Zippy’s corollary to Conquest’s Second Law

June 25, 2014 § 77 Comments

Every powerful social movement that is not explicitly Catholic (non-Protestant Christian) sooner or later becomes anti-Christian.

Update: It turns out I am just getting up to speed.

§ 77 Responses to Zippy’s corollary to Conquest’s Second Law

  • JustSomeGuy says:

    Bingo.

    Government is a discriminating authority which enforces a particular conception of the common good.

    Perhaps another way to phrase the content of the post is, “Any governing body that does not explicitly support the correct conception of the common good will inevitably support an incorrect conception of the common good.”

  • Kevin Nowell says:

    I concur.

  • texaust says:

    Also known as the gravedigger hypothesis

  • This is going to be a fun thread.

  • Denise says:

    Well, the nation’s premier universities certainly testify to that.

  • Fake Herzog says:

    Was the abolitionist movement explicitly Catholic? I think not. Was it anti-Christian? I think not.

  • Dystopia Max says:

    How do the Jesuits fit into this, aside from a counterexample?

  • Zippy says:

    Can we identify what the abolitionist movement has become: can we identify what it further developed into and now is in society today? Is that thing anti-Christian?

  • Zippy says:

    Dystopia Max:

    How do the Jesuits fit into this, aside from a counterexample?

    I considered adding a lemma: explicit profession of Catholicism does not guarantee that the social movement will not become anti-Christian.

  • I considered adding a lemma: explicit profession of Catholicism does not guarantee that the social movement will not become anti-Christian.

    Once in a while I’ll see an advertisement for one of those small Catholic liberal arts universities that describes itself as faithful to the Magisterium. It’s an implicit admission that many other Catholic universities are anything but.

  • Peter Blood says:

    The Neo-Reaction is going to prove you wrong. See comments, esp. mine 2014/03/07 at 15:53.

  • Zippy says:

    Peter Blood:
    I’m just catching up to you I guess. The Christians in NRx have declared that NRx absolutely must not be Christian.

  • Peter Blood says:

    (I don’t take credit, I picked it up somewhere, probably a comment at the Chronicles site.)

    Yeah, they’re being explicitly anti-explicitly-Christian. I hope that’s not too confusing.

  • Peter Blood says:

    Bruce Charlton, as idiosyncratic as his Christianity has become, foresees it as well.

  • Catholic Economist says:

    Once in a while I’ll see an advertisement for one of those small Catholic liberal arts universities that describes itself as faithful to the Magisterium. It’s an implicit admission that many other Catholic universities are anything but.

    I was on the academic job market this past fall and made a concerted effort to land a job at a Catholic university. Some of the things that arose during the interview process were fairly shocking to me (although in hindsight this they shouldn’t have). My favorite was the Jesuit university that told me they were explicitly a “small c” Catholic university, not a “big C” Catholic school.

    It will be to my everlasting shame that I didn’t walk out of the interview at that moment.

  • I’ve found that Jesuits are always either the very best or the very worst priests I ever meet.

  • Ita Scripta Est says:

    Bruce Charlton, as idiosyncratic as his Christianity has become, foresees it as well.

    I don’t mean to nitpick as I usually agree with most everything you post, but I find Charlton to be yet another symptom of the same problem afflicting many other reactionaries. He treats religion in a utilitarian manner. Religion for him has to be what “works” against “modernity” or “liberalism” though he never precisely defines what these terms mean. It never it crosses his mind to ask whether the fact that his new found faith, might be problematic for the fact that it grew up in a liberal country. He writes posts about “church-shopping”- is that a traditional mindset or just the reflection of a rootless hyper consumerist society? Most glaringly of all he’s never from what I have seen, addressed the fact that his new religion allows abortion. This is modernism, dressed in traditionalist drab.

