@hydroacetylene's banner p

hydroacetylene


				

				

				
8 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 04 20:00:27 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 128

hydroacetylene


				
				
				

				
8 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 04 20:00:27 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 128

Verified Email

Based on productivity per worker or per hour worked, the most productive people in the world are whites. Oriental countries barely keep up while working twice the hours after a punishing grind that makes no one want to have kids because it sucks so much.

India does build high civilization. It utterly fails to make its dregs benefit from it- they worship toilets instead of using them- but they're quite capable of building it.

Many incidents add up.

Americans buy 2 liter bottles or 12 oz cans, I don't know where that's coming from.

Maybe public schools should win more loyalty from the normies.

Yes, but most of that was aimed at the third world. The panic about working class fertility was more to do with unsupervised youths(nobody wants zillions of teen boys running around doing whatever they want), welfare concerns, and teen pregnancy.

Because men and women are different, that's why.

Tradcaths do lots of tech work, law, trades, other jobs that are Basically Necessary and Useful for a Functioning 1st World Society and have a TFR above 3. Even Mormons still have a healthy 2.5ish fertility rate(they hamstring themselves discriminating against converts, but so does everyone else).

When they work for yankees who rely on planet of cops robust ticket writing to attempt to balance out their fiscal mismanagement, sure.

He 'hates western people' does not imply 'he loves Africans'- my read of him is that he prefers brahmins, han, other orientals to whites.

Serbia pushed the US to the brink in Olympic basketball quite recently.

Importing the third world to make up for their own native working class's low fertility, which looked like a good idea at the time, but wasn't.

Archbishops Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc and Carlos Costa Duarte both consecrated a rather lot of people, sometimes for money and sometimes for being asked nicely. The former is mostly known for consecrating traditionalists(and one gay Nazi Spaniard who declared himself pope in a hallucinatory fit and founded a cult, which is mostly schizophrenia today but maintains a few traditional aesthetics) illicitly but those are his less problematic consecrations. Obtaining valid holy orders is done by all manner of people who are dedicated enough, most of them because they're crazy.

Presumably, they do better than two twenty year olds getting married because there's a real adult and a quasi-adult, rather than two quasi adults. Yes, that says all sorts of things about power dynamics in the relationship, which is the reason to look real hard at the guy who claims to want this(not nonsense about his browser history). But if he intends to marry her in a timely manner and treat her well, I mean, women are supposed to submit to their husbands anyways.

The Palmarians are more of an enclosed cult that pretended to be tradcath long enough to convince a senile bishop who was unaware that Vatican II happened to ordain them bishops than a serious organization. Yes they're attention grabbing but they're also the brainchild of a schizophrenic gay Nazi and I wouldn't read too much into them as a reflection of... anything except themselves. Thuc consecrated a lot of people, at Palmar de Troya and the seminary professors in Mexico(who founded sedevacantism) are the only two anyone pays attention to; but he was a wandering dementia patient who happened to be a war refugee archbishop. Predictably, the Palmarians have seen lots of exodus to do various inane things, including one of their antipopes.

Traditional Catholics are not Orthodox for lots of reasons. Shared, uh, dislike of Vatican II is not enough to bridge serious disagreements about moral theology(indeed, the Orthodox have exactly the same moral theological weaknesses that the Trads complain about liberal hierarchs careening towards), very different history and devotional life, and a different set of dogmatic theology(the SSPX agrees, uncritically, with everything in Ott; they just have reservations about Vatican II- and specifically, a handful of paragraphs that the Vatican doesn't see able to name them as dissenting from, despite their criticisms). People really believe things.

the SSPX also doesn't have "lay members"

They have a third order, whose members are lay members of the SSPX. Not what's usually meant, but what the term technically refers to.

They're a whacko cult with Catholic aesthetics, they no longer believe Catholic doctrine(although many of their doctrines are strange recombinations of distortions of Catholic doctrine- eg the virgin Mary being present in the Eucharist) and have altered most of Catholic ritual beyond all recognition.

