I had a chance to go to Ireland a while ago with some people who were going to a wedding in the countryside. I decided to tag along and finally see the land that some of my ancestors came from in the early 1800s. I was aware that Ireland had changed now that Google and other multi-nationals are headquartered there, but as is typical of people descended for old-time immigrants, I am more interested in the Ireland of the past and hadn’t been following too closely events and fads of modern Ireland. I knew there was some sex scandals with the clergy, and that they had actually voted for gay marriage, but all the Irish-Americans and Irish-Canadians I ever knew were no-nonsense, tough, conservative people, so I had a hard time believing Ireland could be as gay as Canada. I would see for myself what Ireland was like.
As it turned out, the Irish people were very all nice and friendly, and as far as standard of living, Ireland looked to be on the same level as Canada. It was a lot like just being in a prosperous Maritime province, than being another country. But I heard nobody talking Irish in the streets or stores, and no traditional music, even though I was in an area once known for its traditional music and Irish speakers. I had no problems finding Africans here and there, though I wasn’t exactly seeking them out.
The wedding was an ecumenical service in a hotel. The groom told me people didn’t go to the church anymore because of the sex scandals, I bit my tongue, knowing better than to discuss these things with someone my age or younger. The officiant at the wedding looked like a bureaucrat and wore around his neck a stole with a bunch of crazy multi-cult symbols (I recognized the yin-yang one). I was surprised to see how many of the older generation were present and willing to humour this hippy-dippy nonsense. This was not at all what I wanted to see in Ireland. What about St. Patrick? And all those rebel songs about fighting for freedom and all those years of persecution, genocide, and ethnic cleansing? All forgotten and discarded, I guess.
After the ceremony I got separated in the crowd from my party. Standing around and feeling bored, I decided to amuse myself by stirring some shit, and said to a nearby older man: “So, I guess people don’t go to church anymore in Ireland? I guess people don’t want to hear how they are all going to hell?” The old guy grabbed one of my folded forearms like a drowning man and pulled me to him, to fervently sputter his agreement with me on the shameful state of the younger generation that wouldn’t go to church, his wife nodding her agreement beside him. They weren’t the only people to agree with my heterodox opinions on that trip and were glad to hear them. People clearly aren’t exposed much to opposing viewpoints in Ireland.
I have been hearing this trope of child-molesting priests turning people off the Catholic Church for many years, most memorably in a house without electricity and plumbing in the woods of Nova Scotia. It wasn’t like I didn’t know about child-molesting priests, I had been consuming American media and entertainment all my life, and had seen the same crappy TV shows and movies as everybody else, but I mostly ignored it all as blatant anti-Catholic/Christian propaganda, as I actually knew some priests and nuns.
It was my first adult trip back to Nova Scotia, and a multi-generational gathering of my Irish-Canadian relatives, mostly female cousins and aunts (their husbands were dead or working out West). Someone started talking about a couple of priests from a French village that had molested local kids. No one related to us got molested, they were quoting and telling the stories of other people, all as an explanation of why other people weren’t going to church anymore (none of them admitted to not going to church themselves). It was really dramatic stuff, they quoted people calling priests names and how people were going out of their minds with anger. I felt uncomfortable, this was not what I had come back to Nova Scotia for, I had just wanted to reconnect with traditional people and values, but this shit I didn’t want to hear seemed to have pursued me to the middle of nowhere, Nova Scotia, like those Negroes I didn’t care to see in Ireland, seemed to have followed me there.
My old, widowed aunt, who’s house it was, wasn’t 100% on board with the direction of the conversation either, and since I was sitting near her, I heard her say to herself with shock: “Talking like this about priests!” I knew how she felt. There really was something too much like a Jerry Springer show about it all for me, these people on some level seemed to enjoy being outraged and acting self-righteous. I wasn’t aware of the concept of virtue-signaling back then, but that’s what it was. Who was in favour of child-molesting? What was all this talk supposed to accomplish? What was the purpose of opening talking about it like in front of people that they knew were lifelong hardcore church-going Catholics?
