Christianity and Sociobiology

Tom Sunic, Ph.D.


Human Sin or Social Sin: Evolutionary Psychology, Plato and the Christian Logic of Sociology
Paul Dachslager
Charleston, SC: CreateSpace, 2016

The title of a book often best indicates the author’s approach to his subject matter. For that matter, the somewhat lengthy subtitle of Paul Dachslager’s book could be replaced by a more explicit inscription of his, such as “On the White Man’s Mimicry of the Other,” or “The Inversion of the Truth,” or “The Power of Changing Paradigms.” The author’s main thesis is that with dominant political ideas always subject to change, the reader’s conceptual tools are also bound to undergo change. What many evolutionary psychologists in their research on race took for granted fifty or sixty years ago must, as a result of the pressure of new political myths, be now either discarded, or short of that, wrapped up in a more hermetic language designed for the eyes and ears of the initiated only. With the pervasive secular religion of political correctness reigning now supreme in US academia and the mainstream media, even the strongest empirical evidence on the disparities of IQs among races, the role of hereditary genius, and genetic influences on criminality must be carefully reworded in a more arcane language.

As Paul Dachslager correctly observes at the outset of his book, in our hyper-moralistic and hyper-altruistic world, scholarly incursions into the role of biological influences in explaining human behavior are met with social opprobrium and are often dubbed with a derogatory label of “scientism.” Once upon a time Whites had to expunge their bodily sins by abiding with the carnality-hating canons of the Church; today Whites have to expunge their social sins by demolishing traditional racial thinking. “As the body was once stigmatized or banned, today the social body [i.e., race, class, and gender] should be banned.” In both cases we can observe the state of self-denial of penitent Whites, reflecting itself on the one hand in the excessive display of false piety towards the Other, and in a subconscious search for the retrieval of their lost racial and ethical grandeur, on the other.

This can best be seen in contemporary Whites’ self-inflicted mimicry of African American social comportment, which by definition demands self-abasement for Whites. This is a classic example of an inverted form of racism, which always provides a good conscience. The politics of guilt, or the politics of mimicked atonement, or the politics of false penitence, or, better yet, collective self-hate, have become by now a standard ritual of academics and politicians in the European Union and United States. The merit of the author is that with his interdisciplinary approach his analyses touch on a wide range of fields, thus making his book an easy read for students in different areas of the social sciences. Of special interest is the author’s description of the link between Christianity and the genealogy of White penitence, a factor often neglected by many sociobiologists, who all too often focus on statistical measurements of cognitive skills of different races while neglecting the power of sentiments, the importance of political myths, and the role of religious beliefs that shape the behavior of different races and peoples. Such a reductionist approach is less pronounced in Europe than in the United States, a country where the powerful heritage of the biblical narrative, with its contemporary legal modalities, often leads to grotesque hyper-moralism among American decision makers and pathological proclivity to self-hate among ordinary Whites.

The book is composed of seventeen chapters with clear-cut themes, although each chapter, with its own central thesis and impressive bibliography, could be read as a separate essay. The author must be commended for his analytical approach to the subject matter, although, toward the end of the book one notices a didactic tone of his prose, which may be therapeutic to many self-hating Whites.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

42 Comments to "Christianity and Sociobiology"

  1. Bramble's Gravatar Bramble
    March 22, 2017 - 2:06 pm | Permalink

    For these authors and commenters who are fond of blaming “Christian weakness” for Europe’s woes, while invoking misty tales of “strong pagans”, may I remind you yet again that it was not pagans, but CHRISTIAN WARRIORS who valiantly defended European civilization from the ISLAMIC INVADERS time and again, down through the ages. They did not always succeed, as in the case of Otranto in Italy, attacked by Muslims after they had been driven out of Spain by CHRISTIAN WARRIORS: “In 1480, a Muslim army under Mohammed II seized the city of Otranto in Italy. Of the 22,000 inhabitants captured by the Muslims, 12,000 were bound with ropes and tortured to death outside the city walls. 5000 were enslaved, primarily children, and the Muslims also killed all the Christian priests they could find. On a hill outside the city, still known as Martyr’s Hill, they beheaded at least 800 Christians who refused to convert to Islam, including the town bishop. It took a year before the Invaders were driven out of Otranto, and when the Christian liberators found the beheaded bodies on Martyr’s Hill, they entombed the skeletons behind glass walls in the cathedral, where they can still be seen to this day.”

