[color="#0000FF"]^ What people *want* to be reading is the above post ^[/color]
Amazing find of that Breivik quote in your opener, Dhu.
Until you found Breivik's statement, it seemed a piece of the puzzle missing. It was too absent of ideology, too strained.
- The vocal Breivik - moreover vocal about his affection and yet curiously abstract about the object thereof, and so the visible news and commentary also kept saying (even in their occasional arguments for a half-hearted christianism in his behaviour - but excused as "devoid of actual conviction").
- The wholly silent church, that was never silent before when it first came to consolidating territory for christ (Europe) or for reclaiming its total domination over it (down to WWII and after, it was still vocal and active in its attempts to regain Europe for christendom). Eventually after WWII, it would try to make itself completely invisible in its attempts at domination - since it had burnt its hands so publicly before that (which resulted in an expensive cover up operation to keep its self-proclaimed pristine image). And more recently, the church in its European territories has at most been seen bleating that "Europe's civilisation is christendom" to lecture the perennially hijacked natives to "return or be damned: look at islam encroaching".
This is very well-stated:
* Constantine, except for a few historians who do not mince words and a few christian theologians "historians" who know better and are not shy to say it -
Constantine is otherwise generally not allowed to be christian by conviction. But he was. The afore-mentioned "few historians" showed that he was. His actions showed that he was. He did not fully publicly profess until later. And yet (of course) apologetic "secular" history has made him a christian by opportunism, only for political expediency and hence "not actually christian". But his christianism was not in any doubt to him or to his most faithful mother who raised him and brought him up to be exactly what he was (=death to the Hellenistic nation for the glory of christ), nor was his ideological motivation in doubt to the many christians who for centuries came after (let alone to his enthusiastic biographer who IIRC also invented christian history: the churchman Eusebius). Yet "secular history" speaks of Constantine's christianisation of the empire as a "merely political operation". But it was powered by ideology. (It's called christianism). The same ideology that drove his mother Helena to uproot major sacred sites in Hellenistic space and vandalise them with jeebus houses of horror. The native Hellenismos was destroyed for that ideology.
Constantine's first war was with Hellenismos. And it *was* a war (which, after him, was resumed by all christian emperors) against the native religion. They were willing to destroy the empire over ideology. And were thereafter eager to rebuild a newer, larger empire with it: "Europe", the christian empire.
So if Benedict says "Europe" more often than he harps on "jeebus", it is not that he does not care about jeebus - the christian empire is for ("the glory of") jeebus alone, however non-existent, and so too is the reclamation of it - but because when the church says "Europe", it is expressly synonymous (as it ever was) with christendom.
For christendom, Europe's warring princes put aside their differences for a while and formed ~one rank against islam. (Except that orthodoxy was always catholicism's Unfinished Business.) Ideology first, booty second.
For christendom - plus All Wealth And Land Welcome - was the conquest of the "New World" and expansion into it. For christendom, Europe claimed all territories still occupied by heathenism everywhere, like Helena had done before (and as all of Asia has been proclaimed once more for christian conquest now).
For christendom the church would conspire with Hitler: an eye on retaking Europe with such a promising faithful to rule the world, as their "secular arm" had done for them before. The church's nasty Knights of Malta etc were part of various fascist ops.
Nothing is done but that it is motivated by christendom. Some heretic and even occasional unbelieving popes of the early and medieval still knew (and declared!) the ideology was all a sham, others were most serious about christendom (even when they conveniently mixed up the order of importance between the temporal and spiritual). But the current pope and his predecessor JPII, like the Pius-es leading upto and during Hitler most certainly Believe.
Never discount that the church you see has ideology. Else you won't understand its motivations or actions: Benedict and JPII truly believe that the state of the weakened church in Europe is partly due to the laxity of the catholic church (includng how they have let go of their most stringent laws regarding catholicism) - and the redirection back to encouraging latin mass etc is very indicative in this - and they believe that their state is stuck in a vicious cycle due to the church/christendom losing its sheep and the faithfulness of its sheep.
Ironic that in all ways christianism is a perverse distortion of heathenism. But it needs must be: christianism is the antagonist of heathenism, for which it *made* itself into what it is now - all the trappings of a heathenism, but a hollowness of falseness inside.
Christendom *believes*. Even if its belief is unjustified, even if it is a tendency to superficiality on their part, the intensity of their determination on jeebus/christianism's behalf is not to be underestimated.
US may perhaps use faithful christian footsoldiers (even up to the last president) with the actual puppeteers being generally disinterested in matters other than continuity/internal stability, control and expansion for resources, but the current church (under current leadership) is very religious. And those in charge have shown that their intention is to ensure all future popes are of the same mould.
Amazing find of that Breivik quote in your opener, Dhu.
Quote:From Breivik's "manifesto"Note he speaks *solely* of the christian gawd. Says it all.
Quote:If there is a God I will be allowed to enter heaven as all other martyrs for the Church in the past." (p. 1345)
Until you found Breivik's statement, it seemed a piece of the puzzle missing. It was too absent of ideology, too strained.
- The vocal Breivik - moreover vocal about his affection and yet curiously abstract about the object thereof, and so the visible news and commentary also kept saying (even in their occasional arguments for a half-hearted christianism in his behaviour - but excused as "devoid of actual conviction").
- The wholly silent church, that was never silent before when it first came to consolidating territory for christ (Europe) or for reclaiming its total domination over it (down to WWII and after, it was still vocal and active in its attempts to regain Europe for christendom). Eventually after WWII, it would try to make itself completely invisible in its attempts at domination - since it had burnt its hands so publicly before that (which resulted in an expensive cover up operation to keep its self-proclaimed pristine image). And more recently, the church in its European territories has at most been seen bleating that "Europe's civilisation is christendom" to lecture the perennially hijacked natives to "return or be damned: look at islam encroaching".
Quote:the rascal pope, benedict, who really does not give a damn about jesus but does care about "Europe".No, no letting christianism off the hook. Benedict IS a christian. He IS a catholic.* And, like JPII, he is a fundamentalist (anti-Vatican II) catholic. I.e. old school (Latin mass onlee, exorcisms, etc <- these are important cues, not to be dismissed). I.e. Bad News. He believes alright. He believes in catholicism. And also in the catholicism (universality, enforced) of catholicism.
This is very well-stated:
Quote:No justification of unified Europe (within Christendom) is required as in times past; this is already the commonplace notion after 2000 years of forceful "unification" by the Church.Like you said, there never was a Europe until now. The identity of a "Europe" is a christian, racialist one. (In this context, I think it was FrontPageNews that admitted that N Africa - which includes Arabic-speaking islamic countries like Tunisia etc - would have been called "Europe" today, had islam not taken it from christianism, which had itself stolen it from the natives. Note that the racialism that spun-off from/goes hand-in-hand with christianism would have turned the Arabic populations into "oryans" as a direct result of their having remained christian. The Irish and E-Europeans/Russians are now Oryan when they were never allowed to be before. And the US even dismissed the Germans as no more than miscegenated Huns before that.)
* Constantine, except for a few historians who do not mince words and a few christian theologians "historians" who know better and are not shy to say it -
Constantine is otherwise generally not allowed to be christian by conviction. But he was. The afore-mentioned "few historians" showed that he was. His actions showed that he was. He did not fully publicly profess until later. And yet (of course) apologetic "secular" history has made him a christian by opportunism, only for political expediency and hence "not actually christian". But his christianism was not in any doubt to him or to his most faithful mother who raised him and brought him up to be exactly what he was (=death to the Hellenistic nation for the glory of christ), nor was his ideological motivation in doubt to the many christians who for centuries came after (let alone to his enthusiastic biographer who IIRC also invented christian history: the churchman Eusebius). Yet "secular history" speaks of Constantine's christianisation of the empire as a "merely political operation". But it was powered by ideology. (It's called christianism). The same ideology that drove his mother Helena to uproot major sacred sites in Hellenistic space and vandalise them with jeebus houses of horror. The native Hellenismos was destroyed for that ideology.
Constantine's first war was with Hellenismos. And it *was* a war (which, after him, was resumed by all christian emperors) against the native religion. They were willing to destroy the empire over ideology. And were thereafter eager to rebuild a newer, larger empire with it: "Europe", the christian empire.
So if Benedict says "Europe" more often than he harps on "jeebus", it is not that he does not care about jeebus - the christian empire is for ("the glory of") jeebus alone, however non-existent, and so too is the reclamation of it - but because when the church says "Europe", it is expressly synonymous (as it ever was) with christendom.
For christendom, Europe's warring princes put aside their differences for a while and formed ~one rank against islam. (Except that orthodoxy was always catholicism's Unfinished Business.) Ideology first, booty second.
For christendom - plus All Wealth And Land Welcome - was the conquest of the "New World" and expansion into it. For christendom, Europe claimed all territories still occupied by heathenism everywhere, like Helena had done before (and as all of Asia has been proclaimed once more for christian conquest now).
For christendom the church would conspire with Hitler: an eye on retaking Europe with such a promising faithful to rule the world, as their "secular arm" had done for them before. The church's nasty Knights of Malta etc were part of various fascist ops.
Nothing is done but that it is motivated by christendom. Some heretic and even occasional unbelieving popes of the early and medieval still knew (and declared!) the ideology was all a sham, others were most serious about christendom (even when they conveniently mixed up the order of importance between the temporal and spiritual). But the current pope and his predecessor JPII, like the Pius-es leading upto and during Hitler most certainly Believe.
Never discount that the church you see has ideology. Else you won't understand its motivations or actions: Benedict and JPII truly believe that the state of the weakened church in Europe is partly due to the laxity of the catholic church (includng how they have let go of their most stringent laws regarding catholicism) - and the redirection back to encouraging latin mass etc is very indicative in this - and they believe that their state is stuck in a vicious cycle due to the church/christendom losing its sheep and the faithfulness of its sheep.
Ironic that in all ways christianism is a perverse distortion of heathenism. But it needs must be: christianism is the antagonist of heathenism, for which it *made* itself into what it is now - all the trappings of a heathenism, but a hollowness of falseness inside.
Christendom *believes*. Even if its belief is unjustified, even if it is a tendency to superficiality on their part, the intensity of their determination on jeebus/christianism's behalf is not to be underestimated.
US may perhaps use faithful christian footsoldiers (even up to the last president) with the actual puppeteers being generally disinterested in matters other than continuity/internal stability, control and expansion for resources, but the current church (under current leadership) is very religious. And those in charge have shown that their intention is to ensure all future popes are of the same mould.