    The Orthosphere, giving Charlton a platform and a certain amount of legitimacy is actually very much like NRx associating with a tranny. If the Orthosphere is a supposed to be a defense of traditional Christianity which presumably means the Catholic, Orthodox and Confessional Protestant churches, then Charlton has no business being there. Mormonism is a hyper-modern, hyper-American religion it could not be further from traditional Christianity. Modern Islam and Judaism are vastly closer to modern traditional Christians- and yet they are excluded. This is the problem with religious coalitions the question is where does it end? As far as I can tell these conservative ecumenical efforts always one way or another end up worshiping at the altar of Americanism. The only religions attacked are Islam and to a lesser extent traditionalist Catholicism, because those are the only religions left that challenge modern liberalism.

  • Peter Blood says:

    I agree that Charlton has lost the plot. But he was on a roll way back when.

  • Mark says:

    God is the ultimate good, so it is somewhat surprising that there is a resistance within then neoreactionary sphere that is anti-religious. After all, does not religion’s truth confirm our beliefs about modernity and the godless Enlightenment?

    The fact is, religion is adaptive. Secularism really isn’t. That’s why a more Christian Russia is rising from the Soviet ash-heap. That’s why ISIS are steaming towards Baghdad. Its why Indians are turning away from the Congress Party toward Hindu nationalists.
    The traditionalist position is religion. Atheism is a new age idea born from arrogance and decadence.

    And through the witness of Jesus Christ our Lord, we know the absolute truth, making us the most blessed of all the religious in the world.

  • Svar says:

    “The fact is, religion is adaptive. Secularism really isn’t. That’s why a more Christian Russia is rising from the Soviet ash-heap. That’s why ISIS are steaming towards Baghdad. Its why Indians are turning away from the Congress Party toward Hindu nationalists.”

    In all honesty, I prefer Saddam Hussein and could care less about the ISIS. These Islamic groups are destroying the few remaining ancient Christian communities in the Holy Land and I prefer the Ataturks(or even the neopagan Turkish Grey Wolves), Assads, and Mubaraks to whatever Jihad-crazed Saracen the Muslim Brotherhood would like to appoint in the Middle East. That region was the cradle of civilization, where Our Saviour was born. One false prophet later look at it now. Everything from North Africa to the great nation of Egypt to the Levant and Anatolia to Persia to the western reaches of India is now just one big slum.

    Islam is just Arab Mormonism.

    Post-Christian faiths have nothing to teach us that Christ, the old pagans, and the old Hebrews haven’t already.

  • Mark says:

    Svar, I would agree with your point at large. Obviously Muslims are heathens following a satanic faith. Just look at the slaughter they perpetrate against Christians and each other. My point is, in an honest fight between the religious and the secular (as in Iraq), the religious typically fare better because they are far more willing to sacrifice in order to do so. This is a good trait for any culture.

    Obviously there is nothing we can learn theologically or morally from the Moslem hordes, but politically, there may be a nugget of wisdom, for instance how has Sunni Islam in particular retained its zeal and fanaticism for hundreds of years without being ‘progressified’ or having moral doctrine become ‘open to interpretation’? Christianity has been plagued with factionalism and liberalization, and we must reverse these trends to achieve the form of Christianity needed for success.

    I have much hope for that movement to save our heritage in a new rebirth.

  • Svar says:

    “My point is, in an honest fight between the religious and the secular (as in Iraq), the religious typically fare better because they are far more willing to sacrifice in order to do so. This is a good trait for any culture.”

    This is true. This is the reason why America forced the God-Emperor of Shintoist Japan to renounce his divinity: it was the Japanese Man’s spiritual strength and disciple that allowed him to turn a small feudalistic agrarian nation into a wide-spanning empire within 80 years. The Japanese are intelligent but intelligence is worthless without the will.

    “Obviously there is nothing we can learn theologically or morally from the Moslem hordes, but politically, there may be a nugget of wisdom, for instance how has Sunni Islam in particular retained its zeal and fanaticism for hundreds of years without being ‘progressified’ or having moral doctrine become ‘open to interpretation’?”

    I will cede that they are better at dealing with their heretics than we are. However, this may be because they don’t think of killing heretics as sinful like we do.

  • Bill McEnaney says:

    Zippy, you may want to revise your post a little because the Eastern Orthodox are neither Catholic nor Protestant.

  • Bill McEnaney says:

    I wonder whether Messianic Jews are Jewish Protestants.

