What is the relationship of edgy mainstream Rightism (McGuirk, Tommeh, etc) to the Dissident Right and Nationalism?

[AN2]

his backers are Israelis and members of the IDF and militant Israeli support organizations .
his secretary and deputy are members of Israeli NGO s.

I would say that my main issue with the likes of McGuirk and Tommy Robinson is not that they're Zionist, it's that they're anti-nationalist, the only nationalism they know is Zionism

But yes, who's pulling their strings is relevant to that

 

[SwordOfStZip]

Being a Christian AND a Zionist is not just absurd—it’s a flat-out lie. Zionism is a secular, worldly political agenda, while Christianity rejects the very notion of power in this world. The two have absolutely nothing in common, and anyone trying to make them fit together is either willfully ignorant or playing a dangerous game. To call someone a Christian and a Zionist is a pathetic attempt to serve two masters, and it’s a contradiction that deserves no respect.

Zionism has increasingly taken on a Religious colouring and just how secular it was in the usual Western understanding of secular even back in the days of Ben Gurion is open to debate.

Does Christianity reject the very notion of power in this world? I do not believe that it does and almost the entire of Catholic Tradition would agree with me here on this. Are you saying that not only that there can be no Christian States (I see both pros and cons in having a Catholic State and I don't think that seeking one for the foreseeable future in Ireland is prudent regardless of that) but that a Christian working as police man or county councillor is acting against Christianity by carrying out those roles?

I think certainly a Christian by supporting Zionism is putting their Salvation in severe jeopardy for a variety of reasons however there are people who claim that the reasons they support Zionism are based in what they see as Christian teaching- is it not understandable that others, especially non-Christians, would call them "Christian Zionists"?

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

How would you describe groups from Late Antiquity such as the Ebionites than?

I don't understand this

 

[Tiger]

Zionism has increasingly taken on a Religious colouring and just how secular it was in the usual Western understanding of secular even back in the days of Ben Gurion is open to debate.

Does Christianity reject the very notion of power in this world? I do not believe that it does and almost the entire of Catholic Tradition would agree with me here on this. Are you saying that not only that there can be no Christian States (I see both pros and cons in having a Catholic State and I don't think that seeking one for the foreseeable future in Ireland is prudent regardless of that) but that a Christian working as police man or county councillor is acting against Christianity by carrying out those roles?

I think certainly a Christian by supporting Zionism is putting their Salvation in severe jeopardy for a variety of reasons however there are people who claim that the reasons they support Zionism are based in what they see as Christian teaching- is it not understandable that others, especially non-Christians, would call them "Christian Zionists"?

Zionism adopting a religious veneer doesn’t change its fundamentally secular and anti-Christian roots. Its founders, including Ben Gurion, viewed religion as a means to an end, exploiting it to rally support while adhering to a nationalist, often atheist, agenda. The attempt to paint Zionism as anything but a worldly pursuit is revisionism, plain and simple. As for your claim that Christianity doesn’t reject power in this world, you’ve misunderstood the faith. Christ’s Kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36), and His followers are called to live in fidelity to Him, not to dominate through worldly systems. That doesn’t mean Christians can’t serve in roles like police or councillors—those roles, when carried out justly, serve the common good. But it does mean Christianity rejects the worship of power, the idolatry of the state, or the use of power to subvert the Gospel for political ends.

Regarding the term "Christian Zionists," its existence reflects the tragic state of modern Christianity. People who twist Scripture to support Zionism are betraying the faith. Their ignorance of the Gospel doesn’t make the term any less contradictory or theologically incoherent.

Non-Christians (or poorly catechised Christians) might understandably call them that, but it doesn’t legitimise the concept. "Christian Zionism" is a contradiction in terms, as Zionism's objectives—rooted in the rejection of Christ—cannot coexist with true Christianity.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

his backers are Israelis and members of the IDF and militant Israeli support organizations .his secretary and deputy are members of Israeli NGO s.

Tommy's "backers" sure are great considering he spends half his time imprisoned by the establishment...

