: They knew the historical Jesus but had a false understanding of his identity.

(3) Muslims recognize that God is "mankind’s judge on the last day." This is another link they have to biblical faith. Muslims may have erroneous ideas about some of the things that will occur before, after, or around this event, but that much they have right.

Additional elements of truth that Muslims have are listed in another conciliar document (Nostra Aetate 3), but in no place does the Council indicate that Islam—or Judaism or any non-Christian religion—is a path of salvation. There may be elements of truth in these religions, and God may give his grace to whomever he wants, non-Christian religions aren’t vehicles of salvation.

Some in these religions can be saved, but not because of their religions. This is underlined in the document Dominus Jesus that was released by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2000.

According to the document, "It would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions, seen as complementary to the Church or substantially equivalent to her" (DJ 21).

Further, "If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation" (DJ 22).

There should be no doubt that the Church recognizes that followers of Islam have elements of truth. But while it is possible for them—as for all men—to be saved if they live up to the light God has given them, it cannot be said that Islam is a path of salvation or that Muslims do not need to become Christians.

Steven said...

Ciao again Conservative Swede,

I hope the cut and paste helped clarify some things. It basically lumps all humankind together (as any universal religion that proselytizes should). I think you should buy a new brainpan with / without teflon to understand the difference between religious thinking and political. No doubt your fine ueber-secular education denied you this pleasure.


It's one thing to stubbornly deny the fact. That's bad enough for rational discourse. But your way of, on top of that, persistently claiming things of this kind, which are the obvious opposites of my position, shows that you have not only left reason, but entered derangement. The kind of derangement when obvious opposites of the truth is the only thing left to intensively hold on to.

I believe that the stubborn one (and a bit of a debating bully in your lavish use of adjectives) is you. But ultimately this stems from an incompleteness of sources and a purely political outlook. You pick out N° 3 and go bananas. You forget that the church doesn't just fight, but redeems. It is in the double position of struggle and preaching / practicing a better ethos. She cannot hate like we hate. She is in the fray and above it.

But for you that's slippery and teflonesque, I understand. And I pity you. Perhaps you should change boxes for a while and think more like a parent, a mother and get a taste of paradox. Then you might understand how religion operates differently than politics. Or perhaps you might wish to follow a priest on his rounds to a prison full of pimps, thieves, murderers and try to figure out why he is kind to them and by being so, probably much harsher than any string-'em-up redneck.

Keep trying, Conservative Swede... don't give up. And still no answer concerning Oriana Fallaci's friendship with Ratzinger, the betrayer... That alone - one would think - should reduce you at least to calmer adjectives, if not reconsideration of your inane certainties.


I have spent years in debates against Hindutvas and liberals who want to lump Christianity and Islam together. And still do it, unless its about Catholicism. By leaving the tradition of 2000 years (a tradition that non-Catholics as me are left defending), and lumping itself together with Islam, the Vatican has completely undermined my possibility to defend it anymore.

I trust that Catholicism will survive now that your valiant efforts to defend it will be no more. But I suggest that first you get a handle on theology.

One place to start is with the Jews... and why Jewish organizations dutifully return the splattered remains of suicide bombers to their families, even though said suicide bombers are the cause of wholesale slaughter of Jews.

This is so disgusting and perverted, that emotionally it's understandable that you turn off your brain and decide to shoot the messenger instead.

You're too hotheaded for rational debate. It's like you have a bunch of chili peppers up your butt. This might be fine for political discussions, but never for inter-religious ones, especially not when discussing Catholicism which must tread differently, which for example, to the Muslims, must seek to convert the obvious truth (to any monotheist) of "God is Great" to "God is Love"... and which also has millions of people in Islamic lands to protect.

Forgive my own pyschological profiling, but I believe that you're projecting the idiotic moral relativism that you have grown accustomed to in your secular society, to the truer and more merciful kind of the Church (which is really none other than love the sinner / hate the sin). Like the church's own "diversity," and the nonsense diversity preached at the universities, it's a whole different world.

You have too much political prosciutto in front of your eyes to tell the difference.

To me this betrayal is obvious, and I take it personally, because its a betrayal against me--in my defense of Christianity against attacks when Christianity is lumped together with Islam, in my defense of reason. But obviously Catholics are unable to see the betrayal, because they are on the inside, and too emotionally attached to the Vatican.

It is not a betrayal at all, but your own blind and furious misconception of how Catholicism, a religious faith and not a political party operates and not just towards Muslims but to all men (and far more to "man" than to groups). Nor does anything within the church forbid one from robustly criticizing any Vatican stance or policy or trend. Paradoxically you are much more emotional about the Vatican than any priest, nun or believer.

They will let the Vatican screw them over and over again, while attacking the voice of reason with ridiculous nonsense. The same phenomenon as we see with liberals.

You are not the voice of reason at all, Conservative Swede. You fire off broadsides without any sort of articulate understanding of what you're talking about. Though hardly a proof, your emotional pitch is already an indication of your unreasonableness. It really is a Hindutva trick to pull out a few Catechism headings and say: "There, you see?! The Church is with the Jihadists!" - "There, you see? The Church says Islam is an alternate way to salvation!" No depth, no perception, no finesse, no "distinguo"... no details, just a sort of mobbish "string-'em-up" attitude. God and the devil are in the details, Conservative Swede, especially in religious and diplomatic matters.

You nonsensical, anti-reason, performance here in the comment section illustrates perfectly why Catholicism is part of the problem and not of the solution. The Vatican has turned away from 2000 years of tradition, and made suicidal liberalism into a religion. The Vatican, by its betrayal, has turned the Catholic followers away from reason and sent them into the miserable state of derangement.

Mamma mia! Take a pill! And focus on the real culprits. The Church doesn't need to make religions, others have made suicidal liberalism a religion and they were all atheists. The Church merely adjusted herself to the new communication exigencies of the times, a world in which we are rather mercilessly slung into close contact and ideas are exchanged no longer by the kilobytes but by the terabytes. She still sees herself as the sole way to salvation (a very unreasonable stance); she still considers Islam and Protestantism heresies. And not at all surprising, she still gets blamed for what's wrong in the world.

God is Great, Conservative Swede! Allahu Ackbar! It won't be the Church to unteach the Muslims their N°1 conviction... but they will teach them why He is great and how to honor that greatness... for that is her earthly mission.

But all this is too slippery and unreasonable for you. Take my advice, stick to the Danish Cartoons. You kick 'em in the groin and get 'em pissed off and going on killing sprees. We'll work on recuperating their minds and souls.

Conservative Swede said...

@politisktinkorrekt

Always them miniature issues: Israel, abortion, the "homophobia" of the Church,...
Think like this instead: What position do you think Julius Caesar would take on abortion?

I'm also in favour of lowering the time frame of abortion down to twelve weeks, as suggested by the Sweden Democrats. I'm against killing babies as they do in America and China.

But regarding your comparison of China with Nazi Germany, this is just another example of the leftist hysteria, that you shown preference for before.

politisktinkorrekt said...

Good grief, so I'm a "leftist" then?

Re. Israel being a "minature issue". How come then you want us to support it against Jihad?

I'm not impressed with the arguments you've given for the importance of that support. That is, you haven't given any real reasons except for a sentimental one about honor. No strategic reason?

And your anger concerning my comparison between China and Nazi Germany, I'm sure its barbarian rulers would be pleased.

I guess your anger has something to do with you wanting the West to become an ally to China and Russia in the global struggle against Jihadism.

There were some non-Nazis who wanted Britain to join the Nazis in their struggle against bolshevism. So I can see your point. That there are issues more important than petty concerns with morals and who you go to bed with politically.