  • Mark says:

    Heck, we don’t even ostracize heretics, let alone kill them.

  • Svar says:

    @ Bill McEnaney

    “I wonder whether Messianic Jews are Jewish Protestants.”

    Does “Jewish” in this case have a similar meaning to “German” or “Yupik” or “Cherokee”?

    @ Mark

    “Heck, we don’t even ostracize heretics, let alone kill them.”

    Yes, I agree. There is something odd about how the Church allows known and open heretics to infiltrate its ranks without any recourse. Something about that seems “off’.

    Of course, maybe it’s just a sign of the times. A sign of how depraved the modern age is.

  • Bill McEnaney says:

    I don’t understand the ‘Does “Jewish”‘ question. Since Messianic Jews believe Protestant doctrines and are objectively outside the Catholic Church, I’d say they were Jewish Protestants. Rabbi Israel Zoli was, however, an ethnically and religiously Jewish convert to Catholicism. Ethnically Jewish converts to Catholicism are Catholics Jews who believe in the Messiah, but I wouldn’t call them “Messianic Jews.”

    Read Pius XII’s Mystici Corporis Christi if you wonder what requirements anyone needs to meet to be a member of the Catholic Church. His soul needs to wear the mark baptism puts on it. He needs to profess Catholicism, to be willing to obey the pope and the Church’s other legitimate hierarchs, and NOT to be under full excommunication.

    The Church distinguishes between being in her as a member and being in her as a nonmember, between being a Catholic and intending, at least implicitly, to be one. Only Catholics are members of the Catholic Church. But intending to be baptized can substitute for baptism. So can martyrdom. To check what I’m telling you about ways to be in the Church, please read that encyclical, Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton’s book The Catholic Church and Salvation, or both.

    Zoli was, by the way, Rome’s Chief Rabbi when Pope Pius XII ruled the Church.

  • Alte says:

    I’m starting to wish the Pope would call for a Fifth Crusade. What they’re doing to the Christians over there is absolutely chilling.

    I’m certain that he thinks he’s helping, with his silly peace conferences, where they inevitably make a fool out of him. But he needs to understand that these people don’t want peace with Christians. They don’t even want peace with other Muslims. Making peace with other people is against their religion.

    Kill the men, rape the women, plunder, raze everything to the ground. They’re like locusts. It’s total war on a scale even the Nazis could never have dreamed of and they’re inching their way toward Europe.

    There is, in other words, a reason traditionalists focus so much on Muslims. Mormonism is wrong, but you don’t hear about them crucifying and gang-raping people.

  • Alte says:

    “Was the abolitionist movement explicitly Catholic? I think not. Was it anti-Christian? I think not.”

    It was always quite humanist. Didn’t it spawn the suffrage movement? It was all about freeing people from the yoke of authority.

  • @Zippy – I would say that *all* large and powerful institutions have become anti-Christian in their net-effect, *including* those that are explicitly Catholic – such as the mainstream Roman Catholic Church (we now perceive what was being held back by Benedict). That is the price of their power.

  • Pilgrim of the East says:
    Every powerful social movement that is not explicitly Catholic (non-Protestant Christian) sooner or later becomes anti-Christian.

    Why do you make exception for the Catholic church? It got pretty anti-Christian already back in 14th century. Yeah, it somehow got better then, but I don’t see why that couldn’t happen with any other church.

    P.S.: do you think Eastern Orthodox Church is explicitly Catholic? Coz it seems so from your brackets.

  • Ita Scripta Est says:

    @Zippy – I would say that *all* large and powerful institutions have become anti-Christian in their net-effect, *including* those that are explicitly Catholic – such as the mainstream Roman Catholic Church (we now perceive what was being held back by Benedict). That is the price of their power.

    Yes yes the modern Catholic Church is anti-Christian and Mormonism with its pro-abortion under certain circumstances exception and pro-Americanism is the great hope and future of traditionalism.

    I don’t think you even grasp what Zippy (or traditional Catholics) mean by modernism, liberalism or Christianity for that matter. But thanks for proving my point anyway.

