Big Drop In Americans Identifying As “Christians”

50 Comments

1. The biggest drop has come in “high Protestant” churches.

2. Serves all those US conservatives right, they refuse to believe that the US is broken and believe it can be reform. The sooner other southerners realize this hopefully more can be persuaded to follow the right of secession.

3. Individualism has nothing to do with it. They are being converted into atheists, which is just a different another form of collective religion. When you control public discourse, public memes, social acceptability/popularity, and access to information, you have the ability to distort the mainstream. It’s about control.

   How about we ban divorce, we ban every other belief system than Christianity, we ban science, feminism, being single, etc. That’s not a formula for progress, it’s a transformation into Islam.

4. They portray white men as nerds on TV and promote minorities as our more “masculine” replacements. They poke fun at engineers and scientists and mock the culture that designed the machines that took us into space in the 50s and 60s. It’s pure culture distortion and they just made it “uncool” to be Christian.

   Take the megaphone back and watch the mean return to normalcy. Free access to information (which you would probably ban as well) is converting hundreds and probably thousands of people back to healthy ethnocentrism every day. Don’t doubt that the Free Internet is changing our world for the better.

5. Sure it does.

   Americans have become far more individualistic over the last fifty years. That’s what is driving it. All kinds of things which used to be considered outrageous in both law and custom from cohabitation to divorce to illegitimacy to abortion to interracial relationships to homosexuality is now considered a personal choice and something entirely within the purview of the rights bearing individualist.

   Never in all of history have there been more single households than there are today. If Americans aren’t becoming more individualistic, why do millions of Americans live alone? Why are their marriages and families so unstable? Why do they abort their own children because they are inconvenienced by an unwanted child? Why are they so indifferent to their collective fate?

6. If you are referring to Jews, how and why was the megaphone of the mass media given to them in the first place?

   Isn’t it because Jews were always American citizens with equal rights under the law like all the other American rights bearing individualists? They had every right to create Hollywood, to create media conglomerates, to buy up newspapers like the New York Times, etc. None of it can be taken away from them either without violating their sacrosanct property rights.

7. They are learning these behaviors and lifestyle patterns from their peers, and the alternate reality they watch on TV, and are taught in the public education system. Everyday day. For hours. People get more of their sensory input, beliefs and behavior cues from watching people interact on TV than they do by interacting with people themselves.

   That’s why they call it brainwashing, and that’s why I’ve never had a cable subscription and don’t watch TV. TV is the poltergeist. Roll it off the back deck. If I wasn’t an individualist, and a critical thinker I’d be just like all the other sheeple morons out there.

8. Firstly, it wasn’t given to them. They took it and we are entitled to take it back. Which is why they are trying to silence us and they will use the legal framework to do it. And they don’t have a right to be here. They are infringing on our right to an identity.

9. I disagree.

   1.) First, the decline in the birthrate is a long term trend that goes back to the 19th century, and coincides with the spread of birth control information and contraceptive devices like the condom and diaphragm. Birth control was bringing down the birthrate in the US and Europe well before TV and the pill.

   2.) Second, divorce is also a long term trend. The divorce rate had climbed to 1 in 20 in 1850 to 1 in 10 in 1900 to 1 in 4 in the 1950s. Again, the long term trend predated television.

   3.) Third, female sexuality was being evaluated much more positively by the 1920s. Sexual promiscuity before marriage had been climbing since the 19th century. Again, long before TV.

   4.) Fourth, interracial marriage was legal almost everywhere outside the South before TV.

   5.) Fifth, in between 1 in 4 to 1 in 3 married women in the US were working outside the home by the 1950s.

   6.) Sixth, American women had won the right to vote by the 1920s.

10. Jews were never excluded from the United States.

    On the contrary, they were invited to settle here. Millions of them came. When they got here, Jews were given all the rights of White Americans. They were told to pursue the American Dream.

    So, when Jews created Hollywood, they were within their rights as American citizens to do so. When they bought up mass circulation newspapers in order to control public opinion, there was hardly a murmur of protest because as individuals their property rights were sacrosanct. When the Jews got into network and cable television, their actions were considered perfectly lawful and legitimate.

    Why shouldn’t they silence us? That’s within their individual rights. What can we do about it without violating their property rights?