Honestly, I don't give a hoot about Julius Ceasar! The Roman view on infanticide and of good time at the Colosseum like throwing Christians to the lions, well, that's not anything that could make Western society stronger in its mortal struggle against Jihadism.

politisktinkorrekt said...

P.S. That should be "miniature issue" of course.

Conservative Swede said...

politisktinkorrekt,

I leave it to yourself to battle with the army of strawmen that you've created.

politisktinkorrekt said...

Now, seriously, CS, inquiring into your stand on abortion, which wasn't clear before, because of the strong emphasis you put on population growth, should not be met with
abuse (eg "leftist hysteria", "battle strawmen" etc). That's very unconservative and, as you well realize, a sign of weakness. Any logical question you should welcome. Only unmotivated or intellectually sloppy statements should be criticized. For instance: your motive for rallying to the defense of Israel. Whatever that motive is - rationale it is not! So why so upset if others are not entirely rationale all the time?

A successful a new political movement, one that can attract people with ordinary and normal feelings, must make a point of not only viewing the world and its problems in a long term strategic manner. Everyday issues must be addressed. Abortion is in America a very huge concern among ordinary people, as it should be, given
the barbarism of partial birth abortion, which is a wound on the soul of the nation ("the collective mind") as much as slavery once was (and still is, I might add). So it's not really irrationale to be concerned with your or anyone else's stand on abortion; politically it's very wise. In the US abortion is not a "miniature issue". And your contention that my interest in your view on abortion is "leftist hysteria" is almost laughable.

Take for instance Pat Buchanan, a Catholic who is concerned with abortion even more than you and I, is he a "leftist" because of that? Is Joe Sobran a leftist?

This neo-paganism - with a tint of oriental religion - of yours is very un-Western. A true Westerner should not even be into yoga.

Your (semi-?) nietzscheanism reminds me of straussianism - ie very esoteric. Only the elite can grasp the subtle truths, and should put on a Janus face: one face inwards, one for the general public. The only thing that sets you and Strauss apart, mentally, is that you haven't condoned lying as statemanship yet.

By the way, haven't you expressed sympathy for the Roman Empire as a model for the West? How's that consistent with a defense of the nation-state? Empires and nation-states are like water and fire.

Conservative Swede said...

@politisktinkorrekt

In your mind everything boils down to Jews and Nazis. You appear to me as a frightened little person who is forever caught in his web of emotional fears.

Discussing with you is like discussing the Second Vatican Council with Steven--all the time, while Steven at least is able to discuss other issues readily. The intellectual honesty is all gone, and just about any lies and fantasies are written to get attention, or to find an outlet for emotions.

According to you I'm angry with you. I'm not. I find you ridiculous and insignificant.

You claim that I call it leftist hysteria to bring up the issue of abortion. This is beyond ridiculous. It was your comparison of China with Nazi Germany, I called leftist hysteria, and your previous harangue about Christianity: "What about the Crusades, the burning of heretics at the stake, the Inquisition, the expulsion of all Jews from Spain, the Thirty Year war, the homophobia, the suppression of women, the Evangelics (The Christian Right's) support for Israel and their longing for Harmageddon?"

I have not called you a leftist, to me you are just a bunch of emotions. You do not seem to be able to hold a political position, or to have a rational argument.

politisktinkorrekt said...

Well, I'll look into it and try to better myself. Or at least try to find out whether you really are right when you're calling me intellectually dishonest and unable to hold a political position. I'm aware it is possible that you are right. My entire political thinking evolves around questions concerning logical consistency and intellectual honesty.

By the way, how sure are you that you are always more right than people who disagree with you? Is Steven always wrong and you always right? And if that's not the case, when have you been wrong and Steven right? I'm really curious.

Christian West said...

Hey Steven,

I printed out your exchange with CS on Catholicism and put it in my bag, so I can read it when I am out. It is a real feat to read your brilliant comments.
You write like an angel (and sting like a bee). And always in a gentlemanly fashion.
Do you publish anything? Are you also commenting on other blogs?