    • Betty's Gravatar Betty
      March 22, 2017 - 5:57 pm | Permalink

      Correct. But that is the past. The RCC can no longer produce a Charles Martel, Don Juan of Austria, Queen Isabella. The RCC today is a homosexual, Freemasonic, multi-culti grand lodge. Pope Frannie preaches only about welcoming black/Asian/Muslim invaders. The RCC will not preach that Jews are under a Deicidal curse or that Islam is a Christian heresy. 48% of the College of Cardinals is black/Asian. A schism is needed.

      • Nick Dean's Gravatar Nick Dean
        March 23, 2017 - 12:56 pm | Permalink

        A schism is needed by White Nationalists only if Christianity is needed for White Nationalism. But Tom Sunic and other WN anti-Christians prove it isn’t. Neither is their anti-Christianity necessary – or helpful.

        Religious and other focuses on ideas as such (left vs.right, altright vs National Socialist, Traditionalist vs traditionalist) are known not to be necessary for WN, but are known to be very divisive for WN.

        It isn’t a coincidence that White Nationalists did not ourselves create these subcultures. And when the obviously unhelpful, obviously non-necessary focus on divisive ideologies and subcults has come to be normal in WN, we may assume infiltration at various levels.

        Step over ALL OF THAT!

        Pro-White vs. anti-White is the thing – OUR LIFE! – not any other thing, especially the non-physical, psychological abstractions and transitory beliefs someone else (typically ultimately Jewish) suggested to us.

      • Leon Haller's Gravatar Leon Haller
        March 25, 2017 - 7:43 am | Permalink

        You are correct, but the Church you describe is not the True Church, just as much “Christianity” does not, in fact, derive from Christ. Whether White Preservationists ought to defend and seek to restore Christianity is a very interesting and lengthy discussion. I do not know where I would stand. But I do know two things: if I were an atheist, I would ignore Christianity and its political implications, but if I were a Christian, then I would want to know what the proper position is wrt racial issues, because for a Christian, Christ comes first in all considerations. So the question is, if the Holy Trinity exists, does conformance to its moral precepts demand passivity in the face of White extinction? I suspect not. I do not think accepting White erasure is the ethical path for a true Christian to follow. What is needed therefore, is for White Preservationists not to reject Christianity, but to unravel its inner logic to demonstrate its compatibility with White preservation.

    • March 22, 2017 - 6:52 pm | Permalink

      You need to check wars between Christians and compare with wars with non-Christians. And see what you find. Then check why both Christianity and Islam mention Abraham etc. Then see what Christians did through the whole of the period since about 1850 when Jews became very powerful.
      http://big-lies.org/general/early-christianity-bible.html
      .
      This needs some work. Of course you won’t do any.

    • Seraphim's Gravatar Seraphim
      March 22, 2017 - 9:33 pm | Permalink

      Hatred of Christianity must have become a second nature in ‘post-modern’ Europe if it is possible to blame ‘Christianity’ for the demise of the… Christian European civilization and not the ‘humanist’ Judeo-Islamo-Pagano-Protestant hatred which sapped it for centuries and led to the fall of the defending walls. Nay, opening the gates (as they did in Constantinople on the fateful day of 29 May 1453).
      You have to watch the contortions of the post-modern ‘historians’ to minimize if not deny altogether the martyric aspect of the Otranto massacres, even suggesting that all is a ‘pious fraud’, bending over backwards to convince the audience how prejudiced the Christians were presenting a biased ‘image’ of the ‘other’, to gauge the depth of intellectual depravity to which the ‘intellectuals’ have sunk. They denounce only the ‘rivers of Muslim blood’ spilled in Jerusalem by the Crusaders (and the Holocaust, naturally).

      • Bramble's Gravatar Bramble
        March 27, 2017 - 2:24 am | Permalink

        Seraphim, do not lump Protestants in with Judeo-Islam, or blame Luther’s Joyful Reformation for being hijacked by the DEPRAVED MASS MURDERER John Calvin=Cauin=COHEN, the Crypto-Jewish infiltrator, just like the founder of the Jesuits, Ignatius de Loyola, introducing Babylonian Talmudic “burnt offerings” in burning people at the stake, which Christ never told us to do.

        Protestants REFUSE TO WORSHIP MARY and refuse to engage in the SYMBOLIC CANNIBALISM OF THE EUCHARIST. 2017 is the 500th Anniversary of Luther’s Joyful Reformation, and in honour of that I made a little music video “Good Things About Protestants” to explain 12 differences between Protestants and Catholics. Though I’m sure no one on here is interested, because they’re all either Catholics or Atheists, here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIQ_1A1w06YG1Hb8FOejddg

    • ex South African's Gravatar ex South African
      March 26, 2017 - 12:25 pm | Permalink

      “…but CHRISTIAN WARRIORS who valiantly defended European civilization from the ISLAMIC INVADERS time and again…”

      Would they have done it even if Christianity never existed? As I understand it, defending against the Islamic invaders had some very mundane reasons for the rulers (heads would fly), but Christianity was used as a vehicle to weld together their subjects into battle.

      • Bramble's Gravatar Bramble
        March 27, 2017 - 2:10 am | Permalink

        Some of the “mundane reasons” were the CHILD SEX SLAVE TRADE IN CHRISTIAN EUROPEAN CHILDREN, called “DEVSIRME”, under which the Balkan nations suffered for centuries: Muslim armies constantly raiding villages to force them to give their children, their strongest, bravest little boys and most beautiful little girls as “tribute”, to be dragged away to rape, sodomy, sex slavery, circumcision, and sometimes even castration of Christian boys to serve as Eunuch Harem Guards, a practice that continues to this very day—blond Slavic boys fetching the highest prices.

        The Jews who created Islam cleverly inserted Islamic bans against castrating slaves, so they had to pay the Jewish Slavetraders extra for this service, which was carried out at the main Jewish Castration Centres at Venice, Verdun, and Lucena in southern Spain. Recent research has shown that even the Viking raids on English monasteries like Lindisfarne were to seize literate young monks for castration and sale as “scribes” to the Islamic world, while all the older monks & nuns were just raped and killed. Yes, you’re right, it’s all very “mundane”, isn’t it?

  2. Nick Dean's Gravatar Nick Dean
    March 22, 2017 - 3:27 pm | Permalink

    TS, I think you missed that the broad thesis is contrary to daily observable massive incontrovertible facts, such as the age of European expansion occurred when we were vastly more Christian than now, during the age of Europe’s collapse; and today Christianity and ethnocentrism both are more expressed among African Americans than European Americans.

    I bookend, but filler for the intervening period could go on forever … It’s obvious it wasn’t Christians that put us here.

    The academic history of ideas is an interesting subject in itself but has literally no explanatory or predictive value for today’s or tomorrow’s Western politics.

    What do today’s Jews want vs. what do we want, is the better study and answer.

    • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
      March 22, 2017 - 10:17 pm | Permalink

      Or rather, Christians under the sway of Scofield and his backers, past and present.

  3. Nick Dean's Gravatar Nick Dean
    March 22, 2017 - 4:25 pm | Permalink

    Why would the anti White-nationalist, Amren associated Robert Weissberg approve this book? If it were wholly good for us, he would reject it, clearly. He is known to be opposed to us. Insofar as this book touches on our interests, it must be assumed to pose problems.

    Undeserved focus on ‘ideas’ such as Christianity, or on Christians rather than other more plausible real world actors may explain Weissberg’s support.

  4. SFC Steven M Barry USA RET's Gravatar SFC Steven M Barry USA RET
    March 22, 2017 - 8:40 pm | Permalink

    The term evolutionary psychology is an absurdity. “Psychology” is Greek for “study of the soul.” Soul is immaterial. What is immaterial is eternal or eveternal, and what is immaterial cannot evolve./ S//

    • An jaxkaon's Gravatar An jaxkaon
      March 25, 2017 - 11:57 pm | Permalink

      Something eternal can evolve. You’re confusing eternity with unchangeability. Aristotle said that human souls have intellect and mind (also they are very much intertwined with physical bodies), for things like solving problems and moving forward in life. Certainty seems like an adaptation and evolution in a sense, though your talk of ”souls” misreads what evolutionary psychology actually is. Immateriality is irrelevant. Concepts are immaterial and they ”evolve,” if not physically. Ideas. Is language-its meaning, sense, material? Not in a physical way. Those evolve. We can go on. A soul is an idea, and a bad one.

  5. March 22, 2017 - 9:25 pm | Permalink

    Thanks Tom for this review. In a nutshell, from the POV of Aryan preservation the Christian problem is indeed more serious than the JP.

    For those who missed the memo, this (focus on my bold type) is an abstract of what Jack Frost tried to discuss with TOO readers not long ago.

