In my article and talk about the lack of a GENETICAL morality in Christianity, I repeated at least half a dozen times that nobody, not even the snake handling preachers in the mountains will still insist that everything in Genesis is true.
This is not making fun of the Bible itself. In the Bible Belt, it simply meant that we must take into account errors in literal, worldly truths.
Even the Flat Earth Society is a joke. Genesis was understood as demanding a flat earth, and that the earth is the center of the universe. 
It just ain’t so. But an engineering family in the Bible Belt didn’t burn its holy books because of it. So if we finally just admit that the world did not come to an end when the New Testament repeatedly said it would, and every Christian had to believe it, it is simply something stated that was wrong, like the geocentric universe.
The reason I bring this up is because this is certainly not a problem limited to the Bible. I have written dozens of times about the horrible errors in medicine that killed Lord knows how many people.
But if one contradicted Galen at Oxford before 1700, the University Thought Police would fine him. It is amazing how often people were accused of heresy because they contradicted a pagan like Aristotle, because the Pope had used a quote from one of the ancient Greeks in his decisions.
In Renaissance Universities, it was very difficult to tell whether you were supposed to be contradicting Scripture or a philosopher.
We have inherited this problem.
It was a psychological shock for Europe when Newton came along because every single hallowed conjecture about the composition of the universe, Greek or Hebrew, was superseded. All the glass universes with stars in them set up to surround earth by ALL the ancients just disappeared.
It is said that the Catholic Church was so exhausted from denouncing Newton and Copernicus that it left fighting Evolution to the Protestants.
The establishment today is not any different from the old one.
Political Correctness fights as hard for its Old Religion as any Inquisitor ever did.
The fact is that, in the real world, skin color IS everything. Like the Medieval Church Political Correctness fights a simple reality.
I do not know WHY this reality exists any more than Greek philosophers actually knew how you could get all those stars up there without a stage set up in the sky.
#1 by Undercover Lover on 11/29/2014 - 1:25 am
I recently had an anti-white start throwing a bunch of “social studies” class stuff at me. Saying things such as “White people can’t be victims of racism.” You know the type. It was hilarious. It was like he was a 2-dimensional character from a kids t.v. show. Of course he always responded to me with a small essay and I always hit him with a small basic mantra point. I could imagine his frustration.
Anyways, he greatly reminded me of this. How there always seems to be a class of people so obsessed with what they read in a book. And that anyone who doesn’t submit to “the book” is a heretic. The guy was even suggesting I go read his social studies books.
That seems to be common among wordists. They always end up telling you to go read this book or that book as if the book is infallible proof of their argument.
I am REALLY seeing political correctness as an ACTUAL religion. As you say Bob; It’s not LIKE a religion. It IS a religion.
#2 by -scythian- on 11/29/2014 - 1:28 am
“All men are created equal” is the attempt by psychopath mommy professor to rule over people who are superior to him.
#3 by Daniel Genseric on 11/29/2014 - 9:27 am
I think you already know how awesome your one-liner is.
“All men are created equal” is anti-whites attempting to impose white genocide on whites.
#4 by Denounce Genocidists on 11/29/2014 - 10:48 am
Mommy Professor admitting she likes to cause “emotional wounds” for “others”:
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/26/us/ferguson-racism-or-racial-bias/index.html?hpt=us_t2
The new threat: ‘Racism without racists’
“Human beings are consistently, routinely and profoundly biased,” Ross says.
“Still, some people are suspicious of focusing on the word bias. They prefer invoking the term racism because they say it leaves bruises. People claiming bias can admit they may have acted in racially insensitive ways but were unaware of their subconscious motivations.
“The idea of calling it racial bias lessens the blow,” says Crystal Moten, a history professor at Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
“Do you want to lessen the blow or do you want to eradicate racism? I want to eradicate racism,” she says. “Yes I want opportunity for dialogue, but the impact of racism is killing people of color. We don’t have time to tend to the emotional wounds of others, not when violence against people of color is the national status quo.”
Yet again, another article at CNN without a comment section because they can`t handle the mantra machine of truth.
#5 by Carloman on 11/30/2014 - 12:29 am
Since truth can handle reality, can you give an example of a case where someone was accused of heresy for contradicting a Pagan philosopher? In the case of Galileo, his condemnation was based on contradicting scripture, not on contradicting Aristotle.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileo.html
The closest the judgement comes to mentioning Aristotle is the phrase, “is equally absurd and false philosophically.” Do you have any examples where someone was accused of heresy by the Catholic church (or any Christian church) for contradicting a Pagan?
#6 by Denounce Genocidists on 11/30/2014 - 7:32 am
So all the Greek Wisdom Books the Church implicitly endorsed in their Church funded places of Learning were written by Christians before the first century AD, and the fact that those heretics who went against those books also found themselves accused of heresy against the church is just a coincidence.
#7 by Denounce Genocidists on 11/30/2014 - 8:28 am
OK scrub the first century AD, Galen was 129 AD onwards according to wikipedia and obviously still a pagan.
#8 by Bob on 11/30/2014 - 9:58 am
Since Oxford did fine anyone who contradicted Galen, the burden of proof would be on you to prove they didn’t do something similar for contradicting other ancient scholars whose works were taught in the school.
#9 by Carloman on 11/30/2014 - 11:30 am
Upon further research, the only case I could find for forbidding someone from contradicting Aristotle explicitly, as opposed simply to going against “philosophy,” was that it was forbidden to deny Aristotle’s theory of essence and accident, since the theory of transubstantiation (bread and wine turning into the body and blood of Christ) was based on it. But there were other cases in which Aristotle could be contradicted, for example, in Dante’s Divine Comedy, Dante put Satan in the center of the universe and God on the edge, whereas Aristotle placed God in the center of the Universe. Also, Ptolemy’s astronomy contradicts Aristotle’s in a number of ways.
I know that the details of all these things aren’t what’s important; what’s important is how it all relates to White genocide. Is your point that “mommy professor” isn’t something that’s limited to our present times, but has been going on for as long as there have been White people? And that, after we stop White genocide, we will always have to be fighting “mommy professor” on some issue or another? Or will this be the final, conclusive battle against “mommy professor”? That once we replace wordism with a genetic morality, “mommy professor” will be neutralized? Or will wordism always be with us as well? Otherwise, I don’t see how this ties in to what we are doing, except as background information.