Cheers,

Conservative Swede said...

Steven is a brilliant writer. Unfortunately he's not a thinker. But he's a very nice guy.

Christian West said...

Thank you for that discreet caveat. I will print it out too.

Conservative Swede said...

Yes. In case you won't be able to remember it.

Christian West said...

No, the reason is completely different from the one you think.
Really CS, how can one forget something so comical (and revealing)? Truly unforgettable...

Conservative Swede said...

I do not know what you want to imply by "revealing" here. I just see as the purpose of my blog to write the truth. Social smooth talk I devote in when I'm not at the computer.

I've spent several years with Steven on the Internet, and always loved his comments. His way of writing is marvelous, and he has also given me many good laughs. But it hasn't struck me until now how he never, during these years, halted in a debate, and said to someone "Hey, you've got a point there, I'll need to reconsider". It's just a constant flow of prose.

During these years him and me has been on the same side of the issue 95% of the time. But then again, quite as with Auster, I've never seen Steven challenged from the other direction about Islam. Now Steven reveals himself to be someone who's got that typical Christian weakness for Islam. Abortions weighs India down, while monotheism weighs the Muslim world up, in Steven's world, so it becomes a toss up for him (even including all the atrocities of Islam). As he wrote "Would you rather live in China or Tunisia? Japan or Morocco? I think one is overall freer in Tunisia and at least more physically satisfied in Morocco." Good night, Steven.

Christian West said...

Hey CS,
I’ve discovered your site a few days ago, so I know Steven only from his latest exchange with you concerning Catholicism.
As said, I have been impressed not only by the elegance of his style, but eloquence, clarity and aptness of his arguments.
I don’t need to tell you that I share my views with him about Christianity and Catholicism in particular. He expresses my convictions fully, but much better than I can. And that is not only because English is not my mother tongue.
Now, during my long life I have witnessed and sometimes participated in debates between believers in God on one side and believers in atheism. Most were boring and predictable and only few entertaining and interesting. All were futile in a sense that neither of the parties ever succeeds converting the other to its views. Still, I know cases of a “delayed effect” - when a person exposed to compelling arguments would after some time of deliberation and honest search within himself “switch sides”. I think that what happened to CS Lewis. But that is a bit beside the point.

You say it hasn't struck me until now how he never, during these years, halted in a debate, and said to someone "Hey, you've got a point there, I'll need to reconsider".

As said, I have ventured into your site a few days ago, so I have no way to assess what really happened here “during these years”. Viewed from where I am standing now anything could have happened - including him being always right.

And I don’t understand what you mean by “typical Christian weakness for Islam” that Steve allegedly displays. What is this weakness? In view of the fact that Christianity has in 1400 years battled overwhelmingly defensively against Islam, from Palestine to Byzantium, to Lepanto, Tours, Iberia, Balkans to Vienna - it is a curious claim. Well, you could perhaps say weakness vis-a-vis Islam, but certainly not for Islam.

Yes, we do see deplorable capitulation to Islam in Europe, especially in Scandinavia, Holland, UK in short exactly where Christianity, after decades of unrelenting onslaught of the Left was beaten to social and political insignificance, was replaced by the ultra-liberal creed. It is precisely this new religion of Liberalism that prepares Europe for the final transformation into Eurabia. Do you disagree that had Europeans guarded, insisted on and taken ALL measures to assure the continuation of Christian identity of Europe the very notion of Islam overtaking the continent would be quite outlandish?
Perhaps you don’t agree. If so it is better for us to leave the subject now. But if you do agree then why in the world do you waste your time and energy attacking Catholicism? Especially, permit me to say, you have no idea what it is - despite all these facts you manage to add to its indictment letter.

