Saturday, November 1, 2014

The evolution of antiracism

Collection box for the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, circa 1850 (Wikicommons).


Throughout the world, kinship used to define the limits of morality. The less related you were to someone, the less moral you had to be with him or her. We see this in the Ten Commandments. The phrase "against thy neighbor" qualifies the commandment against bearing false witness and, implicitly, the preceding ones against killing, adultery, and stealing. For the modern reader, "thy neighbor" is helpfully explained as meaning "the children of thy people" (Leviticus 19:18).

In some cases, this kin-based morality gradually ceased to apply the farther away one went from home and from immediate kith and kin. Usually, however, the limits of one's moral community coincided with some kind of boundary: a geographic barrier, a political border, and/or an ethnic frontier. Beyond lay the world of "strangers."

Toward a universal morality

The first efforts to universalize morality—to create a single moral system that could apply to everyone—"arose simultaneously around 500 BCE in various parts of the world, from China in the Far East to Southern Italy in the West" (Assmann and Conrad, 2010, p. 121). These efforts were initially driven by the need to form alliances between different peoples:

Alliance - the formation of treaties - proved the most important instrument of internationalism. Forming an alliance required mutual recognition of the deities which served as patrons. The treaties which these empires formed with each other and with their vassals had to be sealed by solemn oaths invoking the gods of both parties. The list of these gods conventionally closes the treaty [...]. They had to be equal in their function and rank. Intercultural theology became a concern of international law. (Assmann and Conrad, 2010, p. 125) 

As ancient empires expanded and absorbed different peoples, this intercultural theology became useful for internal peace, notably with the Hellenistic empires that arose in the wake of Alexander the Great's conquests. By affirming that different religions are interchangeable, it became possible to create a common civic culture for diverse peoples:

Hellenization had two faces. On the one hand, it referred to the diffusion of Greek language, ideas and customs all over the Ancient World; on the other hand, it appeared to be more of a construction of a 'common culture', suggesting a similar change in Greece as in the other cultures. Flavius Josephus did not speak of 'Greek' but of 'common culture', ho koinos bios, as the goal of Jewish assimilation or reform in the Hellenistic age. (Assmann and Conrad, 2010, p.  127) 

One result would be the emergence of a universal religion. We like to associate this development with the teachings of Jesus, but a kind of proto-Christianity was already emerging near the end of the pre-Christian era.  At that time, many Jews were adapting their belief in one God to the universal worldview of Hellenistic culture:

Thus, while biblical universalism was founded on a notion of the mission of Israel to save all of humanity and bring them to the true worship of the only God, Hellenistic notions of universalism involved the assumption that all the gods were really different names for one God. (Boyarin, 1994, chap. 3). 

The two belief-systems merged among the increasingly Hellenized Jews of the eastern Mediterranean, thus setting the stage for Jesus and making it easier for his movement to succeed.

The Christian impulse

This new religion became a vehicle not only for moral universalism but also for belief in human equality. For if morality is universal, all humans must have the same capacity to follow its rules. In Christ, asserted Paul, there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female (Galatians 3:28).

While Christianity would steer people in the direction of universalism, there were limits to how far it could go. Theologians sometimes spoke of the need to set lower aims for average people and higher aims for saintly men and women. We see this realism in Augustine's position on prostitution: "If you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust" (De Ordine ii, 4). The same could be said for the Church's position on war, slavery, prejudice, and other manifestations of human inequality. These were the realities of an imperfect world. 

Such imperfections nonetheless became harder to accept over the following centuries. First, there was "mission creep." Once the Church had established certain ideals, there was continual pressure to bring human behavior into line with them. Second, the geocenter of the Church was shifting away from the eastern Mediterranean, where the absolute morality of Christianity had been constrained by the relative morality of kinship. Farther north and west, beyond the Hajnal Line, kinship ties were weaker and people more receptive to universal principles. There was thus a "fruitful encounter" between the Christian faith and these northwest Europeans who were more willing to internalize such principles and apply them more thoroughly (Frost, 2014a). 