11. In the name of unfettered individual freedom, Americans have thrown off all kinds of laws and customs.

12. TV exacerbates the problem. I’ve not said that TV is causing it. It’s allowed the puritan/yankee, liberal, equality culture to spread like a virus. As I’ve said before it’s a cultural problem. If race-masochists/self-haters want out of their identity that’s their imperative. They should just go somewhere it’s acceptable. I don’t want that and I don’t think people in the South should consider it acceptable.

    So I disagree with your approach that people who don’t submit to group-think should be terrorized into conformity by government mafia.

    “The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is hard business. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.”

    ? Rudyard Kipling

13. George Fitzhugh nailed it over 150 years ago. He was probably the only American political theorist who, if he were alive today, wouldn’t be in the least bit surprised by the course of what he called “Free Society”:

    “Further study, too, of Western European Society, which has been engaged in continual revolution for twenty years, has satisfied us that Free Society every where begets isms, and that isms soon beget bloody revolutions. Until our trip to the North, we did not justly appreciate the passage which we are about to quote from Mr. Carlyle’s “Latter-Day Pamphlets.” Now it seems to us as if Boston, New Haven, or Western New York, had set for the picture:

    Fitzhugh pointed out that “Free Society” is synonymous with cultural collapse, perpetual social revolution, and the multiplication of “-isms” that destabilize cultural norms.

    He quotes Thomas Carlyle:

    “To rectify the relation that exists between two men, is there no method, then, but that of ending it? The old relation has become unsuitable, obsolete, perhaps unjust; and the remedy is, abolish it; let there henceforth be no relation at all. From the ‘sacrament of marriage’ downwards, human beings used to be manifoldly related one to another, and each to all; and there was no relation among human beings, just or unjust, that had not its grievances and its difficulties, its necessities on both sides to bear and forbear. But henceforth, be it known, we have changed all that by favor of Heaven; the ‘voluntary principle’ has come up, which will itself do the business for us; and now let a new sacrament, that of Divorce, which we call emancipation, and spout of on our platforms, be universally the order of the day!

    Have men considered whither all this is tending, and what it certainly enough betokens? Cut every human relation that has any where grown uneasy sheer asunder; reduce whatsoever was compulsory to voluntary, whatsoever was permanent among us to the condition of the nomadic; in other words, LOOSEN BY ASSIDUOUS WEDGES, in every joint, the whole fabrice of social existence, stone from stone, till at last, all lie now quite loose enough, it can, as we already see in most countries, be overset by sudden outburst of revolutionary rage; and lying as mere mountains of anarchic rubbish, solicit you to sing Fraternity, &c. over it, and rejoice in the now remarkable era of human progress we have arrived at.”

    Is that not the world we live in today?

    “Now we plant ourselves on this passage from Carlyle. We say that, as far as it goes, ’tis a faithful picture of the isms of the North. But the restraints of Law and Public Opinion are less at the North than in Europe.”

    Writing the 1850s, George Fitzhugh anticipated the invention of -isms like racism, sexism, and nativism in the 20th century. He wouldn’t have been surprised by the invention of new moral failings like “homophobia” or “white privilege” or new practices like “gay marriage.” Fitzhugh insisted the North was fond of “novelties” and considered it one of their trademark cultural characteristics.

    “The isms on each side the Atlantic are equally busy with “assiduous wedges,” in “loosening in every joint the whole fabric of social existence;” but whilst they dare invoke Anarchy in Europe, they dare not inaugurate New York Free Love, and Oneida Incest, and Mormon Polygamy. The moral, religious, and social heresies of the North, are more monstrous than those of Europe. The pupil has surpassed the master, unaided by the stimulants of poverty, hunger and nakedness, which urge the master forward.”

    Fitzhugh associated abolitionism with what he called the North’s other monstrous heresies of “free women, free love, and free churches.” All of which later came true.

14. We don’t even live in a free society. So you’ve commited an enormous logical fallacy. You’ve got a habit of basing your arguments on non-sequiturs. You can’t make a truthful logical argument, when your hypothesis is wrong at the outset.

    We live in a soft-tyranny, where speech is controlled by a highly sophisticated and pernicious system of memes and social cues. Weapons and equipment are restricted to provide the government with a tactical advantage over the citizen.

    The effective means to recourse (weapons and armies) have been replaced with pathetic sign waving demonstrations and candle-light vigils. Serious assembly is impossible because, as we saw in Civil War, and the South in the 20th century, your little band of dissidents will get wiped out by a Federal Army, the National Guard or the US Marshals. Americans brought it on themselves by allowing government to become their master and bully them. That same government you promote has got us cornered and fangless. It will assume as many more powers as it can, until it finally gets rid of the first amendment and sends its troopers to shut you up for good.