  • Dystopia Max says:

    Cursing the Bible for approving of slavery was a very William Lloyd Garrison-y thing to do back when abolitionism was the happening thing and Southerners were appealing directly to the Old Testament.

    He also called the Constitution “a covenant with death and an agreement with hell” in an age where at least some of the grandparents of the era may have still grown up remembering the Revolutionary war and the extraordinary sacrifices and compromises that prevented the more French version of the type from ruling directly in America.

    The effect of both types of rhetoric was to drive out that vast normal group that did, in fact, appreciate the Old Testament and the Constitution that their fathers had very recently fought and died under.

    Which is a shame, because the much more creditable rejoinder against American slavery was the Slave Power itself, which we’re now seeing in a resurgence. Bringing up the very obvious symbolic connection to both the type of people and their type of rule (some are direct descendants, come to think of it) is something that only some of the most reliably honest sites like vdare.com are willing to do on a regular basis.

  • josh says:

    nonsense, Bruce.

    The heirarchy of the church has been infiltrated, but 99% of the impact of the church is in the parish. Eve when the priest says something foolish about the founding fathers, and even though the music stinks and the “worship center” is near blasphemously ugly, the effect is certainly *not* anti-Christian.

  • Svar says:

    @ Bill McEnaney

    Are you referring to the Jews as they exist as a religious group or as they exist as an ethno-racial group?

  • Andrew E. says:

    josh,

    Hasn’t Bonald stated several times that lay Catholicism is essentially apostate, in the sense that only 1-5% or so of American Catholics believe –and actually live their lives according to–the stuff about contraception, abortion, marriage, etc.? You disagree?

  • Andrew E. says:

    Perhaps not abortion but all the other aspects of the sexual revolution.

  • josh says:

    Andrew,

    Most Catholics are unrepentant sinners. Probably much more than ever before. That’s different from saying the Church, as an institution, is anti-Christian. The Church remains Christ-centered, even the new Mass can not be otherwise. The Church remains dedicated to a natural law understanding of ethics, even if individuals within the Church make sophistical arguments to attempt to be in compliance with modernity. The Church does not promote modernity, but is losing the battle to resist it and to properly catechize people. In the US at least, and I imagine the rest of the world, it has not recovered from the covert war that was waged against it during the 20th century. The fact that it still stands at all is remarkable. Whether the Church ca regain its prominence as the central institution of Western civilization depends on us and our ability to spread the True gospel.

  • josh says:

    And the Grace of God., of course.

  • Zippy says:

    Conquest’s Second Law and the Hegelian Mambo describe the same basic phenomenon. The difference is that the former postulates a way in which the latter can be successfully resisted by an organization. But perhaps Conquest’s Second Law is too optimistic.

    The OP was inspired by Foseti’s comments to me in another thread. His unspoken and unwarranted assumption was that this newborn thing, neoreaction, will be able to resist moving leftward better than the Catholic Church has done.

    But I think (pace Bruce Charlton above) that Conquest’s Second Law is certainly too optimistic inasmuch as it postulates that leftward movement can be resisted by an organization by adopting explicitly non-liberal principles. Personally I doubt it. It will require something stronger than that, and in the OP I postulate what that might be: the Blessed Sacrament. This postulate is at least somewhat supported by a reading of history, especially if you understand sacramental theology.

  • Bill McEnaney says:

    Svar, I don’t know what country you live in, but here in the US, the phrase “Messianic Jew” represents Jews who have accepted Christ as their Savior. Some may have practiced Judaism before they did that. Others, maybe not. The local Messianic Jews I know of have Christian services or Christianized Jewish ones. Some Messianic Jews may be ethnically Jewish. Maybe others converted from, say, Hinduism to Judaism before they accepted Christ.

    What do you mean by “the Jewish people?” I think there’s a difference between Jews who lived in Our Lord’s day a rabbinic Jews you meet now. From what I can tell, rabbinic Judaism and ancient Judaism are different religions because rabbinic, i.e., Talmudic, Judaism is manmade and newer than the Judaism Our Lord practiced.