    • Zaida's Gravatar Zaida
      March 23, 2017 - 12:26 pm | Permalink

      The core belief of colour blind Christianity is to bring salvation to all tribes. Nation is irrelevant, salvation in Jesus is everything. Marxism preaches the same messianic nation-wrecking ideology.

      • March 23, 2017 - 5:52 pm | Permalink

        There is no ‘core belief’ of Christianity. The Jews who wrote the stuff included lots of options, I’d guess written for each occasion that arose. Just like today. The ‘Ten Commandments’ say nothing about ‘salvation to all tribes’.

        • Leon Haller's Gravatar Leon Haller
          March 25, 2017 - 7:32 am | Permalink

          You haven’t studied much Christian theology, or philosophy of religion, one can see.

        • March 28, 2017 - 5:45 pm | Permalink

          @Leon Haller – OK. Tell me the ‘core belief’ of Christianity.

      • Seraphim's Gravatar Seraphim
        March 23, 2017 - 6:26 pm | Permalink

        Now ‘Salvation’ (Gr. Soteria, Lat. Salus), has two meanings which should not be confused (and not be used alternatively):

        1. Deliverance from danger or suffering. To save is to deliver or protect. The word carries the idea of victory, health (it means originally ‘restoration of health), or preservation. Sometimes, the Bible uses the words saved or salvation to refer to temporal, physical deliverance, which is the meaning in which Marxism and Jewish and other tribal messianisms understand it (the perpetual well-being and prosperity of the tribe and the dominance over the other tribe with lesser IQs).
        2. In Christian parlance Salvation is the deliverance, by the grace of God, from eternal punishment for sin which is granted to those who accept God’s evangelion (good news) of the Kingdom of God (the Spirit). It is offered to individuals FROM all nations:

        “…18Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20)…
        “15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Euangheion to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. 19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. 20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen” (Mark 16:15-20).
        The accusation that Jesus Christ did not offer the materialistic salvation they were longing for was leveled at him first by the Jews and then by the tribes which rejected the Euangelion of the Spirit.

    • Nick Dean's Gravatar Nick Dean
      March 23, 2017 - 3:22 pm | Permalink

      Cesar, you know that what you say is untrue. It has been pointed out to you many times that in the US White Christians are not in control of race and immigration policy and do not support their Jewish controllers’ race and immigration policy. This has been demonstrated to you beyond all question of fact many times. And also repeatedly for benefit of Tom Sunic many times.

      I am not a Christian and do not defend that religion. But as I said to you 5 or 6? years ago, we have to be accurate about whatever problems Whites have if we’re going to fix them. Bringing to this problem our own religious or ideological cranks is not going to help. And when they are misleading it will only slow the correction.

      I think I ended our conversation all those years ago by asking you to please stop lying about Whites? I say again, please DO stop lying about Whites doing this to ourself!

      • March 23, 2017 - 8:56 pm | Permalink

        @ Nick Dean,

        Lying? Did you at least read the PDF collecting Frost’s TOO discussion with you all, linked in my above post?

      • March 24, 2017 - 11:35 am | Permalink

        @Nick Dean “the US White Christians are not in control of race and immigration policy”

        They were. That’s the whole point, they lost any deranged Christian power they enjoyed in the West of the centuries past.

        And when they were in power, instead of exterminating other races and colonizing, for example, Mesopotamia or Egypt, they chose to wage wars on Germany. #logic

        • March 28, 2017 - 5:48 pm | Permalink

          The wars by ZOG countries – USSR, USA, Britain, France – were supported, arranged, financed by Jews. But it’s true Christians were too cowardly to say anything – throughout the entire 19th and 20th centuries.

  6. Old Ez's Gravatar Old Ez
    March 23, 2017 - 4:48 am | Permalink

    The petulant misrepresentations of “Christianity” (it used to just be called “The Faith”) current in the Alt Right are just one more instance of the internalized self-hatred that has been inflicted on white Westerners by (((the Left))). There’s three general classes these anti-Faith WN/Alt-Right folks fall into: (1) materialists who depreciate the significance of anything more than biological cause-effect, (2) Nietzscheans – juvenile cosmopolitans who scoff at the provincialism of their ancestors and would sever the roots of their identity without even bothering to understand them first, and (3) “hard” anti-Semites who think along the lines of logical compulsion: “Christianity” came from the Jews; the Jews are evil; therefore, Christianity is evil. There are enormous problems with all of these. The books sounds good though.

