sparrow

so if "uncle tom" means black race traitor
 
this site is like: "we don't need white uncle toms"
 
the concept of a white race traitor hardly seems to exist in popular culture

well, I think you understand the dilemma
 
"Unfiltered" free speech may drive away users and create an echo chamber. "Censored" but mostly open speech site may allow users to come who might agree with more filtered views, and then start to believe in unfiltered views.
 
there may be a place for either or both approaches. like arete doing whatever while scored allows less of whatever. or a site that filters commie or pro abortion posts as another alternative.
 
for example the "free speech" discussions site had a problem with people posting fecal pornography. I imagine that would drive away tons of regular people if it was "uncensored" posted everywhere on a site that was trying to cater to normies.
 
u/josephgoebbels

I'd like to see a modernized fork made of templeos, is anyone else interested? Any progress been made?
 
It's a public domain operating system. a lot of the other software licenses are leftwing (copyleft, like linux or bsd), or corporate (copyright, like windows or mac). kind of in a category of its own (more like copyfree)

they're just going the pragmatic route
 
it's not necessarily a bad strategy but is risky, they could start to get more traffic and then be tempted to push out freer spech to maintain popularity
 
or they could be trying to softly discourage it initially in order to grow and then there would be padding to absorb allowing it more
 
basically it's questions about normie management

without having read it the impression I get is whatever government that exists, it should be based on Catholic principles. but i do't recall this implying the necessity of monarchy to the exclusion of other systems. unless you want to consider republicanism and othe systems as a kind of monarchy as there's frequently a single leader, like there being a president in the U.S. or even in anarchy there are private organizations frequently with one leader like a CEO

Aquinas on usury: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3078.htm
 
> On the contrary, It is written (Exodus 22:25): "If thou lend money to any of thy people that is poor, that dwelleth with thee, thou shalt not be hard upon them as an extortioner, nor oppress them with usuries."
 
> I answer that, To take usury for money lent is unjust in itself, because this is to sell what does not exist, and this evidently leads to inequality which is contrary to justice. In order to make this evident, we must observe that there are certain things the use of which consists in their consumption: thus we consume wine when we use it for drink and we consume wheat when we use it for food. Wherefore in such like things the use of the thing must not be reckoned apart from the thing itself, and whoever is granted the use of the thing, is granted the thing itself and for this reason, to lend things of this kin is to transfer the ownership. Accordingly if a man wanted to sell wine separately from the use of the wine, he would be selling the same thing twice, or he would be selling what does not exist, wherefore he would evidently commit a sin of injustice. On like manner he commits an injustice who lends wine or wheat, and asks for double payment, viz. one, the return of the thing in equal measure, the other, the price of the use, which is called usury.
 
Since it is "selling what does not exist", this forces the production of new items to fill this need. It's basically the "creation" of debt. If a person is loaned a car, they can give the tangible car back, it is an actual thing. If a person is loaned a car with interest, the interest does not actually exist, it is a fiction (until someone uses labor to creat something to then make the thing a reality). Likewise, "interest" on investments is different, because it is an actual thing. Like if you plant a fruit tree, kind of like owning a "natural stock", and it produces a "dividend" of fruit the next year, those are actual tangible goods / profits. Unlike, say, loaning a tree and then charging a certain percent of interest on the loan based on predictions of what fruit the tree may or may not produce (it may not produce anything, thus making the fictional interest "unpayable"). This kind of thing leads to distortions as actual production may be out of sync with fictional interest rates.
 
To me this is the heart of the problem with interest on loans, although I think I've seen other people argue there's some other problem which makes interest-bearing loans wrong.
 
The Biblical ideal is to loan without expecting anything back, like giving a coat away and not even expecting it to be returned, although in justice it could be asked that it be returned if necessary: "But love ye your enemies: do good, and lend, hoping for nothing thereby" Luke 6:35

This is kind of another unresolved question in the "sedevacantist" world: how far back does the vacancy go? The common agreement is Pius XII as the last pope, which I agree with.
  