 

[SwordOfStZip]

You're a total spa

The problem is that the term Christian can refer to anyone who identifies as such or only to someone in a State of Grace. On political threads I generally use the term here in boarder ways than I would if we were defining orthodoxy, right action, etc in a purely Religious context.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Dumbo James. Always jumping into discussions underpants first. You’ve completely missed the point, and it’s clear you’re not equipped to follow this conversation.

To be fair Sir you dismissed Aul Lad's experience of the church in the 40's as that being inline with the behaviour of society in general at the time.

However in doing so you reduced the institution to no more than any other existing back then which by definition means that the church you regard so much was no more spiritual or otherworldly than say a sporting organisation or summat.

I mean if one was to say for example that the prison system of the 1940's was quite brutal toward inmates you could legitimately claim that's just the way life was back then. But the prison system doesn't claim to be the living incarnation of the Creator of all things.

Your equating of Mother church with every other mundane man-made institution sets rather a low bar don't you think?

 

[AN2]

The problem is that the term Christian can refer to anyone who identifies as such or only to someone in a State of Grace. On political threads I generally use the term here in boarder ways than I would if we were defining orthodoxy, right action, etc in a purely Religious context.

The point is @Tiger is a spa

People identify as Christian and Zionist, millions of them in the US, as Dan said

As it happens, I think 'Judeo-Christian' is manufactured

Y'all (Abrahamics) don't believe in the "same god", you can't be a Christian if you don't believe in the divinity of Christ

Drooper also agrees with me that an 'agnostic' is, in fact, an atheist

But, having said all that, he's still a fucken spa

 

[Tiger]

To be fair Sir you dismissed Aul Lad's experience of the church in the 40's as that being inline with the behaviour of society in general at the time.

However in doing so you reduced the institution to no more than any other existing back then which by definition means that the church you regard so much was no more spiritual or otherworldly than say a sporting organisation or summat.

I mean if one was to say for example that the prison system of the 1940's was quite brutal toward inmates you could legitimately claim that's just the way life was back then. But the prison system doesn't claim to be the living incarnation of the Creator of all things.

Your equating of Mother church with every other mundane man-made institution sets rather a low bar don't you think?

To be fair, nothing.

Your reasoning is inverted, typical of modern sophistry. What I actually pointed out is that the societal ethos of the 1940s was marked by greater brutality—a reflection of fallen human nature in a harsher age. Aul Lad’s lamentable experience is evidence of individuals failing to embody the faith, not of the Church endorsing or embodying brutality. His suffering was a contradiction of Catholic principles, not an affirmation of them.

Aul Lad was trying to claim his experience had some connection to a particular liturgy, which was absurd. My own parents and grandparents had wonderful lives in the same era. Not everyone shared his situation.

Your assertion that recognizing the societal flaws of the time "reduces" the Church to a mundane institution misses the point entirely. The Church is not measured by the failures of those who fall short of its teachings; it is measured by the timeless truths it upholds. Unlike prisons or sporting organizations, the Church stands as a divinely instituted vessel of grace and redemption, even when individual members—prone to sin like all of us—fail to live up to its calling.

To argue that the Church is no different because individuals in its ranks acted brutally in a brutal age is to confuse the imperfections of man with the perfection of divine teaching. Aul Lad’s suffering was a failure of those charged with embodying Christ’s love, not a reflection of the Church’s essence. It is precisely because the Church transcends human failings that it has the power to critique them, to call sinners to repentance, and to offer hope for renewal—a reality unmatched by any man-made institution.

 

[Tiger]

The point is @Tiger is a spa

People identify as Christian and Zionist, millions of them in the US, as Dan said

As it happens, I think 'Judeo-Christian' is manufactured

Y'all (Abrahamics) don't believe in the "same god", you can't be a Christian if you don't believe in the divinity of Christ

Drooper also agrees with me that an 'agnostic' is, in fact, an atheist

But, having said all that, he's still a fucken spa

James, you clearly haven’t the faintest understanding of what we’re discussing here, which is the very substance of meaning in language.