    • March 23, 2017 - 8:31 am | Permalink

      (4) People who understand that Jews, when they have control, will tell lies everyday, 24/7, unstoppably, with straight faces, as the promotion of ‘Holocaustianity’ proves now. This presumably happened with the takeover of Christianity from early Christians, who had their light, their love-feasts, and so on, before the Yeshua material was inserted.
      .
      Whether Christendom can be reinstated (after the 20th century’s ‘civil wars’/’brother wars’ between supposed Christians, ignoring Jewish roles) seems unlikely to me; but what was good/ useful/ pragmatic in Christianity ought to be examined and promoted.

      • Nick Dean's Gravatar Nick Dean
        March 23, 2017 - 3:32 pm | Permalink

        Rr, your second paragraph explains precisely why those who appreciate the truth of your first sentence need not and should not join the ranks of Old Ez’s 1, 2 and 3s. There is no need to confuse the two distinct arguments AT ALL.

        • Seraphim's Gravatar Seraphim
          March 24, 2017 - 2:41 am | Permalink

          That ‘first sentence’ (about the ‘insertion of Yeshua material’) is pretty silly. There were no Christians before Christ from whom they took their name, therefore neither Christianity.

      • Nick Dean's Gravatar Nick Dean
        March 24, 2017 - 3:37 pm | Permalink

        I said first sentence not paragraph precisely because I do not agree with Rr on that point.

      • March 28, 2017 - 5:43 pm | Permalink

        @Seraphim — There were no Christians before Christ from whom they took their name,
        .
        It’s sad to see people unable to think about these things. Early Christians’ beliefs have been destroyed; but the name comes from the Greek word for light, warm, golden, bright etc. The Jewish stuff must have been inserted by preachers, arguers, written publications, managers of groups, hired supporters etc., presumably so Jews/Israelites/Judaics got their percentage as they had under the Caesars. That seems likeliest, based on observations of present-days Jews and their constant lies.

  7. Santoculto's Gravatar Santoculto
    March 23, 2017 - 7:27 am | Permalink

    ”in our hyper-moralistic and hyper-altruistic world”

    where*

    Altruism is something that is being used WRONGLY by the anti-white coalition captained by jews to weak and to destroy ”white” resistance.

    Altruism, and wrongly used, is not the fundamental goal to the anti-white coalition, it’s their means and the ends is: jewish supremacy above a multi-mixed world.

    Not surprisingly they are using both

    the most important thing societies must be well developed [and most no have]: morality, real morality and not that schizorreligious ones;

    one the ”achilles heels” of europeans, specially after their Pioneering to dominate the whole world, and all the consequences of it.

    ”Whites” [namely their historically subsequent elites] CHOICE the responsability to ”civilize” other people’s, so called ”white burden” and it’s not just a intrinsic european faith, it was chosen.

    You read well, altruism WRONGLY used…

    And it’s not just a exceptional aspect of our living era but the rule since these three bitches ”culture”, ”religion” ”and” ”ideology” has abducted AND selected human cattle to obey their morally wrong designs.

    If we live in that supposedly hyper-moral world as red-pilled believe so

    just to start, we no had ”anti-white” massive and central propaganda…

    A big contradiction to validate this thesis that ”be kind AND fair is always wrong”.

    We no had anymore war$$, but…

    We no had more atmospheric pollution nor ”animal ‘holocaust’ ”.

    All facets of politically correct was designed to use altruism and in wrong ways, of course, to attack and [re] enslave white ”souls”…

    And the most problematic of all is that

    colonialism happened,
    slavery happened,
    capitalism and socialism is there,

    directly or indirectly speaking, whites, in the moment, ”they” decide invade the world, they have assumed responsibility for dealing with the world, and ”they’ have proved that, thanks to their weaknesses [that tend to be universal], they have dealt in a very unideal way with the world, and their greedy have led them to the ruins of the great Wars of the twentieth century and today, with this terminal state.

    • Nick Dean's Gravatar Nick Dean
      March 23, 2017 - 1:20 pm | Permalink

      False.

      • Santoculto's Gravatar Santoculto
        March 24, 2017 - 4:45 am | Permalink

        ”argument” or…

  8. Zaida's Gravatar Zaida
    March 23, 2017 - 12:37 pm | Permalink

    The Western psyche has been neutralised after hundreds of years of universalist indoctrination by the Christian churches (“we’re all one in Christ”).
    It’s Europeans who made Christianity great, not the other way round. Why Christianity didn’t make Ethiopia, the first country to adopt Christianity, great?

    • Ros's Gravatar Ros
      March 26, 2017 - 1:01 pm | Permalink

      Actually there was a geographical Europe before Christianity, but NO ethnic Europe. This was born with Christianity. And sure European peoples were great before Christianity, but they became even greater. Christianity boosted them. Then they decided to do without it, and we see the consequences.

      • March 28, 2017 - 5:34 pm | Permalink

        Greece and Rome are or were regarded as first-rate civilisations. Christianity parasitised them. However, it did have organisation and a common language, largely of course copied from the Roman Empire. Christianity weakened Europe (mainly because it fought for Jewish wars and thefts, as now) and eventually Jews switched to Arabs as their thug force. The Renaissance occurred when Jews were booted out, or fled. Since Jews came back, European creativity has been handicapped and directed to yet more Jewish wars and thefts.

  9. Bramble's Gravatar Bramble
    March 26, 2017 - 3:41 am | Permalink

    Tom Sunic is politically correct in criticizing Christians instead of Islam, for which Youtube channels like Paul Watson & Alex Jones have reportedly been erased, and just as Amazon has reportedly banned a thousand books for “Anti-Semitism”, it will soon start banning “Islamophobic” ones.

    In accordance with a ten year plan of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to implement United Nations’ Resolution 16:18 which CRIMINALIZES ALL CRITICISM OF ISLAM WORLDWIDE, the U.S. House of Representatives issued H. Res. 569 condemning violence, bigotry and “hateful rhetoric” toward Muslims in the United States. This proposal comes on the heels of Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s post San Bernardino promise to prosecute anyone guilty of anti-Muslim speech. The British Prime Minister also spoke about cracking down on “Islamophobia” and “Anti-Semitism”, which makes perfect sense, since Jews created Islam, but Christians are still fair game.

    “EUROPE: ILLEGAL TO CRITICIZE ISLAM”: “Several European governments have made it clear to their citizens that criticizing European migrant policies or migrants is criminally off-limits and may lead to arrest, prosecution and even convictions. Although these practices constitute police state behavior, European governments do not stop there. They go still farther, by ensuring that ISLAM IN GENERAL IS NOT CRITICIZED EITHER.”
    Tyler Durnden at Zero Hedge:
    http://www.zerohedge.com/ne

    • Rosa's Gravatar Rosa
      March 26, 2017 - 12:53 pm | Permalink

      Exactly: a Muslim convert slays people in London and the Prime Minister does not call it a Muslim murder. We must learn to differentiate “islamic” and “islamist”, the first “good”, the second “bad”, double speak and new speak all over the place.

  10. Rosa's Gravatar Rosa
    March 26, 2017 - 12:45 pm | Permalink

    It was the Roman Catholic Church which stood against the Ottomans, it was thanks to its Popes that Lepanto and Wien were won, whilst the reformers and their Princes and Kings were trying to destroy it and the Catholic Nations.
    From the Reform came the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, and then Marxism and ultimately liberals. Which were unfortunately able to infest the
    Church, culminating this in the very badly conceived and executed Vatican Council II.
    Europe is dying because it’s no more Catholic, no more Christian. And the countries who are dying, literally, first and fast are the Reformed ones. They will become muslim and all the liberals will be happy to dress their women in burka, stone the homosexuals , but allowed to have money, women and children (to f… k).

    • Betty's Gravatar Betty
      March 28, 2017 - 11:09 am | Permalink

      If you accept black/Asian priests-popes, you are the problem.

    • March 28, 2017 - 5:29 pm | Permalink

      You haven’t learned to factor in secret Jewish activities. Jews helped write and invent both Christianity and Islam, and didn’t care if both sides killed each other. Catholicism has always had a place for Jews, whatever they say. And they still do. So of course do Protestant ‘Reformers’. If Europeans all voted for Catholics, I doubt if the situation would change – though ‘awake’ Christians might do something, but only if they could shake off ‘Yeshua’ worship, which seems not possible to me.

  11. H's Gravatar H
    March 27, 2017 - 5:54 pm | Permalink

    in the United States, a country where the powerful heritage of the biblical narrative, with its contemporary legal modalities, often leads to grotesque hyper-moralism among American decision makers and pathological proclivity to self-hate

    http://crdl.usg.edu/do:ugabma_wsbn_34853

Comments are closed.