Those Delicate Jesuit Sensibilities

“Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” — John 8:32

I don’t see why Christians of any variety, Byzantine, Catholic or Protestant, should be so hostile to the truth, or the truth in the way one economics professor sees it.

If mr. Block is correct or at least has impirical reason to advance this idea of a disparity in IQ being at heart of a disparity in income, Whats the problem? Those who questioned him were looking for an answer, he gave one. Either it is correct or it is not. Isn’t academia centered on the pursuit of truth? The love of reason is not the love of comfort, the ultimate comfort is death where there is no effort no pain no competition no losers no winners. There are different virtues inherent in different individuals and different cultures, those who respect truth respect this fact, those at war with truth have a history of killing its messengers. A school is for the pursuit and dissemination of reason/truth. The unspoken truth here, if I may conject is an effort to water down the truth of these inherent disparity’s so as to artificially demonstrate the need for redistribution of wealth (marxism). The unhealthy worship of equality naturally punishes the gifted as Ayn Rands (fountainhead)amply demonstrated.Coerced Mainstreaming of the world genetically and economically is war against nature,competition,diversity and justice.

Can someone tell me what this love affair with socialism/Marxism is all about? It exists in just about every institution today. Either these social/Marxists were brilliant and worked their way into every institution (can they really be that insidious and smarter than us?) or the lack of realization of the dangers inherent in social/Marxism is caused by the lack proximity to the actual ideology. Can anyone help me understand? Why are these useful dupes repeating the same mistakes? Can’t they read history??????

Walter Block . . . Do I recognize that name from the Mises Institute? Or is it a different Walter Block?

He should know that there is no Nobel Prize for poetry. Little mistakes like that make someone look like an amateur.

Said Block: “They respect diversity but not diversity of opinion.”

No respect for diversity of opinions? Block should form his own ‘White teachers association’, ‘white alumni association’ or ‘white economists’ group. Just like the ones they have for blacks, asians and women. We might then find out how much respect they have on campus for racial diversity too.

One wonders how long the leftist elites will be able to keep a lid on the truth through threats and intimidation. The history of science teaches us that truth ultimately prevails and this does not bode well for the leftists.

” Block said…the Jesuit order has been ‘hijacked by a bunch of Marxists and liberation theologians.’ “

Can someone please explain how this happened? How was the Jesuit order, the muscular “Marine Corp of the Catholic Church,” transformed into the emasculated, apologetic, simpering bunch of weenies it is now?

“Block said he knew he’d step on toes, since, by his account, he started off with a bit about how the Jesuit order has been “hijacked by a bunch of Marxists and liberation theologians.””

If you have any doubts as to the truth of this, read books written by Jesuit Malachi Martin. He says the same thing.

I have always had a faible for the Jesuits. Brutal pragmatism no matter what. After all, Ignatius of Loyola (whom they fondly refer to as “Inigo”) had been a mercenary captain before he waxed holy (g).
And scholarship. From my field, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin comes to mind. He risked landing on the Index but still told it as he saw it (BTW, the most brilliant synthesis of theism and science to date)

- That telling the truth is a problem now we know at least since the cases of Churchill and Watson.

“He said he’d told the audience that differences in IQ might account for why blacks and women earn about 30 percent less than their white, male counterparts.”

Speaking as a woman, I’m not remotely offended by this. Why would the truth offend me? What does piss me off, though, is how people seem compelled to apologize every time the truth somehow slips out.

The more uncomfortable the truth, the more we need to hear it spoken once in a while.

Sounds to me like they respect diversity and hate the truth. Bottom line, our universities have become hatcheries for leftist garbage. Nobody is getting an eduation that will prepare them for a global work force. Institutions of higher learning around the world are out-performing ours due to the fact that our kids are learning only to bow down to the diversity god. No longer will America be able to claim the title of world super power. We allowed the leftists, communists, and the downright deranged churches, and government to destroy us from within. From what I have seen and read lately about the WCC, I started searching the ‘net to see what church denominations belonged to this corrupt bunch. Nearly ALL protestant churches. The Catholic church doesn’t belong to the WCC, but does work hand in hand with them. I will henceforth practice the pagan religion of my ancestors. At least, the pagans taught their people to stand up for themselves and their people.

At least Laura Vozzella allowed Walter Block the last word, “They respect diversity but not diversity of opinion.” This article is worthy of the label biased, even though the Professor draws attention to the fact that women are aggregated in the middle, their accomplishments unlikely to be exceptional outside the wussy realms of poetry. Though I do think poetry can be robust and challenging if it doesn’t get bogged down in saccharine sentiment. Though that of course is what has happened to it recently.