    The second problem with that reasoning, it that it attributes the outcome to the system itself, rather than the people who do the self-destructive behavior. The system has nothing to do with it. Rome fell because the people degenerate. Their beliefs and behaviors were maladaptive. It was not because they were Free. They most certainly weren’t.

    • 1.) The US is a proposition nation, a society based on the abstract principles of liberty and equality, which we have been gradually perfecting over the course of two centuries by crowding out, attacking, and eliminating every other value, particularly social stability, which was once considered good in life.

      2.) I have a habit of basing my arguments on empirical evidence, not on abstract theories which rarely work out in practice. “Liberty” doesn’t necessarily lead to license, but take a look at nations which claim to be based on “liberty” like the USA or France. Has a licentious culture been the result of the expansion of individual liberty?

      3.) We live in the same “free society” described by Alexis de Tocqueville who pointed out that stifling conformity to “Public Opinion” is just the flip side of America’s extreme individualism.

      4.) What’s so bad about modern America anyway? Isn’t what we have now a paradise of individual freedom and equality? Everything with two legs has been granted universal equal rights and unleashed from the restrictions of law and custom.

      5.) The system produces the same result everywhere it is tried because “liberty” and “equality” are the values of revolutionaries who despise social hierarchies and want to tear up the social fabric. I want to correct something I said above. I said that Americans are the most self absorbed individualists on the face of the earth. That title might be contested by the Swedes who have gone further than we have in abandoning marriage, religion, and the traditional family. New Zealanders also have more unstable marriages than Americans even though a third of our population is non-White.

      6.) The Romans also fell victim to self absorbed individualism. Augustus tried unsuccessfully to force single Roman citizens to marry and have children. If memory serves, he went through several divorces himself.

15. LOL. That bleeding heart shit might work on bleeding heart suckers. Why don’t you make a point, instead of making a pointless question? Otherwise pack your violin because noone here is listening.

16. I see that last comment got cleaned up. Feel free to remove my follow-up.

17. Here’s what Tocqueville said about American individualism in 1835:

    “I have shown how it is that in ages of equality every man seeks for his opinions within himself; I am now to show how it is that in the same ages all his feelings are turned towards himself alone. Individualism is a novel expression, to which a novel idea has given birth. Our fathers were only acquainted with egoisme (selfishness). Selfishness is a passionate and exaggerated love of self, which leads a man to connect everything with himself and to prefer himself to everything in the world. Individualism is a mature and calm feeling, which disposes each member of the community to sever himself from the mass of his fellows and to draw apart with his family and his friends, so that after he has thus formed a little circle of his own, he willingly leaves society at large to itself. Selfishness originates in blind instinct; individualism proceeds from erroneous judgment more than from depraved feelings; it originates as much in deficiencies of mind as in perversity of heart.

    Selfishness blights the germ of all virtue; individualism, at first, only saps the virtues of public life; but in the long run it attacks and destroys all others and is at length absorbed in downright selfishness. Selfishness is a vice as old as the world, which does not belong to one form of society more than to another; individualism is of democratic origin, and it threatens to spread in the same ratio as the equality of condition.” …

    “Among aristocratic nations, as families remain for centuries in the same condition, often on the same spot, all generations become, as it were, contemporaneous. A man almost always knows his forefathers and respects them; he thinks he already sees his remote descendants and he loves them. He willingly imposes duties on himself towards the former and the latter, and he will frequently sacrifice his personal gratifications to those who went before and to those who will come after him.” …

    “Aristocratic institutions, moreover, have the effect of closely binding every man to several of his fellow citizens. As the classes of an aristocratic people are strongly marked and permanent, each of them is regarded by its own members as a sort of lesser country, more tangible and more cherished than the country at large. As in aristocratic communities all the citizens occupy fixed positions, one above another, the result is that each of them always sees a man above himself whose patronage is necessary to him, and below himself another man whose co-operation he may claim. Men living in aristocratic ages are therefore almost always closely attached to something placed out of their own sphere, and they are often disposed to forget themselves. It is true that in these ages the notion of human fellowship is faint and that men seldom think of sacrificing themselves for mankind; but they often sacrifice themselves for other men. In democratic times, on the contrary, when the duties of each individual to the race are much more clear, devoted service to any one man becomes more rare; the bond of human affection is extended, but it is relaxed.” …

    “Among democratic nations new families are constantly springing up, others are constantly falling away, and all that remain change their condition; the woof of time is every instant broken and the track of generations effaced. Those who went before are soon forgotten; of those who will come after, no one has any idea: the interest of man is confined to those in close propinquity to himself. As each class gradually approaches others and mingles with them, its members become undifferentiated and lose their class identity for each other. Aristocracy had made a chain of all the members of the community, from the peasant to the king; democracy breaks that chain and severs every link of it.