A few others put it as far back as Pius X.
  
Then of course there is the eclectic example of RJMI who believes there have been no popes since the 1100s.
  
I do think some attention should be given to resolving these questions. Although I think the common view of Pius XII as the last pope prevails.
  
Anyway, Leo XIII did speak positively of the founding of America, or at least called Washington "great": https://the-american-catholic.com/2009/02/22/pope-leo-xiii-on-america-and-george-washington/
  
Therefore most sedevacantists would have to defend this as being acceptably Catholic, or at least not heretical.
  
So I guess then the question would be why this would be considered to be heretical? Would you accuse the American government of being a kind of condemned liberalism, as in the "liberalismisasin.com" book? I'm not sure if any Catholics really at that time had argued such an opinion though. Therefore I think the prevailing opinion is that the American form of government is lawful, whereas something like Communism is not. Catholics are allowed to have a wide range of political views, so long as they are not condemned views - not everyone has to believe monarchy to be the best form of government, for example.
  
So I guess I'd ask for more unpacking of this claim of Leo XIII allegedly being an heretic and about the implications of this.
  
Such accusations are made against other such popes in the past like by "Our Lady's Resistance" and "Mike4Dogma" online I believe (examples of those who believe the vacancy goes back to Pius X, I think)
 
edit: so to refute RJMI's view, to be clear I'm not just dismissing just because it's a different view. He claimed that popes since 1100s were heretics because of allowing non-Catholic gods to be painted in churches, of allegedly glorifying philosophy and pagan philosophers, or allowing indecent images to be painted in churches like the Sistine chapel. I argue these do not constitute heresy or apostasy: to the first, even the Bible mentions false gods, and art in churches often was used to educate the illiterate, hence it would not be a sin to depict false gods. I have also been concerned with the quoting on pagan philosophers, however if you read the substance of scholastic writing like with Aquinas, he found things that were true that pagan philosophers said and rejected that which was opposed to Christianity. Hence I also think this was not a charge that stands of proving apostasy. And lastly, it is conceded that indecent imagery has circulated in art, even religious art. The Sistine chapel's nudity was painted over, and then put back on display by the Vatican 2 modernists. Ultimately even if this was wrong, it would be sinful, and not a heresy or apostasy. I believe this same process of collecting and working through objections would probably happen with the popes from before papal claimant "John XXIII".

> there may be a hidden pope from the Siri Cardinals as Siri renounced ecumenism in 1985
  
ok I've looked in to this a little and maybe you've seen the same, interestingly I think there is Pius XII legislation that says even excommunicated cardinals can validly elect a new pope. So it's possible there's some kind of hidden lineage that was created. I don't think it's siri though, and I heard possibly ottaviana but they both have the same problems of having accepted Vatican 2. idk the significance of siri renouncing ecumenism in 1985, there would be weird legal problems with him having become possibly a "heretic pope" which would become like another sedeplenist or SSPX predicament. But he or someone could have been elected in the 1958 election, appointed some other people as cardinals and bishops, and have kept a hidden lineage going. But there are really only so many possibilities here, and this is as likely to some people as there being hidden bishops out there somewhere I guess.
  
But yeah anyway we have some idea of what move God makes next, either He brings some hidden person out in to the open or the trads or V2 "clergy" will have to be legitimized. We don't really have too many other options. And this seems like it will have to happen somewhat soon because time's running out.
  
I remember reading that St. Augustine's mother prayed for him for 18 years, for his conversion. Sometimes when you're in the middle of waiting it feels like forever. And some people have lost faith and become orthodox or atheist or whatever as a result. But if you've experienced something finally happening after a long wait, I guess this helps to boost faith. I am still waiting on a lot of things in my life but I am reminded of these stories of long waits like the 40 years of the Western Schism.
  