  • Ita Scripta Est says:

    Charlton thinks the Catholic Church is “anti-christian” for criticizing capitalism. That’s the depth of his critique.

  • Mark says:

    The slavery/Bible question is enveloped in irrelevant concepts of slavery. The Bible is hardly ever read in the context of the society it was written in. If you go back in history, you find slavery was the #1 form of upward mobility, it often was not for life, it allowed education of people who otherwise would never get it, and allowed people to feed their families who would have otherwise starved. There’s a reason people didn’t complain about slavery until post 1600 since before that time it really wasn’t overly oppressive and was a net positive except in certain circumstances (slavery in Sparta was particularly bad)

  • Svar says:

    “What do you mean by “the Jewish people?” I think there’s a difference between Jews who lived in Our Lord’s day a rabbinic Jews you meet now. From what I can tell, rabbinic Judaism and ancient Judaism are different religions because rabbinic, i.e., Talmudic, Judaism is manmade and newer than the Judaism Our Lord practiced.”

    The modern Jewish race.

    To be honest, I am not too sure what the difference between modern rabbinic and ancient Judaism is.

  • Svar says:

    Slavery was a terrible idea(look at the Aztecs or the Spartans let alone the Southerners) but the abolitionists were far worse. Slavery was going to be phased out slowly any way but the abolitionists just had to antagonize the South. That being said, the South also wanted to expand slavery to the Western territories so I can sympathize with Free-Soiler opposition.

  • Blogmaster says:

    “Mormonism is a hyper-modern, hyper-American religion it could not be further from traditional Christianity. Modern Islam and Judaism are vastly closer to modern traditional Christians- and yet they are excluded.”

    This just defies common sense. If an ecumenical culture war is even possible (and I have my doubts), Mormonism is “us” and Islam is “them”. Whatever their doctrinal nuttiness might be, Mormons are culturally far more compatible in terms of their civilization-sustaining behavior. That has to count for something.

  • Zippy says:

    Islam is about as ruthlessly anti-Christian as it could be already, so it isn’t a particularly interesting specimen as far as the thesis in the OP goes. If I was a refugee and had to choose whether to seek asylum in a Muslim country or a Mormon country the choice seems rather obvious.

    That shouldn’t be interpreted as some sort of defense of Mormonism or Mormon theology, of course. I’d take shelter with a hedonist before I’d take shelter with a serial killer, but that doesn’t constitute a ringing endorsement of hedonism.

  • Ita Scripta Est says:

    This just defies common sense. If an ecumenical culture war is even possible (and I have my doubts), Mormonism is “us” and Islam is “them”. Whatever their doctrinal nuttiness might be, Mormons are culturally far more compatible in terms of their civilization-sustaining behavior. That has to count for something.

    Catholicism and Islam have far more in common, theologically and politically than Catholicism has with Mormonism. An alliance (albeit at arms length) between Islam and Catholicism against liberalism makes much more sense.

    Muslims are monotheists, venerate the Virgin Mary, are anti-usury, and are generally anti-liberal. We could use more of that The radicals over there now have little to do with traditional Islam and have much more to do with US foreign policy. Mormons on the other hand almost always defend American liberalism- the exact ideology that is stiffing the Church here and throughout the West.

  • Zippy says:

    Ita:

    Catholicism and Islam have far more in common, theologically and politically than Catholicism has with Mormonism.

    So what, though? Moslems massacre Christians whenever they can get away with it, and as far as I know Mormons don’t.

    I’m about as moved by the percentage of ‘common theology’ between Islam and Catholicism as I am by the percentage of ‘common DNA’ between chimpanzees and earthworms.