    As social conditions become more equal, the number of persons increases who, although they are neither rich nor powerful enough to exercise any great influence over their fellows, have nevertheless acquired or retained sufficient education and fortune to satisfy their own wants. They owe nothing to any man, they expect nothing from any man; they acquire the habit of always considering themselves as standing alone, and they are apt to imagine that their whole destiny is in their own hands.

    Thus not only does democracy make every man forget his ancestors, but it hides his descendants and separates his contemporaries from him; it throws him back forever upon himself alone and threatens in the end to confine him entirely within the solitude of his own heart.” …

    “I think, then, that the species of oppression by which democratic nations are menaced is unlike anything that ever before existed in the world; our contemporaries will find no prototype of it in their memories. I seek in vain for an expression that will accurately convey the whole of the idea I have formed of it; the old words despotism and tyranny are inappropriate: the thing itself is new, and since I cannot name, I must attempt to define it.

    I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men, all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest; his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind. As for the rest of his fellow citizens, he is close to them, but he does not see them; he touches them, but he does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country.

    Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?

    Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things;it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits.

    After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

    I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom, and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people.”

18. How empirical is your statement that there are no laws in this country? Unleashed? Come on man. The average American Home Owner Association has more laws on its books than most countries.

19. The problem is Socialism, which is the opposite of Indiviualism. I’m not even going continue to try and disabuse you of your hate of personal freedom. If you’d like to model society on North Korea, good luck Alabama.

20. How many laws and customs has America discarded in the name of individual freedom and equality? Next month, the Supreme Court is expected to throw out the definition of marriage itself. It will be hailed as a giant leap forward for the cause of “equal rights.”

21. What has individualism wrought?

    Here are just a few examples: the freedom to abort your child, the freedom to use birth control to limit your family, the freedom to divorce your spouse on no fault grounds, the freedom to engage in homosexuality, the freedom to marry a same sex partner, the freedom to cohabit with a long term sexual partner, the freedom to engage in sexual intercourse with as many partners as you like, the freedom to miscegenate, the freedom to contract an interracial marriage, the freedom to live a single, childless life, the freedom of women to spurn motherhood for careers, and the freedom to mutilate yourself and pretend you have “transformed” into the opposite sex.

    Now, you are inevitably going to say, non sequitur, freedom doesn’t necessarily produce that result. Well then, where hasn’t it? Where hasn’t extreme individualism, which undermines the social fabric, not produced social revolution and cultural collapse?

22. I think this is a good video that addresses this.

23. Also, individualism is a step toward socialism, maybe even a prerequisite for it.

    How is that possible? Think about it: it has already dissolved the tribe and the clan, then it dissolved the extended family, then the kin group, and finally after pruning down the family to the modern nuclear family, it has dynamited that down to single parent households and individual households where one person lives alone.

    And where do such people turn? To the embrace of an all powerful government.

24. It seems to me that both Hunter and TJ are correct and perhaps are arguing past each other. The enhanced individualism we have today may be better described as self-centeredness. Of course people have more choices now than ever before. There are less restrictions on your choice of profession, spouse, and where to live. Much of this is made possible by modern technology and many of the numerous choices to be made are inconsequential. You have more freedom to choose your cable company, what to wear, what to eat for breakfast, what car to drive, etc., etc., etc. However, all these freedoms come with conditions. In order to maximize your choices, you must accept the attitudes, beliefs, and memes provided to you by the dominant culture. If you reject their concepts of equality, diversity, and privilege, among all of the -isms, then you will face severe consequences and have your right to make many of these choices revoked. Also, some choices such as discrimination and home schooling have been deemed unacceptable and are now illegal or highly discouraged.