Either way, Catholics have all kinds of tradition to attend to and plenty of prayer and good to try to do as we wait on things that may be out of our control otherwise.

is this a troll or unironic
 
sounds trollish to me
 
jesus was jewish I though
 
inb4 "jesus was a jew how can you be against judaism then?"
 
ethnic jew who fulfilled the religion of judaism. meaning that Christianity is judaism fulfilled, and so to continue to be a jew religiously today is a false religion waiting for a false messiah. which is the disagreement with jews on religious grounds. just being an ethnic jew is something someone is born with and has no control over. ethnic jews have converted to Christianity and there have been some ethnically jewish saints I think.

> I do believe there will be a pope prior to the return of Christ and totalism doesn’t allow for that.
 
well, I guess I would distinguish by what is meant by "totalism". The vacancy of the Holy See, I would defend, and argue sedeprivationism is in error. An alleged vacancy of the episcopacy, sometimes called "ecclesia-vacantism", or a view that there are no more clergy, some have thought to be heretical and impossible. I don't know if it is impossible or heretical, but I guess I do believe there must be clergy somewhere: either "in the woods", hidden, like a "siri theory of the clergy", or some members of the Vatican 2 church must be Catholic clergy.
 
Sedprivationism was created as a response to Paul VI being a "pope who fell in to heresy", going from a formal to material pope in their view. And part of the reason is because it is an unresolved issue, how the Church is to handle the case of an heretical pope. But once he died, then sedeprivationism should have ended. Because then there were heretics trying to be elected as pope, and those elections would be invalid. Further, many sedevacantists / sedeprivationists then started to think John XXIII never became pope in the first place. This would also exclude any need for sedeprivationism.
 
Also, so the concern seems to be about how a pope could be elected in the future. Originally as I noted, sedeprivationism held a "material validity" of certain papal elections because Pius XII cardinals participated in the elections. But they have all died off, so this would be another case where sedeprivationism also should have ceased as a theory. However now it has also been made in to a second theory, that these "material popes" have created "material cardinals". I suppose the misunderstanding here may be in thinking that it is necessary for there to be cardinals to elect a pope. For about a millennium, there was no set method for electing a pope, the bishops and clergy (with some participation from the laity) just chose one and then the election was peacefully accepted: https://infogalactic.com/info/Papal_selection_before_1059
 
Other writers have noted that a pope could be elected by a general imperfect council of bishops if somehow all the cardinals died. So I don't see any need to argue for a "material papacy" of "material cardinals" in order to elect a pope and preserve the indefectibility of the Church as far as those go.
 
Then to me there's also the question of conclavism which has not been adequately addressed in my view by sedevacantists or sedeprivationists (sedevacantists elect a pope). Essentially how it's manifested is a kind of agnosticism or embrace of "ecclesia-vacantism" or a belief that there were no clergy available (laity only) or existing. So laymen elected a "pope", who can then make the various illicit but valid "traditionalist clergy" in to licit clergy. This would potentially solve the problem of "how to get a pope". But I object that this method has been doubtful with respect to preserving apostolicity, as it seems to presuppose "ecclesia-vacantism", which may be impossible or heretical to begin with. In other words, I think there must be Catholic clergy somewhere, and they can elect a pope or confirm an election. Hence this is my own objection I developed to conclavism.
 
So I guess I'm supportive of a "sedeprivationism of the clergy" view, possibly, and not "totalist" in that sense. Although this view has problems, since if they are truly Catholic clergy in the Vatican 2 church, then why shouldn't Catholics just follow them? So I find possibly that view to be inconsistent, and find the "bishops in the woods" view most favorable - there must be Catholic clergy somewhere, but possibly in hiding, or at a remote distance who may not know if there's a pope or who the pope is (so that they would not fall in to schism due to being at a distance).
 
