Good evidence that white people are great at killing each other, even without the Jews and immigrants there to stir up the waters.
Any time you have disunity, it's going to end poorly. That's why disunity -- especially in important parts of culture like religion -- is both disruptive and from the evil one.
Protestants are the precursors of the treasonous, revolutionary Communists that we see today. They define themselves as "protesting" the existing order (= revolutionary spirit) and, in return, bring disorder and chaos.
You could - and some have - call Christianity itself a precursor of Bolshevism given its subversion of the old pagan order and destruction of pagan artifacts and religious sites. In terms of belief system though these French Calvinist had little in common with Communism.
Disunity can of course bring conflict. But another lesson from it is the need to respect pluralism - unless one wants to fight. Europe soon came to this conclusion on religious matters.
I'm less interested in any of that though than in how a small minority managed to fight a much larger population basically a draw. Even the foreign assistance from England was minimized for geographical reasons.
What I was speaking to had to do with what went on in Rome. Christians destroyed pagan sites much in the way Communists later destroyed churches. Nietzsche wasn't really interested in this. His concern with Christianity was largely its effect on morality.
But my point was not to actually say that Christianity has any real affinities with Communism but to note that comparing Protestantism to it is overly-polemical. There are superficial resemblances between most revolutionary movements. You'll see some call Cromwell a forerunner of Lenin. The two had very different views.
It's the revolutionary nature of it that I was criticizing. Generally speaking, people tend to think fondly of revolutions and overlook the disorders they necessarily bring.
What is called the "Protestant Reformation" was really a "Protestant Revolution" because it was no attempt to reform the Church but, rather, to destroy it. Left in its wake is a form of religious and political anarchy that made any attempts at uniting the various European nations with a common moral code impossible.
In the end, pluralism isn't the solution and isn't a proper substitute for unity. Pluralism is more of a "truce" that, unfortunately, tolerates errors, to the point that those errors can act as a cancer on society at large. America is a perfect example of this phenomenon. There is no pluralism in heaven.
About the 10%... it shows what can happen when vast swaths of the public are indifferent. Maybe in some ways it's similar to what the small core of Leftists managed to do in America over the past 60 years. Maybe not. I do tend to be too broad with my analogies.
You could call Protestantism a form of anarchy given its very real of breaking up into innumerable denominations. But did America turn into anarchy? It prohibited a state religion because of too much disagreement among Protestants. But even America's revolution was orderly compared to what went on in Catholic France. You must admit they didn't manage to keep a lid on things after 1789. We did a lot better.
It was a case of Catholic regime failure. Anarchy did indeed ensue. If a system cannot maintain itself it says something about that system. America proceeded with comparative order and stability.
America proceeded with comparative order and stability.
But not because of its ideas or government. It was largely due to an almost limitless supply of unsettled land and having the best geography in the world. Not to mention being mostly free of foreign entities working to undermine its government.
But I will give America some credit... it got about 200 years out of its "Constitution". You can't walk through a single inner city without getting shot, but we do have a Constitution. So I guess it balances out.
view the rest of the comments →
ErrorHasNoRights ago
Good evidence that white people are great at killing each other, even without the Jews and immigrants there to stir up the waters.
Any time you have disunity, it's going to end poorly. That's why disunity -- especially in important parts of culture like religion -- is both disruptive and from the evil one.
Protestants are the precursors of the treasonous, revolutionary Communists that we see today. They define themselves as "protesting" the existing order (= revolutionary spirit) and, in return, bring disorder and chaos.
Joe_McCarthy ago
You could - and some have - call Christianity itself a precursor of Bolshevism given its subversion of the old pagan order and destruction of pagan artifacts and religious sites. In terms of belief system though these French Calvinist had little in common with Communism.
Disunity can of course bring conflict. But another lesson from it is the need to respect pluralism - unless one wants to fight. Europe soon came to this conclusion on religious matters.
I'm less interested in any of that though than in how a small minority managed to fight a much larger population basically a draw. Even the foreign assistance from England was minimized for geographical reasons.
ErrorHasNoRights ago
That first part sounds like something Nietzsche would say. And Nietzsche wasn't too bright.
Joe_McCarthy ago
What I was speaking to had to do with what went on in Rome. Christians destroyed pagan sites much in the way Communists later destroyed churches. Nietzsche wasn't really interested in this. His concern with Christianity was largely its effect on morality.
But my point was not to actually say that Christianity has any real affinities with Communism but to note that comparing Protestantism to it is overly-polemical. There are superficial resemblances between most revolutionary movements. You'll see some call Cromwell a forerunner of Lenin. The two had very different views.
ErrorHasNoRights ago
It's the revolutionary nature of it that I was criticizing. Generally speaking, people tend to think fondly of revolutions and overlook the disorders they necessarily bring.
What is called the "Protestant Reformation" was really a "Protestant Revolution" because it was no attempt to reform the Church but, rather, to destroy it. Left in its wake is a form of religious and political anarchy that made any attempts at uniting the various European nations with a common moral code impossible.
In the end, pluralism isn't the solution and isn't a proper substitute for unity. Pluralism is more of a "truce" that, unfortunately, tolerates errors, to the point that those errors can act as a cancer on society at large. America is a perfect example of this phenomenon. There is no pluralism in heaven.
About the 10%... it shows what can happen when vast swaths of the public are indifferent. Maybe in some ways it's similar to what the small core of Leftists managed to do in America over the past 60 years. Maybe not. I do tend to be too broad with my analogies.
Joe_McCarthy ago
You could call Protestantism a form of anarchy given its very real of breaking up into innumerable denominations. But did America turn into anarchy? It prohibited a state religion because of too much disagreement among Protestants. But even America's revolution was orderly compared to what went on in Catholic France. You must admit they didn't manage to keep a lid on things after 1789. We did a lot better.
ErrorHasNoRights ago
Well... it must be said that it wasn't the Catholics who did in France.
Joe_McCarthy ago
It was a case of Catholic regime failure. Anarchy did indeed ensue. If a system cannot maintain itself it says something about that system. America proceeded with comparative order and stability.
ErrorHasNoRights ago
But not because of its ideas or government. It was largely due to an almost limitless supply of unsettled land and having the best geography in the world. Not to mention being mostly free of foreign entities working to undermine its government.
But I will give America some credit... it got about 200 years out of its "Constitution". You can't walk through a single inner city without getting shot, but we do have a Constitution. So I guess it balances out.