In fact, I think Walter Block’s comments on poetry have relevance for what has happened to education in general. By opening the portals of learning to all, by creating a myth of equality and potential achievement within diversity, education has been diluted, and targeted at the lowest denominator. Now the groups that can’t achieve won’t accept that they are less able, and will litigate for the right to say their stupidity is equal to genius. Hence, an aborigine’s flattened rock is as worthy of praise as the combustion energy; a Indian’s fertility chant is the equivalent of a western symphony.

The Jesuits were until recently renowned for their intellectual rigour. They were willing to act outside mainstream church teaching, to challenge the pope, and to cohere as an order in secret. But if Walter Brock is right, the days of its , intellectual heroism are gone at least for the moment.

Professor Walter Block is a brave soul to speak the truth and to resist being gagged. The problems associated with blacks - crime, ability to be educated, to hold a basic job, and proverty cannot be disassociated from their genetic makeup. The differences in racial genetics will eventually have to be examined objectively so true social solutions can arise. The skin color is part of the whole package. It is incidental not the primarily determinant of how one functions.

On this planet, males and females are wired differently which is reflected by the natural choosing of certain vocations.

“Can someone please explain how this happened? How was the Jesuit order, the muscular “Marine Corp of the Catholic Church,” transformed into the emasculated, apologetic, simpering bunch of weenies it is now?”

The Jesuits were a casuality of the Left’s Long March through the institutions during the 60s. Sentiments such as Linnane’s [does it rhyme with “inane?”] “We are a Jesuit institution, and as such, a respect for diversity is one of our defining values” are sadly typical. How an order formed for the express purpose of answering Protestant apologetics and scholarship can said to be founded on “a respect for diversity” is not at all clear. St. Ignatius would not recognize the order he founded.

“Professor Block’s response to a question about the differences between average earnings of African-Americans and whites in America, which maintained that the disparity could be explained by differences in average productivity, was offensive…

Measures and comparisons of productivity are standard economics and are mathematically based. Argue with the numbers if you feel the Professor miscalculated, but it’s absurd to state that comparison of productivity “was offensive”. That’s like being insulted by calculus!

Example: If you asked me why my husband (a scientist) makes almost twice as much money as I do (customer service), I’d happily admit his output has more value in the market place; he’s more productive, therefore he deserves more money for his work. It’s not “offensive”, it’s fact!

I don’t see why this is controversial when the statistics are easily obtained on government websites! We all know that blacks on average are less educated and less productive than whites on average.

Blacks are far more likely to be low-skilled workers, therefore less productive. Blacks are more likely to be periodically unemployed or working part-time, therefore less productive. Check out the Bureau of Labor statistics if you don’t believe it!

I agree with the poster, grateful to amren, in calling the Jesuit Order of the Catholic Church, “the Marine Corps of the Catholic Church.”

I remember an experience at the Catholic School I attended involving a Jesuit Priest. I was in the fourth grade. One sunny day, long ago, an old Jesuit Priest was retiring from his teaching duties at the school I attended, St. Vincents. He came out to the playground and asked the boys to circle around him. He announced his retirement and that he would miss us and that he wanted to leave us one last gift. He thereby reached into the deep pockets of his garment and pulled out several rolls of money in the form of coins. Then he opened the rolls of dimes, and quarters, and flung them into the air, whereby my classmates and myself, scrambled all over the asphalt(they didn’t believe in grass) playground and tried to get as much of the money that we could lay our hands on. A lot of kids got seriously scratched and into fights, whereby a couple of Nuns came and broke up the fights and the general mayhem. Before leaving us, the old Priest said, remember this day always, that I have given you a lesson on what life is about. True story. The Jesuit priests always had a “street smart” reputation in the Catholic church. It’s sad to think that they have been “reigned in by the virus of political correctness.