25. I hate to break it to you, but the law barely makes a dent in those things anyway. People are going to do what they want to do in spite of government. Government can’t patrol, monitor, hassle, shame, and stick-up everyone and every square inch of this country simultaneously. Even though we know it would like to. All it’s really good at doing is burning money, cultivating parasites, and defending itself. Read some Mencken. Prohibition was great example of assholes trying to force their standards on everyone else. It was untenable. It caused an embarrassing crisis of confidence in government and had to be rolled back.

    Clearly noone is convincing the other here, so I think I’ll just stick to dailyslave.com. Thanks for letting me have a say though.

    http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/2040/6459/original.jpg

    • Are you saying the law never made a dent in interracial marriage, divorce, or abortion? I would say that all those practices became much more common after the 1960s.

      I know for a fact that my grandparents never walked into a store like Walmart or McDonald’s and beheld the spectacle of White women walking around with their black children in tow. They never saw proud sodomites parading through town either.

    • BTW, the number of people who died from violent crime during Prohibition is dwarfed by those who die from drunk driving accidents in any given year.

26. I think our fundamental problem stems from the way he sees liberty and tribe as mutually exclusive, and I don’t. I see the tribe as an extension of the individual and a survival imperative. When the tribe suffers the individual suffers as a consequence. And Unlike the 3rd world, we are capable of self-government, self-moderation, and distributed models of power. I don’t view other members of my ethnic kinship circle as sheep or ants.

27. Now, you are inevitably going to say, non sequitur, freedom doesn’t necessarily produce that result. Well then, where hasn’t it? Where hasn’t extreme individualism, which undermines the social fabric, not produced social revolution and cultural collapse?

    And your solution is to proselytize for some kind of extreme Theocracy, which inevitably creates a natural tendency for the more intelligent people in a society to seek out and gravitate toward extreme individualism? You are blaming extreme individualism for social revolution and cultural collapse. Okay, what do you point to as the cause for extreme individualism?

    • Would you describe the 1950s as an extreme theocracy?

28. Those things were not socially acceptable back then, and now they are. You need to target social acceptability (culture). Government, or lack thereof, is merely a by-product of the aggregate sensibilities of the people.

29. Add to the list above: the freedom of women, homosexuals, and even transsexuals to become US soldiers.

30. Celestial Time,

    It’s part of a long term trend.

    Americans have been pushing the limits of liberty and equality ever since the 18th century. It’s not just in the United States either. In fact, the only real difference that stands out between the US and Europe is that Americans are far more religious.

31. This entire discussion is a non sequitur. Whites are being enslaved and genocided due to economic and political racketeering. The jews engine most of it.

    Jews were not within their rights when they created Hollywood (and I don’t believe they were invited into the US, either; many snuck in as ‘europeans’ even when there were restrictions on jewish immigration from eastern Europe):
    http://www.rense.com/general91/walt.htm

    http://hugequestions.com/Eric/TFC/Edison-and-the-Jews.html

    I can’t find the exact and best article on the topic right now. I think the above links tell variations on the overall story.

    HW’s thesis is fundamentally flawed; jews rarely used legal methods to steal and pirate all sorts of resources and capital from gentiles once the industrial era began. Your sense of things is totally inverted.

    Because you are an intellectual coward you default into blaming your own women for others’ failings. Shame on you.

32. Since you want to talk about Jews, it was a Jew, Betty Friedan (Goldstein), who founded the National Organization for Women and launched second wave feminism.

33. The notion that white women and children suffer and die every day by the tentacles of the Jews while white men sit around positing abortion as the holy grail of fighting white genocide says it all.

    Pathetic.

    If you want to know why no one shows up at your protests, please check the mirror. There isn’t one defiant white man I know who would grace your niggard cult of misogyny with his support.

    Not one.

34. The fundamental difference between TJ and myself is that I see “liberty” as a public good, but just one good among a basket of other things that make a good society, and one which can be perverted into a vice when taken to excess.

    I’m comfortable with a fair amount of individual liberty. I don’t use individual liberty, or equality as the SJWs do, as THE absolute abstract measuring stick to evaluate any society or always regard MORE of it as automatically better.

35. Hunter, at least you do admit that liberty can be a good building block of society. Sure, it can be perverted, but so can pretty much anything else when the wrong people gain power, or when too many of the wrong people have to be accounted for in a society. I think the key is to make sure that government is always geared toward putting power into the hands of those who understand that liberty just for the sake of liberty is meaningless. It needs context. If it’s a free-for-all, then liberty essentially becomes a moot point, and it’s only a matter of time before those with ulterior motives swoop in to use “liberty” as nothing more than a way to gain power and dictate to others.

    I don’t think there would be much of a problem with freedom and liberty if we were living in a society built on race. Most black people just don’t understand what freedom and liberty mean, just like they don’t understand what justice means. Justice, to them, is always getting the result you want, no matter the facts or evidence. Liberty means always getting what you want, no matter how it effects other people or society.

    Carte blanche being given to the idea of liberty and freedom inside of a forced multiracial society is a death sentence for White people and Western values and principles. If we really had freedom and liberty, we could set up White towns and cities, and we could exclude non-Whites whenever and wherever we wanted. But we don’t really have that kind of freedom, do we? We are only given the freedom to give away our history, heritage and lands. Like I said, context.

36. My thinking on the subject reflects Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean:

    http://www.cwu.edu/~warren/Unit1/aristotles_virtues_and_vices.htm

    Too much, an excess, or too little, a deficiency, of any good thing is a vice. In this way, courage is a virtue, for example, while rashness and cowardice are vices. Similarly, a moderate amount of individual liberty is a good thing, but either too much or too little of it is always bad for society.

37. whether it’s a sign of deterioration depends on why they switch denominations.

    if a person switches because he believes x and the church believes y, then that’s proper. You shouldn’t attend ceremonies at a Church which preaches doctrine you disagree with.

    But if a person switches because of management issues, then it’s a sign of deterioration.

38. I agree.

    Much of this is due to people being “pushed” out of their denominations by liberal clergy who yearn for the approval of their secular peers.

39. I agree with Celestial Time that liberty in the ethnic context is a sustainable system. I’d prefer to do away with all forms of central government but fortunately westerners control a lot of land mass and have a lot of room for differing pro-white opinion.

40. Here’s an interesting article on Dante and the Circle of Hell in which the Sodomites dwell:

    http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0904-gardiner
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1521581/posts

    Dante finds the sodomites at the bottom of the seventh circle, a circle that contains three rings. Again, his geography is very revealing. In the top ring of the seventh circle are those who killed for gain, whether in empire-building or in robbing travelers on the highway. Appropriately enough, mass murderers such as Alexander are up to their eyebrows in boiling blood, while common robbers are only ankle deep. Below them in the second ring are those who committed suicide because they lost money, reputation, or status. They are below the homicides, because they willfully violated the law of self-preservation, an even more basic law of Nature than love of neighbor. Since they set a lower value on their life than on worldly additions to it, they are now deprived of their human form and reduced to thorny trees oppressed by nightmarish Harpies.

    But Dante places sodomy in the bottom-most ring of the seventh circle, below homicide and suicide, suggesting that this sin is an even worse form of violence. The implication here is that sodomy involves an even more thoroughgoing hostility to Nature than defying the laws of self-preservation or love of neighbor; that it is a culmination of violence in being destructive to neighbor, violating self-love, and at the same time undermining family and community. Note that the suicides in the first ring damned themselves alone, while the sodomites damned themselves with others. Therefore, sodomites must run in a band forever on the burning plain. The burning sands on which they run represent their sterility. With this detail Dante shows that the intimacies of sodomy lead to a lack of posterity and put an end to one’s family line. The sodomites, as represented by Dante’s friend Brunetto Latini, chose continuity through fame, not through children. Brunetto points out that the men in his company were all famous scholars and literary celebrities who raised themselves in the eyes of the world by their talents while they dragged one another down into Hell. Thus, they sum up the previous rings: They were violent both to others and themselves in that they destroyed their own souls and that of one another, and they were violent to family life by their choice of sterility.

    Thus, Dante reveals that sodomy has wide social ramifications that go beyond homicide and suicide. The sodomites are on the same burning sands as the blasphemers — those who are violent against God — because they were equally destructive of the community. Just as the blasphemers assaulted the faith of the people, so the sodomites assaulted family life, and both of these are foundations of the community, one spiritual and one natural.

    Now, the punishment for sin in the Inferno represents exactly what the sinner obstinately chose during life. So it is important to note that Dante sees the sodomites running in a company, not paired like the lustful heterosexuals of the second circle. He implies that sodomy involves not couples, but a large pool of sexual partners. And when Dante asks Brunetto about the most famous men in his company, it is the sodomite himself who speaks of his fellows with contempt as a “wretched mob” made “filthy in the world,” giving us a glimpse of the self-loathing and the contempt of sexual partners that accompanies this sin.

    Dante gives us an insight into sodomy when he reveals that these sinners cannot stand still for a minute (because of the burning sand), but must keep running perpetually. Besides their endless, compulsive running in circles, the sodomites suffer from another affliction with respect to their hands: While talking, Brunetto and his fellow sodomites constantly move their hands jerkily to brush off the flakes of fire that rain on them, like the fire in Sodom. These expressive details point to a compulsive, violent restlessness. For in the Inferno, the penalty holds a mirror to the sin itself, to show how it manifested itself in life.

    Dante indicates that sodomy involves perpetual motion and a bondage to a large group of like-minded sinners. One may easily deduce what Dante would say about same-sex “marriage.” He would call it a delusion, and any law establishing it a violence against Nature. For marriage involves a pair, is natural, is open to children and the future, and builds up community. But sodomy, as Dante shows in the Inferno, is forever restless and unrooted (same-sex “committed” partnerships almost always allow for outside sexual liaisons), involves partners bound in mutual contempt, and is inimical to the ultimate survival of families and societies. This is why Dante places sodomy so far below heterosexual lust, and even below the homicides and suicides, at the very bottom rung of the seventh circle of the “Violent.”

41. It is becoming rare to find a college educated white American who believes in Jesus. But the growing Hispanic population in the US is god conscious even though their rate of violence tops the charts. Expect the Pope to soon visit the South West and address millions speaking in Spanish.

42. Let us compare black churches who take an active role in their community and are not afraid to discuss racial matters of concern to the black community to mainstream white churches who worship Israel and take up money for missions to Africa or Mexico.Just for the record I believe in a divine creator and the immortality of the soul, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old,that all races did not come from Adam or the sons of Noah,that the creator has not only spread life throughout the cosmos but even into dimensions invisible and inaccessible to us at the present time. When the creator said let there be light then the Big Bang happened. This is a much more powerful and expansive God than the current Judea-Christian belief whereby only earth matters, the universe is 7000 years old, and only Jews are meta-physically significant, and there is no life elsewhere but on earth and a multiverse does not exist.

43. melvin polatnick says:

    “Expect the Pope to soon visit the South West and address millions speaking in Spanish.”

    Jack responds:

    Yes, the new Liberation Theology Pope was mouthing off in terrible Jew Leftist media like Rolling Stone Magazine that he was eager to lead large groups of poor Hispanic Catholics across the US Southern border.

    I know it’s a fantasy, but sometimes dream that there is some unreconstructed, reactionary Catholics in Texas that will do on to this anti White, Anti Christ Liberation Theology Pope what was done to that Communist Bishop in El Salvador in the early 1980s.

    I’m definitely protesting his visit if he comes anywhere near where I live/have lived. I’ll be in the street with Ulster Unionist Protestant, Mel Gibson’s Dad’s Catholics.

    But, a more realistic violent fantasy is that this anti White, pro Muslim Liberation Theology Pope flys his multi $ million Pope Jet to some Italian Island in the Med overrun by Black Muslim asylum seekers invaders and 1 of 2 things happen:

    1) The Local Italians lynch him and demand a restored Traditional Italian Catholic Pope

    2) the Black Muslims he embraces give him ebola or just Jihad his head off.

44. The Christian West is on life support. By 2050 over 40 percent of the Worlds Christians will be in Sub Sahara Africa. Christianity is, and was a passing fad, and was only a matter of time, before it ceased being relevant among our folk. Good riddance to the desert Semitic religion.

45. Jack, I can’t agree with doing violence to Pope Francis, but I would be all for secluding him in a desert monastery without any modern communication for the rest of his life. The next Pope should be elected from the ranks of the Middle Eastern Christians who are being killed without mercy by the towel heads. Something tells me he would take a hard line on Islam!
    Kevin Brannan, the Christian religion isn’t “a desert Semitic religion.” If it was such a thing, it would resemble the ancient pagan Semitic cults of the Middle East, Talmudic Judaism, or Islam.

46. I don’t doubt that the major premise here is true, Sir, yet, I really doubt it has validity for The South. Certainly not where I live, in Eastern North Carolina – for churches vastly outnumbers franchises, in toto – the former dotting the towns and most especially the countryside, where the churches are the only organizations to be seen – for miles and miles of country roads.

    People of every class and race, here, can oft be heard saluting each other with, ‘May The Lord bless you’ … and so it goes.