Christianity is much bigger from the inside than outside. To know its true dimension you have to have religion yourself. Not necessarily Christian one. Actually it works both way – I mean in order to recognize the spiritual content, however distorted, of Islam one needs to have a religion - even a Christian one. That is why Steven can, but you can’t see in Islam more than horrible cult. And that is why you can never understand, and reject so vehemently, his thought that “…one is overall freer in Tunisia” (than in China).
Well, enough of that now. I have a work to do here and must find time to answer your comment on the other thread.

Steven said...

Ciao Christian West,

Thank you for your kind comments. I merely participate in forums and blogs, like this one, started up by my friend Cons. Swede (he's the one who made the mistake of linking me, the prose-spewer who never changes his mind).

BTW: I said to conservative Swede half way up this page: "You were the one, on another forum that made me aware of my idiotic approach to Hinduism... idiotic, but sincere."

And now he says: "But it hasn't struck me until now how he never, during these years, halted in a debate, and said to someone "Hey, you've got a point there, I'll need to reconsider". It's just a constant flow of prose."

Anyhow, debates take on a life of their own and so I haven't really expressed myself properly concerning the threat of Islam, but have been more preoccupied with defending the Church against my Swedish barbarian friend who, being a bone marrow atheist, doesn't have a clue as to what the Catholic Church is about (supposedly we bow down to the same God as the Jihadists).

I'm strapped for time, but let me just say that Islam's strength - and more broadly speaking - our vulnerability to all forms of encroaching barbarity, (for Islam is far from being the only one) is proportional to our ethical and moral weaknesses.

Where we fail, others seep and creep in.

Though it is good to spread the awareness of its near-satanic ideological evil so that immigration policies (and even energy programs) can be changed, I also see an urgent need for our own cultural resurrection. Listing the moral and intellectual miseries of Islam is a turkey shoot, great for breast-beating.

The ultimate answer is in strength, but not of the military kind. The strength of thriving societies that have values as opposed to the beggar vulnerabilities of the atheist/rationalist/barbarian "freedom freedom freedom" chanters. Such vulnerabilities will eventually lead to drastic measures and upheavals.

I believe that if nothing is held sacred, nothing will effectively be defended.

Two years ago I was merely a cultural Christian, today I am a Catholic and every day I read the biography of the Saint-du-jour who the Church celebrates (REMEMBERS!).

I find that more instructive than dancing around solstice poles. It helps appreciate who we are and who the real heroes of civilization were... and more importantly what is being lost, degraded by the Atheist/Rationalist/Barbarians so that it may finally be swept away entirely by the Allahu Ackbarbarians.

We've been deracinated, Christian West, de-cultured and made to worship cold, sideral space instead of the very many warm, real and fine values that our civilization (the most beautiful and therefore the most fragile) engendered over the years. I'll even go on to say that in terms of merit, ours is the only "real" civilization. And that is why I say: Where we fail, others seep and creep in. It makes sense. If you're standing, you can only fall.

I believe in a first loyalty to things, as opposed to others who really do give the impression of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If I agree with someone 95%, then I'm not gonna throw it all away over the minor points.

This love and loyalty is what is required to rise up en masse against any kind of barbaric encroachmant, Islam being only the first in a long list, today the biggest and baddest... but who knows tomorrow? A technologically brilliant China, the same China that slaughtered 60 million of HER OWN citizens - unrepentantly - as attested by the Mao Tse Tung Mausoleum, could very well make the Islamic question moot for several decades. And now even Putin is acting up.

I have no trouble comparing China to Tunisia, because for me they're both barbaric. I owe allegiance to neither. It's like saying that I prefer the Hutus to the Tutsis. Having been to the communist Czechoslovakia of the Seventies, I can easily say that it was worse than the Morocco of the same period, despite being far more "rational" and science minded. I owe no allegiance to either of them. Both are/were terribly wrong. I can say that even today I'd rather live in Iran than in North Korea and can't fathom why that should be such a big scandal or why it should make my anti-islamic bonafides suspect. On another thread there was mention of what life in Liberal Denmark might be like in the year 2060. It stands to reason that it will still be better than anything Islamic. But just seven years before I was born, in a state bordering Denmark, people were being gassed to death and shoved into crematoria. Better Ghedaffi's Libya to Hitler's Germany? Who knows? But one thing is certain, being smarter and more efficient does not necessarily mean better. There was a period when the atheist/Rationalist/Barbarians were crueler than the Muslims who at least allowed one a convert/die opportunity. One can't fake ones genetics.

But I'll say something far more scandalous. The most under-achieving people on the face of the earth could very well end up watering their horses in St. Peter's Square because of the power of their faith, which has religious timings whereas we have Stock Market timings and laezte shrei loyalties. We want this Islamic question solved quickly, efficiently, politically, for that is what we're accustomed to. But it's going to be a religious battle. Once and only once it becomes a religious battle can it effectively become a political one. Until that day, it will be too scattered and half-assed.

Let me illustrate what I mean. We are proud of the Danish Cartoon "scandal." But the answer to Islam isn't disrespect or "blasphemy," it is the affirmation of OUR OWN sacred. You will remember that there were only ten cartoons, but that the Jihadists themselves, added a few more (and by far the more "blasphemous"). They effectively used the scandal to incite their camp and divide ours. What they cannot use at all is thousands of people demanding morality (and I'm not just talking about sex in the city). What would impress them is community youths hunting down rapists and beating the living daylights out of them, no longer satisfied with the weak-willed law. (A little enough-is-enough religious anarchy!) What might shock them is thousands protesting the latest Islamic attack not behind mayors or prime ministers marching down broad boulevards, but gathered in front of a beautiful cathedral surmounted by the glorious cross, thousands hotter and angrier than the Bishop or Cardinal who will come to the window to speak to them.

The battle must be taken away, at least for a while, from the politicians. This is a religious struggle. It is about good and evil. The politicians and the merchants are the ones who sold us down the river, both feeding and pandering to our lack of restraint. Not the church, which always placed values and responsibility ahead of money and pleasure.

Conservative Swede said...

@ Steven

defending the Church against my Swedish barbarian friend who, being a bone marrow atheist, doesn't have a clue as to what the Catholic Church is about (supposedly we bow down to the same God as the Jihadists).

According to Vatican II. My opinion is that it is not so. It's your Church. You should bring it up with them, not with me.

But what I'm I doing discussing with Steven? He's a Catholic, and to a Catholic the Vatican is an authority that may never be questioned. So if the Vatican's teaching is that the Church "esteems Muslims, who adore the only God", and Steven doesn't like it, he has to take it out on someone else, e.g. me.

It is interesting also to see, how in his defense of this Vatican doctrine (defense by denial), the idea has now become internalized in Steven, so that he now more and more prefers Islam before Asian religions or secularism.

This is exactly why I criticize this betrayal of Vatican II. Since the Vatican is an authority that may not be questioned, this idea is bound to eat its way in, and posion the minds of the Catholics, since there is no way for them to defend themselves against it.

Steven said...

@ Steven

(supposedly we bow down to the same God as the Jihadists).

According to Vatican II. My opinion is that it is not so. It's your Church. You should bring it up with them, not with me.


You're opinion is misinformed. Already took care of that.

But what I'm I doing discussing with Steven? He's a Catholic, and to a Catholic the Vatican is an authority that may never be questioned.

This is plainly false. What cannot be questioned are the few matters of faith (dogma). Everything else is wide open territory, including ecumenical attempts, the wording of catechisms, the justifiability of wars, the disgrace of Pope John Paul II wearing American Indian headgear, Vatican II. There is no party line to toe.

So if the Vatican's teaching is that the Church "esteems Muslims, who adore the only God", and Steven doesn't like it, he has to take it out on someone else, e.g. me.