The purpose was just to “cause scandal,” to lessen respect within the family for priests and the church by breaking our family tradition of never saying anything disrespectful about the church or priests even among ourselves. These were not evil women, but the were women, and they had their typical lust for conformity and status, and I knew from talking to my cousins that never left Nova Scotia that these people deep down really wanted to be just like everybody else in North America, and were dying to cut themselves off from old-fashioned crap like fiddling, farming, Gaelic*, and religiousness, and this was a good and commonly-used excuse to make a break with the central pillar of it all . They wanted to be full-on modern people, hip consumers of American culture, just like how the Irish now want to be modern citizens of the world and embrace multi-culturalism and globalism.
Feeling like I had been away too long to put in my 2 cents, and a bit grossed-out by the stories, I didn’t say anything. All I remember, was thinking to myself while they were talking: “I don’t care what you say, I’m not giving up on the Catholic Church”. Prayer and churchgoing got me through a lot of rough times where I felt like it was me against the world and I still needed the Catholic church. The priests in question (who weren’t even from the community), were in no way examples of the priestly ideal, so how were their actions an argument against the church or Christianity? Their actions clearly illustrated that they were false priests. Where was the logic? There are plenty of teachers that have sex with their students, but I never hear people talk about never allowing their kids to return to school. If my math teacher is discovered to have been a rapist, does that refute all the math he taught me? He did not invent that math. People have been educated to come to illogical non-Christian conclusions by a hostile media that frames the issue so as to agree with their anti-Christian prejudices.
There is an old Scottish Gaelic story about a man who sees his minister stealing from the poor box. He doesn’t say anything to the rest of the villagers, because he doesn’t think anyone will believe him, but he decides that on Sundays he will just go out on a hillside and read his bible there alone instead of going to church. One Sunday, he found he was getting really thirsty, and he started looking for a stream to drink from. He eventually found one, and thought the drink he had from it was the most refreshing drink he had even had. However, walking upstream afterwards, he found that a dead horse was lying right across it. It was God’s way of showing him that the refreshing message of Christ was more important than where or who it came from, and it couldn’t be ruined by where or who it came from. After that, the man returned to church. This was a story popular among illiterate Protestant Highlanders, who despite that, had the intelligence and logic to understand the importance of Christianity (and transubstantiation). It is a simple and logical reply to the Catholic sex scandal question.
Writing on this topic reminded me of R.R. Reno’s Return of the Strong Gods which I had intended to write a review of. It is an overview of post-World War II political philosophy and religious thought by a Catholic author and editor of First Things in the light of recent political trends. On first reading, I took it very seriously as a work of philosophy and tried to follow the author’s logic at face value, which I found difficult. I remember thinking the author was creating his own definitions for words, but maybe that’s what philosophers do? Picking it up again more recently for this essay, I had no patience or time to slowly and reverently read through it again, I was just looking for quotes that summed up his argument. On this hurried second reading, what first impressed me now seemed like a hot steaming pile of dissimulation.
First of all, the “strong gods” in the title are not Thor or Odin, he is just referring to patriotism, Christianity, morality and normal relations between the sexes and races. The fact that he cannot just come out and say that tells you a lot about his self-censorship. My impression is Catholic media (strongly influenced by E. Michael Jones) is that it is heavily monitored and as thoroughly infiltrated as the KKK by federal agents, and that they depend on funding from Jewish sources, and for those reasons you will never hear it discussing anything politically serious or interesting, and Reno is a creature of that swamp. The mentions of the KKK, Hitler, and Auschwitz, in the book made me check Wikipedia to see how old he was; he seemed ancient, much older than the boomer he is, with such cultural references.
On this second reading also, I noticed that he never mentions that many of the cultural philosophers he cites, particularly Karl Popper, who seems to be the central figure of the book, are Jewish. I think it is fair and relevant to mention that fact, if the authors were mostly Chinese or Arabs I think their ethnicity and what exactly was their beef with Christendom would have been addressed and examined. Once you realize the ethnic slant to post World War II philosophy, you see Karl Popper’s supposed quarrel with Plato properly as simply a quarrel with Christians and the white race. Reno accepts uncritically all the invented academic codewords of the Frankfurt School alumni, which serve to disguise what is truly being discussed. The “open society” that Karl Popper endorsed can be more simply understood by ordinary people as meaning “The Kingdom of Satan” or “Sodom” or “depravity”, a society “open” to homosexuality, drug-use, abortion, and all the other blasphemies we are drowning in.