The fact that millions of people in the U.S. dub themselves "Christian and Zionist" doesn’t make it any more valid than a mass of people calling themselves men when they’re biologically women.

The sheer volume of those who believe a lie does not in any way add legitimacy to the lie itself. The reality remains unchanged: Zionism, by its very nature, is the antithesis of Christianity. No amount of popular delusion can alter that fundamental truth. To embrace this intellectual folly and pretend that two contradictions can be harmonized is to engage in a crude form of sophistry that plays to the worst impulses of the human ego.

Your foul-mouthed outbursts are nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that I buried your dignity in a funeral pyre a few weeks ago. That blow clearly struck a nerve, and now you’re lashing out to protect your bruised ego. Instead of engaging with the real issue, you’re deflecting with petty insults. But no amount of swearing or tantrums can change the fact that your arguments are hollow and your position is intellectually bankrupt.

 

[AN2]

James, you clearly haven’t the faintest understanding of what we’re discussing here

It's never-ending irony with you

, which is the very substance of meaning in language.

The fact that millions of people in the U.S. dub themselves "Christian and Zionist" doesn’t make it any more valid than a mass of people calling themselves men when they’re biologically women.

The sheer volume of those who believe a lie does not in any way add legitimacy to the lie itself. The reality remains unchanged: Zionism, by its very nature, is the antithesis of Christianity. No amount of popular delusion can alter that fundamental truth. To embrace this intellectual folly and pretend that two contradictions can be harmonized is to engage in a crude form of sophistry that plays to the worst impulses of the human ego.

Your foul-mouthed outbursts are nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that I buried your dignity in a funeral pyre a few weeks ago. That blow clearly struck a nerve, and now you’re lashing out to protect your bruised ego. Instead of engaging with the real issue, you’re deflecting with petty insults. But no amount of swearing or tantrums can change the fact that your arguments are hollow and your position is intellectually bankrupt.

 

[Declan]

"Judeo-Christian"

Correct

 

[Tiger]

It's never-ending irony with you

Once again, nada

 

[AN2]

Once again, nada

What do you want me to say, you just go off into your own little world rants, you do it all the time

 

[AN2]

What do you want me to say, you just go off into your own little world rants, you do it all the time

Haha.. and then he says something like - you're not debating

I don't debate people who not only change the subject but can't comprehend what it (the subject) actually is.. and are just engaged in self-absorbed ranting

And then the Drooper moron walks away thinking he won an "argument"

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

To be fair, nothing.Your reasoning is inverted, typical of modern sophistry. What I actually pointed out is that the societal ethos of the 1940s was marked by greater brutality—a reflection of fallen human nature in a harsher age. Aul Lad’s lamentable experience is evidence of individuals failing to embody the faith, not of the Church endorsing or embodying brutality. His suffering was a contradiction of Catholic principles, not an affirmation of theAul Lad was trying to claim his experience had some connection to a particular liturgy, which was absurd. My own parents and grandparents had wonderful lives in the same era. Not everyone shared his situation.Your assertion that recognizing the societal flaws of the time "reduces" the Church to a mundane institution misses the point entirely. The Church is not measured by the failures of those who fall short of its teachings; it is measured by the timeless truths it upholds. Unlike prisons or sporting organizations, the Church stands as a divinely instituted vessel of grace and redemption, even when individual members—prone to sin like all of us—fail to live up to its calling.To argue that the Church is no different because individuals in its ranks acted brutally in a brutal age is to confuse the imperfections of man with the perfection of divine teaching. Aul Lad’s suffering was a failure of those charged with embodying Christ’s love, not a reflection of the Church’s essence. It is precisely because the Church transcends human failings that it has the power to critique them, to call sinners to repentance, and to offer hope for renewal—a reality unmatched by any man-made institution.

Aul Lad's sufferings at the hands of the church were typical of people of that generation, not an exception.

If his suffering was a contradiction of Catholic principles why has every old person I've ever spoken to had a similar experience?

Are you not in danger of following the lines of socialists who can't point to a single success story of same and instead repeat the idiom "ah but that wasn't real socialism"?

 

[AN2]

Aul Lad's sufferings at the hands of the church were typical of people of that generation, not an exception.

If his suffering was a contradiction of Catholic principles why has every old person I've ever spoken to had a similar experience?

Are you not in danger of following the lines of socialists who can't point to a single success story of same and instead repeat the idiom "ah but that wasn't real socialism"?

Good question but I think that he's gone to bed now. I'm not sure what time his parents put him to bed at although he does seem to be allowed to stay up late at weekends

 

[Tiger]

Aul Lad's sufferings at the hands of the church were typical of people of that generation, not an exception.

If his suffering was a contradiction of Catholic principles why has every old person I've ever spoken to had a similar experience?

Are you not in danger of following the lines of socialists who can't point to a single success story of same and instead repeat the idiom "ah but that wasn't real socialism"?

It's foolish to suggest that his experience was universal. Of course it wasn’t. I can’t speak for why all your relatives were miserable, Myles, but I’ll tell you this: not everyone’s ancestors were. Perhaps it might explain your family’s generational reliance on fermented libations.

Yes, there were abuses, but let’s not forget that the 1950s, with all its imperfections, were a simpler time compared to today’s frantic, fragmented mess of a society. People had a clear sense of duty, community, and faith—and for the majority, the Church was a source of guidance, structure, and comfort. Were there failures? Yes. Were they universal? Absolutely not.

Let’s look at the facts today. Suicide rates have more than doubled since the 1950s—hardly a sign of progress, or a happier society. Mental health disorders, too, are on the rise, with anxiety and depression more rampant despite all the medications and treatments. What do we see today? Parents forcing their sons to be raised as girls and daughters as boys. Young people begging to mutilate themselves surgically. Irish people celebrating the slaughter of their own unborn. Half the country is openly inviting national suicide having already committed cultural suicide.

This tells us one thing: while people may have had less material wealth in the past, they lived in a society where family, faith, and community provided stability—things that are now crumbling, leading to the misery and chaos we see today

 

[Tiger]

Good question but I think that he's gone to bed now. I'm not sure what time his parents put him to bed at although he does seem to be allowed to stay up late at weekends

Wrong as always.

 

[AN2]

Wrong as always.

You are now

It was me who bumped this thread, right about here -

Post in thread 'What is the relationship of edgy mainstream Rightism (McGuirk, Tommeh, etc) to the Dissident Right and Nationalism?' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.co...sident-right-and-nationalism.1044/post-125017

That wasn't an excuse for you to start shiteing on about "contradictions" (which you falsely attribute to me), not being able to follow the discussion, the one true religion, yada, yada..

 

[Tiger]

You are now

It was me who bumped this thread, right about here -

Post in thread 'What is the relationship of edgy mainstream Rightism (McGuirk, Tommeh, etc) to the Dissident Right and Nationalism?' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.co...sident-right-and-nationalism.1044/post-125017

That wasn't an excuse for you to start shiteing on about "contradictions" (which you falsely attribute to me), not being able to follow the discussion, the one true religion, yada, yada..

I got involved in this thread when you started using the Jewish/Israeli social controller phrase ‘Judeo-Christian’.

Someone needed to point out the error in your contribution.

With someone like you; who lives online and doesn’t read books, I needed to make sure your ignorant comments weren’t polluting the Irish nationalist space.

You wouldn’t understand due to not being fully Irish.

Us, fully Irish people need to protect ourselves in a way that you will never understand.

 

[AN2]

I got involved in this thread when you started using the Jewish/Israeli social controller phrase ‘Judeo-Christian’.

Good grief, I've literally made two or three comments about this now (nothing ever sinks in with this guy)

Someone needed to point out the error in your contribution.

With someone like you; who lives online and doesn’t read books, I needed to make sure your ignorant comments weren’t polluting the Irish nationalist space.

You wouldn’t understand due to not being fully Irish.

Us, fully Irish people need to protect ourselves in a way that you will never understand.

As well as everything else, you really do suffer from this -

Google Search

Which appears to be very common (perhaps a near necessity) among flat-earth, creationist types

 

[AN2]

What is the relationship of edgy mainstream Rightism (McGuirk, Tommeh, etc) to the Dissident Right and Nationalism?

Same thing really..


View: https://t.me/saintharrison/11521

 

[Tiger]

Good grief, I've literally made two or three comments about this now (nothing ever sinks in with this guy)


As well as everything else, you really do suffer from this -

Google Search

Which appears to be very common (perhaps a near necessity) among flat-earth, creationist types

Yup, nothing to say again

Commenting about comments.

 

[SwordOfStZip]

What is the relationship of edgy mainstream Rightism (McGuirk, Tommeh, etc) to the Dissident Right and Nationalism?

Same thing really..


View: https://t.me/saintharrison/11521

What is really amazing is that you get all these non-Jewish Randians who also adopt the position of militant support for Zionism while decrying any other nationalism and/or tribalism. They are more interesting I think than your man.

 

[SeekTheFairLand]

Let the cat see the pigeons>>>

 

[AN2]

What is really amazing is that you get all these non-Jewish Randians who also adopt the position of militant support for Zionism while decrying any other nationalism and/or tribalism. They are more interesting I think than your man.

You mean it would be more normal for an actual Jew to be like that?

 

[Declan]

Calling Musk a moron is not very effective

 

[clarke-connolly]

What is the relationship of edgy mainstream Rightism (McGuirk, Tommeh, etc) to the Dissident Right and Nationalism?

Same thing really..


View: https://t.me/saintharrison/11521

Those Jewish Hypocrite Fuckers ! ! !

 

[SwordOfStZip]

You mean it would be more normal for an actual Jew to be like that?

Yes.

It goes back to the old idea that the Nationalisms of the Nations is at base mere arrogance and vanity while as the nationalism of Israel is a Metaphysical and cosmic Imperative. Yes roc_ is not Shomer Shabbat however you can sometimes see clearly that at the back of his thinking is the presupposition that what he calls Jewish Nationalism is qualatively distinct for other Nationalisms so that even "La Familia", the hooligan "firm" of the soccer team Betar Jerusalem cannot be compared to the "Chelsea Headhunters" of the old Combat 18 days.

What your forefathers and foremothers have believed for generations becomes "second nature" if you will, becomes driven into the blood, contemporary science calls this epigenetics. So yes when a non-Jew lacking these epigenetics adopts as their own their presuppositions, especially ones so problematic, it is a tad to put it mildly weirder.

I should add also that one of the points of culture is to become conscious of the various drives in our psyche so that we do not merely act blindly on them.

 

[AUL LAD]

To be fair, nothing.

Your reasoning is inverted, typical of modern sophistry. What I actually pointed out is that the societal ethos of the 1940s was marked by greater brutality—a reflection of fallen human nature in a harsher age. Aul Lad’s lamentable experience is evidence of individuals failing to embody the faith, not of the Church endorsing or embodying brutality. His suffering was a contradiction of Catholic principles, not an affirmation of them.

Aul Lad was trying to claim his experience had some connection to a particular liturgy, which was absurd. My own parents and grandparents had wonderful lives in the same era. Not everyone shared his situation.

Your assertion that recognizing the societal flaws of the time "reduces" the Church to a mundane institution misses the point entirely. The Church is not measured by the failures of those who fall short of its teachings; it is measured by the timeless truths it upholds. Unlike prisons or sporting organizations, the Church stands as a divinely instituted vessel of grace and redemption, even when individual members—prone to sin like all of us—fail to live up to its calling.

To argue that the Church is no different because individuals in its ranks acted brutally in a brutal age is to confuse the imperfections of man with the perfection of divine teaching. Aul Lad’s suffering was a failure of those charged with embodying Christ’s love, not a reflection of the Church’s essence. It is precisely because the Church transcends human failings that it has the power to critique them, to call sinners to repentance, and to offer hope for renewal—a reality unmatched by any man-made institution.

I don't doubt that you have a valid view and you can attend a church with wonderful priests and laity --we buried our neighbor today and the ceremony was wonderful and the trouble the priests took to make sure the ceremony/burial went smoothly in driving snow on top of an exposed hill was a lesson in Christianity .
i was a boarder in a Waterford school for 5 years and it was monastic in nature -mass every morning etc -the top room slept 99 and at the end was a room for a brother who cried himself to sleep each night sometimes sobbing for hours .
i aged 12 sat beside boys aged 12 in full length soutanes from their neck to their toes and there were 160 of them based in what is now the Faithlegg hotel .
none of them knew why they were there and most came from west Cork or Kerry or limerick with a tradition of a priest in the family .
I was confronted with corporate cruelty on a daily basis .
i can say in a cruel and viscous and precarious world where a place in this school would be life changing and allow a lucky person to escape certain poverty these trifling events would not be noticed .
Ireland moved on the corporate church did not and i witnessed it "" almost "" leaving the medieval period into an uncertain confused 20th century which did not allow for its existence on so many levels and there was/is no plan to cope with the 20th century and that is the core of its difficulty today .
the Irish catholic church is not the roman church thankfully ---- and i have a relation a monsignor whose title is now made extinct in the church while he is still alive and his recent visit to Rome to receive an award for running the dioceses on 3 occasions as bishop/administrator was honored .
i asked him what did he make of the Vatican and he paused and shook his head from side to side in wonder and disbelief at the vast corporate wealth and the vast concern solely with that wealth and power.
i got the distinct feeling that both he and i did not experience the christian virtues of the organization of which we belong at different times in our lives .
he knows by now that i would embrace any christian from any country and from any religion as would he .

 

[AUL LAD]

Zionism adopting a religious veneer doesn’t change its fundamentally secular and anti-Christian roots. Its founders, including Ben Gurion, viewed religion as a means to an end, exploiting it to rally support while adhering to a nationalist, often atheist, agenda. The attempt to paint Zionism as anything but a worldly pursuit is revisionism, plain and simple. As for your claim that Christianity doesn’t reject power in this world, you’ve misunderstood the faith. Christ’s Kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36), and His followers are called to live in fidelity to Him, not to dominate through worldly systems. That doesn’t mean Christians can’t serve in roles like police or councillors—those roles, when carried out justly, serve the common good. But it does mean Christianity rejects the worship of power, the idolatry of the state, or the use of power to subvert the Gospel for political ends.

Regarding the term "Christian Zionists," its existence reflects the tragic state of modern Christianity. People who twist Scripture to support Zionism are betraying the faith. Their ignorance of the Gospel doesn’t make the term any less contradictory or theologically incoherent.

Non-Christians (or poorly catechised Christians) might understandably call them that, but it doesn’t legitimise the concept. "Christian Zionism" is a contradiction in terms, as Zionism's objectives—rooted in the rejection of Christ—cannot coexist with true Christianity.

the success of what you are talking about is the not admitted sophisticated understanding of the parasites for their prey .
the Zionists recognized an anomaly ---a large wealthy unique intellectually inferior group who had as their driving force charlatans for preachers who could easily be bought being charlatans.
and they looked at these superficial primitives who would give vast sums of money to have"" IT HANDY IN THE NEXT LIFE "" as they had it handy in this one and they were willing to pay for the ticket to paradise guaranteed by the Zionists and pastor hagee and others of his ilk .
the golden rule when confronted by people with large amounts of gold is to give them what they want - and if you are clever enough to make them want to give you their gold --the whole experience is all the more pleasurable for everyone concerned.

 

[AN2]

Yes.

It goes back to the old idea that the Nationalisms of the Nations is at base mere arrogance and vanity while as the nationalism of Israel is a Metaphysical and cosmic Imperative. Yes roc_ is not Shomer Shabbat however you can sometimes see clearly that at the back of his thinking is the presupposition that what he calls Jewish Nationalism is qualatively distinct for other Nationalisms so that even "La Familia", the hooligan "firm" of the soccer team Betar Jerusalem cannot be compared to the "Chelsea Headhunters" of the old Combat 18 days.