John Davis, asks whats the origin of this love affair with Marxism? Good question! I don’t think its that the marxists were genius or even that marxism originated with them. As I think, in the French, Russian or Hatian revolutions…there was a mounting anger by the lower classes against the aristocratic ruling class,.. I think this goes deeper than forms of government and rather resides in yin and yang. Marxism is a yin revolt against perceived excessive yang or an effort to keep yang in line. The Spartacus revolt was again a revolt against cruel treatment by the increasing detachment the ruling class had of the slaves welfare. The underclass social revolutions of the communist type, I think being excess(but understandable) in yin leavened a yang excess in fascism, female/male extremes. Anyway…the world getting smaller fears too much masculine perception, which is a stickler for identity and competition as this makes more probable cofrontations between distinct identity’s, world views or ((RACES)). So what I’m saying is that I think this left leaning of marxism is actually somewhat organic in origin, desiring to diffuse possible points of conflict by undermining and dissipating the qualities that give distinct identity or especially, advantage to any group. Undermining or confusing Identity’s, especially the more successful ones ie.(promoting miscegination, qoutas,third world immigration),…these are techniques to prevent (whites) from gaining too much (power) which is feared, may corrupt them into becoming tyrants. Thus the left feels, A safe grey mush is superior to a potentially confrontational world of competeing identity’s. Delilah trying to confuse Sampson. My opinion is we should have more faith in Republicinism to deal justly with natural disparity’s and less white man bashing. There is room for dignified habitation and competition of the different human types but not in the same parlor. We are all equally human but not equally the same, the cream is always the real minority, at the same time, cannibalism, whether of anothers economy, dignity or of course flesh is always sub-human/wrong. Neither the bottem nor the top of the human pyramid has justice in treating with disrespect or preying upon the other.

One of the things I read here recently that I am claiming as my own… “Christianity has accomplished nothing except building an assault bridge between the third world and our own with calamitous results!”

Reader-1 queried: Walter Block … Do I recognize that name from the Mises Institute? Or is it a different Walter Block?

Right the 1st time. Read his columns here.

Petrarch wrote: The love of reason is not the love of comfort, the ultimate comfort is death where there is no effort no pain no competition no losers no winners.

Interesting insight. It certainly helps explain why the “Culture of Death” is so chock-full of liberal groups (blacks, feminists, homosexuals, environmentalists) and why the French Revolution was so blood-soaked. Now the big question is why Muslims, who are certainly not liberal, are also charter members of the COD.

Reader-1,

Block wasn’t being entirely strict in his wording regarding Nobel prize. There is, most certainly, a Nobel Prize Laureates in Literature, which is likely what he was referring to.

Block is right-on in all of his comments.

Respect for diversity means respect for lies. There should have been no apology.

“Speaking as a woman, I’m not remotely offended by this. Why would the truth offend me? What does piss me off, though, is how people seem compelled to apologize every time the truth somehow slips out.”

Years ago, in the days when feminists really knew how to rant, I watched a woman talk about how sexist and anti-women bra manufacturers were because bras were designed by men to make breasts more appealing to men and these designers never designed bras for the needs of women.

I thought to myself, ‘Is this your classic solution staring you in the face or what’. IF bra designers were women-hating men, then this women stood the opportunity of designing bras herself for the needs of women and make millions and put the evil male women hater bra designers out of business.

The fact there is no social pressure or institution today that is stopping any women from inventing anything they can conceive.

I don’t want to put stumbling blocks in front of anyone but I do believe we’re largely (though not exclusively) driven and motivated by our levels of intelligence.

Women invented the windshield wiper and White Out among others. I wish other women success in the future in making my life easier, more comfortable, and more enjoyable.

However, pointing out verifiable facts is not hate speech.

White Evangelicals and Catholics voted overwhelmingly for McCain.

Black and Hispanic Evangelicals and Catholics voted even more overwhelmingly for Obama.

My conclusions: Christianity does not influence voting, or, to put it another way, race is more relevant than Christianity. Religious Whites will vote for someone tending toward the conservative end of the spectrum, whereas Blacks and Hispanics will vote for someone tending toward the liberal end of the spectrum. Apparently, there is a “White Christianity” and a “Brown Christianity.”

To me, this is disheartening and disillusioning. Christianity has always been portrayed to me as a body of believers of one mind and one heart. They are of one mind and one heart because they are all born again, controlled by the Spirit of God. The old things are supposed to have passed away, supplanted by a divine consciousness. How could that divine consciousness be so fractured?

There is something deeper than the Spirit of God that influences a Chrisitian person to make decisions that are vastly different from those of another Christian person. I believe that thing is race, or has something to do with race.

This raises more questions, though, some of which are: Why do not more Whites vote for their race? And if they don’t, is this necessarily bad, all the time? Can a White Christianity be a unifying force among Whites? Or, has Christianity run its course, and a new paradigm, a new European Neo-Paganism (to me, the book, “On Being a Pagan” by Alain de Benoist makes a most intelligent and moral case) needed? Could a moral and intelligent Neo-Paganism even cause a White-consciousness among Whites?

Any philosophers out there?

“Said Block: “They respect diversity but not diversity of opinion.”