The “closed society” Popper hated was clearly “Christian society” or “White society” with its morality and normalcy. His view of the world was clearly that World War II was a war against evil Christianity, and the evil European or white race, and the job now was to finish it off while it was down. Of course, they could not come right out and say that back then, no one would have listened to him and his buddies or taken them seriously if they did. White people in post World War II North America were in total ignorance that Christianity or the White race as a whole had been defeated, or that someone could even think such a thing. They had been taught by the government and Hollywood that the war was a glorious victory over some foreign evil, and that they were the good guys. The fact that the Frankfurt School exiles living in America could nonsensically refer to post-war Americans as potential “fascists” or “Nazis,” however, as if they were living in pre-war Europe, only makes sense when you realize that they were unable or unwilling to distinguish between white people or Christians living on different continents, speaking different languages, and living in different times. To them they were all just the enemy.
A seminal work of this Jewish school of social criticism was The Authoritarian Personality by Theodor Adorno & co. (part of a “Studies in Prejudice” series sponsored by the American Jewish Committee’s Department of Scientific Research), in which normal American families with strong father figures were criticized as incubators of anti-Semitism and fascism (“Authoritarian” being a weasel word for “fascism” or “Nazi”). The Frankfurt School’s cure for “fascist” white families was what they termed “eros”. They could not come out and just say “porn” and “degeneracy”, as they would have been burned at the stake in those days for even suggesting such a thing. In the strait-laced white societies of the 1940s and 1950s a little more “eros” probably sounded like a good thing and potentially therapeutic.
Perhaps a little more opportunities for casual sex or racier entertainment was what was probably hoped for by white people. Nobody had any idea that these civilization-haters were planning on homosexuals being married in churches and the genital mutilation of children. Similarly, when the topic of “multi-culturalism” first came up in Canada in the 1960s, people assumed they were talking about money for Italian and Polish folk dancing and festivals, nobody dreamed it would mean the mass importation of violent Africans who would make public life impossible, and streams of Chinese and Indians taking middle-class jobs and housing away from whites.
The famous and cryptic quote of Adorno that “After Auschwitz there can be no poetry”, basically means whites no longer deserve a civilization because of Hitler. The idea that a person or people can be cursed forever; an eternal multi-generational guilt or “mark of Cain,” belongs to the Old Testament or to our pagan ancestors, it is not Christian. The Christian thing is to forgive: others and ourselves. One of the great appeals of Christianity was undoubtedly that it got rid of taboos, and the idea that you could offend some tribal god and that he would never ever forgive you. In the pagan tribal days there were endless feuds over offenses that could never be forgiven. Civilization can’t advance if people are living in conditions similar to in modern American ghetto where people put all there energy into destruction and killing each other.
Yes, white men and Christians can be imperfect, you will always be able to find examples of that, but you shouldn’t give up on your race or Christianity because of that. (Who is telling you that?) What people or person is perfect? You have to still see the good in white people and yourself despite whatever goes wrong in the world, forgive yourself and your race, and move on with life. We must remember that our race is a family, and we have to stand together and think of others in it, protecting the majority of innocence white people that enjoy and need our civilization and its institutions. Only your enemy wants you to judge your society by the worst people in it or the worst things it has done. Unfortunately, it is a characteristic of our feminised world that the direction our civilization takes is not now dictated by logic, but on the feelings that shocking and disturbing images and stories invoke in you. Do not react like a child to emotional blackmail and engage in easy virtue-signaling, think for the future, and make the right and unpopular decision to stand by your race and civilization.
[* The Irish side of my family picked up some Scottish Gaelic after coming to Nova Scotia, and older members still speak English like Heberdians rather than Hibernians.]