  • Ita Scripta Est says:

    Zippy,

    I certainly don’t think we should be importing millions of Muslims into the West, in my ideal Catholic state they would not be allowed in nor would they be allowed to proselytize. But I think we should make some distinctions between the various sects. Shia Muslims especially share a common similarity with Catholicism, to my knowledge they are not massacring Christians on a daily basis in their territories. The Sunni radicalism there is be stoked primarily by the United States. The US under the guise of “democratic revolution” (that good old hatred of authority) helped export this ideology to Bosnia, Iraq and Syria to the great detriment of the Christians there. Prior to that time the slaughter of Christians in those places was not a regular occurrence. Let’s not fail to mention Saudi Arabia, the ultra-modern, product of neo-liberalism, masquerading as some kind of reactionary state. It is not. Practically all of the problems emanate from that country and that country’s power is solely the result of neo-liberalism. Wahhabism has a much in common with traditional Islam as John Hagee’s “church” has with historic Christianity. It is a modern theo-political cult, that only makes sense in the context of America liberalism’s world dominance.

    Regarding Mormons and massacres, Mormons have their history in that regard and it is well known, the fact that they didn’t do it to Catholics is probably for the fact that were not any Catholics around.

    But do you seriously find political Mormonism appealing as say compared to some of the more modern Muslim systems? The choice between Harry Reid or Cliven Bundy, Mitt Romeny or Huntsmann? Doesn’t it bother you that so many of them (see Glenn Beck) literally worship America?

    For what it is worth as well, the Holy See I think has had a fruitful relationship with some of the Islamic states like Iran. States that still uphold the natural law to a greater degree than the “conservative” US does.

  • Zippy says:

    Ita:
    I think that attempting to view Moslem destruction of Christians as something brought on by neocon interventionism is more than a little ahistorical. Were the neocons the aggressors during the Crusades too?

    Also, I’m not defending Mormonism, Mormon theology, Americanism, or any of that. I’m just saying that if I were a Christian refugee I’d objectively be a lot safer fleeing to Mormon occupied territory than to Mohammedan occupied territory.

    I’m not big on ecumenical alliances to begin with, and the notion that some ecumenical alliance against liberalism is possible between Islam and Catholicism is manifestly ridiculous in my view.

  • Bill McEnaney says:

    Whatever Catholicism and Islam have theologically in common, it’s hard to believe that Muslims worship the Holy Trinity, although the ecumenical Catechism of the Catholic Church says that they do. I’m only a layman who wonder whether Psalm 95:5 from the Douay Rheims Bible applies to the Islamic one when that verse warns me that the gods of the gentiles are devils. How can I doubt that today’s religiously indifferent Assisi prayer meetings are evil if pagans there are praying unknowingly to demons?

  • Ita Scripta Est says:

    I’m not big on ecumenical alliances to begin with, and the notion that some ecumenical alliance against liberalism is possible between Islam and Catholicism is manifestly ridiculous in my view.

    I agree in large part. I think it is ridiculous mostly in the sense by what we mean by “ecumenism.” The whole ecumenical movement is a blight (whether it is Muslims, Mormons or yes even conservative Protestants). I wish the Church would scrap the whole thing. I wish it would also re-brand the whole “Fortnight for Freedom” nonsense as well.

    What cooperation would be mean for me,would be to not as a traditional Catholic attack Islam for failing to live up to liberalism.

  • Zippy says:

    Bill McEnaney
    In one of the histories of Islam I have laying around it says that Mahomet initially thought that it was a demon reciting the verses of the Alcoran for him to record. Perhaps first impressions are best.

  • Zippy says:

    Ita:

    would be to not as a traditional Catholic attack Islam for failing to live up to liberalism.

    Hah! Well you know you won’t get any argument about that from me, of all people.

  • Svar says:

    I don’t see any reason, practical or ideological to ally with Muslims. They are the oldest civilizational enemy of the West.

    As for Mormons…. No either. They are money grubbing Americanists and nothing but a bunch of flip-floppers. How convenient was it for them to have a “revelation” making polygamy all of a sudden a sin when they were trying to get the Utah territory turned into a state?

    How long until they have more “revelations” that are completely in line with the modern liberal zeitgeist? They are completely unreliable unlike the Muslims whom we can always rely to act like Muslims.

    A reliable enemy is better than an unreliable ally.

  • Ita Scripta Est says:

    As for Mormons…. No either. They are money grubbing Americanists and nothing but a bunch of flip-floppers. How convenient was it for them to have a “revelation” making polygamy all of a sudden a sin when they were trying to get the Utah territory turned into a state?