Another problem I have with the sedeprivationist view or general view of some of these "trad chapels", is I've seen some sedeprivationists argue that abjurations of errors weren't required of converts to any of the traditionalist chapels, and that therefore this was a sign that sedeprivationism was true. Rather instead, this is a sign to me that these "trad chapels" are not Catholic, and abjurations of errors should have been required. Because even setting aside specific Vatican 2 errors, which might be new, pepole have been falling in to older errors which are already condemned. So to err on the side of caution, it would seem abjurations of errors would be encouraged.
 
That would be another reason why in practice I would tend towards a totalist view (or specifically "home alone" view), as in practice my experience has been "totalist". I would not recommend Catholics attend any of these trad chapels or any known church, due to wide variations in teaching and practice.
 
In short, many things should be put "on hold" and much work done to come to more of an authoritative consensus on how to proceed. From the taste I see of the pre-Vatican 2 way of life, it does not seem like a lot of traditionalists have been carrying that forward. Another random thing I think of is how a lot of communications are in English rather than latin, among these "traditionalist" writings (like the linked Cassiciacum thesis ... perhaps it is in latin, I forget, I did not click it as I have read it before, and the few links on this topic have not been in latin).
 
But I do concede I think more discussion is probably required, to definitively put the sedeprivationist thesis to rest, given that we still have no forthcoming "bishops from the woods" or rival papal election to challenge the Vatican 2 institution which still has such organization as to make it look like having some "material" claim to carrying on something of the Church.

he said getting the "vaccine" was an act of love and played dumb when wondering why peoole would be "hesitant" to get it

I disagree with sedeprivationism, some posts are on scored about it, I am glad to see more people aware of the issues and thinking on them though. I do think maybe there's something salvageable in the view though which I'll go in to.
 
https://infogalactic.com/info/Sedeprivationism
 
So the view holds that the election of Vatican 2 heretics created "material popes". Plainly we think this is an erroneous view, and it creates an invalid election instead (the "totalist" sedevacantist view). So I think pretty much this is a succinct way of rejecting this view. Other problems include that the original theory held that certain elections were valid because of the participation of Pius XII appointed cardinals, and there are none of them left. So it would also not apply now if that was the case. So I hold to sedevacantism instead.
 
And the Thuc bishops and priests are validly priests and bishops, but we hold them to be illicit. Ordinarily papal permission is needed to consecrate bishops, which they did not have. So there is an automatic excommunication I think attached to consecrating bishops which they are ignoring. Then I think they need papal permission to set up churches which they also set aside. Also need permission to set up a religious order like "CMRI" which they had no permission for. They also need jurisdiction to offer certain sacraments like confession I think, which they admit they don't have (they don't have ordinary jurisdiction, so make arguments for jurisdiction being supplied in an extraordinary way). So for some of these reasons, some have concluded the strict interpretation of the law simply makes them unable to function. This is the "home alone" view, which is usually "sedevacantist" - believing there is no pope today (sedevacantism) and no clergy available that we know of (home alone).
 
One writer notes some problems with sedeprivationism (calls it a heresy), and this is also where I source the point about Pius XII cardinals: https://www.geocities.ws/prakashjm45/einsicht12.2003.html
 
> "According to the conception of des Laurier, as published in the Review, Cassiciacum, Monsignor Wojtyla was legitimately elected pope, pars minor y sanior, because about 10 cardinals created under Pius XII were present: He is papa materialiter."
 
des Laurier originated the Cassiciacum Thesis.
 
> "In SAKA-Information of January 1984, Bishop Guerard des Laurier wrote:
"For the present, the Church is "occupied" and in a state of privation (mice en etat de privation). W. [Monsignor Wojty衍a] was properly elected (I hold it valid unless it can be proved otherwise) by a conclave that con貞isted of ten true cardinals (at least they did not protest against the election), then he occupied the possession of the papal See."
 