The church esteems people, even bone-marrow atheists. Politics can hate people, religions (or at least proselytizing religions), don't speak that way. "Muslims" can mean the guy who made the pizza I ate tonight; a human being, for the church, tomorrow's Catholic. keep trying... and sooner or later you'll understand that religious thinking is different.

It is interesting also to see, how in his defense of this Vatican doctrine (defense by denial), the idea has now become internalized in Steven, so that he now more and more prefers Islam before Asian religions or secularism.

Where did I say that? Secularism is really a rather meaningless thing, it depends on what religious values are "residually" behind it. I said that I would prefer to live in Shia Iran than Juchean North Korea, while considering both barbaric. I said that the Morocco of the seventies was more liveable than the Czechoslovakia of that same period, yet both were barbaric.

You're too simple-minded. Atheist/Secularism gone bad can do far more harm than backwards Islam. Is it shocking to say that smarter people can be more dangerous? This does not lessen the threat of modern-day Islam, but should be a sobering thought, a reason for us to get our act together and defend OUR sacred, our real values (and not just blank-page freedoms).

If Islam is the parasitical beast everyone says it is, then it is up to us to keep a healthy and shiny fur. We shouldn't be vulnerable to anyone, including the Chinese, the Indians, the South Americans.

This is exactly why I criticize this betrayal of Vatican II. Since the Vatican is an authority that may not be questioned, this idea is bound to eat its way in, and posion the minds of the Catholics, since there is no way for them to defend themselves against it.

There is no betrayal and as already stated and re-stated everything about the Vatican can be questioned and scathingly criticized except certain bottomline dogmas of faith.

You should read the criticisms of traditionalist priests (tantamount to an uprising) and they are one of the reasons why Ratzinger is - by degrees - going back to the Latin mass.

Believe me, what's poisoning hearts and minds today is a far broader subject. It ain't the church, but entirely in the secular camp.

I think you "betray" too easy... as a matter of fact, after reading the exchanges with Jim Kalb and Lawrence Auster, I'm sure of it.

Conservative Swede said...

Steven,
We can notice how you, as usually, skipped the part about "who adore the only God", which is the only relevant part. Of course you will have to close your eyes to that, in order to say to me "You're opinion is misinformed". And on top of that you claim that it was I that said that Muslims adore the only God. But intelligent people will not fall for such childish games, Steven. They are able to read themselves who said what.

Steven said...

Ciao Conservative Swede,

Tonight I had pizza. There's a Tunisian who makes them... as good as, if not better than any Roman. The guy is friendly, easy-going, honest. He's the tragedy, because you know in your heart that he doesn't deserve any war of civilization.

Anyway, while I'm waiting for my pizza and watching him work like an ace, I start thinking. A smart alec wise guy bone marrow atheist is accusing me of worshiping this same Tunisian pizza-maker's God.

(Instead, we all know what Atheist/Rationalist/Barbarian pizza tastes like! They're all billion dollar franchises). The hedonist party is pro-Muslim, even if they know it'll become Sharia. Why shouldn't they be? Seeing as they never had any qualms about decadence.

Anyhow... Do we worship the same God? Cazzo! Mavafanculo! Maybe! I don't know! Sometines!

Nah! My God is much more sophisticated than his! His is all about honor and fear and rules.

And yet... I mean it's not like he's an alien from outer space... maybe I love the real God and he only loves his clothes, his trappings... A big despot in the sky... no questions asked here on earth.

On another thread you're discussing whether Islam is a cult or a religion.

It's obviously a religion with a very strong ethos even to the fainthearted muslims.

The problem is that Islam is a Christian heresy (leave it to the best religion to create the worst heresies!). They're the ones "professing" to believe in the same God. On planet earth it would be like you, Jim Kalb and Lawrence Auster all claiming rights on the one and only magic pencil. We both believe in the one and only God... sorta...

If it pleases you to call it a civil war, be reminded that they're the most vicious and the most personally involved and the most meaningful.