    Well said but tell that to Charlton.

  • Svar says:

    Ita, as for the ecumenical movement, I think it is best to evaluate which groups are okay to ally with based on their belief in Natural Law. Muslims, no. Their actions show that they are not anywhere in line with Natural Law. The ancient Greeks believed that rape was a sin that cried to heaven for vengeance. The Muslims think it’s just dandy if she’s not Muslim.

    The Mormons and the Muslims are fine with polygamy(the Mormons may not be today, but who knows what they’ll believe tommorow), something that no civilized nation approved of and for good reason.

    I am uncertain about the Jews. Part of me thinks that the Orthodox(like Paul Gottfried) are fine, but I am hearing people say that modern Judaism is not that of the ancient Hebrews we read in the Bible. I guess this group is a case by case thing.

    Protestants are a mixed bunch and when it comes to evangelicals, no. The only thing lamer than being a neocon is being a Catholic neocon and that is what happens when Catholics align with Evangelicals. When it comes to the Protestants, as a group we should be wary of them but on a case-by-case basis they’re fine.

    The Orthodox and Eastern Christians are completely fine.

    Perennial traditionalists, pagans, Buddhists, pantheists and Confucians are completely fine too. They’re not Christian but I hold them in high regard.

  • Bill McEnaney says:

    Svar, I’m not sure what’s the difference between today’s Jews an ancient ones. But there’s no more Jewish priesthood, and the Talmud’s authors seem to have been scholarly debaters rather than priests. I’d love show some American liberals the Talmud passage that says that, in Hell, Our Lord is in boiling excrement. If I quoted that part to them, maybe they would call me a lying anti-Semite. Since I’m an integralist, the Southern Poverty Law Center would label me a hater. Oh well, if they do that I’ll just reread Matthew 5.

  • Bill McEnaney says:

    Zippy, you wrote, “In one of the histories of Islam I have laying around it says that Mahomet initially thought that it was a demon reciting the verses of the Alcoran for him to record. Perhaps first impressions are best.”

    Did he write anything when he thought that?

  • Svar says:

    ” I’d love show some American liberals the Talmud passage that says that, in Hell, Our Lord is in boiling excrement.”

    Why would American liberals care? They don’t like Jesus either. It’s best to show it to the evangelicals.

    “Since I’m an integralist, the Southern Poverty Law Center would label me a hater.”

    As in Antonio Oliveira de Salazar?

  • Bill McEnaney says:

    Ita, you were saying that there would be no Muslims in your ideal Catholic state. That’s hardly going to overjoy ecumenists who believe that Vatican II’s novel “doctrine” about religious liberty is compatible with Bl. Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors, where he condemned religious liberty, in the 19th century, I think. Maybe Dignitatis Humanae’s fans need to read page 147 in John Salza’s copy of Theological Highlights of Vatican II, where then Fr. Ratzinger wrote that Vatican II’s teaching about RL should have been revised or deleted, because it conflicted with Pius’s condemnation. Thanks to that council, Paul VI told Catholic countries not to mention Catholicism in their written constitutions. So much for compatibility between DH and what the Church teaches about Christ’s social Reign, eh? My point is that, for your ideal Catholic state to form, Catholics may need to take Christopher Ferrara’s advice, and forget that council or at least its novelties.

    You can hear Salza quote that passage in a YouTube video called “The Errors of Vatican II after I post a link to it.

  • Bill McEnaney says:

    Here’s the YouTube video I mentioned.

  • Ita Scripta Est says:

    Catholics may need to take Christopher Ferrara’s advice, and forget that council or at least its novelties.

    I agree. My understanding was that DH actually did (weakly) reaffirm the confessional state as ideal, but at this point I am for just ignoring the whole document as being at the very least poorly drafted. I tend to see DH and the Council generally as the being the fruits of Americanism, born in the mind of the Whig-traitor Charles Charlton and his relative John Carroll the bishop of Baltimore. After WW2 Rome was the last real power left in Western Europe to oppose American imperialism, the Council removed this last impediment to the final Americanization of the West.