What your forefathers and foremothers have believed for generations becomes "second nature" if you will, becomes driven into the blood, contemporary science calls this epigenetics. So yes when a non-Jew lacking these epigenetics adopts as their own their presuppositions, especially ones so problematic, it is a tad to put it mildly weirder.

I should add also that one of the points of culture is to become conscious of the various drives in our psyche so that we do not merely act blindly on them.

I wouldn't actually find Jewish nationalism in and of itself weird. Not least because Jews are an ethno-religious group. In and of itself, It's more coherent than "Christian nationalism"

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

It's foolish to suggest that his experience was universal. Of course it wasn’t. I can’t speak for why all your relatives were miserable, Myles, but I’ll tell you this: not everyone’s ancestors were. Perhaps it might explain your family’s generational reliance on fermented libations.

Yes, there were abuses, but let’s not forget that the 1950s, with all its imperfections, were a simpler time compared to today’s frantic, fragmented mess of a society. People had a clear sense of duty, community, and faith—and for the majority, the Church was a source of guidance, structure, and comfort. Were there failures? Yes. Were they universal? Absolutely not.

I didn't say relatives, I said old people.

For the majority they were scared sh1tless by hell & damnation and the little Hitlers aka Priests going around ruling a gullible and credulous population.

Let’s look at the facts today. Suicide rates have more than doubled since the 1950s—hardly a sign of progress, or a happier society. Mental health disorders, too, are on the rise, with anxiety and depression more rampant despite all the medications and treatments. What do we see today? Parents forcing their sons to be raised as girls and daughters as boys. Young people begging to mutilate themselves surgically. Irish people celebrating the slaughter of their own unborn. Half the country is openly inviting national suicide having already committed cultural suicide.

This tells us one thing: while people may have had less material wealth in the past, they lived in a society where family, faith, and community provided stability—things that are now crumbling, leading to the misery and chaos we see today

It tells us no such thing. You don't have to change one cult for another. Just because today is a mess doesn't mean we should go back to the mess that was.

You can have stability without wearing your knees to the bone praying to a God that isn't there.

Look, you get enjoyment out of your massses, prayers, Latin etc and good luck to you. Others get it from a golf course, food, music etc.

Your pastime looks ridiculous to others and I'm sure others look ridiculous to you.

But you'd better keep your bullying Church away from the rest of us because those days are gone thank..................God.

 

[SwordOfStZip]

I wouldn't actually find Jewish nationalism in and of itself weird. Not least because Jews are an ethno-religious group. In and of itself, It's more coherent than "Christian nationalism"

The thing is that people mean different things by the term "Christian Nationalism". Than again what a "Jewish State" means to people also differs- roc_ for instance would be against a Halakhic State but given the direction of things and the logic of Zionism given the abject failure of "Labour Zionism" itself I think such is unavoidable if the Zionist entity survives.

 

[AN2]

The thing is that people mean different things by the term "Christian Nationalism". Than again what a "Jewish State" means to people also differs- roc_ for instance would be against a Halakhic State but given the direction of things and the logic of Zionism given the abject failure of "Labour Zionism" itself I think such is unavoidable if the Zionist entity survives.

I would say that Joel Berry is a Christian nationalist.

Not sure what he would do with atheists and other non-Christians, forced conversion?

Plus, he's not against immigration but he should realise if he's excluding atheists, he's excluding the brightest and the best Not very MAGA

 

[SwordOfStZip]

I would say that Joel Berry is a Christian nationalist.

Does he believe in the "Curse of Ham"?

 

[AN2]

Does he believe in the "Curse of Ham"?

What's that, it's too delicious?

 

[SwordOfStZip]

What's that, it's too delicious?

The idea that Black lads are predestined for slavery.

 

[AN2]

The idea that Black lads are predestined for slavery.

Ha! I wouldn't know about that, I wouldn't have thought so.

No, he wants the US to be citizenrly Christian, with a eh, rainbow of "skin colours"


View: https://x.com/JoelWBerry/status/1859238487318220800