Ten and seventeen are very different ages, and it is in no way inconsistent to treat them that way. You are, presumably, ok with, say, 32 and 50- maybe a bit weird, but few people would say 'it's a problem'- even though when 50 was 32 32 was way too young to be dating adults(or, I would say, anyone at all).

I have a couple of things to say.

The SSPX were morons to do this. One of their new bishops is a nutjob, 'crisis' doesn't hold water when you do it after Francis, and it's unclear why they were unwilling to engage in the Vatican's 'dialogue'- what was so urgent about needing to ordain bishops on this particular day? There's a lot of SSPX faithful, which I have been and almost was again, before the consecrations were announced. More bishops isn't a particularly unreasonable request with that many, and that spread out, a set of people. But bishops need to have jobs to do, and the Vatican will not approve bishops that are not appointed to a hierarchical position.

There seems to be genuine sympathy for the SSPX position from most of the hierarchy. I wasn't paying attention(nor around to) in '88. But the SSPX being a bit painted into a corner is a reality of the situation in a way it wasn't in 1988. There appears to be no one left under the illusion that there is a short term easy solution; even professor Grillo doesn't appear to believe that the Vatican can simply dismiss traditionalist concerns.

We were, in January, very likely to switch to the SSPX over impatience with the FSSP's tolerance for unrelated schizophrenia and pastoral insensitivity. That obviously went on hold in February and is now shelved more-or-less indefinitely. There are, to be clear, perfectly valid pastoral reasons to prefer SSPX priests, they don't tolerate dramatics in their chapels, don't tolerate trying to tie the faith to unrelated right-wing schizoidism, make sure there's a strong community life despite their limited resources, and crack down hard on things that need to be cracked down on. They're excellent confessors and excellent homilists. I wish, not for the first time, that Fellay had been able to talk the society into signing Benedict XVI's framework.

In other news about the society-

  1. Their oldest new bishop is 45(pretty close to the practical minimum for episcopal ordination in the regular hierarchy). They've also ordained the youngest, uh, tracked bishop in the world yesterday; Bishop Marc Hannappier is only 36, and is younger than any novus ordo bishop, any known sedevacantist bishop, any Orthodox bishop. This is what a high TFR looks like in practice.

  2. Cardinal Fernandez, Cardinal Parolin, and Pope Leo himself are all expressing uncharacteristic hope for a speedy resolution to the crisis. This is not the attitude I would expect them to have. Two of the three were quite anti-traditionalist under the last pontificate.

They don't believe this. They believe some nitpicky and retrograde things, yes, but they unquestionably believe that the new rite of sacraments is valid(they do think the new rite of mass is sacriligious), that Leo XIV is the pope(their lay adherents aren't well heeled enough to be sedevacantists), that some post Vatican II teaching is infallible(they point to Humanae Vitae when asked for examples), and that the generally agreed upon diocesan bishops are legitimate ordinaries capable of making normal particular law.

The backflips they do to justify doing what they do are not 'the church ceased to exist'. Given the reality of the consecrations, my family will not be switching to the SSPX in the near-to-mid-term future(as had been a legitimate, and even likely possibility, in January), and so I am not particularly interested in exactly what those backflips are, but they are definitely 'backflips' and not simple lines of argumentation.

This prediction just keeps getting made, but the SSPX just keeps being the same very conservative organization.

The RCC has no constitutional power in Poland. Nor in Malta.

The SSPX resistance already exists(and has six consecrations, not just two- despite existing for about a third as long and serving far fewer people), and is somehow on worse terms with the SSPX than either is with the Vatican. They may be insane and often criminally inclined, but they do exist and are not particularly trending left(they're busily purity spiraling into sedevacantism).

The SSPX will eventually get their excommunications lifted, probably without actually changing anything. They have a surprising amount of sympathy despite nearly universal condemnation of their recent stunt.

They had 15,000 people at econe- and their members tend to be the poorer traditionalists, so the portion of population which can travel to Switzerland is rather lower than the FSSP’s- which points to a fairly large organization, so I don’t agree with a low count, but the lowest number anyone cites while sober is 100k.