Friday, April 17, 2015


Christianity merged with Nazism
Adherents of Positive Christianity argued that traditional Christianity emphasized the passive rather than the active aspects of Christ's life, stressing his miraculous birth, his suffering, his sacrifice on the cross and other-worldly redemption. They wanted to replace this doctrine with a "positive" emphasis on Christ as an active preacher, organizer and fighter who opposed the institutionalized Judaism of his day.
While many such scholars sought to place Jesus in the context of ancient Judaism, some writers reconstructed a historical Jesus who corresponded to racialist and anti-semitic ideology. In the writings of such anti-semites as Emile Burnouf, Houston Stewart Chamberlain and Paul de Lagarde, Jesus was redefined as an Aryan hero who struggled against Jews and Judaism. Consistent with their origins in Higher Criticism, such writers often either rejected or minimized the miraculous aspects of Gospel narratives, reducing the crucifixion to a tragic coda to Jesus's life rather than its prefigured culmination. Both Burnouf and Chamberlain argued that the population of Galilee was racially distinct from that of Judea. Lagarde insisted that German Christianity must become "national" in character.

Christianity merged with Marxism
Liberation theology refers to forms of local or contextual theology that proposes that knowledge of God based on revelation leads necessarily to a Christian theological praxis that opposes unjust social and political structures. It has been described as "an interpretation of Christian faith through the poor's suffering, their struggle and hope, and a critique of society and the Catholic faith and Christianity through the eyes of the poor". Detractors have called it Christianized Marxism.
Liberation theology proposes to fight poverty by addressing its alleged source: sin. In so doing, it explores the relationship between Christian theology (especially Roman Catholic) and political activism, especially in relation to social justice, poverty, and human rights. The principal methodological innovation is seeing theology from the perspective of the poor and the oppressed. For example Jon Sobrino, S.J., argues that the poor are a privileged channel of God's grace.
Some liberation theologians base their social action upon the Bible scriptures describing the mission of Jesus Christ, as bringing a sword (social unrest), e.g. Isaiah 61:1, Matthew 10:34, Luke 22:35–38 — and not as bringing peace (social order). This Biblical interpretation is a call to action against poverty, and the sin engendering it, to effect Jesus Christ's mission of justice in this world.
 Both are attempts to see Jesus through a certain lens. A lens of political struggle.

Thursday, April 16, 2015

Three Websites

I want you to take a look at three websites.

When you browse them, ask yourself this question: "Does this organization talk like they run the government?".

The Communist Party of China

The Republican Party (United States)

The Department of Transportation (United States)

All of these websites are engaged in public relations. They are promoting a positive vision of the organizations activities. The CPC is promoting actual policy initiatives. So is the DOT. The GOP is selling t-shirts, bashing Hillary, and complaining about extremely general concepts like "taxes" and "freedom".

You'll notice something else. The DOT has a ".gov" URL, which is short for "government". The Republican party has a ".com" URL, which was short for "commercial", but is now just a general top-level domain name for non-governmental websites..

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

The Pope used to Hate America

Did you know that Roman Catholics named a heresy after the USA? It's called Americanism.
The Americanist heresy is characterized as an insistence upon individual initiative which the Vatican judged to be incompatible with what was considered to be a fundamental principle of Catholicism: obedience to authority. Moreover, the continental conservatives were anti-republicans who distrusted and disliked the democratic ideas that were dominant in America.
Let's identify a few teachings of Rome that are contrary to the ideas articulated by the Founding Fathers. From the Syllabus of Errors (1864), a list of condemned beliefs:
18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.
24. The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect.
44. The civil authority may interfere in matters relating to religion, morality and spiritual government: hence, it can pass judgment on the instructions issued for the guidance of consciences, conformably with their mission, by the pastors of the Church. Further, it has the right to make enactments regarding the administration of the divine sacraments, and the dispositions necessary for receiving them.
48. Catholics may approve of the system of educating youth unconnected with Catholic faith and the power of the Church, and which regards the knowledge of merely natural things, and only, or at least primarily, the ends of earthly social life.
54. Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church, but are superior to the Church in deciding questions of jurisdiction.
55. The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.
67. By the law of nature, the marriage tie is not indissoluble, and in many cases divorce properly so called may be decreed by the civil authority.
77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.
78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.
80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.
 The American government, and similar types of governments, were founded in opposition to these ideas.

To be specific, the Roman Catholic church has condemned religious liberty (77), legal worship by non-Catholics (78), non-Catholic state education (48), and many other things. There are many more issues, but these serve as good examples.

Modern America is in conflict with Islam. Old America was in a similar conflict with Rome.

Islam doesn't support religious liberty, non-Muslim state eduction, et cetera. Reconciling Islam with any mainstream, modern American political ideology is impossible. You must either gut Islam, removing many of it's teachings, or you must gut liberal democracy.

Roman Catholicism faced a similar choice in the past 100 years. It chose to adopt the American view of church-state relations, and contradict it's previous teachings.

From Dignitatis Humanae (1965):
This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs
It follows that a wrong is done when government imposes upon its people, by force or fear or other means, the profession or repudiation of any religion, or when it hinders men from joining or leaving a religious community.
 It should be noted that this "immunity from coercion" doesn't apply to racists, sexists, or various other types of groups that disagree with the Progressive religion.

American Saints of the Supreme Being

 Jefferson Memorial:

Roman Temple:

It's hard not to notice the similarities. Inscribed on the Jefferson memorial is the quote:
"...I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
 - Thomas Jefferson

That's a metaphor, right? Is he talking about an actual altar? I'm not sure about Jefferson specifically, but his friends seem to believe in an actual altar.

Cult of Reason:
The Cult of Reason was a belief system established in France and intended as a replacement for Christianity during the French Revolution.
The Cult of Reason was explicitly anthropocentric. Its goal was the perfection of mankind through the attainment of Truth and Liberty, and its guiding principle to this goal was the exercise of the human faculty of Reason. In the manner of conventional religion, it encouraged acts of congregational worship and devotional displays to the ideal of Reason. A careful distinction was always drawn between the rational respect of Reason and the veneration of an idol: "There is one thing that one must not tire telling people," Momoro explained, "Liberty, reason, truth are only abstract beings. They are not gods, for properly speaking, they are part of ourselves."
This is the Roman Catholic church they stole and turned into a "Temple of Reason".

The Cult of Reason was the most radical wing of the French revolutionaries. The more moderate faction was the Cult of the Supreme Being. Lead by Maximilian Robespierre, it became the state religion of the revolutionary French Republic.
Robespierre believed that reason is only a means to an end, and the singular end is virtue. He sought to move beyond simple deism (often described as Voltairean by its adherents) to a new and, in his view, more rational devotion to the Godhead. The primary principles of the Cult of the Supreme Being were a belief in the existence of a god and the immortality of the human soul. Though not inconsistent with Christian doctrine, these beliefs were put to the service of Robespierre's fuller meaning, which was of a type of civic-minded, public virtue he attributed to the Greeks and Romans. This type of virtue could only be attained through active fidelity to liberty and democracy. Belief in a living god and a higher moral code, he said, were "constant reminders of justice" and thus essential to a republican society.

If you're familiar with the writings of the American Founding Fathers, you'll recognize the similarity here. Robespierre's religious beliefs were quite similar to Jefferson's religious beliefs.

Here is the Roman Catholic church the Cult of the Supreme Being stole, and used for their services.

Does this strike you as "non-religious"?

From the lips of Ronald Reagan:
Those -- Those who created our country -- the Founding Fathers and Mothers -- understood that there is a divine order which transcends the human order. They saw the state, in fact, as a form of moral order and felt that the bedrock of moral order is religion.
The Mayflower Compact began with the words, "In the name of God, Amen." The Declaration of Independence appeals to "`Nature's God"' and the "Creator'" and "the Supreme Judge of the world." Congress was given a chaplain, and the oaths of office are oaths before God.
James Madison in the Federalist Papers admitted that in the creation of our Republic he perceived the hand of the Almighty. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, warned that we must never forget the God from whom our blessings flowed.
  - Ronald Reagan

Which God is Ronald Reagan talking about? Jesus? Or the "Supreme Being"?

When Thomas Jefferson wrote about the "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence, was he talking about Jesus? Or the "Supreme Being"?

There is one key difference between the French Cult of the Supreme Being (CSB) and the American CSB.

In the period of 1770-1870, the Roman Catholic church did not give an inch to CSB-type beliefs. There were attempts by Catholics to develop a synthesis of the CSB and Catholicism. The Pope responded by aggressive condemnation and persecution, most notably in Auctorem Fidei, and the Syllabus of Errors.

As a result, people with CSB-type beliefs hated the Roman Catholic church. Thomas Jefferson's rhetoric on religion was focused primarily against Roman Catholicism. The same for most Enlightenment-era Deists.

However, Protestants, especially low-church Protestants, developed a synthesis of the CSB, and their Protestant religion. Historically, it is difficult to tell whether figures like Abraham Lincoln and George Washington were Protestants or Deists. Why? Because Protestants and Deists said very similar things about God, and how God relates to civic life.

If you go to Washington DC, they promote something quite similar to the CSB. Since Jefferson, there have been various saints added to the CSB. In Washington, we have shrines to the Saints of the CSB: Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Martin Luther King

You will not find a shrine to Jesus. Or Krishna. Or Buddha. Or Confucius. Or Allah. Or St. Vladimir.

Sunday, March 29, 2015

Are You an Uninformed Voter? The Test

There are 15 Departments in the United States Federal Government. Each of them has a Secretary.

For example, Donald Rumsfeld was the Secretary of Defense under President Bush.

1) Grab a pencil and paper
2) Name as many Federal Departments as you can (there are 15).
3) For each Department, name a Cabinet Secretary

The answers

To pass this test, you need to get 15 of 15. If you fail this test, you are not qualified to vote. If you pass this test, you are a nerd, and still probably not qualified to vote.

If you can't name the existence of a department, or the most influential individual in that department, how can you manage the department? In order to manage a department, you need a deep understanding of that department. You can't have a deep understanding of the Department of X, without several years of education in X. And there are 15 different departments.

People cannot elect their own government. Somebody else must make the actual decisions. Managing the government is an incredibly complex task, a thousand times more complex than managing a Fortune 500 company. And almost nobody is qualified to run a Fortune 500 company.

Democracy is a lot like Santa Claus. It doesn't exist, never existed, and can't exist. But it's a nice-sounding fiction that we tell to the gullible.

Semantic Iconography, Political Correctness and Insults

Swear words are generally not used in their literal way. But they always have a nasty literal meaning.

1) "This fucking moron cut me off in traffic!"
2) "I hate the damn drivers around here"
3) "That guy in the van is an asshole"
4) "People in large trucks are always dicks"
5) "That woman driving the SUV is a cunt"

One hundred years ago, "gay" had no association with sodomy. In the past sixty (or so) years, it began to mean "sodomite". Suddenly, the term "gay" becomes an insult. From what I've gathered, it is usually used as a synonym of "pathetic" or "perversely effeminate".

6) "That car is so gay"

Why? Well, people use these words because they have nasty associations. If a person is a "asshole", that means they are repulsive. If a person is a "damn ____", then you are wishing that they go to hell.

Regardless of how much brainwashing we undergo, sodomy will still be repulsive, especially to men. So "gay" will remain an insult in the popular language.

Sometimes it's quite funny.

When a Progressive says that "homophobes are gay", is it a compliment, insult, or neither? They seem to say it in an insulting fashion.

Salvation in the Roman Catholic Church

The Papal Bull - Unam Sanctam:
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff
 I should point out that this document almost certainly meets the conditions for Papal Infallibility.

The (Infallible) Council of Florence:
all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives
The Council of Florence was called to condemn the "errors" of the Eastern Orthodox churches. The condemnation of Orthodox doctrine was the central theme of the council.

The (Infallible?) Second Vatican Council
But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, 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. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.
This raises an interesting question - what is necessary for salvation? Apparently the Gospel isn't.