They don’t really respect anything but whatever is necessary to continue on with their sorry careers. Pretending to believe in the tenants of political correcness is a prerequisite for holding on to one’s position, so points in opposition are rightfully regarded as career enders and are avoided in favor of pretending they don’t notice the elephant in the room.

But, hold a steady course, my friends, it’s all coming to an end, and ironically the reason for it is the same one that disallows them to speak the truth: political correcness. This time in awarding non-whites homes they couldn’t pay for in their haste to create a non-white class with economic power.

It’s been said many times and is once again proving true: Violence isn’t necessary to change a culture of diversity. It will implode all by itself, because it is the fantasy of fools who aren’t bright enough to know better.

Although many (male) professors of literature I know would totally disagree with Block (they would essentially say that the very study and academic approach of the modern world to poetry and literature essentially ruins the poetry and literature itself; they would also point out that all of the significant literature and poetry of history has been written by men, not women), I think that they would agree with what he’s saying about race differences.

And as far as the “Catholic Question” is concerned, St. Thomas Aquinas, the most influential doctor of the Church, wrote a section in the Summa Theologica that said that likeness (similarity) is a cause of love. In that same section, he goes on to essentially say that it is natural for humans to have a greater love for other humans with whom they have more in common. He then uses the example of a white man naturally loving another white man simply by virtue of the fact that they are both white. He implies that this is totally natural, and therefore not against Christian charity.

Long story short, the idea that Christianity (or, more specifically, Catholicism) officially preaches against nationalism, patriotism, filial duty, or preservation of culture, is exactly a result of what Block said: Communist/Marxist infiltration/indoctrination, as is the idea that Christianity/Catholicism supports egalitarianism.

My response, however, is not to flee the Catholic Church, but to work to take it back. Because if we flee, we really are leaving behind a grand cultural past, as Benedict XVI has pointed out.

Mr. Block is correct in observing that the Jesuits have been highjacked by liberal Marxists, and as one Amren commentor points out, the books of ‘Jesuit’ Malachi Martin make this abundantly clear.

However, Martin was no straight-forward Jesuit; there is ample evidence that he was a spy at the Second Vatican Council, a “mole” within Cardinal Bea’s Secretariat. Martin’s code names were “Forest” and “Puskin”. Marxist, Abraham Heschel, was Malachi Martin’s handler in helping Martin usher in the liberalizing ‘Nostra Aetate,’ which Heschel himself authored, through the council.

What to happened Mr. Block at Loyola this week is nothing new—it’s been going on in Catholic academic circles for the last 40 years, and conservative Catholics have been censored and blacklisted by their own institutions, mirroring what is happening in our socialist society at large.

I expect a lot better from the Jesuits, they are models of what Catholics should be. I am sad that they buckled under this PC nonsense.

Many years ago I was on a search committee of a small two college to hire a Psychology teacher, who didn’t need a doctorate for this position. One of the candidates was a black man with an Ivy League Degree. I remember one of the committee members asked him the question what he thought of Sociobiology. The candidate replied “I like Sociology and I like Biology, so I guess I like them both.” Did this man get the job? Darn, right he did.

“However, Martin was no straight-forward Jesuit; there is ample evidence that he was a spy at the Second Vatican Council, a “mole” within Cardinal Bea’s Secretariat. Martin’s code names were “Forest” and “Puskin”. Marxist, Abraham Heschel, was Malachi Martin’s handler in helping Martin usher in the liberalizing ‘Nostra Aetate,’ which Heschel himself authored, through the council.” Posted by at 10:34 AM on November 13

So Malachi Martin was actually a communist spy in the vatican who later left the Jesuits and exposed the communist infiltration in the vatican.

Wow, wheels within wheels. Wonder why he exposed the communist infiltration.

…….”There is something deeper than the Spirit of God that influences a Chrisitian person to make decisions that are vastly different from those of another Christian person. I believe that thing is race, or has something to do with race.

This raises more questions, though, some of which are: Why do not more Whites vote for their race? And if they don’t, is this necessarily bad, all the time? Can a White Christianity be a unifying force among Whites? Or, has Christianity run its course, and a new paradigm, a new European Neo-Paganism (to me, the book, “On Being a Pagan” by Alain de Benoist makes a most intelligent and moral case) needed? Could a moral and intelligent Neo-Paganism even cause a White-consciousness among Whites?”

Any philosophers out there?

Posted by at 10:02 AM on November 13

I have thought, studied and wrote about this for many years, and posted on the ideas for some time on Amren. First, I must posit that also race has a lot to do with it, culture has just as much. It is the cultures that split Christians up followed by nationalism and then race.

I have written for example that one reason that European Whites are in so much trouble is that they are still overwhelming Christain culturally and that Christianity ultimately was an invasive religion that was forced on them and set up to undermine tribal/national feelings with an allegiance to a universal god. Rome of course, quickly made themselves the controlling authority of it and for centuries waged wars, directly and indirectly to enforce this as well as a continued campaign against individual Whites. No wonder so many Whites today cannot shake off this system of beliefs. If the very plain and simple inherent recognition of what is good and not good cannot shape a societies ethical system, then reviving the simple and quite relevant old aguarian gods and goddesses that are represented in Christianity anyway - although perverted and laid over with Judaic monothesisms and laws - is a valid way of creating or more correctly, returning to a cosmic outlook that actually links us to our land and our nature. Contrary to the usual Christian propaganda, prefected over many centuries, the Celts for example had an elaborate and quite beautiful system. And their leaders were wise holy men. The Celts did not war on one another the way the Latins did. They were so fair minded that the Roman Latins were able to dominate them and later convert them, mostly at first due to the openmindedness of the Celts themselves, but also the Christians own trickery. The Norse had a wonderful code of honor that is the foundation of chivalry. Unlike Christianity which forgives a “sin” and renews the believer in good standing, when a Norsemans gave his word, made an oath, he was bound by his gods to fulfill it or die doing so. Violating the oath was a sure denial into Valhalla. So throughout history, Christians allow themselves exceptions and treachery, whereas, the pagan Norse were actually more honorable.

I am sure this will upset some readers, but it is time for us to think about different ways of viewing the same history and be honest about how it has actually served or not served us. The lessons we ought to take from the past might be different from the usual ones many write about on Amren. Do we really wish a return to those wonderful times when the world was flat, suspected non-belilevers were tortured and roasted for entertainment of a perverse clergy and most White Europeans only could look forward to a lofty heaven for escape from a life of drudgery and defacto slavery.

I remember an experience at the Catholic School I attended involving a Jesuit Priest. I was in the fourth grade. One sunny day, long ago, an old Jesuit Priest was retiring from his teaching duties at the school I attended, St. Vincents. He came out to the playground and asked the boys to circle around him. He announced his retirement and that he would miss us and that he wanted to leave us one last gift. He thereby reached into the deep pockets of his garment and pulled out several rolls of money in the form of coins. Then he opened the rolls of dimes, and quarters, and flung them into the air, whereby my classmates and myself, scrambled all over the asphalt(they didn’t believe in grass) playground and tried to get as much of the money that we could lay our hands on. A lot of kids got seriously scratched and into fights, whereby a couple of Nuns came and broke up the fights and the general mayhem. Before leaving us, the old Priest said, remember this day always, that I have given you a lesson on what life is about. True story. The Jesuit priests always had a “street smart” reputation in the Catholic church. It’s sad to think that they have been “reigned in by the virus of political correctness.

Posted by Bobby at 12:39 AM on November 13
———————————————————————————

(Im a man btw)
While what you posted was very interesting (and I understand and agree with it!). I feel compelled to point out it is only half the truth of the world. And half-truths, at least sometimes, can be worse than total ignorance.

What your quote showed is also why the classic game monopoly is actually a bad game to teach for enterpreneurship. They both assume a zero-sum outcome. If one wins, the other loses. In the real world, thats a good BASE to work from, people have to be independent before being interdependent - so after that comes the positive sum game.

Thats where everyone is better-off when they co-operate. Richard Dawkins did a TV program on this about 2 decades ago that I still remember. They even had a competition about making a game theory program - the program that reciprocated rather than was greedy won. AKA if you cheated it, it would cheat you back, if you co-operated, it would co-operate back.

Moreover though - the best program was the one that was reciprocal - BUT, assumed when it didnt have any prior data- that its counterpart/opponent would co-operate.

The problem is Blacks arent given to co-operation, and sadly, it seems too many women arent either anymore. So what we have is a negative sum game. :/

To 10:25 who wrote “Long story short, the idea that Christianity (or, more specifically, Catholicism) officially preaches against nationalism, patriotism, filial duty, or preservation of culture, is exactly a result of what Block said: Communist/Marxist infiltration/indoctrination, as is the idea that Christianity/Catholicism supports egalitarianism.”