  • Zippy says:

    Bill McEnaney:

    Did he write anything when he thought that?

    I don’t know — I’d have to go research where I got the idea to begin with. A helpful person just completely rearranged my library, but if I think of it and have the opportunity I may try to find the reference.

  • Bill McEnaney says:

    Ita, we agree about Americanism, too, partly because Fr. John Courtney Murray pattered Vatican II’s so-called religious liberty after the American kind of it. Since Christ’s social Reign is one of my favorite theological subjects, I’ve wondered what the US would need to change to acknowledge it. From what I can gather, it’s pretty clear that Congress would need to delete the Establishment Clause from the Constitution, since Leo XIII teaches that the state is obligated to adopt Catholicism. See Libertas Praestantissimum.

    By the way, Fr. Gregory Hesse fascinated me when he argued that Vatican II wasn’t a council.

  • Bill McEnaney says:

    Zippy, please don’t think I need you to research whether Mohamet (sp.?) wrote anything when he thought a demon was dictating. I was only curious.

  • Zippy says:

    I’m sort of curious where I read it myself now, Bill. So now you’ve done it. 😉

  • Svar says:

    http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-father-commits-suicide-after-isis-members-rape-wife-and-daughter-in-front-of-him-because-he-couldnt-pay-poll-tax-122220/

    Muslims are barely-human trash. Worse than the swine they think they’re somehow superior to. And liberals think that these rape-happy boy-diddlers are going to “enrich” America.

    Thanks George Bush, you stupid worthless poseur-hick of a President.

  • JustSomeGuy says:

    Muslims are barely-human trash.

    Traditional Muslims perhaps. I’ve known a few Muslims in my time. They were all pleasant, respectful, loving people. Ironically enough this is because none of them were followers of some of the more intrinsically evil Islamic doctrines. It was because they weren’t “good” Muslims.

    I agree that orthodox Islam is a blight on the world, but not everyone who labels himself a Muslim is an orthodox muslim – barely-human trash.

    I agree that Islam should be worked against. I agree that if a Muslim is a “good” Muslim then he’s probably an @$$hole (to put it mildly). I’m not at all a part of the liberal assimilation regime. But I do think it’s wrong to condemn an individual just for being a Muslim.

    P.S. Don’t make the mistake of thinking I mean we should treat evil (which may come in the form of Islam) with metaphysical neutrality.

  • Svar says:

    “But I do think it’s wrong to condemn an individual just for being a Muslim.”

    Oh, I agree, I have a “bad Muslim” friend who lack of belief in the Rape-Prophet makes him a decent human being. But raping a mother and daughter in front of the father and husband? Who does that?

  • CJ says:

    Muslims are barely-human trash.

    “Human” is like “pregnant”. You either are or you aren’t. Their actions are all the more abominable because they are human.

  • CJ says:

    Zippy, please don’t think I need you to research whether Mohamet (sp.?) wrote anything when he thought a demon was dictating

    Don’t intend to be pedantic, but Mo didn’t “write” anything. Muslims make a big deal of him being illiterate, since they connect him to an “unlettered prophet” mentioned in Isaiah(?). Also, there was an article several years ago that claimed several passages in the Qur’an are incoherent in Arabic, but they make sense in Syriac and are likely cribbed from a Syriac harmonization of the Gospels. The harmonization probably lies behind the Muslim belief that the Injil was a single book. A professor who taught this in the Middle East was defenestrated by his students, which had a chilling effect on further research in this area. I thought I had saved the article, but I can’t find it.

  • Svar says:

    ““Human” is like “pregnant”. You either are or you aren’t. Their actions are all the more abominable because they are human.”

    Well, to plagiarize George Bernard Shaw, the muslims better stop being muslims and start being human beings.

  • JustSomeGuy says:

    @Svar:

    Those things aren’t mutually exclusive.

  • […] neoreaction itself – to deny God. The neoreaction itself insists that neoreaction shall be explicitly anti-explicitly-Christian. Christ simply must not be permitted to matter; indeed the very name of Christ is associated with […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Zippy’s corollary to Conquest’s Second Law at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: