ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Dark Enlightenment: the second stage

We appear to have passed the "Ridicule" stage of the counterreaction to what some are calling "The Dark Enlightenment". This is apparent because now, it's not only our direct enemies on the godless equalitarian Left that are attacking us, but mealy-mouthed equalitarian Christian quislings are attempting to establish their credibility as Left-friendly moderates by joining in on the fun:
What's the Dark Enlightenment? Basically, it’s a de-Christianized form of right wingery that is drinking deep of white supremacy and racialism. Sometimes, it appeals to something called “Western” Christianity, but this is basically a fig leaf for getting discernment-free conservatives to jettison actual Christian teaching in favor of nutty white supremacy by rhetoric about how Euro-superiority makes it plain that the whole “in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek” race indifference is a huge mistake.

Other times, it daubs on a layer of pseudo-science by tossing around the phrase “human biodiversity” (by which they mean “some races are inferior to others”).

And not infrequently, some of its adherents ditch so much as the figleaf of Christianity (since Christianity really is irreconcilable with racism) and openly promotes bullshit “northern” neo-paganism as they get in touch with their inner Himmlers. Because everybody knows that the people who erected standing stones as their highest achievement were just about to usher in a golden age when they were rudely interrupted by brown ruffians named Augustine and St. Paul and Plato who tamed their manly Nordic creativity with their ethnically impure southern barbarism.
 Let's count the errors:
  1. There is nothing de-Christianized about it. Several of the so-called "Sith Lords" of the movement, such as it is, are outspoken and uncompromising Christians.
  2. It has nothing to do with white supremacy and everything to do with white survival. In fact, most of the HBDers would be better categorized as Asian supremacists.
  3. There is no call to jettison any genuinely Christian teaching, but rather, the many anti-Biblical Churchian teachings that presently infect the Church.
  4. It is true that "in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek". The key words there are "in Christ". The Church is not the State. In the civil government of every political entity where non-Christians are permitted to reside, there most certainly are national, religious, and ethnic distinctions to be made.
  5. There is nothing pseudo-scientific about human biodiversity. The only pseudo-science is on the part of the equalitarians and anti-racists, whose argument that human beings are all essentially the same has been conclusively destroyed by genetic science.
  6. Christianity clearly encompasses the acknowledgement of differences between races and nations. See Matthew 10:5 and Matthew 15:21
Shea wrongly sees the Dark Enlightenment as a threat to Christianity, failing to understand that it is the corrective for the disease of left-wing Churchianism.
At least one of my readers has a young, formerly Catholic, relative who is going for this vile crap in a big way (he now practices bullshit white supremacist paganism because Christianity adulterated European racial stock with its acceptance of all races as children of God) and it is apparently going viral in some College Republican circles (according to people who are writing me about it).
The fact that young men are leaving the Church is not an indictment of the Dark Enlightenment. Indeed, we Christians who acknowledge its truths are the only ones who will be able to reach this young ex-Catholic and other young men who have left the Church because we are the only ones they will trust. We are the only ones who have not lied to them. Their leaving is an indictment of the deceitful Churchianism that has betrayed the young sheep who were in the fold, and who have fled it in reaction due to the non-stop lies they have observed, deceit of the sort that Shea is still perpetrating.

Jesus Christ is the Truth. And one cannot defend the truth with lies. John 15:4 states: "No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me." It is not hard to observe that every church, including the Roman Catholic Church, that has embraced equalitarianism, feminism, and anti-racism has almost immediately begun to die. But it appears the idea that anti-racism and desegregation is unbiblical and consequentially antithetical to Christianity may be as hard for some to bear as the idea that homosexuality and usury and fornication are for others.

And yet, fifty years of experience have rendered this conclusion all but inescapable. Show me a church that prides itself on its opposition to racism and I'll show you a church that will soon embrace female pastors, unrepentant sinners, and declining attendance. That doesn't mean that racism is a Christian virtue, it merely means that opposing racism is as legitimate a Christian policy as opposing chocolate or the Denver Broncos.

UPDATE: It looks like Irenist has a little confessing to do this weekend:

"Mr. Beale's piece complains that the Church embraces "anti-racism," implying that he thinks the Church should be pro-racist. As you might say: pretty lame." 

He can lie and whine about the truths he finds uncomfortable all he likes. In the meantime, his Churchian organization will continue to die. Stick to the truth and you will never have to lie. Embrace a lie and you will soon find it difficult to speak the truth.

Labels: ,

311 Comments:

1 – 200 of 311 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous Josh January 21, 2014 1:05 PM  

Who are the Christian dark enlightenmentists?

Charlton's view of the dark enlightenment as essentially leftist seems correct to me.

Anonymous 11B January 21, 2014 1:11 PM  

Because everybody knows that the people who erected standing stones as their highest achievement were just about to usher in a golden age when they were rudely interrupted by brown ruffians named Augustine and St. Paul and Plato who tamed their manly Nordic creativity with their ethnically impure southern barbarism.

I highly doubt that Augustine and Plato were brown. Or at least brown in the way the modern anti-racists mean it.

Anonymous VD January 21, 2014 1:13 PM  

Which is ironic, considering that Charlton himself is included in the map of the Dark Enlightenment.

Anyhow, you can pick them out, but at least myself, Dalrock, and Keoni are all Christians.

Anonymous Josh January 21, 2014 1:16 PM  

From the article:

A conservatism decoupled from the Christian tradition will not be a good thing any more than liberalism decoupled from the Faith has been.

I completely agree with this.

A conservatism that perverts the Christian tradition into the service of racialism and white supremacy will be a deeply evil thing.

I mostly agree with this. I would also add that perverting Christian tradition into the service of anti racism is still perverting it into the service of racialism. But I doubt that Shea realizes it.

Anonymous Mavwreck January 21, 2014 1:24 PM  

Two questions:

1. By "opposition to racism", do you mean opposition to active discrimination (i.e. Jim Crow laws and the like) or opposition to the acknowledgement of racial differences?

2. What should the Church's stance on racism be?

Blogger Eric Wilson January 21, 2014 1:24 PM  

All Christians should embrace the Broncos. And maybe dark chocolate.

Anonymous Orville January 21, 2014 1:25 PM  

Since we just observed Michael King day yesterday, I'd like to point out a large formerly theologically conservative church I attended years ago has now taken to having an MLK day celebration elaborate enough to get mentioned in the Kansas City Star. It just sickens me the level of pandering they have stooped to, not just to the black community, but to the gospel of entertainment. Last year they had the Harvard Whiffenpoofs.

This particular pastor was a successful missionary in Central America, whose express vision is to have a multi-cultural church. While I'm all for missions and meeting people on their cultural level, I am not interested in having those cultures imported and promoted in my local church. There is no scriptural directive for this in my opinion.




Anonymous Josh January 21, 2014 1:26 PM  

Which is ironic, considering that Charlton himself is included in the map of the Dark Enlightenment.

Anyhow, you can pick them out, but at least myself, Dalrock, and Keoni are all Christians.


Here's Charlton on it: Dark Enlightenment: a perfectly descriptive phrase for a Sarumanian project

I would bet that at least you and Dalrock will be called "no true sith lords" at some point in 2014.

Blogger Harry T. Conan January 21, 2014 1:26 PM  

I am traditionalist Catholic and I loathe Mark Shea more than any other so-called Catholic personality on the Internet. Yet another fat guy with facial hair to set alongside P.Z Myers and McRapey.

Blogger Harry T. Conan January 21, 2014 1:28 PM  

O, and Shea is also a notorious deleter of comments from his blog.

Anonymous Josh January 21, 2014 1:35 PM  

I am traditionalist Catholic and I loathe Mark Shea more than any other so-called Catholic personality on the Internet.

Why?

I've never heard of the guy before today, but a brief glance at his blog shows him mocking atheists and calvinists while talking up Chesterton.

Hardly seems like a McRapey or PZ.

Blogger Eric Wilson January 21, 2014 1:36 PM  

Just curious. What are some Biblical references opposing usury? Does it come out of how the early church in Jerusalem operated?

Anonymous VD January 21, 2014 1:37 PM  

1. By "opposition to racism", do you mean opposition to active discrimination (i.e. Jim Crow laws and the like) or opposition to the acknowledgement of racial differences?

Both.

2. What should the Church's stance on racism be?

I am not qualified to declare a definitive opinion on this. But my opinion, to the best of my understanding, is that it should be nonexistent.

Anonymous VD January 21, 2014 1:38 PM  

I would bet that at least you and Dalrock will be called "no true sith lords" at some point in 2014.

Fine by me. I don't buy into the concept and I'm not a joiner anyhow.

Anonymous ZhukovG January 21, 2014 1:40 PM  

So do we have to address you as 'Darth' Vox now?

Anonymous Josh January 21, 2014 1:40 PM  

I don't buy into the concept

Would this thread be the right place to ask you to elaborate on that?

Anonymous roger u January 21, 2014 1:43 PM  

"...neither male nor female..."
That bit of the verse never gets mentioned by the anti-racists.

I have noticed odinism popping up recently on some of the prepper/III% type blogs on the periphary of my reading. In every case, the pagan/odinist is a vehement egalitarian. I think its an adolescent act of rebellion by grown men who should know better.

@ Orville
My mother and I were talking about that the other day. Missionaries are supposed to go out into the mission field, not bring the mission field home.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 21, 2014 1:43 PM  

I'd put my money - in fact I've possibly put a lot more than my money - on Roman Catholicism (though I tend to doubt that God makes such fine distinctions). It has a degree of federalism and separation of powers that puts our civil arrangements in the shade. It is, thus, inherently prone to conservatism. Indeed, what looks liberal in RC is, in fact, conservatism going - you should pardon the expression - way the hell back. Perfectly conservative? No. But more conservative than anything as large and as thoroughly organized. Islam? More conservative, yes, but not well organized. Ah, but what about Papal infallability? Don't worry about it; it's been used precisely once since being formally defined, in 1870, and that over a fairly minor matter. What about Jesuit (and other) liberation theologists? A minority group, generally regionally concentrated, outside of the mainstream, and considerably less important than they used to be.

Anonymous Jolly Yon January 21, 2014 1:44 PM  

***Several of the so-called "Sith Lords" of the movement, such as it is, are outspoken and uncompromising Christians.***

I don't doubt that he would agree you self identify as Christian.

Anonymous Toddy Cat January 21, 2014 1:44 PM  

Shea is an idiot who actually managed to make supporters of George W. Bush look good during the Iraq War (no mean feat), with his hysterical anti-war comments. Some of the man's outpourings simply qualify as ravings, pure and simple. Anyone who disagrees with Shea is evil and is going to Hell, full stop, according to him, despite the fact that, last time I checked, Mark Shea was not the Magisterium. Shea is not a "cradle catholic" and I sometimes wonder how much he understands the faith he converted into. And, oh, yeah, Tunisians, Semites and Greeks were white, last time I checked. Or is Shea one of those guys who thinks that Socrates was black?

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 21, 2014 1:45 PM  

VD, could you please define what you mean by "Churchianity"? You use this term quite often and, I note, always in the pejorative.

Wiktionary defines it as "Any practices of Christianity that are viewed as placing a larger emphasis on the habits of church life or the institutional traditions of the church than on theology and spiritual teachings; The quality of being too church-focused."

If this is your definition of Churchianity then it is surely misapplied to Mark Shea who is a Novus Ordite. The goal of the Novus Ordo is the dismantling of the habits of the Church and the destruction of its traditions.

Matter of fact, I'm sure you and Mark Shea could find a lot of common ground on that score.

Anonymous Josh January 21, 2014 1:45 PM  

Just curious. What are some Biblical references opposing usury? Does it come out of how the early church in Jerusalem operated?

Deuteronomy 23:19
You shall not charge interest on loans to your brother, interest on money, interest on food, interest on anything that is lent for interest.

Anonymous VD January 21, 2014 1:47 PM  

Would this thread be the right place to ask you to elaborate on that?

Sure. The concept implies some kind of movement or at least central influence. But that simply doesn't exist. Look at Charlton's take on it, for example. Or look at how some of the people put forth as the leaders are people that a named figure like me has never even HEARD of. There is no movement, there is simply the Internet and the decline of the gatekeepers.

I was shut out, intentionally, by the St. Paul Pioneer Press, when they were looking for a "conservative" columnist for the op/ed page. It was fine for me to write video game reviews, and they turned to me when no one else could make heads or tails of the Unabomber's manifesto, but let a smart, young, popular right-winger have a spot on the op/ed page? No way.

Now the gatekeepers can't keep people away from us anymore. The only thing we all have in common is that we are all iconoclasts. And that is hardly the basis for common cause, let alone a movement. It's just not credible.

Blogger Harry T. Conan January 21, 2014 1:47 PM  

Josh...It's quite true that he mocks atheist, calvinists and talks up Chesterton and these are a few of my favourite things, as the song goes.

The reason I despise him so much is the contempt he holds for those who recognise that the Roman Catholic Church is in terrible crisis. He's an 'apologist' for the post-Vatican II Church, dedicated to putting the shiniest of veneers on the faith and trying o so hard to be MVP for the New Evangelism. Because of that, he trashes with extreme prejudice people like Robert Sungenis, Michael Vorris and any others who he considers to be 'racist, anti-semitic, anti-scientific, anti-feminist'. These guys are willing to take a stand and say that the Church teaches doctrines that are unpopular, that go well beyond things like homosexuality and the pill (which Shea does, to his credit, condemn). Shea is rabidly pro-Israel and fervently dedicated to distancing the Church from her traditional recognition of the natural theological antagonisms between Jews and Christians, branding and smearing the name of anyone he considers insufficient Jewophile.

Guys like Sungenis and Vorris are willing to challenge the rot within the Church, which includes the feminization of the Church and its infiltration by sodomites at the highest levels. Shea thus sees them as the Enemy, worse than all the atheists combined. Shea will pay lip service to the sex scandals, but he's a cheerleader and salesman and so cannot abide looking at the catastrophic mess that is today's Catholic Church, God bless 'er.

Anonymous Porky January 21, 2014 1:49 PM  

VD, you've called yourself a Christian Nationalist in the past. Can you define this for us, and elucidate the connection between two apparently disparate world views?

Anonymous VD January 21, 2014 1:50 PM  

So do we have to address you as 'Darth' Vox now?

It would be the proper honorific, I suppose.

VD, could you please define what you mean by "Churchianity"? You use this term quite often and, I note, always in the pejorative.

The elevation of human dogma over Divine revelation as provided in the Bible.

Anonymous VD January 21, 2014 1:53 PM  

Can you define this for us, and elucidate the connection between two apparently disparate world views?

A Christian who is a nationalist. I don't favor the appellation now, however, since Christianity is not a political identity. I prefer National Libertarian.

There is no distinction between worldviews. God created the nations. God opposed the previous attempt to bring the nations together into one. Anti-nationalism is therefore antithetical to God's Will. It is written that the nations will not cease to be until Jesus Christ returns and unifies them under his divine rule. All other putative unifications are false, pernicious, and the spirit of Antichrist.

Anonymous Paul Sacramento January 21, 2014 1:54 PM  

There are no bible passages against ursury ( other than between "brothers", ie:Deuteronomy 23:19
“You shall not charge interest on loans to your brother, interest on money, interest on food, interest on anything that is lent for interest.).
A Christian MAY see that passage as being applicable to christian brotherhood as well and not just a Jewish thing.
The NT doesn't really speak of it at all BUT one MAY view Matthew 25:27 as "condoning" it but IMO, that is a bet of a stretch.
I don't think Luke 6:35 refers to ursury per say either.

Anonymous Josh January 21, 2014 1:55 PM  

Gary North on the Bible and Usury

Here's a good overview of what the Bible says about usury. I don't think North is correct when he says that Jesus authorized interest (via the parable of the talents).

Anonymous Credo in Unum Deum January 21, 2014 1:57 PM  

I don't want backwards civilization imported into my nation.

I would rather have Christianity work to "civilize" the barbaric people of the world.

Much the way the Church civilized the barbaric tribes of Europe after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

I don't much care for Mark Shea myself.

I highly doubt that Augustine and Plato were brown.

Plato was Greek, so most likely he has an olive complexion with dark hair.

Augustine was from North Africa, and most likely a Berber, not a Sub-Saharan African, but not a Northern European as he's usually depicted in art.

Blogger Eric Wilson January 21, 2014 1:58 PM  

Thanks.

Anonymous roger u January 21, 2014 2:00 PM  

VD, I know you're not Calvinist, but are you Catholic?
Is National Libertarianism the idea of libertarianism within the national boundaries as opposed to free market libertarianism?

On the subject of nationalism, does anybody here read Faith and Heritage?

Anonymous Stilicho January 21, 2014 2:00 PM  

There simply isn't a single direction or single leader to the movement. Roissy is one of the (if not THE) most influential leaders, and certainly could serve as the poster-child. The common element is the observation of reality and application to actions that all espouse (often developed as a reaction against the official, PC lies of the political, social, and religious establishment) . Beyond that, the goals and usages to which such knowledge is put vary as widely as the individuals involved. It involves as widely disparate examples as Roosh (PUA) and John Derbyshire (race realist).

Anonymous Josh January 21, 2014 2:01 PM  

If you look at the biblical years of jubilee, it lines up with business cycle theory.

Of course you wouldn't really have massive amounts of debt forgiven. Loans would be written so that the term coincides with the jubilee year. So you have a necessary deleveraging that's planned.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet January 21, 2014 2:02 PM  

Vox,

I also was considering my concerns about the Dark Enlightenment this week. Whilst it's silly to ignore the Christian presence in the movement, and this presence keeps me less dismissive than I otherwise may be given men such as yourself are good men, I often mull over what I see as a misplaced punch.

I'll take our disagreement on race for example, since it appears relevant. You called an African-American writer (I believe) a savage (or similar). Now granted, I know your style is typically not to attack unless attacked first, but at issue here is whether her race has anything to do with anything or is just a blow below the belt that will isolate other African-Americans.

I'm not saying all people are equal in skill or that the genders aren't different. But, for example, I found myself thinking offhand this week, "I wonder if Vox also considers differences in language to be related to differences in racial-biological differences? I doubt it, but why not?"

This sort of issue keeps me wondering if many of the explanations in the movement are simplistic and counter-productive sociologically... even if the techniques often work on personal levels. This view then leads me to wonder if it all lines up with what Christ would have wanted of me as a man.

There's probably a question in here somewhere. Don't go lightly if you have time to respond.

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 21, 2014 2:02 PM  

This whole "Dark Enlightenment" thing is pure unadulterated wankery. There is no clear ethos that defines this so called "Dark Enlightenment" other than a whole lot of internet dorks pretending that their written words are moving mountains in the real world.

How can one legitimately call a rag-tag bunch of misfits with no common uniting ethos a movement?

From the links the definition is: "Indeed, questioning the prevailing Western narrative is typically a Dark Enlightenment writer’s modus operandi, skewering the values of the liberal establishment." Children can do that, and do do that. The movement is so ill-defined and all encompassing that it simply defies a definition of being an actual movement.

We have fallen so far that now rejects with an internet connection and their own designed pokemon style vanioty cards are being promoted as some new big threat to the establishment. Sheesh! I suppose T. S. Eliot was right:

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

Anonymous Josh January 21, 2014 2:05 PM  

The common element is the observation of reality and application to actions that all espouse (often developed as a reaction against the official, PC lies of the political, social, and religious establishment)

It's the same sense of WE WERE LIED TO that you see in the liberty movement and Austrian economics. And also with paleo and crunchy conservatism.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 21, 2014 2:05 PM  

"I have noticed odinism popping up recently on some of the prepper/III% type blogs on the periphary of my reading. In every case, the pagan/odinist is a vehement egalitarian. I think its an adolescent act of rebellion by grown men who should know better."

There's little or no actual religion in the various neopaganisms. Rather, they're humanistic philosophies, with the threadbare rags of defunct religions wrapped about them, either in an effort to placate the spiritual urge, or to borrow a legitimacy they really lack on their own. They have no continuity with any revelation, as far as I can see, but are humanistic through and through. There are some philosophical aproaches in there that may be worthy as philosophies, but as religions? They're down there with the Flying Spagetti Monster.

Anonymous VD January 21, 2014 2:07 PM  

I know your style is typically not to attack unless attacked first, but at issue here is whether her race has anything to do with anything or is just a blow below the belt that will isolate other African-Americans.

Of course her race was relevant. Her whole speech was blathering about how brave she was for venturing into White Australia, where obviously everyone wanted to kill her just like the whites in Texas and Florida. I correctly described her as a half-savage and that was giving her the benefit of the doubt.

Also, I don't give a quantum of a damn about isolating or offending other Black Americans. Think about it. If they're offended because I call one of them a half-savage, they are practicing the very racism they claim to decry. Then again, I don't care about potentially isolating or offending any other group.

"I wonder if Vox also considers differences in language to be related to differences in racial-biological differences?

Very doubtful. And I speak at least a smattering of five different languages.

Anonymous Stilicho January 21, 2014 2:08 PM  

This whole "Dark Enlightenment" thing is pure unadulterated wankery. There is no clear ethos that defines this so called "Dark Enlightenment" other than a whole lot of internet dorks pretending that their written words are moving mountains in the real world.

This simply shows your ignorance. It is not a movement as such. It is a reaction against official and officious falsehood promulgated by political, social, and religious establishments that have shown themselves to prefer comfortable falsehood to truth and honesty.

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 21, 2014 2:08 PM  

VD's definition of Churchianity: "The elevation of human dogma over Divine revelation as provided in the Bible."

Not a very useful definition. Considering the formulation of the canon of the Bible was by humans then the Bible itself is the elevation of human dogma over Divine revelation. Unless you're saying the Bible itself was put together by Divine revelation in which case I would need to know by what dogma you would make this assertion, and note, you just elevated human dogma over Divine revelation.

Surely you have a better definition?

Anonymous roger u January 21, 2014 2:09 PM  

Tom Kratman,
Given the interests of the people I have noticed talking about it, I think the cool viking pictures might be the attraction, or, as somebody else pointed out, they're death metal fans. They seem to like the "Lo, there do I see my father..." thing from 13th Warrior.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 21, 2014 2:09 PM  

"There simply isn't a single direction or single leader to the movement."

Stil:

Which is to say, much like Islam since the death of Mohammad, no? And, of course, Islam never got anywhere...oh, wait a minute....

Anonymous Porky January 21, 2014 2:10 PM  

It would be the proper honorific, I suppose.

DV it shall be henceforth.

God created the nations. God opposed the previous attempt to bring the nations together into one.

It should be noted that God often gives humans what they want despite his own warnings. The Hebrews wanted divorce, He gave them divorce. The Israelites wanted a king, He gave them a king. But we wouldn't conclude that God is wholeheartedly in favor of either.

It's not enough to look at what God does. We must look at God's character.

Anonymous Noah B. January 21, 2014 2:11 PM  

"Not a very useful definition."

It made sense to me.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 21, 2014 2:11 PM  

Roger:

Even that's got the flavor of mere appearances, cool points, and threadbare rags.

Anonymous Josh January 21, 2014 2:13 PM  

It should be noted that God often gives humans what they want despite his own warnings.

Not in the case of Babel. He specifically did what humans did not want.

Unless you're trying to make the case that the humans building the tower secretly wanted to be divided. Which would be a strange case to make.

Anonymous Sigyn January 21, 2014 2:13 PM  

The elevation of human dogma over Divine revelation as provided in the Bible.

I see what you did there.

Anonymous Toddy Cat January 21, 2014 2:14 PM  

"It should be noted that God often gives humans what they want despite his own warnings"

I guess that I missed the part of the Bible where God said "Thou shalt not create nation-states!".

Anonymous Sigyn January 21, 2014 2:15 PM  

Not in the case of Babel. He specifically did what humans did not want.

He said "often", silly, not "always".

Anonymous Stilicho January 21, 2014 2:16 PM  

Tom, I never meant to imply that it would not accomplish anything. It will help destroy a rotten establishment. And, as Martha Stewart might say, that's a good thing. The real challenge will be to build (or rebuild) something worthwhile and lasting afterwards. After Alaric, you need a Charlemagne, but you don't want to wait 400 years for him.

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 21, 2014 2:16 PM  

Harry T. Conan said:

Guys like Sungenis and Vorris are willing to challenge the rot within the Church, which includes the feminization of the Church and its infiltration by sodomites at the highest levels.

Never heard of Sungenis but Voris will not challenge the so called Pope. Voris' criticisms fail seeing as he correctly condemns Cardinals, Bishops etc but refuses to go to the root of the matter and equally criticise Jorge. Therefore he is not challenging the rot within the Church. He's abiding of it.

Blogger Markku January 21, 2014 2:17 PM  

Remember people, nationalism doesn't mean Chauvinism. It means preferring nations to supra-national entities, not despising foreigners when you meet them.

Anonymous Josh January 21, 2014 2:17 PM  

The real challenge will be to build (or rebuild) something worthwhile and lasting afterwards. After Alaric, you need a Charlemagne, but you don't want to wait 400 years for him.

To shorten the interregnum, we shall establish two foundations at opposite ends of the globe, composed of wikipedia editors.

OpenID cailcorishev January 21, 2014 2:19 PM  

Weird. I would have thought a well-read Catholic like Mark Shea would understand that the Enlightenment was, on balance, a bad development for Christianity; so any recognition of that fact and attempt to roll back the damage would be a positive thing.

If some neo-pagans jump on the bandwagon for reasons of their own, that hardly invalidates the point.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 21, 2014 2:21 PM  

Didn't think you did, Stil; my point was for emphatic agreement.

Anonymous Stilicho January 21, 2014 2:21 PM  

To shorten the interregnum, we shall establish two foundations at opposite ends of the globe, composed of wikipedia editors.

FTW!

Blogger Beefy Levinson January 21, 2014 2:22 PM  

Mark Shea tries to follow Chesterton's example, but Chesterton was a jolly old fellow who could understand his opponent's position, intelligently critique it, and yet remain great friends with them. Shea knocks down straw men, deletes and bans the comments of those who disagree with him, and when all else fails resorts to shaming and insults. I've had the honor of being banned from his blog on three separate occasions. You'd think that someone who makes his living as a Catholic apologist would have a thicker skin.

Anonymous Sigyn January 21, 2014 2:22 PM  

After Alaric, you need a Charlemagne, but you don't want to wait 400 years for him.

I know a guy...

Anonymous Toddy Cat January 21, 2014 2:23 PM  

I don't want to be unjust to Shea, Cail, but it seems to be more important to him to stay in the good graces of the left, than to combat the forces destroying the Church. It's one think to condemn abortion and plump for Chesterton, but to admit that there might have been something to the racial opinions held by almost all Christians prior to WWII? Doubleplusungood thoughtcrime.

Anonymous CMC January 21, 2014 2:27 PM  

Shea was against Iraq 2003? I just googled "Mark Shea Iraq 2003" and saw something apparently by him that starts off, "I was a (tentative) supporter of the war in Iraq, because...."

In fact, if my memory serves, it was because of his support of Iraq 2003 and his dismissal of Game that I stopped reading him.

Anonymous Paul Sacramento January 21, 2014 2:28 PM  

What seems to be the issue with female pastors by the way?

Blogger stats January 21, 2014 2:29 PM  

Mark Shea is an annoying pinhead. Shea has yet to take a stand on any divisive subject inside or outside the Church that he hasn't completely flummoxed. You can count on Shea to courageously take the center-left position on any subject.

Blogger JartStar January 21, 2014 2:30 PM  

It means preferring nations to supra-national entities, not despising foreigners when you meet them.

You mean like treating the sojourner well while maintaining a national identity? Where have I heard that before?

Anonymous Toddy Cat January 21, 2014 2:30 PM  

Yeah, he started out in favor of it, then turned violently against it, because torture or something. I woulldn't fault him for changing his mind, but as noted, he really went off the deep end. The guy's reactions are not ordinate, as noted by several commenters above.

Blogger Positive Dennis January 21, 2014 2:33 PM  

Opposing football is Christian.

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 21, 2014 2:34 PM  

Stilicho said:

It is not a movement as such.

Yes, that's what I said. Yet, its adherents claim it is a movement and enjoy the association under the banner of "Dark Enlightenment". Mangan, for instance, wrote a post about it celebrating himself. Which was rather odd, I thought, for a man who used to decry vanity on his blog's title bar.

It is a reaction against official and officious falsehood promulgated by political, social, and religious establishments that have shown themselves to prefer comfortable falsehood to truth and honesty.

As I said, not a big achievement. Kids do that regularly.

Blogger Rseven Rocket January 21, 2014 2:34 PM  

All Christians should embrace the Broncos.

A true Christian embraces the Seahawks, a Churchian embraces the Broncos.

Go Seahawks!

OpenID cailcorishev January 21, 2014 2:36 PM  

Wiktionary defines [Churchianity] as "Any practices of Christianity that are viewed as placing a larger emphasis on the habits of church life or the institutional traditions of the church than on theology and spiritual teachings; The quality of being too church-focused."

If this is your definition of Churchianity then it is surely misapplied to Mark Shea who is a Novus Ordite. The goal of the Novus Ordo is the dismantling of the habits of the Church and the destruction of its traditions.


Pat, the Novus Ordo is the centerpiece of Catholic Churchianity. The only caveat is that it replaced most of the traditions, like you said; so when it emphasizes the "institutional traditions" of the Church, that only means the ones established in the last 50 years.

(Funny aside: Since allowing parts of the Mass to be said in the vernacular in the late 1960s, the Church has reworked the English translation several times. The last new translation came in 2011, and I actually heard people complain, "What was wrong with the way we always said it?" You morons, there's no "always" involved; every word of what you've "always" said is a recent innovation. But that's what happens when you strip away the real traditions and spend a few decades teaching new ones.)

So the Novus Ordo very much emphasizes modern traditions (especially the music and fashions of the 1970s) and community life, rather than theology and the spiritual life. It's almost like it was designed that way.

Anonymous Mike M. January 21, 2014 2:38 PM  

Remember, there is a vast difference between recognizing the differences between races and using them to justify abuse.

Go read Kipling's "The White Man's Burden". He writes of duty and sacrifice, not abuse and exploitation.

Anonymous Toddy Cat January 21, 2014 2:39 PM  

Kipling wasn't a Christian, but your point is still valid and correct.

Blogger Rseven Rocket January 21, 2014 2:40 PM  

If you think it is okay for women to frivolously (because she's unhaaaapy) divorce their loyal husbands and clean out their accounts, and you consider yourself a Christian...

Well, you might just be a Churchian.

Blogger Marissa January 21, 2014 2:41 PM  

How can the Tower of Babel story be interpreted within the context of multiculturalism that has tainted the political and religious systems of the West? It seems somewhat "racist" in the sense that different cultures are not meant to meld together. Is the American "melting pot" ideal a Tower of Babel story in the making?

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 21, 2014 2:44 PM  

Kratman makes a false analogy with Islam:

"There simply isn't a single direction or single leader to the movement."

Stil:

Which is to say, much like Islam since the death of Mohammad, no? And, of course, Islam never got anywhere...oh, wait a minute....


Sunni Islam today is promulgated from Saudi Arabia. The King Fahd authorised Koran is the official text of Wahhabi Islam. The maniacs you see on the news are directly or indirectly supported theologically and financially from Saudi Arabia. Mohammed himself began his conquests from a solid base spreading outward.

That Islam has no singular authority*, as the Catholic Church did, does not mean it has no central pillars of support.

*The Koran is the singular authority. Though of course, there are quite a few disagreements eg. Sunni vs Shia.

Anonymous Toddy Cat January 21, 2014 2:48 PM  

Mr. Hannagan,
If the Dark Enlightenment is such a lame movement, why get so worked up about it? It's sure to go the way of the Crunchy Cons (remember them) or the "South Park Conservatives" of a few years ago, if you're correct. Why all the hyperventilation?

Blogger Harry T. Conan January 21, 2014 2:50 PM  

Pat, "Voris' criticisms fail seeing as he correctly condemns Cardinals, Bishops etc but refuses to go to the root of the matter and equally criticise Jorge. Therefore he is not challenging the rot within the Church. He's abiding of it."

So ALL of his criticisms of the Church hierarchy fail from the beginning of the Vortex show to the present day because he doesn't criticise Francis? And criticise him on what, exactly? Voris has competently demonstrated how a lot of people have gotten Francis wrong, particularly on things like homosexuality and economics, but he's by no means opposed to criticising Francis, in principle. Up to this point, he's been doing a bang-up job unmasking the Left's attempt to claim Francis as one of their own, not by any sneaky trickery or rhetoric. Usually just by reading a few sentences above and below the 'provocative' quote to show the context. On what subject do you think Voris should be criticising Francis?

It is true that Voris isn't quick to jump on the 'beat up on Francis' train every time it rides through town. But that's because he doesn't have a Protestant mindset. He has a healthy deferrential respect for the Holy Father, even when he's not speaking infallibly, and so will interpret his words as charitably as is reasonable.

Or are you, perhaps, a sedavacantist? Was that you meant earlier when you denounced Voris for not criticising Francis?

Anonymous NorthernHamlet January 21, 2014 2:51 PM  

I correctly described her as a half-savage and If they're offended because I call one of them a half-savage, they are practicing the very racism they claim to decry.

Are most of those of African ancestry half-savages stemming from biological differences manifest as cultural differences?

If your answer is yes, and I believe it will be, that is the context the statement was taken in. Not to mention the historic context of slavery.

I'm less saying you should personally care about isolating others, I merely don't see the point of doing so in some of these cases. Making it more difficult for an African-American male to reject aspects of feminism because he's seen as a savage is negative in my opinion. Is it rational for him to do so? Of course not... but some Christians aren't rational in every aspect of their lives.

To each his own of course. When to care in the name of a goal seems to be something we often disagree on.

Very doubtful. And I speak at least a smattering of five different languages.

Yet, we've talked before that someone can be of several different races. Why reject the explanation of language differences but accept the other about cultural differences as biological?

As usual, thank you taking your time to answer.

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 21, 2014 2:52 PM  

Cailcorishev, I think you and I are on the same page, but I wouldn't describe Novus Ordite's as Churchianist.

Going to Church is the last thing on their mind. Jorge wouldn't emphasise that anyone do anything other than whatever it was they wanted. Unless it was sticking to tradition in which case he'd damn them to Hell*.

It amuses me that Bible believing Christian Zionists and assorted other Prodos still get their knickers in a knot over supposed Catholics. Haven't they realised yet that Vatican II *endorsed* all their heresies?

*Apparently there is a Hell and it is reserved for true Catholics only.

Anonymous VD January 21, 2014 2:54 PM  

Not a very useful definition. Considering the formulation of the canon of the Bible was by humans then the Bible itself is the elevation of human dogma over Divine revelation. Unless you're saying the Bible itself was put together by Divine revelation in which case I would need to know by what dogma you would make this assertion, and note, you just elevated human dogma over Divine revelation.

Then you're obviously not very smart. Let's face it, Patty, you just want to whine about things and I couldn't possibly care less what you think or what you need. My turn: Do you claim that the Bible is not Divine revelation?

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 21, 2014 2:58 PM  

So ALL of his criticisms of the Church hierarchy fail from the beginning of the Vortex show to the present day because he doesn't criticise Francis?

Yes

And criticise him on what, exactly?

The very same things he criticises all Jorge's underlings of. You can't legitimately criticise the officers for doing the exact same thing the general does, yet not criticise the general who issues the orders they follow.

Voris has competently demonstrated how a lot of people have gotten Francis wrong, particularly on things like homosexuality and economics...

Yes, exactly. That's what Voris does. He runs cover for Jorge and makes a fool of himself in the process. No right thinking Catholic has misunderstood Jorge. His heresies are plain for all to see. That you support Voris in his cause of dissembling is something you'll have to reckon with.

Or are you, perhaps, a sedavacantist?

Of course. Why aren't you?

Anonymous Nathanael January 21, 2014 2:59 PM  

"Dark Enlightenment" is just another way of saying "heretic" and identify those in opposition to the status quo. With such a broad definition of a group of people opposed to something rather than in favor of something, it's not surprising that the Dark Enlightenment is not unified or even in agreement with itself. It's disingenuous of Shea to pretend that's not the case.

"What should the Church's stance on racism be?"

That the concept of "racism" is completely illegitimate for a Christian just like sexism, ageism, homophobia, and the rest of the Marxist scare words. The Bible gives clear instructions on how we are to treat our co-nationals and foreigners. The Bible also gives clear instructions on how we are not to treat our co-nationals and foreigners. Neither of these categories matches the concept of "racism" at all.

Anonymous 11B January 21, 2014 3:01 PM  

Plato was Greek, so most likely he has an olive complexion with dark hair.

He was an Ancient Greek, not a modern person living in Greece.

Anonymous VD January 21, 2014 3:01 PM  

Are most of those of African ancestry half-savages stemming from biological differences manifest as cultural differences?

On average, yes, that appears to be the case.

Making it more difficult for an African-American male to reject aspects of feminism because he's seen as a savage is negative in my opinion

I am not concerned in the slightest with making life easier for African-American men. In fact, I would argue that no one has been worse for them than white Americans determined to make life easier for them with the possible exception of Margaret Sanger. Lotus-eating is not the path to full civilization.

Anonymous Josh January 21, 2014 3:06 PM  

Should one of us procure some wood and oil so that the more pugnacious catholics can go ahead with burning each other at the stake?

Anonymous Makaro January 21, 2014 3:09 PM  

I never liked Patheos really it always seemed heavily liberal pro evolutionary. I think Vox is spot on when he says these people will inevitably gravitate further leftward just look at the comments on that site especially "Irenist"

Anonymous roger u January 21, 2014 3:09 PM  

"Lotus-eating is not the path to full civilization."

The assumption is that full civilisation, which I assume means modern Western civ, is what is good for everybody. Could it be that that is not the case for some peoples? Maybe even us, judging by the state of things?

OpenID herenvardo January 21, 2014 3:13 PM  

Dammit.

Shea's position is based on one article, written by our common enemy, people. He knows next to bugger-all about Das Darkseid, and if his only exposure was this article and the reader's relative, whadyagonnado?

You're on the same side, people. Really.

"The goal of the Novus Ordo is the dismantling of the habits of the Church and the destruction of its traditions."

Pur-lease! The Pope is entitled to do what he wants (Whatever you bind on earth will be considered bound in heaven... etc.) Sacred Tradition was made for man, not man for Tradition. If it's not doing the job anymore (and it had already been hollowed out in the 1930s), it can go.

OpenID herenvardo January 21, 2014 3:14 PM  

Dammit.

Shea's position is based on one article, written by our common enemy, people. He knows next to bugger-all about Das Darkseid, and if his only exposure was this article and the reader's relative, whadyagonnado?

You're on the same side, people. Really.

"The goal of the Novus Ordo is the dismantling of the habits of the Church and the destruction of its traditions."

Pur-lease! The Pope is entitled to do what he wants (Whatever you bind on earth will be considered bound in heaven... etc.) Sacred Tradition was made for man, not man for Tradition. If it's not doing the job anymore (and it had already been hollowed out in the 1930s), it can go.

Anonymous Josh January 21, 2014 3:18 PM  

The assumption is that full civilisation, which I assume means modern Western civ, is what is good for everybody. Could it be that that is not the case for some peoples? Maybe even us, judging by the state of things?

I would day that christendom (western Christian civilization) was probably the best we've done thus far in our history, with a peak of 1783-1861 in America and 1815-1914 in Europe. We've been in a century long retreat ever since.

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 21, 2014 3:18 PM  

Then you're obviously not very smart.

I admitted that several threads ago. I am of mediocre intelligence but, can't I at least get the scraps from your table?

Let's face it, Patty, you just want to whine about things and I couldn't possibly care less what you think or what you need.

Now you're making assumptions about me. I know you don't care what I think or what I need. It's a constant refrain of yours and I'm not *so* stupid to have missed that point. I merely seek to understand your theology. Your constancy on the subject of your Christianity has led me to believe you wish to impart your faith. Perhaps I was wrong and your faith is exclusive to Mensa members only?

My turn: Do you claim that the Bible is not Divine revelation?

I claim that the Divine inspired those who put the Bible together in its current form in order to make the Divine revelation of the Bible known. I also claim that Divine revelation does not end in the Bible alone. I'm not sola scriptura. That's not my theology as it's not Divinely inspired.

Anonymous VD January 21, 2014 3:23 PM  

Now you're making assumptions about me.

That's not an assumption, that's an observation. Your comments here are heavily inclined towards the negative. Which is your prerogative, but I tend not to pay much attention to insubstantial criticism.

I claim that the Divine inspired those who put the Bible together in its current form in order to make the Divine revelation of the Bible known.

Then obviously you must have misspoken as the definition I provided is perfectly useful and effective for distinguishing Churchianity from Biblical Christianity.

Blogger Nate January 21, 2014 3:24 PM  

"Not a very useful definition. Considering the formulation of the canon of the Bible was by humans then the Bible itself is the elevation of human dogma over Divine revelation. Unless you're saying the Bible itself was put together by Divine revelation in which case I would need to know by what dogma you would make this assertion, and note, you just elevated human dogma over Divine revelation."

You say this because you don't understand HOW the books of the bible were selected in the first place.

If you did... you'd know the book itself is a miracle.

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 21, 2014 3:24 PM  

Pur-lease! The Pope is entitled to do what he wants...

No he's not. The Pope cannot do, say or promulgate what is contrary to God's law. This is a major misunderstanding that Prodos have, as well as Novus Ordites.

A person title Pope cannot utter heresy and remain Pope. The Pope does not make up or create God's law, the Pope maintains God's law. The law is irrevocable, unchangeable, and indefectible. Should Jorge manifest heresy then he is by that fact not Pope. That is the Church's teaching on the subject, no matter what Mark Shea thinks it is. If Vatican II is inconsistent with all that went before (which it is) then Vatican II is in error, not what went before.

Anonymous VD January 21, 2014 3:25 PM  

You're on the same side, people. Really.

That may well be. Then let him accept his spanking with good grace and learn from it. I have nothing against him. But I am certainly not impressed by his ability to read or reason, based on this particular piece.

Blogger Harry T. Conan January 21, 2014 3:27 PM  

@ Pat - you have a very unique understanding of time. I find it strange that you can condemn Voris' 10 year ministry in its entirety for failing to criticise a Pope that has only been in office less than a year. It's even stranger that you expect Voris to criticise this new Pope for the same failings he ladles against Bishops. Voris has called out gay priests and bishops, pro-abortion priests, feminist priests, etc. There is no evidence that the Holy Father is a sodomite, pro-abortion, pro-female clergy...he's vehemently opposed to all.

"No right thinking Catholic has misunderstood Jorge. His heresies are plain for all to see."
Such as...? Go on. Name it, then explain why you're right, cite the episode where Voris 'runs cover for Jorge' and refute it.

Why am I not a sedavacantist? Good question...I've had my moments of despair, but I'm not ready to adopt the extreme position that God has left the papacy without a pope for decades. It would seem to go against everything the Church has always understood about itself. Moreover, it carries with it the unsettling appearance of Protestant apostasy.

Blogger Nate January 21, 2014 3:27 PM  

As for the Dark Enlightenment...

Until the idiot Moldbuggers are shorn from it... I have nothing but contempt for it.

Anonymous Josh January 21, 2014 3:28 PM  

A person title Pope cannot utter heresy and remain Pope. The Pope does not make up or create God's law, the Pope maintains God's law. The law is irrevocable, unchangeable, and indefectible. Should Jorge manifest heresy then he is by that fact not Pope.

Shrodinger's Pope?

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 21, 2014 3:29 PM  

Then obviously you must have misspoken as the definition I provided is perfectly useful and effective for distinguishing Churchianity from Biblical Christianity.

Oh, well. Looks like us dumbos must remain out in the barnyard then. Thank God Christ didn't just walk away muttering about meshuganas every time he got frustrated with the inability of his disciples to understand Him.

If revelation is reserved for Mensa members only then why did God create us dimwits? Just to make you look better? You could, on the other hand, just explain it so I can understand it.

Anonymous Paul Sacramento January 21, 2014 3:30 PM  

When anyone speaks of "divine revelation/inspiration" it should come with a disclaimer stating what THEY mean by "divine revelation/inspiration"

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 21, 2014 3:31 PM  

Shrodinger's Pope?

Have you never heard of false prophets? I thought you were the sola scriptura guy and I was the unread?

Blogger Nate January 21, 2014 3:31 PM  

"Oh, well. Looks like us dumbos must remain out in the barnyard then. "

We don't have a problem with that.

If we had a problem with that... the Great Schism wouldn't have happened.

Anonymous roger u January 21, 2014 3:31 PM  

Josh,
I mostly agree with your assesment of Western civilisation's peak. the downward slide has been swift.

Here's an interesting thought experiment: what would the 21st century look like of the enlightenment, or at least it's humanistic elements, hadn't happened?

Anonymous slow January 21, 2014 3:32 PM  

"Until the idiot Moldbuggers are shorn from it"

Could you explain further?

Anonymous Josh January 21, 2014 3:33 PM  

Until the idiot Moldbuggers are shorn from it... I have nothing but contempt for it.

The moldbuggers are the dark enlightenment.

The dark enlightenment is basically a stew containing elements of game, moldbuggery, hbd, democratic skepticism, atheism, and economics.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet that it really took off when the new heartiste took over and starting reading Moldbug.

Blogger Nate January 21, 2014 3:33 PM  

"Could you explain further?"

Do you know who Moldbug is?

Anonymous slow January 21, 2014 3:35 PM  

I have only a basic understanding from Google.

Blogger Nate January 21, 2014 3:37 PM  

"I have only a basic understanding from Google."

There are... those who are influenced by him. They are loathsome mid-witted cretins who think idiotic things like "money comes from government". I think I'd prefer to live under the rule of the soviet communists than these idiots.

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 21, 2014 3:38 PM  

Such as...? Go on. Name it, then explain why you're right, cite the episode where Voris 'runs cover for Jorge' and refute it.

Jorge worships with unbelievers

Just one instance of many. Worshiping with those who deny Christ is manifest heresy.

Matthew 10:33: "But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven."

Let's hear Voris speak about that.

Anonymous patrick kelly January 21, 2014 3:39 PM  

"You say this because you don't understand HOW the books of the bible were selected in the first place."

Don't stop at how, look into who, why, where, and when....

Oh the irony. Careful, looking into the details might be kinda' like watching laws or sausage be made...may not like what you find....

Don't stop at how, look into who, why and where....there are historical records of discussions and debates........

Here's a clue.... KJV bibles didn't fall from the sky one day all at once.....and even the original one of those was likely very different from what you have on your bookshelf.

Especially who.....and how they interpreted and applied those same scriptures...and ask yourself why do you accept their decisions concerning the canon?

It's "humans" and "men" all the way down............because Christ Jesus was revealed and incarnate in the flesh, not in a book........

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 21, 2014 3:40 PM  

Nate said We don't have a problem with that.

Who's this "we". VD is a Christian Zionist and you are Greek Orthodox. You don't even have the gumption to stand up for what you believe in, merely hiding behind snarky comments on blog threads.

Anonymous slow January 21, 2014 3:40 PM  

"There are... those who are influenced by him."

The reason I asked is that I have not seen the connection between Moldbug and the Dark Enlightenment. Still don't.

Anonymous VD January 21, 2014 3:43 PM  

Thank God Christ didn't just walk away muttering about meshuganas every time he got frustrated with the inability of his disciples to understand Him.

Are you talking about this Christ? "You unbelieving and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you?"

The thing is, Pat, you do understand. You just don't like the answer. I said: "The elevation of human dogma over Divine revelation as provided in the Bible."

So, if human dogma is elevated over Scripture, it is Churchianity. You've now admitted that Divine revelation is provided through the Bible, so your initial attempt to suggest the Biblical canon was mere human dogma is aborted.

Blogger Nate January 21, 2014 3:44 PM  

"Who's this "we". VD is a Christian Zionist and you are Greek Orthodox. You don't even have the gumption to stand up for what you believe in, merely hiding behind snarky comments on blog threads."

"We" would be those who are not Catholic. As for standing up for what I believe in... exactly what are you basing that on? Provide an exactly of me not standing up for what I believe.

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 21, 2014 3:47 PM  

So, if human dogma is elevated over Scripture, it is Churchianity. You've now admitted that Divine revelation is provided through the Bible, so your initial attempt to suggest the Biblical canon was mere human dogma is aborted.

I will have to think about that.

Thanks for answering.

Blogger Marissa January 21, 2014 3:53 PM  

Such as...? Go on. Name it, then explain why you're right, cite the episode where Voris 'runs cover for Jorge' and refute it.

Jorge worships with unbelievers

Just one instance of many. Worshiping with those who deny Christ is manifest heresy.


They had a lunch and repeated a Bible verse. Do you consider that worship?

Blogger Tom Kratman January 21, 2014 3:57 PM  

Jeez, Pat, I never knew that Islam didn't predate the modern kingdom of Saudi Arabia and King Abdul Aziz. Well, live and learn.

Ahem.

Blogger Harry T. Conan January 21, 2014 3:57 PM  

Agreed, Marissa. Seriously Pat, you're going to have to do better than that. Jesus, Paul, they all hung out with unbelievers and made fellowship with them.

I agree that the Catholic Church has gone soft on evangelising Jews. I'm with you at that one. But to call him a heretic simply for spending time reaching out to them is pretty weak.

Anonymous Josh January 21, 2014 4:01 PM  

The reason I asked is that I have not seen the connection between Moldbug and the Dark Enlightenment. Still don't.

From that sith lords piece:

Where does the term Dark Enlightenment come from? Inspired by the pugnacious writings of Mencius Moldbug, the prolific blogger who serves as the movement’s unofficial center of gravity, the neologism is the creation of philosopher Nick Land.


Nick Land, btw is the genius who asserted that darwinian evolution is a scientific fact.

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 21, 2014 4:01 PM  

I'm not sure that I implied that dogma is "mere". Just so we are on the same page, this is my understanding Divine Revelation/Dogma:

"Jesus Christ's truth is the teaching of Divine Revelation. The Catholic Church teaches that the two sources of Divine Revelation are Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition; their true content is set forth by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. Dogma is unchangeable. When a pope defines a dogma, he doesn't make a dogma true from that that point forward, but rather solemnly declares without erring that which has always been true since the death of the last apostle. Dogmas are to be believed as the Church has 'once declared them,' without any recession from that meaning to a 'deeper understanding.'"

I don't think you accept Sacred Tradition as being Divine Revelation. Yet, you do accept the Bible which was formalised as canon because of Sacred Tradition. That's my point.

Perhaps I am wrong on how the Bible came to be as it is accepted. Hopefully someone will correct me if I am wrong.

Anonymous Samson J. January 21, 2014 4:03 PM  

As a sometime Shea reader, I'm disappointed to see posts from him like the one linked in the OP. He has a few good insights and slogans - he was the first one I ever read, for example, to grasp very clearly that when it comes to homosexuality, "tolerance is not enough... you MUST APPROVE!" - so that dismissing him as a Leftist is a bit unfair. But that makes it all the more disappointing that he doesn't "get it" about the Dark Enlightenment.

@Josh:

Charlton's view of the dark enlightenment as essentially leftist seems correct to me.

It's essentially Leftist as long as it omits the Christianity. That's Charlton's position (which I agree with).

Anonymous Josh January 21, 2014 4:04 PM  

Sacred Tradition being "stuff the pope says that you agree with"? Obviously if the pope says something you disagree with, he's not really the pope.

Anonymous Samson J. January 21, 2014 4:08 PM  

By the way, it's pretty rad to hear that the Dark Enlightenment is all the rage in College Republican circles.

Anonymous Josh January 21, 2014 4:10 PM  

By the way, it's pretty rad to hear that the Dark Enlightenment is all the rage in College Republican circles.

I highly, highly doubt that.

Blogger Nate January 21, 2014 4:11 PM  

"I don't think you accept Sacred Tradition as being Divine Revelation. Yet, you do accept the Bible which was formalised as canon because of Sacred Tradition. That's my point. "

The simplified version is something like this...

When the apostles all gathered from around the world at the first council they found that they shared certain writings. Some of the books or letters only one person had. Other books were common among many or all the representatives there.

There were certain books that everyone, or most everyone, had. Those books became the what we call today "the Bible". or at least... they became the Bible as it existed prior to the reformation. The protestant bible is a totally different story.


Anonymous Samson J. January 21, 2014 4:12 PM  

I highly, highly doubt that.

Me too, but one can hope.

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 21, 2014 4:15 PM  

Come on Harry, Christ and Paul didn't hang out with unbelievers and make fellowship with them, they converted them. And if they refused the Truth then Christ instructed them to shake the dust from their sandals and never return to them.

Jorge, in that instance, and many many many others, is actually worshiping with unbelievers, affirming their perversion.

Jorge is on record stating that the Church does not, and will not, attempt to convert Jews.

“We cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God.”

There you have it. Judaism, which denies Christ and says that Jesus is boiling in excrement for eternity, is not a foreign religion worshiping idols, and its adherents are not amongst those called to "serve the true God".

Manifest heresy. You cannot get it any plainer and you will not hear Voris speak out on this abomination.

Jorge has also declared proselytism itself as "solemn nonsense>

Anonymous alexameno January 21, 2014 4:18 PM  

The reason I asked is that I have not seen the connection between Moldbug and the Dark Enlightenment. Still don't.

You can go straight to the horse's mouth...

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_archive.html

That'll take you to the front end of the moldburg blog. I was going to recommend a few particular posts, but in order to do that I'd have to actually read (or reread, in some cases), so that's out of the question. His style is unnecessarily verbose, which I find particularly annoying, but I do vaguely recall reading some fairly interesting things way back.

Anonymous What Would Lodi Do? January 21, 2014 4:22 PM  

11B: I highly doubt that Augustine and Plato were brown.

Augustine was a native of North Africa and is usually portrayed with dark skin in iconography.

Blogger Gunnar von Cowtown January 21, 2014 4:23 PM  

"I have noticed odinism popping up recently on some of the prepper/III% type blogs on the periphary of my reading. In every case, the pagan/odinist is a vehement egalitarian. I think its an adolescent act of rebellion by grown men who should know better."

Just out of curiosity, has anyone here ever met an "odinist" in real life? If so, did they at least carry themselves well? The only "neo-pagans" I've ever met were wiccans, and they were hardly what one would call impressive men. Not to put to fine a point on it, but by comparison they made the Fab 5 from Queer Eye look like cast of Predator.

Based on nothing more than my lying eyes, the vast majority of the high-T men I've met all seem to be non-Churchian Christians. I suppose that explains why the cultural-marxist/PC/equalitarian brigade has such scathing contempt for traditional Christianity.

Anonymous Josh January 21, 2014 4:24 PM  

His style is unnecessarily verbose

That's a nice way to put it.

Anonymous roger u January 21, 2014 4:27 PM  

"Just out of curiosity, has anyone here ever met an "odinist" in real life? "

I haven't, but they do have videos on youtube. They seem to resemble what you say about wiccans.

Anonymous VD January 21, 2014 4:28 PM  

I don't think you accept Sacred Tradition as being Divine Revelation. Yet, you do accept the Bible which was formalised as canon because of Sacred Tradition. That's my point.

Irrelevant. This is indicative of your sloppy thinking. You claimed the definition was not useful because you disagree with it, when it is a perfectly useful definition that clearly distinguishes Churchianity from Bible-based Christianity.

How the Bible came to be does not matter with regards to the usefulness of the definition.

Anonymous Krul January 21, 2014 4:29 PM  

Nate - There were certain books that everyone, or most everyone, had. Those books became the what we call today "the Bible". or at least... they became the Bible as it existed prior to the reformation. The protestant bible is a totally different story.

Which Bible do you recommend? I don't know the name of the pre-reformation Bible nor what the differences are between it and the regular KJV and NIV that I normally read.

Anonymous Noah B. January 21, 2014 4:30 PM  

"That'll take you to the front end of the moldburg blog."

I lack the patience to read that crap. Is there a Cliff's Notes version?

Anonymous Veorary January 21, 2014 4:30 PM  

Re compilation of the canon:

Time for a Voxiversity on Eusebius?

Anonymous slow January 21, 2014 4:31 PM  

"His style is unnecessarily verbose"

Yeah, you could say that. I guess I'll just read until I see the connection, or until I pass out.

Blogger WATYF January 21, 2014 4:32 PM  

Josh - January 21, 2014 1:45 PM
Deuteronomy 23:19
You shall not charge interest on loans to your brother, interest on money, interest on food, interest on anything that is lent for interest.


Ironically, this verse is further proof that God has no problem with drawing distinctions among the nations with regards to acceptable behavior. The very next verse says...

20 “You may charge interest to a foreigner, but to your countrymen you shall not charge interest, so that the LORD your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land which you are about to enter to possess.

So, God isn't even entirely opposed to charging usury.

WATYF

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 21, 2014 4:41 PM  

Irrelevant. This is indicative of your sloppy thinking. You claimed the definition was not useful because you disagree with it, when it is a perfectly useful definition that clearly distinguishes Churchianity from Bible-based Christianity.

How the Bible came to be does not matter with regards to the usefulness of the definition.


I see. My statement that the definition was not useful is incorrect because your explanation does explain your definition of Churchianity. I take your point.

I still don't find it helpful in that you are merely rehashing that anything that doesn't conform to your theology is Churchianity. I think it would be more direct to say that anyone who doesn't believe as you do is a Churchianist. Or, even better, a heretic.

We could disagree but at least there would be no confusion as to what we are disagreeing about.

OpenID cailcorishev January 21, 2014 4:41 PM  

By the way, it's pretty rad to hear that the Dark Enlightenment is all the rage in College Republican circles.

Heh, it would be, wouldn't it? My thought when he continued with, "according to people who are writing me about it," was that you could probably say the same thing about D&D causing Satan worship and suicide back in the 1980s. Lots and lots of people were worrying about it and writing to their favorite influential media figures about it. That doesn't mean it was ever true.

Anonymous alexamenos January 21, 2014 4:42 PM  

Here's one that's semi-digestible and at least somewhat makes a connection between Moldburg and 'dark enlightment'.

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/04/case-against-democracy-ten-red-pills.html

Somewhere else in UR is a post on the relationship between Liberalism and Christianity...I think. I'm sometimes inclined to see Liberalism as a Christian heresy (it's Churchiasm stripped of any sacraments). I very vaguely recall getting that idea from Moldburg or at least fleshing the idea out a bit further based on something of his I read.

Anonymous Porky January 21, 2014 4:43 PM  

“You may charge interest to a foreigner, but to your countrymen you shall not charge interest" ...So, God isn't even entirely opposed to charging usury.

Again, God let's us do all kinds of things that are contrary to his character.

Anonymous Josh January 21, 2014 4:43 PM  

That doesn't mean it was ever true.

Trend pieces are inaccurate rejections of reality?

Blogger WATYF January 21, 2014 4:45 PM  

Again, God let's us do all kinds of things that are contrary to his character.

Explain how that is contrary to His character.

WATYF

Anonymous Makaro January 21, 2014 4:46 PM  

VD

There is no distinction between worldviews. God created the nations. God opposed the previous attempt to bring the nations together into one. Anti-nationalism is therefore antithetical to God's Will. It is written that the nations will not cease to be until Jesus Christ returns and unifies them under his divine rule. All other putative unifications are false, pernicious, and the spirit of Antichrist.

I would dispute that somewhat or perhaps I misunderstood your meaning because in the Book of Revelation it states that even after the Reign of Christ and the Last Judgement when the new Heavens and Earth are made there are still nations that is distinct groups of people.

Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
Rev 21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
Rev 21:25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.
Rev 21:26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.

Anonymous Josh January 21, 2014 4:47 PM  

Somewhere else in UR is a post on the relationship between Liberalism and Christianity...I think. I'm sometimes inclined to see Liberalism as a Christian heresy (it's Churchiasm stripped of any sacraments). I very vaguely recall getting that idea from Moldburg or at least fleshing the idea out a bit further based on something of his I read.

It was probably from Rothbard, who blames progressivism on bored Yankee spinsters. IIRC, Moldbug somehow came to the conclusion that the puritans created secular progressivism.

Anonymous What Would Lodi Do? January 21, 2014 4:51 PM  

Harry T. Conan: I am traditionalist Catholic and I loathe Mark Shea more than any other so-called Catholic personality on the Internet.

Is his criticism of "RadTrads" a shoe that fits you? Shea has no beef with traditionalism per se, just with the pinched, reflexively negative scolds claiming the title who show up regularly in his comments.

OpenID luagha January 21, 2014 4:52 PM  

Speaking as a Jew, Mr. Hannigan, I recall the denying Christ part but I don't recall being taught that Jesus is boiling in excrement in any way.

Where do you get such an idea? Is this something they discuss at those secret Jew meetings I never get invited to?

Anonymous Krul January 21, 2014 4:53 PM  

The label "Dark Enlightenment" is lame. It's sounds like something a college freshman goth would come up with.

Manosphere and Androsphere are better - more casual, more accurate. However, they're not comprehensive and they sound just a little defensive.

Realtalk is best - it's accurate and it isn't "try hard".

Anonymous paradox January 21, 2014 4:56 PM  

The Free Northerner is a Dark Enlightenment Christian. He has a DE reading list, I would skip most of it. The non-Christian DE's are fascist freaks. Christians DE's are mainly opposed to egalitarian democracy and more favorable to a Hans Hermann Hoppe monarchy or a republic with limited political franchisement.

Anonymous WaterBoy January 21, 2014 5:00 PM  

Krul: "The label "Dark Enlightenment" is lame. It's sounds like something a college freshman goth would come up with."

Not to mention being something of an oxymoron.

But it seems to be trying to tie into that same esoteric nature as Dark Matter and Dark Energy -- something thought to exist but having no definitive explanation. And that makes one wonder if it's even there?

Anonymous Mavwreck January 21, 2014 5:00 PM  

Thanks for the response, VD. I'm not sure I completely agree with you that the Church shouldn't speak against blatant legal discrimination. However, the "render unto Caesar..." argument might apply here - that is, even though it's the Church's business to guide her members it's not the Church's business to dictate secular law.

Blogger ScuzzaMan January 21, 2014 5:02 PM  

Marissa:
How can the Tower of Babel story be interpreted within the context of multiculturalism that has tainted the political and religious systems of the West? It seems somewhat "racist" in the sense that different cultures are not meant to meld together. Is the American "melting pot" ideal a Tower of Babel story in the making?

It's worse than that. The US and her allies are actively building a global empire and imposing on it a global monoculture. The monoculture of the Tower of Babel was a leftover of the Flood. But time was required for certain things to happen so God 'forcibly' separated the nations by mixing up their languages.
Now, that process has been almost completely reversed. When it is, we will see the same conditions as existed before the flood:
"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."
and
"But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be"

That's how it read to me, anyhow.

Anonymous Susie January 21, 2014 5:02 PM  

Augustine, St. Paul and Plato were probably Caucasoid olive-skinned Middle Easterners. Basically quasi-Europeans in both genotype and phenotype. They weren't anywhere near brown skin levels.

Anonymous zen0 January 21, 2014 5:02 PM  

@ krul

Which Bible do you recommend? I don't know the name of the pre-reformation Bible nor what the differences are between it and the regular KJV and NIV that I normally read.

The New Testament is the same for both. The Old Testament is the one with differences


See:

http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_bibles.htm

Anonymous What Would Lodi Do? January 21, 2014 5:04 PM  

Harry T. Conan: ...he trashes with extreme prejudice people like Robert Sungenis... who he considers to be 'racist, anti-semitic, anti-scientific, anti-feminist'

Sungenis is indeed anti-scientific given that he insists Christians must reject heliocentrism.

Anonymous Porky January 21, 2014 5:05 PM  

Explain how that is contrary to His character.

Once the law was fulfilled, He tells us to lend expecting nothing in return.

Anonymous Josh January 21, 2014 5:07 PM  

Realtalk is best - it's accurate and it isn't "try hard".

It absolutely is try hard. It sounds like a category on a liberal blog like slate or Jezebel. It's snark.

Blogger ScuzzaMan January 21, 2014 5:07 PM  

@Makaro:

Indeed. No nations, no kings. No kings, no King of kings ...

Anonymous Krul January 21, 2014 5:07 PM  

zen0 - The New Testament is the same for both.

That's a relief. Thank you, zen0.

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 21, 2014 5:08 PM  

Speaking as a Jew, Mr. Hannigan, I recall the denying Christ part but I don't recall being taught that Jesus is boiling in excrement in any way.

Thanks for confirming the former.

Where do you get such an idea? Is this something they discuss at those secret Jew meetings I never get invited to?

As to the latter: Part I: Jesus and the Talmud

To highlight the absurdity of the ADL's response, let us consider the horrible malice found in the anti-Christ Talmud Tractate Gittin 57a. In some censored versions of Gittin 57a, the name of Jesus is rendered as "sinner (or 'sinners') of Israel." The Talmud in Gittin 57a contains a filthy and unbelievably scurrilous attack on Jesus Christ pertaining to a punishment Jesus supposedly underwent after his death. As is its custom, the ADL shies away from actually quoting Gittin 57a. It falls to us to reveal the contents of this ugly and psychotic Talmud section:

"He (the rabbi) then went and raised by incantations the sinners of Israel. He asked them...What is your punishment? They replied: With boiling (in) hot excrement."

The Talmud decrees that Jesus is in hell, being boiled in feces, because he opposed the rabbis. That's what this sick, pornographic, "holy book" of Judaism says about the Christian Savior in Tractate Gittin 57a.


Looks like you didn't get invited to the secret Jew meeting.

Blogger RobertT January 21, 2014 5:08 PM  

" The label "Dark Enlightenment" is lame. "

My feelings are just the opposite. Manosphere sounds pretentious. Dark Enlightenment may be misleading, but it has a good sound. It invokes images of Eye of the World, which seems appropriate to our present situation.

Anonymous zen0 January 21, 2014 5:10 PM  

PS krul

If you want some fun, study the Psalms using Bullinger's Companion Bible. it is online.

Your head will esplode.

Anonymous Emperor of Icecream January 21, 2014 5:10 PM  

Male and Female created he them. There's your Christian basis right there.

Anonymous Mr. Stubby January 21, 2014 5:10 PM  

Is the American "melting pot" ideal a Tower of Babel story in the making?

America is the cheerleader for the New World Order. All roads lead back to Babel. Satan wouldn't have it any other way. Always trying to undo what God has done... that nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them. Of course, we just end up destroying ourselves... almost.

Anonymous The CronoLink January 21, 2014 5:11 PM  

So do we have to address you as 'Darth' Vox now?

It would be the proper honorific, I suppose.


All hail the Dark Lord of the Ilk.

Anonymous Stilicho January 21, 2014 5:11 PM  

Is this something they discuss at those secret Jew meetings I never get invited to?

Obviously. How could you expect to be in on that when you haven't even been to a blood-drinking ritual yet?

Anonymous Krul January 21, 2014 5:13 PM  

Josh - It absolutely is try hard.

As try hard as "Dark Enlightenment" and "Sith Lords"?

"Realtalk" looks like an accurate abbreviation of the intentions of the bloggers to me, but I guess snark is in the eye of the beholder. (I admit, it does have a certain "Fox News" quality, doesn't it? Sort of like "Fair and Balanced". That's a big minus.)

Alt-Right is also a pretty good label, I think, but none of them are really great.

Anonymous Josh January 21, 2014 5:17 PM  

As try hard as "Dark Enlightenment" and "Sith Lords"?

Yes. There are multiple ways to be a try hard.

Anonymous Toddy Cat January 21, 2014 5:18 PM  

Here's a link to some images of St. Augustine of Hippo. They range from very white to swarthy, but in all cases that I can find, more ot less caucasian. Not sure what Shea is driving at here, unless he thinks that all HBD'ers are Viking-worshipping Aryan nationalists. Which of course he might, since he obviously knows nothing about HBD at all.

http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo

Blogger Hazim January 21, 2014 5:19 PM  

I've only met one Odinist, snaggletoothed white trash ignoramus with a heart of gold and nearly obsessed with justice, which was really comeuppance as we would recognize it. Dude went on for an hour about niggers and the imminent race war. He really did try to understand while I was explaining to him that, in a race war situation here in 'Murca ebony & Ivory would be natural allies culturally. He could not make it compute, try as he might. I think he thought I was retarded

Anonymous Stilicho January 21, 2014 5:21 PM  

Moldbug is a navel gazing idiot with oral dysentery, but I've never considered him central to the dark enlightenment phenomenon. Just a bit player. These mainstream articles are just trying to define something in a manner that will help them discredit it.

As both Vox and Keoni Galt have pointed out recently, there is truth to be found in the DE writings and such truths can lead one to Truth. Against that, you have a few pajama boys deriding game, sound money, and genetics while promoting PC pablum.

Blogger Harry T. Conan January 21, 2014 5:25 PM  

@What would Lodi do?
You're mistaken, Lodi, to put it charitably. Sungenis does not insist that we 'must' give up on heliocentrism. He is attempting to persuade people that geocentrism is true and that the Church was correct in its original interpretation. However, it is bogus to claim or even insinuate the Sungenis argues that it is a matter of faith and morals, binding on Catholics, that they must believe in it. If you spent anytime reading his work, rather than letting Shea interpret Sungenis for you, you'd know he does not.

Second, as for my being a rad-trad - Shea and indeed everyone at Catholic Answers is remarkably disingenuous when it comes to traditionalism. They say they have no problem with it, per se, but spend an ordinate amount of time trashing people whose beliefs fall to the right of theirs, painting them all with the same 'rad-trad' brush. So yeah, I loathe Shea for his modernist, rants against traditionalists, which include many libels against good Catholic men like Michael Voris, Robert Sungenis, Rick Delano and many others.

OpenID luagha January 21, 2014 5:26 PM  

Yeah, it does kind of suck, not being a joiner. No blood drinking rituals, no bones of chistian children in my bread, where am I gonna get calcium?

Anyway, thanks, Mr. Hannigan. Now I know where you are buying your horse-hocky by the pound.

Anonymous Stilicho January 21, 2014 5:27 PM  

The label "Dark Enlightenment" is lame. It's sounds like something a college freshman goth would come up with.

Most self-referential stuff I've seen that uses it has been largely tongue-in-cheek. Although, as it grows and attracts more leftists, the stupid will grow as well.

Anonymous Toddy Cat January 21, 2014 5:27 PM  

By the way, here's what the "Catholic Encyclopedia" from 1913 says about usury. It's pretty interesting.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15235c.htm

Anonymous Chad January 21, 2014 5:31 PM  

4.It is true that "in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek". The key words there are "in Christ". The Church is not the State. In the civil government of every political entity where non-Christians are permitted to reside, there most certainly are national, religious, and ethnic distinctions to be made.

What is the significance of this point? Are you suggesting that national law ought not to be informed by Christian principles? IMO the only distinctions a civil government is entitled to are of citizenship and suffrage.

Blogger Harry T. Conan January 21, 2014 5:31 PM  

@Pat - In fairness to you, I have ordered a copy of 'The Resurrection of the Catholic Church'. I'm told it does a good job of presenting the sedavacantist position. I certainly agree that the Church's post-WWII position on Judaism is grievously problematic as it seems more interested in exonerating itself from responsibility for the sins of Catholic Germany than in evangelising Jews. And I do despair whenever I see Pope Francis supping with Jews as though they are the 'big brothers' of Christians. That is one reason I can't stand Shea, because he's so protective of these sorts of action. But you know as well as I that papal infallibility is only very rarely invoked. Popes say and do things all the time that are of questionable merit, or are just downright wrong. Surely, many a Borgia uttered a heresy in his day. There are Popes in Hell after all. But it is a Protestant error to think that every word that comes out of Pope Francis' mouth must be infallible. The Church has certainly fallen down in its mission to evangelise the world, just as it did at the time of the Reformation, but schism is not the answer.

Anonymous Krul January 21, 2014 5:33 PM  

RobertT - Dark Enlightenment may be misleading, but it has a good sound. It invokes images of Eye of the World

It reminds you of a Robert Jordan novel... and that's a good thing?

Meh. You gentlemen can choose "Dark Enlightenment" if you wish, but for myself I'll choose "Alt-Right" or "Realtalk" until something better comes along. All of them are rather lacking, really. Maybe we should come up with our own label.

Anonymous PTR January 21, 2014 5:33 PM  

@ Nate

The simplified version is something like this...

When the apostles all gathered from around the world at the first council they found that they shared certain writings. Some of the books or letters only one person had. Other books were common among many or all the representatives there.

There were certain books that everyone, or most everyone, had. Those books became the what we call today "the Bible". or at least... they became the Bible as it existed prior to the reformation. The protestant bible is a totally different story.


There's evidence for this?

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 21, 2014 5:35 PM  

"Anyway, thanks, Mr. Hannigan. Now I know where you are buying your horse-hocky by the pound."

Do you dispute what the Talmud says or do you merely revile Hoffman for citing it?

You asked me to cite my source and cite it I did. Now you run from the evidence which is your own Talmud.

Anonymous Krul January 21, 2014 5:39 PM  

How about "The Heresphere"? You know, as opposed to "The Cathedral".

No, that's definitely try hard. And moldbuggery, to boot.

OpenID luagha January 21, 2014 5:42 PM  

And I thank you for citing your source.
Your source is horse-hockey. And not even entertaining horse-hockey.

To start with, Hoffman makes the willing mistake that 'Balaam' in the Mishnah is actually Jesus. 'Balaam' may refer to a real person or might actually just be a parable told about an imaginary person, but it's not referring to Jesus.

It could go on and on and you can google yourself up a storm. I say the Talmud doesn't say what Hoffman says it does.

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey January 21, 2014 5:43 PM  

Here is another, if still somewhat hostile, piece on "Dark Enlightenment":

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/jamiebartlett/100012093/meet-the-dark-enlightenment-sophisticated-neo-fascism-thats-spreading-fast-on-the-net/

Blogger RobertT January 21, 2014 5:46 PM  

" All Christians should embrace the Broncos. And maybe dark chocolate."

I can't believe I didn't think of this.

Anonymous Loki Sjalfsainn January 21, 2014 5:46 PM  

I've only met one Odinist, snaggletoothed white trash ignoramus with a heart of gold and nearly obsessed with justice, which was really comeuppance as we would recognize it. Dude went on for an hour about niggers and the imminent race war.

He gets all the best ones, naturally. Most of my worshippers are obese cat-collectors with "m-preg" fetishes.

I suspect a fair number of them comment here, actually.

Blogger Nate January 21, 2014 5:48 PM  

"There's evidence for this?"

DOES ANYONE READ CHURCH HISTORY???

Blogger Nate January 21, 2014 5:50 PM  

"These mainstream articles are just trying to define something in a manner that will help them discredit it."

This point of view would have more weight if terms like "The Cathedral" weren't thrown around all over the manosphere.

Anonymous Y January 21, 2014 6:01 PM  

VD: "It is not hard to observe that every church, including the Roman Catholic Church, that has embraced equalitarianism, feminism, and anti-racism has almost immediately begun to die."

"It was never about a cure. It's about repeat business." - Sam Neil - 'Daybreakers'.

Anonymous Josh January 21, 2014 6:09 PM  

This point of view would have more weight if terms like "The Cathedral" weren't thrown around all over the manosphere.

It's a fantastically stupid term.

First, religion. To be a member of the Cathedral, one must believe in the Cathedral’s religion. Moldbug toyed with several ways to describe this religion. The gist is that the religion is a form of cryptocalvinism or hyper-Puritanism:

Since I’ve changed the name, let me repeat the four ideals of cryptocalvinism: Equality (the universal brotherhood of man), Peace (the futility of violence), Social Justice (the fair distribution of goods), and Community (the leadership of benevolent public servants).


Now, I'm no calvinist apologist, but WTF does calvinism have to do with any of those?

Blogger Whiskey January 21, 2014 6:16 PM  

As a very, very minor Dark Enlightenment blogger, I'd like to say that the Dark Enlightenment is NOT NOT NOT a rejection of the Enlightenment. Merely a continuation. And it holds that reason, logic, science, math, and history will not only tell you happy and bright things about humanity, but also ...

DARK THINGS ABOUT HUMAN NATURE.

This is entirely consistent with a Christian world-view of man as fallen. Or if you prefer, constrained by genetic heritage of hyper-social, sexualized, intellectualized, aggressive, and cooperative and combative by turns, primates.

We have a genetic heritage. We are prisoners of it. We cannot escape it. Nor can we escape in Christian terms (though I would like to be I am not a Christian) our damnation absent salvation through Christ.

Much of modern belief is a clap-happy bunch of nonsense that was ridiculed by Voltaire in Candide (the Best of All Possible Worlds) and the idea that different people of different races can abide amicably is both disproven by history but by theories of evolution and genetics. Altruism depends critically on shared genes, as shown by E.O. Wilson and Richard Dawkins alike. I might have quite a lot in common with Irish and Scots and German people, nearly none at all with an African. Thus I am far more likely to be altruistic because my shared genetic component depends more on saving Scots and Irish and German people than an African.

Indeed the greatest characteristic of the Dark Enlightenment is the ridicule of the Crystal Methodism of today's post-Christian religion: original sin of Whiteness and Redemption racially by Black people. The form but not content of Christianity in post-Christian form.

Anonymous 11B January 21, 2014 6:28 PM  

Now, I'm no calvinist apologist, but WTF does calvinism have to do with any of those?

That whole blame-it-on-the-Puritans type argument is just a way to scapegoat an easy target and deflect any blame from those who are responsible to a great extent for our current predicament. You'll see it manifested in the comments on blogs like this by that blogger known as 'whiskey'.

Blogger Whiskey January 21, 2014 6:39 PM  

Let me add, THE founding Father of the Dark Enlightenment is ... Steve Sailer. A more mainstream, modern, wholesome, gee gosh darn whiz mid century American guy you could not imagine. SAILER is the founder, not Moldbug. Nor these other guys I never heard of. And he still like George Washington wields immense influence.

Mark Steyn is another figure, mocking PC pretensions and noting btw that a Constitutional Monarch both consumes less in money from the public and lives more modestly than a pure Head of State President, but also removes politicians from embodying the State and Nation and thus makes them merely a politician temporarily hired to do a job.

As for Democracy not working, no less than Lee Kwan Yew, founder of Singapore, noted that in a multi-racial society, voters vote for purely racial spoils candidates and parties and it becomes an expression of power-dominance to destroy economically and socially those with fewer numbers.

This is entirely mainstream, the Founding Fathers had a horror of democracy because it always devolves into voters voting public money to themselves and then tyranny. The founding fathers created a Constitutional Federal Republic based explicitly on Switzerland that prevented what they viewed as pure horror: mob rule as a road straight to tyranny. Citing specifically Athen's fall from history. Saying Democracy is bad is like saying a diet of pure chocolate is bad. Nothing outrageous and perfectly obvious. The British until quite recently relied on historical checks and balances after a century of violent revolutions and Cromwell to check pure democracy

As for Christianity, it has always been in tension with universality: Jesus died for all, not just Europeans, and particularity: Christianity was wiped out of the Middle East cradle and North Africa and parts of Europe (Spain, Southern Italy) until partial recovery, and remained circa 770-1500 overwhelmingly a purely European religion. Beset by hostile Muslim invaders.

I personally do not see much future for Christianity. The Pope while a decent man seems fairly hard left: he seems to view gays, Africans, and others like that being intrinsically more worthy than say, a middle class Italian or Frenchmen. Which is part and parcel of Christianity for that matter, and a major reason I am not a Christian. Odinism is a farce, the real historical Norse religion was as bloody and horrible as the Aztecs or Celtic gods. And fortunately for humanity was wiped out not the least of which was human sacrifice tended to victimize even powerful families.

The Church is over-run with homosexual priests, are there any others? As a result is invariably corrupt (witness Cardinal Mahony's private helicopter) and prone to siding with gays and the Third World over Europeans. The Protestants are little better, not a Church I've been to has not overtly stated that moral worth is directly proportional to skin color and melanin content; the darker the more worthy. As a fair skinned guy with a family of fair skinned people, that is not a winner for me.

Blogger RobertT January 21, 2014 6:43 PM  

"A person title Pope cannot utter heresy and remain Pope."

This is news to me. My memories of the Catholic church are fond ones, but they're mostly of attending midnight mass on Xmas eve with my buddies, when we were often as not a little lit up. My brother entered a confessional during mass one time thinking it was a rest room. Perhaps my favorite saying in the whole wide world is ... Father, Son and Holy Ghost, which I heard first from the Catholic Priest during the benediction at my local school in my ski resort home town.

But enough reminiscing. Back to the original point ... I didn't know there was a procedure for removing a pope from office. I always thought it was worse than having a bad president. Once you have him you're stuck with him.

OpenID cailcorishev January 21, 2014 6:44 PM  

I'd like to say that the Dark Enlightenment is NOT NOT NOT a rejection of the Enlightenment. Merely a continuation.

Then it's stupid, and an even stupider name than I thought.

But maybe that's the real problem here: people who are uncomfortable with the dissent they're seeing coming from this vaguely defined sector of the Internet are trying to find one portrayal of dangerous evil to pigeon-hole us all with, and it just doesn't work. It's far too diverse a group -- not really a group at all. You'd be hard-pressed to define any doctrines on which we all agree, other than: "The conventional wisdom is wrong." Beyond that, we diverge pretty widely in interests and proscriptions.

Blogger Bard January 21, 2014 6:48 PM  

Shouldn't we call him Darth Day?

Anonymous WaterBoy January 21, 2014 6:58 PM  

Well, he is a writer, so maybe Darth Books would be more apropos....

*ba-dump-bum*

Anonymous Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 21, 2014 7:01 PM  

Barely ontopic:

http://heartiste.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/ku-xlarge.gif?w=771&h=444

I can't even get mad anymore, I think my anger gland is all squoze out. I can just sigh, laugh, and polish my CZ..

Anonymous EH January 21, 2014 7:01 PM  

VD replying to Pat Hannagan:
"Then you're obviously not very smart. Let's face it, Patty, you just want to whine about things and I couldn't possibly care less what you think or what you need. My turn: Do you claim that the Bible is not Divine revelation?"

This has been about your level of debate throughout the anti-apologetics series. Your insults and empty assertions are unpersuasive to me. Even if I had started off agreeing with you, you would have just about talked me out of it.

Pat had a good point. You respond with: "Do you claim that the Bible is not Divine revelation?" The question is: why would any debater agree with your assertion that it is? That would be assuming what you are setting out to advocate. There's no room for debate with a nutter who not only thinks he's got divine revelation on his side but that his opponents should stipulate that going in.

The history of the composition of these books and the church councils that selected them is certainly more consistent with the theory that they are the result of human politics rather than divine revelation.

Anonymous zen0 January 21, 2014 7:08 PM  

@ luagha

It could go on and on and you can google yourself up a storm. I say the Talmud doesn't say what Hoffman says it does.

Jewish Encyclopedia
(The unedited full-text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia)

[http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2395-balaam]


Henceforth he became the type of false prophets seducing men to lewdness and obscene idolatrous practises (Rev. ii. 14; II Peter ii. 15; Jude 11; Abot v.19). The name "Nicolaitanes," given to the Christian heretics "holding the doctrine of Balaam" (Rev. ii. 6, 15), is probably derived from the Grecized form of Balaam, = Nικο-γάος, and hence also the pseudonym "Balaam," given to Jesus in Sanh. 106b and Giṭ. 57a. See Geiger, "Bileam and Jesus," in "Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift für Jüdische Theologie," vi. 31-37).

Surely you do not deny that observant Jews view Jesus as a false prophet?

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus January 21, 2014 7:12 PM  

Marissa: "They had a lunch and repeated a Bible verse. Do you consider that worship?"

Compared to Pope John Paul II praying with Rabbi Elio Toaff, the former Chief Rabbi of Rome, in the Great Synagogue of Rome, on the 13th of April, 1986? I cannot see how Pope Francis can be accused of an innovation. The attitude of the Catholic Church to its elder brothers in religion is unaltered since the Second Vatican Council.

1 – 200 of 311 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts