Vult retweeted
happy birthday Polan, we may have our beefs, but ultimately we love you all
🇺🇦❤️🇵🇱
🇺🇦❤️🇵🇱
107
356
7,632
130,184
Vult retweeted
Whatever drugs the Russians are taking, they have addled their brains completely. Either that or they are 100% unserious about peace because they must know for a fact that this ridiculous demand is not going to go anywhere.
Heck, even their Bulgarian stooge PM Radev came out to say that this would be an intolerable demand. I guess it’s easier when Ukraine is asked to pay the price of Western timidity and indecisiveness.
Heck, even their Bulgarian stooge PM Radev came out to say that this would be an intolerable demand. I guess it’s easier when Ukraine is asked to pay the price of Western timidity and indecisiveness.
⚡️ Putin demands NATO roll back to 1997
Ushakov reveals what the dictator told the Americans.
One of the Kremlin's key demands is a return to NATO's military posture as it stood in 1997.
This is a revival of the Kremlin's December 2021 ultimatum. Back then, Russia demanded an nd restrictions on the alliance's military presence in Eastern Europe. Now Putin has raised these demands again with White House representatives.
In other words, this is no longer just about the war in Ukraine. Ushakov said Moscow was ready to begin immediate talks with the US on a new European security architecture.
6
29
122
2,943
Vult retweeted
China has figured out to weaponize its cucks. This is why its a more dangerous rival to America than the Soviet Union ever was.
BREAKING: It's been revealed Jensen Huang's alleged Chinese spy mistress was introduced to him by her own husband, who appeared to “accept his wife's romantic relationship” with the Nvidia CEO for two years. — WSJ
7
70
906
10,603
Vult retweeted
Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the US Virgin Islands all deserve representation just as much as Puerto Rico does, but they're too small to be their own states. I hereby propose merging them all with Hawaii and creating an insane island archipelago state.
21
15
378
7,368
Vult retweeted
My aggressively vegetable avoidant 3yo would always eat French onion soup because I called it “Brown noodle soup” but a waitress totally biffed the whole thing going on & on about how amazing it is “to see a toddler who likes onions”
Immediately she refused to eat anymore
Thank goodness I am deep into my “it’s ok to lie to the kid phase” because I was able to convince her the waitress was actually referring to “chunyons” which is simply a French word that means “brown noodles”
Immediately she refused to eat anymore
Thank goodness I am deep into my “it’s ok to lie to the kid phase” because I was able to convince her the waitress was actually referring to “chunyons” which is simply a French word that means “brown noodles”
78
303
18,240
335,759
Vult retweeted
There's a particularly silly idea that has become popular among certain christian Nationalists and traditionalist Catholics that belief in the Holocaust constitutes adherence to some sort of counterfeit religion called "Holocaustianity". It's also tied up with the catchall r consensus".
The argument is essentially that belief that the Holocaust took place has replaced Christianity in the Western world, and that its museums, memorials, historical literature, and commemorations are analogous to religious institutions and rituals.
This idea is not new, and its origins are interesting.
The earliest published appearance of the term "Holocaustianity" that I could verify comes from the December 1984 issue of Instauration, a white-supremacist magazine edited by Wilmot Robertson. In an unsigned article titled "The One-Eyed Morality of Elie Wiesel", the author suggested that Holocaust remembrance was becoming a new national religion. Robertson is the most plausible individual responsible for the term, although the article's lack of attribution makes that impossible to establish definitively.
Robertson's religious views are interesting in this context. In his book Ventilations (1974), Robertson dismissed important aspects of Christian doctrine, characterized the God of the Old Testament as "genocidal", and explicitly argued that "race must be put before religion".
So here we have a concept popularized in a publication run by an open race-idolator who clearly subordinated Christianity to race, now being used by self-professing Christians to defend Christianity against an imaginary competing religion.
One of the more prominent Catholic proponents of this idea was Bishop Richard Williamson, who published a commentary titled "Holocaustianity" in 2019. Williamson approvingly reproduced a tribute to Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson by Jérôme Bourbon, which described "Holocaustianity" as a religion with its own saints, martyrs, miracles, temples, relics, pilgrimages, scriptures, and religious authorities.
Williamson himself was excommunicated in 1988 for his participation in unauthorized episcopal consecrations. This excommunication was lifted in 2009, although the Vatican separately condemned his Holocaust denial as "absolutely unacceptable". He was subsequently expelled from the SSPX in 2012 and incurred another excommunication in 2015 after conducting another unauthorized episcopal consecration. Not even the SSPX wants him which is especially hilarious.
To be clear, these excommunications were not for his Holocaust denial. Nevertheless, it's very funny to see traditionalist Catholics cite Williamson as some authoritative defender of Christianity while ignoring the actual Catholic authorities (and even schismatic authorities) who explicitly repudiated his statements.
But the bigger problem with the "Holocaustianity" argument is that it's just profoundly stupid.
The argument essentially consists of identifying ordinary activities associated with historical remembrance and arbitrarily assigning them religious significance:
Holocaust survivors are "saints".
Historical literature is "scripture".
Museums are "temples".
Personal belongings preserved in museums are "relics".
Visits to Auschwitz are "pilgrimages".
People murdered by the Nazis are "martyrs".
Does this sound stupid? Yes.
Is that because it is stupid? Yes.
(you are noticing a pattern here)
You could write essentially the exact same thing about opposition to communism:
The victims of the Gulag, Holodomor, and Cambodian Killing Fields are its "martyrs".
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Václav Havel are its "saints".
Museums dedicated to Communist atrocities are its "temples".
The Gulag Archipelago is its "scripture". Preserved prison uniforms and shackles are its "relics".
Memorials to the victims of communism are its "holy places".
Behold, the counterfeit religion of anti-communism!
Of course, nobody would seriously conclude that acknowledging Communist atrocities and commemorating their victims constitutes participation in a religion that has replaced Christianity. The existence of analogous features does not establish the existence of actual religion.
Even if somebody has an unhealthy obsession with the Holocaust, or treats its remembrance with something resembling religious devotion, this does not mean that merely believing it occurred constitutes participation in that same supposed religion. That would be an extraordinarily presumptuous assertion.
It's also rather bizarre that this argument is being promoted by Roman Catholics of all people.
In 1979, Pope John Paul II visited Auschwitz and called it the "Golgotha of the modern world". Was he replacing the sacrifice of Jesus Christ with the suffering of Holocaust victims? Was the Pope promoting "Holocaustianity"?
In 2006, Pope Benedict XVI visited Auschwitz and explicitly interpreted the Nazi persecution of Jews within the context of Christian theology. Was he likewise participating in a counterfeit religion?
What about St. Maximilian Kolbe, the Catholic priest who voluntarily sacrificed his life at Auschwitz to save another prisoner? Or St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross (Edith Stein), a Jewish-born Catholic nun murdered there? Both were canonized by John Paul II.
Does commemorating their lives and recognizing the historical circumstances of their deaths somehow undermine Christianity?
The whole thing is ridiculous.
There are perfectly legitimate discussions to be had about the politicization of Holocaust remembrance, the consistency of Western moral standards, the geopolitical treatment of Israel, or the merits of laws criminalizing Holocaust denial. None of these discussions require pretending that believing a well-documented historical event occurred constitutes adherence to a competing religion.
Christianity provides the moral framework by which we can condemn the murder of innocent people. The reason I believe murdering millions of Jews was evil is the same reason I believe murdering millions of Ukrainians, Cambodians, or anybody else is evil. Human beings are made in the image of God.
The Holocaust does not have to be a religious event for Christians to recognize its historical reality or condemn its perpetrators.
And this is ultimately what makes the whole "Holocaustianity" rhetoric so dishonest. Rather than actually demonstrating that somebody has replaced Christianity with another religion, it simply presumes that acknowledging the Holocaust or participating in ordinary historical remembrance is somehow indicative of religious idolatry.
I don't believe the Holocaust occurred because of some religious obligation to believe it. I believe it occurred because the historical evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that it did.
Believing that roughly six million Jews were murdered by Nazi Germany is not a profession of religious faith any more than believing millions of people died under Stalin or Mao is.
Christians have no obligation to accept historical falsehoods or entertain asinine arguments in order to demonstrate their loyalty to Jesus Christ.
And if you're a Christian getting your theology from the likes of Wilmot Robertson, Richard Williamson, and Holocaust-denial enthusiasts who think museum exhibits are the equivalent of religious altars, you might want to reconsider where you're getting your ideas.
The Holocaust occurred. Jesus Christ is Lord.
These are not competing propositions.
The argument is essentially that belief that the Holocaust took place has replaced Christianity in the Western world, and that its museums, memorials, historical literature, and commemorations are analogous to religious institutions and rituals.
This idea is not new, and its origins are interesting.
The earliest published appearance of the term "Holocaustianity" that I could verify comes from the December 1984 issue of Instauration, a white-supremacist magazine edited by Wilmot Robertson. In an unsigned article titled "The One-Eyed Morality of Elie Wiesel", the author suggested that Holocaust remembrance was becoming a new national religion. Robertson is the most plausible individual responsible for the term, although the article's lack of attribution makes that impossible to establish definitively.
Robertson's religious views are interesting in this context. In his book Ventilations (1974), Robertson dismissed important aspects of Christian doctrine, characterized the God of the Old Testament as "genocidal", and explicitly argued that "race must be put before religion".
So here we have a concept popularized in a publication run by an open race-idolator who clearly subordinated Christianity to race, now being used by self-professing Christians to defend Christianity against an imaginary competing religion.
One of the more prominent Catholic proponents of this idea was Bishop Richard Williamson, who published a commentary titled "Holocaustianity" in 2019. Williamson approvingly reproduced a tribute to Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson by Jérôme Bourbon, which described "Holocaustianity" as a religion with its own saints, martyrs, miracles, temples, relics, pilgrimages, scriptures, and religious authorities.
Williamson himself was excommunicated in 1988 for his participation in unauthorized episcopal consecrations. This excommunication was lifted in 2009, although the Vatican separately condemned his Holocaust denial as "absolutely unacceptable". He was subsequently expelled from the SSPX in 2012 and incurred another excommunication in 2015 after conducting another unauthorized episcopal consecration. Not even the SSPX wants him which is especially hilarious.
To be clear, these excommunications were not for his Holocaust denial. Nevertheless, it's very funny to see traditionalist Catholics cite Williamson as some authoritative defender of Christianity while ignoring the actual Catholic authorities (and even schismatic authorities) who explicitly repudiated his statements.
But the bigger problem with the "Holocaustianity" argument is that it's just profoundly stupid.
The argument essentially consists of identifying ordinary activities associated with historical remembrance and arbitrarily assigning them religious significance:
Holocaust survivors are "saints".
Historical literature is "scripture".
Museums are "temples".
Personal belongings preserved in museums are "relics".
Visits to Auschwitz are "pilgrimages".
People murdered by the Nazis are "martyrs".
Does this sound stupid? Yes.
Is that because it is stupid? Yes.
(you are noticing a pattern here)
You could write essentially the exact same thing about opposition to communism:
The victims of the Gulag, Holodomor, and Cambodian Killing Fields are its "martyrs".
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Václav Havel are its "saints".
Museums dedicated to Communist atrocities are its "temples".
The Gulag Archipelago is its "scripture". Preserved prison uniforms and shackles are its "relics".
Memorials to the victims of communism are its "holy places".
Behold, the counterfeit religion of anti-communism!
Of course, nobody would seriously conclude that acknowledging Communist atrocities and commemorating their victims constitutes participation in a religion that has replaced Christianity. The existence of analogous features does not establish the existence of actual religion.
Even if somebody has an unhealthy obsession with the Holocaust, or treats its remembrance with something resembling religious devotion, this does not mean that merely believing it occurred constitutes participation in that same supposed religion. That would be an extraordinarily presumptuous assertion.
It's also rather bizarre that this argument is being promoted by Roman Catholics of all people.
In 1979, Pope John Paul II visited Auschwitz and called it the "Golgotha of the modern world". Was he replacing the sacrifice of Jesus Christ with the suffering of Holocaust victims? Was the Pope promoting "Holocaustianity"?
In 2006, Pope Benedict XVI visited Auschwitz and explicitly interpreted the Nazi persecution of Jews within the context of Christian theology. Was he likewise participating in a counterfeit religion?
What about St. Maximilian Kolbe, the Catholic priest who voluntarily sacrificed his life at Auschwitz to save another prisoner? Or St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross (Edith Stein), a Jewish-born Catholic nun murdered there? Both were canonized by John Paul II.
Does commemorating their lives and recognizing the historical circumstances of their deaths somehow undermine Christianity?
The whole thing is ridiculous.
There are perfectly legitimate discussions to be had about the politicization of Holocaust remembrance, the consistency of Western moral standards, the geopolitical treatment of Israel, or the merits of laws criminalizing Holocaust denial. None of these discussions require pretending that believing a well-documented historical event occurred constitutes adherence to a competing religion.
Christianity provides the moral framework by which we can condemn the murder of innocent people. The reason I believe murdering millions of Jews was evil is the same reason I believe murdering millions of Ukrainians, Cambodians, or anybody else is evil. Human beings are made in the image of God.
The Holocaust does not have to be a religious event for Christians to recognize its historical reality or condemn its perpetrators.
And this is ultimately what makes the whole "Holocaustianity" rhetoric so dishonest. Rather than actually demonstrating that somebody has replaced Christianity with another religion, it simply presumes that acknowledging the Holocaust or participating in ordinary historical remembrance is somehow indicative of religious idolatry.
I don't believe the Holocaust occurred because of some religious obligation to believe it. I believe it occurred because the historical evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that it did.
Believing that roughly six million Jews were murdered by Nazi Germany is not a profession of religious faith any more than believing millions of people died under Stalin or Mao is.
Christians have no obligation to accept historical falsehoods or entertain asinine arguments in order to demonstrate their loyalty to Jesus Christ.
And if you're a Christian getting your theology from the likes of Wilmot Robertson, Richard Williamson, and Holocaust-denial enthusiasts who think museum exhibits are the equivalent of religious altars, you might want to reconsider where you're getting your ideas.
The Holocaust occurred. Jesus Christ is Lord.
These are not competing propositions.
15
24
93
7,555