Historically, three responses popped up in reaction to Paul VI allegedly approving a heresy in the Vatican 2 documents in December 1965: "sedeplenism", or the SSPX view, "sedprivationism" as discussed above, and "sedevacantism". It's been argued by some sedevacantists that in practice all the traditionalists were sedevacantist since they did not obey the "popes" of that time up to today.
 
So sedeprivationism can be a problem, because if the Vatican 2 church was to renounce Vatican 2 today, for sedeprivationists it would be Catholic, but not necessarily for sedevacantists. Sedevacantists would insist on a new election of a pope, while sedeprivationists would accept Francis as pope. Therefore I have argued sedeprivationism is "schismatic" and should be rejected as such by sedevacantists.
 
But there is a point where I have come to possibly agree with sedeprivationism on a bit more recently. Usually discussions of sedeprivationism versus sedevacantism focus on if there is no pope or a "material pope". For me, I think it's clear Francis is not a pope nor a "material pope", I think sedevacantism prevails. However, some have argued that perhaps there might be some who have remained Catholic who were in the Vatican 2 church. While the Western rite of creating bishops was altered, the Eastern rite has not been changed. During the Western Schism, where there was uncertainty who the pope was or if there was a pope for 40 years, those who followed antipopes in good faith were not considered to be schismatic. Hence, following the same precedent, it might be possible for certain Eastern bishops for example to have remained Catholic while having followed antipopes in good faith. So while I reject sedeprivationism as applied to the issue of the pope, in a sense this is like "sedeprivationism applied to the clergy" and I do find this to be possible, or at least some are debating about the plausibility of this view.
 
Because a major focus and conflict we don't have an answer for is about how the Church is to get a pope going forward, if sedevacantism is true. The known Pius XII bishops have died out as I think I note in the OP. So either there are some out there hidden "in the woods", or perhaps a few Eastern bishops might still be Catholic. If the Church is to continue, it seems to imply there are still Catholic clergy somewhere. So something different than sedeprivationism, but I think very much the same kind of thinking.

meh aren't they just offering politically correct stuff for the public to see and then if people dig deeeper they can find the incorrect stuff? so maybe a win for the wins?

> catholicism has been dead for 15 years
 
ok we're somewhat on the same page, are you aware of what the sedevacantist view is? basically with vatican 2, it's believed those teachings are not catholic, so then no one believing them can be pope. so almost all bishops and priests accepted the changes, taking churches away from Catholics. my view is there are no catholic churches known anywhere. they all took this "upgrade" which is not catholic. a few people got bishops to make them bishops but outside of the normal rules, so they're bishops but we argue not Catholic bishops. so they can't and didn't elect a pope, and they set up churches but have no authority to do so, so my view is they should be avoided. and the churches in league with the current vatican don't believe in traditional catholicism so they should also be avoided.
 
however some of us think God preserved a few bishops somewhere who can keep the Church going. But they've never presented themselves to the public so some people doubt they exist. This leaves Catholicism not dead (it can't die) but as if dead. So some of us are continuing to try to think if there's a way out of this, or are praying for God to act to fix things.
 
yeah, I've known "catholic" priests and seen things first hand. it doesn't seem Catholic to me anymore. Because I also saw how things were before Vatican 2 and it seems very different. I am confident somehow God will bridge the gap between what was to the future, but I am not sure how we get there and where we are at in the present exactly. Some people think things are hopeless and end times is the only solution. but I am not sure of that, I could see God turning some things around.
 
there's still a lot people can do, even while we don't know what to do with this. like pray, fast, work, help people, be a good person, study, and so on.

I could see how it could have some of those paradoxical effects. supposed to help for sleep so that's not surprising.
 
supposed to possibly help for a host of issues as the article mentions. hope more people can get it as magnesium is apparently in the soil and our foods less today possibly leading to deficiencies.

"wow this is just like star wars, next we'll be pod racing!"