You might want to read the Sermon on the Mount. Hugo Chavez was correct when he said last year that Jesus was the world’s first Socialist. Modern Christianity is having it’s feet held to the fire by Marxists, but the egalitarianism has been there from the beginning even if Aquinas (all virtually all European clergy for the next 1600 years) downplayed it. To paraphrase Rev. Wright, Christianity’s chickens are coming home to roost.

“Can someone tell me what this love affair with socialism/Marxism is all about?”

About keeping the federal funds flowing…

Walter Block is hardly a closet racialist as he has argued in favor of open borders. Yet he is not blind to the truth, and not “sensitive” enough to lie about it. What is really revealing with regard to the sorry state of the formerly un-PC Mises Institute crowd is that they have been completely silent about this attack on one of their own and refused to defend him. Presumably they fear being regarded as “insensitive” and “racist” too.

‘The fact there is no social pressure or institution today that is stopping any women from inventing anything they can conceive.”

This is true and there have been a lot of female inventions as well as far more women today doing work in the sciences etc.. However, I don’t believe the IQ theory when it comes to Nobel prizes and women, I believe the main reason is one of family. Women are the prime caretakers of children and tend to focus much of their time on rasing kids, not doing Nobel prize research and such. Men have a lot more time for this. It’s one reason why women earn less too, as more drop out of the workforce or work part time when their kids are young.

Personally, while I know there are varying levels of intelligence, I don’t believe in IQ’s for the simple reason that it is impossible to put an exact number on intelligence, it’s too complicated. There are many different types of intelligence as well as different types of stupidity and people are intelligent or stupid in different ways. IQ tests don’t and can’t measure all of the types of intelligence. A good example of this are Blacks. According to IQ tests, Blacks in the Congo have very low IQ’s whereas as Whites in western countries have much higher IQ’s. Yet Blacks in the Congo would never allow massive immigration to change their culture whereas Whites in western countries are literally handing their nations and way of life over to non-whites and no matter how many problems it causes, will still say diversity is my strengh. A hundred years from now, the Congo will still be Black and have Congolese culture while at the rate things are going, there will be no White nations or culture left because Whites thought divesity is my strength. So I ask, who is the more intelligent here????

An Amren reader commented:

“So Malachi Martin was actually a communist spy in the vatican who later left the Jesuits and exposed the communist infiltration in the vatican.”

Exactly. Part of the Communist strategy has always been creating the ‘controlled opposition.’ They pretend to expose the criminals who are never the real criminals. As long as Martin was ‘exposing’ the infiltration of the Vatican, we might have never found out who was really behind the liberalization of the Church—Abraham Heschel.

And as another Amren reader noted, one of the ways the government has shut down dissent in the Church is by using Federal educational funding as a weapon to keep their schools “politically-correct,” and toe the Marxist party line.

an individual’s IQ is what it is regardless of their demographic average. therefore, one may reasonably conclude that any emotions resulting from such a comparison arise from the prejudices of those expressing them.

“Can someone tell me what this love affair with socialism/Marxism is all about?”?

I would say it is about some people who have lost faith in the capitalist system, after being affected the last thirty years by government lies, theft, and deviency. Savings and loan crisis, in the 80”s under Reagan, almost complete collapse under Clinton and the two Bush’s. A honestly believe, that at least for a good number of Americans, that is what it’s about.

Of course, the others are the usuall die hard Marxists, Socialists, communists, who would have had a problem with capitalism if every man women and child in the U.S. was worth millions of dollars. No excuse to hate it is neccessary with these freaks. Finally, the lazy, indolent, and downright worthless among humanity certainly love socialism because it fits in with their nature—let someone else do it and take care of me.

There is no ONE answer to why many Americans now believe the things they do about “free market” capitalism.

Mic:

I was specifically talking about the Catholic Church, which holds Herself to be the sole interpreter of the Bible, and therefore the sole interpreter of the Sermon on the Mount. So study what the Church (e.g., Aquinas) has to say about it. There is a very prevalent modern philosophy (that you obviously adhere to) that basically says that any joe-the-plumber can read an English translation of the Bible, and then determine exactly what Jesus thought and taught. Let me tell you, Jesus didn’t really care how we were governed, or how our societies were structured, so long as we accepted His Church, which the Western Europeans certainly did, and did a very good job in doing so (Thomas Aquinas is but an example of their faithfulness).

By the way, I would suggest, if you are going to study Catholicism, that you not use Hugo Chavez or Rev. Wright as your sources. They are laughable. (Side note: Protestantism is much different from Catholicism.) Also, it’s rather unintelligent for you to write off the vast, ingenious, and extensive philosophy of Thomas Aquinas and other philosophers/theologians to them trying to “downplay” egalitarianism. Additionally, Aquinas lived during the 13th Century, so 1600 years haven’t even passed since his death. I have read much of Aquinas in the original Latin. Have you ever even read an English translation? Who taught you your “facts”? (By the way, Hitler was also a socialist.)

I’m starting to sense a bit of a rebellion among many AmRen posters against Christianity. Now, to an extent this is understandable, especially when one considers the U.S. Bishops. But we need to remember that modern, liberal Bishops and Evangelical Christians can be done away with. If it weren’t for the Marxist infiltration, the U.S. Bishops would be much more similar to their American and European predecessors (anyone heard of Fr. Coughlin?). We are all friends here and have a common enemy. The Roman Catholic Church has been hurt just as much as any Western society has, and the culprits are the Marxists.

But in any case, please stop applying your “expert” Biblical exegeses to the Roman Catholic Church.

Peace be with you.

One of the most gifted and insightful Catholic writers working today is E. Michael Jones at Culture Wars. His critique of the forces at work to undermine the Catholic church, and christianity in general, is an absolutely invaluable to anyone interested in this topic.

To “Peace Be With You” from Mic,

First allow me to apologize for my condescending tone. It was intended to be GOOD NATURED mockery (hence the references to quotes by Hugo Chavez and J. Wright). I was not drawing my scholarly sword and slapping you across the face with my academic gauntlet…

Regarding your correction of my timeline: touche’. I was attempting to refer to the entire history of organized Christianity (post council of Nicaea), but upon re-reading my post I see that I used the word “next” when I should have wrote “entire” or “vast majority”. I’ll take the hit on that one…

And you are absolutely correct in your assumption that I believe that I can read the bible and understand what it says. I don’t ascribe to Aquinas’ notion that truth is only revealed through reason and faith. I think reason unclouded by faith is more reliable. And I believe source material is significant. Specifically in this case, the sermon on the mount, which, among other things, can easily be used as a ringing endorsement of universalism. I’ll not belabor you the passages because I’m certain you are familiar with them (probably in the Latin!)

My point was/is not that I’m an expert on the bible or Catholicism or Aquinas, and I’m here to show you the way; my point is that the marxist who have “infiltrated” your church have plenty of reliable, ‘in your face’ passages from original source material to bolster their egalitarian world view and their egalitarian interpretation of Christianity (not just Catholicism). As an Odinist I find it hilarious, albeit tragic.

My Grandfather, an old school Baptist preacher, wrote a book entitled “The Bible on Segregation and Integration” (he was arguing aginst it). Virtually every passage he used came from the Old Testament. The New Testament, Aquinas and others notwithstanding, leaves you vulnerable to infiltration from the Marxists.

Having said all that, I get your point that you were referring specifically to Catholicism. Catholicism being the product of 16, I mean 17 hundred (I’m stuck in the 1900’s) years of specifically Catholic scholarship. Perhaps you European derived Catholics will successfully “do away with” the liberals who are bringing so much influence to bear in your Church. Good Luck. What do you think the odds are that Ratzinger’s replacement will be European? Seriously?

Regarding your admonition that I refrain from further “…’expert’ Biblical exegeses [as it concerns] the Roman Catholic Church”… Be advised; my point is validated by the fact that we are having this discussion.

Let me say in conclusion that I respect your scolarship and your sincerity. If I were a Cardinal you’d get my vote!

A hundred years from now, the Congo will still be Black and have Congolese culture while at the rate things are going, there will be no White nations or culture left because Whites thought divesity is my strength. So I ask, who is the more intelligent here????

A hundred years from now AMERICA!!! will have Congolese culture too, or maybe Detroit culture.

I don’t ascribe to Aquinas’ notion that truth is only revealed through reason and faith. I think reason unclouded by faith is more reliable.

Reason and faith are inherently self-contradictory!

As an Odinist I find it hilarious, albeit tragic.
Now, that sounds interesting. You should have said more.

My Grandfather, an old school Baptist preacher, wrote a book entitled “The Bible on Segregation and Integration” (he was arguing against it).

It? Against WHAT?

(But don’t take offense Mic. I liked your post. Incidentally, your apology for condescension was unnecessary; I thought it was on the other foot.)

Mic:

Thanks for your response. I think I see where you’re coming from. For the record, I personally think that the Sermon on the Mount can also be used to argue against egalitarianism, per se. Now, I know that this is a radical view (especially on this forum!), but it is what I believe. Perhaps I’ll write a piece saying why some day.

In any case, I, too, am sorry for my condescending tone. I, as a paleo-conservative/racial realist Christian, am, admittedly, a bit sensitive on this issue, not because I think that Christianity endorses egalitarianism, but because so many paleo-conservatives/racial realists think that it does. That, however, is not an excuse. I’m sorry.

Changing the subject a bit, I have a quick question for you. As an Odinist, do you actually believe in Odin, or do you practice Odinism because it is the faith of your ancestors and therefore a part of your cultural heritage? I’m honestly very curious about this (I know a few other Odinists).

Christ never said that all men were created equal; in fact
some of his sayings and parables suggest otherwise. The parable
of the talents is a ringing endorsement of material inequality.
Spiritually, the man who does little with his great gifts is con-
emned but the man who tries hard with his small gifts is rewarded. Might not Blacks be the men of few talents and the least of our brothers? Their path to righteousness is humility
whereas our’s is kindness to them or applied humility if you will. Needless to say, the kindness should transcontinental-Christ said go out not bring them in.

To: “Reason and faith are inherently self-contradictory!”

Everyone has a certain amount of faith. From a theological perspective, it is called “natural faith” instead of “supernatural faith,” which is belief in, for instance, the Resurrection of Christ. Reason isn’t even possible without a certain amount of faith. In order to reason, one has to start from some axiom or postulate upon which his argument is founded. By definition, an axiom (or postulate) is not proven in the course of the argument, it is merely assumed; hence, it is assumed on faith.

To my anonymous Catholic friend:

(and also Freyer)

To answer your question from above, my Grandfather was arguing against integration. I thought that would be clear from the context, but I see how it could be seen as ambiguous.

Regarding the Reason v Faith thing: I agree that the two are contradictory. That’s why I contend that humans can know the truth without some sort of divine inspiration or guidance… even Joe the Plumber, maybe. I guess I don’t understand what Aquinas was trying to say. Admittedly, I have not studied Aquinas since I read Dante in college 25 years ago, and even then it was not a very thorough treatment on my part… But as it applies to my original point the question is moot because the Bishops and Priests who are causing the damage can certainly cliam legitimacy based on their positions and scholarship. After all, we’re not arguing as to whether or not the Church, and Christianity in general, has been infiltrated. We’re arguing the validity of the infiltrator’s position.

The reason I responded to your original post is because you implied that the infiltrators were the source of the egalitarian, anti nationalist positions the Church is taking of late. I contend that the infiltrators are using scripture, and their interpretation thereof, to gain their admittance and influence. It is also my contention that their interpretations are not unreasonable. It’s like when I adopt the ‘diversity is good’ mantra to argue for racial separation. It drives the leftists crazy. Were I a follower of Jesus I probably would not appreciate the humor of the device quite as much. Whether or not the infiltrators position is valid is largely a subjective matter to be settled between Christians like you and Freyr above and the lefties in your midst. I chimed in because I saw this coming 30 years ago. It was only after reading and researching my Grandfather’s book (when I was a teenager) that I first read the New Testament in full. The universality turned me off, and I’ve never gotten over it. Since then, after more study and having lived in Muslim lands the last 8 years I find Monotheism to be incompatible with nationalism on a purely philosophical level.

I think it is tragic, however, that Christianity, to include Catholicism, is in the process of being co-opted by Marxist (marxists, socialists, leftists, communists, egalitarians, I use the term as a catch all with respect to the subtle differences among the above). Tragic; because although I believe our people would have been better served by remaining adherent to Polytheism, Christianity has brought us a long way. One could go on and on with arguments concerning to what extent our literary tradition (if at all) would have developed without the Monks, or to what extent we would have conquered the world in the 18th and 19th centuries without Missionaries, how our laws have evolved and been influenced by the Church, systems of governance, etc. I think that overall and up until very recently the Christian imprint on Western Civilization has been positive.

My acknoweldgement of the positive aspects of Christianity puts me at odds with much of the Odinist community. Most I know and have discussed the topic with are very critical of Christian history, and offer their opinion on how things might have been better had the bulk of our people followed the Heathen way… I contend that right thinking Christians like you and Freyr can be good allies in the current struggle our people find ourselves in (my above comments about Monotheism and Nationalism notwithstanding). But the pressure is definitely on you and the likeminded to fix your house before the roof blows off, ya know? I think it is likely that the roof is going to blow off when the next Pope is (s)elected. I hope I’m wrong, but the pendulum is swinging that way…

By the way, apology accepted, and regarding your inquiry about the specifics of my beliefs: I entered my email on this post so you can click on my name and email me directly. I’ll enjoy making your acquaintance.