Neverthless, civilizational war, would be a tragedy for my pizza-maker, for the owner of the restaurant, and for me as well. This is good, solid Christian thinking that has served us so well... This is why we tend to be more civilized even than the marvelous Japanese.

The weaponization of kindness. Trust me, the Tunisian pizza-maker does not know he's a weapon.

The hyper-weaponization of kindness!

And this is why the Cultural-Christians, rabble and all will have to show they mean it. They have to gather en masse in front of the city's finest cathedral.

And the cardinal has to come out and try to appease them: "No, we are all brothers! Do not be overcome by anger."

Grumbling the crowd disbands (and the politicians start to get worried).

Then another atrocity... and the crowd, much bigger this time, gathers again, but under a different window. A conservative bishop's!

He holds a mass... in Latin. A rosary is recited...

And now, the clash of civilization is standard fare. Not even La Stampa, Il Corriere della Sera or Aktenpost can deny it or try to bury it.

Ostensibly there were no politics involved (for truthfully, at the bottom of it all, it IS a religious clash that's been going on for 1400 years). If you look at any free and popular anti-Islamic forum you will see the whole world and every ideological persuasion fighting Muslims.

Something THAT big and THAT old transcends the most convoluted notion of politics. Clash of Civilizations, which is just a way of saying "war of religion."

Anyway: separation of Church and State.

Demonstrations in front of Townhalls or on boulevards are a dime a dozen... but when's the last time there's been a gathering in front of a church? Wow! Pretty desperate! Maybe they mean it! Regardless, the church has rights... There is freedom of religion!

And the time has come to demand justice.

Problem N°1, the proliferation of mosques.

Islamic Injustice N°1, (even-the-rocks-and-some-Muslims know-it):

Muslims can preach and build mosques in Europe, but Christians can't preach or build churches in the Umma.

The egalitarians (2/5ths of the Nation) are won over to the cause. You can't get elected unless Freedom of Religion in the Umma is on the agenda. Leave it to some hotheaded (2% popular vote) Italian or Spanish MP to threaten to change coalition...

Muslims refuse. European mosques are closed.

Today this is science fiction. But in the real world it is religious fiction.

Allahu Ackbar, atheist! You want your cruelty, your Ancient Romans and Wotans... when there's a much more civilized way to conduct this war. Through unelected mobs gathering in front of their unelected spiritual leaders.

The church herself would be alarmed. The ecumenicalists and liberals (who in the eyes of the traditionalsts have done so much cold-data harm) would have to swallow a Ukranian aviary of crow.

This is how the Crusades got started. First make a big religious stink, make it fun and adventurous... get TV commedians involved... Have a cult show, made totally underground by people fearing for their lives who do impersonations of Mullahs and Muftis. You can have Ratzinger, but only as a despairing / taunting OFF SCREEN voice.

The real religious mission is to get SuperCalm guy with the German accent presently residing in the Vatican, saying something so disarmingly honest that it would be the equivalent of an atomic bomb over Hollywood.

The ecumenicalists and liberals will be sent to the Hindus and the Buddhists and the Swedish Lutherans to hold ecumenical and liberal prayers so that Islam sees the light over this VERY HOT ISSUE of obvious justice.

Religious freedom is a political issue... it used to be... and there is more than enough reason - as proven by the spontaneous non-political, purely-religious gatherings) to consider it as such. A major political issue for the whole nation. Nobody's asking for the moon! Just some reciprocity that happens to coincide with one of the inalieble rights of man. (Purely Christian hogwash but potentially popular among the atheist/Rationalis/Barbarian secularists).

Nevertheless on the margins of this scenario, there's plenty of space for your Ancient Romans and Wotans. For all I care you Northern hotheads can stage brush-head legionary rallies around magic lakes... and don't forget the mermaids!

Christian Soldier said...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5656543228879822494&q=woman+rides+the+beast+site%3Agoogle.com&total=25&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0