I've seen that hitler quote and I imagine many capitalists would agree. which is why communism, capitalism, and socialism can be bad and confusing terms. Some communists literally want to be left alone, like libertarian peaceful hippies. And sometimes it works out kind of in those communes. But at a loss of efficiency. and maybe some rights.
 
might be good to clarify that you're not for aggressive imperialism, war, other violent actions. I do not assume all natsocs are, but you get larpers who call for "another holocaust" just to make natsocs look bad. I imagine a few are also for that, which I'm not personally, and don't think natsocs really should be for. might be good to abandon the "socialist" title as it is confusing, idk what would be better.
 
so you would be ok with capitalism with a gentile in charge? but don't want things like usury.
 
Socialism has the economic calculation problem so people avoid it for that reason: https://infogalactic.com/info/Economic_calculation_problem
 
and regarding authoritarianism, it requires that you have good leaders. that leadership can be taken over and then you're in trouble. which is why people like freedom in contrast. The private institutions in freedom can also be taken over, but there is freedom to compete to try to make good ones if that happens, which doesn't exist in an authoritarian order. I'm a little more indifferent on if there is authoritarian or libertarian order or lack thereof, it the governments or institutions just need to have "conservative" values.

specifically what is natsoc in people's opinions here?
 
like does anyone have a platform that could be critiqued?
 
I'm more libertarian and capitalist than natsocs as I perceive them.

lol I see this too, no mandates here
 
\> people out running
 
\> people in stores
 
honk honk

consequence of free speech
 
Personally I think there is a place for both approaches - the scored "whatever goes" approach, or what I thought arete was, of kind of open but "we're not allowing that kind of thing here" when necessary approach.
 
Sometimes it feels important to me to be able to have open conversations about topics. Perhaps in the OP, some might for example be able to discuss how they were abused and feel like abusing others and through discussion find ways to not abuse others. So I do think there can be tangible value in being able to openly discuss things.
 
On other occasions it seems nice to be closed off and not have to deal with such promotion of errors or unsavory topics.

it is sad they are so anti-white and biased and have such an agenda

hmmm I just stumbled upon something like this recently
 
https://infogalactic.com/info/Holy_See%E2%80%93Israel_relations
 
> [Pius XII] is noted for his rejection of any plan for the establishment of a State of Israel in the British Palestine territory, on religious and theological grounds.
 
didn't watch video, but I believe the consistent Catholic view was that Israel was not to be established, because the current Jews have rejected Christ and are in error, and perhaps the Holy Land was right for Christians to possess?
 
Then the Vatican seems to have been taken over, which again is why some of us are sedevacantist. As they now speak the opposite views of the Catholic views before. The current "popes" (who some of us do not believe to be Catholic popes) are basically silent on a lot of these issues, and in practice support the opposite teachings. This prevents them from being considered openly against Catholic teaching and rejected as non-Catholic, but their actions still seem to signify their opposition to Catholicism and seem to suggest they are neither Catholic nor popes.
 
So, I think Catholicism is opposed to Zionism. But then the current "Catholicism" is fake and taken over and anti-Catholic now. So that's where I think things stand.

ok i skimmed it
 
some of us are more focused on the problems of vatican 2 (and have taken the position of sedevacantism in response) than these questions
 
problem is some of these objections can be used against christianity in general so not always specific to catholicism
 
also the obelisk for example was supposed to be intentionally taking a pagan symbol and "christianizing" it as a symbolic triumph of christianity over paganism
 
this has been done enough times that it seems to be a standard practice
 
however there have been some shenanigans going in the opposite direction like the last resurrection sculpture in st peter's basilica or one of the churches looking like a snake (some popular images that have circulated).
 
these do to me seem more like non-catholics have taken over the institution of catholicism and are now mocking it. (hence the sedevacantist stance being taken)

sure
 
people could just post more

> why don't we see these everywhere
 
must not be cost effective or something
 
I mean it's possible it is still cost effective and unpopular but if it was so useful even the big corporations would use them, wouldn't they?
 
I am curious to hear if you experiment with this further