Within this region, Catholicism would radicalize to the point of splitting away and becoming Protestantism. Here, too, Christian ideals would increasingly be taken to their logical conclusion.

The Abolitionist movement

Abolitionism began in the 17th century among English Quakers as a movement to abolish the slave trade. Over time, it grew more radical, seeking not only to free black slaves but also to extirpate racial and ethnic prejudice. Although "antiracism" did not yet exist as a word, its form and substance were already recognizable by the early 19th century. This was particularly so in the American northeast, where radical abolitionists denounced not only slavery but also fellow abolitionists who wanted to settle freed slaves in Africa. "In the 1830s, for the first time in American history an articulate and significant minority of Americans embraced racial equality as both a concept and a commitment" (Goodman, 1998, p. 1). This militant minority wanted more than simply an end to slavery: 

Believing that racial prejudice underpinned slavery, abolitionists committed themselves not just to emancipation [...] "Our prejudice against the blacks is founded in sheer pride; and it originates in the circumstance that people of their color, only, are universally allowed to be slaves," Child argued. "We made slavery, and slavery makes the prejudice." Color phobia, abolitionists contended, is irrational, wicked, preposterous, and unmanly. It is contrary to natural rights and Christian teaching, which recognizes no distinctions based on color. Race prejudice, Elizur Wright Jr. exploded, is "a narrow, bitter, selfish, swinish absurdity." (Goodman, 1998, p.58)

Decline ... and resurgence

That first wave of antiracism subsided in the late 19th century, partly because of the rise of Social Darwinism and partly because of disillusionment with the Civil War's aftermath. Radical abolitionists had long set their sights on ending slavery and crushing the American South, yet achievement of both goals failed to bring the final goal of human equality any closer. In the face of growing self-doubt, they lacked the ideological stamina to keep the faith and push forward, come what may. The movement thus fell into decline, remaining dominant only in the American northeast.

This first wave did not die, however. It was resuscitated in the early 1930s and would give rise to a much more dynamic second wave. The rise of Nazism convinced many Jewish intellectuals, notably the anthropologist Franz Boas, of the need to fight "racism" in all its forms, this word being initially a synonym for Nazism (Frost, 2014b). The war on racism would outlive the defeat of Nazi Germany, as a result of continuing fears of anti-Semitism in the postwar era. Moreover, it had now taken on a life of its own, much like its 19th-century predecessor. 

Today, some eighty years later, that war is still being fought. What began as a reaction to Nazism has become a permanent cultural revolution.


Assmann, A., and S. Conrad. (2010). Memory in a Global Age. Discourses, Practices and Trajectories, Palgrave Macmillan Memory Studies, New York  

Boyarin, D. (1994). A Radical Jew. Paul and the Politics of Identity, Berkeley: University of California Press.;brand=ucpress  

Frost, P. (2014a). A fruitful encounter, Evo and Proud, September 26  

Frost, P. (2014b). From Nazi Germany to Middletown: ratcheting up the war on racism, Evo and Proud, July 19  

Goodman, P. (1998). Of One Blood. Abolitionism and the Origins of Racial Equality, Berkeley: University of California Press.


Beyond Anon said...

It seems to me that what we are dealing with is that selection has operated on those people to make them more adapted to large-scale societies.

They have certain mental adaptations to operating within large-scale societies where everyone applies the same principles so it is in their benefit to eliminate all other cultural systems.

I think this also explains the push towards globalization ...

Hepp said...

"In the 1830s, for the first time in American history an articulate and significant minority of Americans embraced racial equality as both a concept and a commitment"

Were these egalitarians ok with interracial marriage, even at this early date?

Anonymous said...

"The movement thus fell into decline, remaining dominant only in the American northeast."

How dominant were they in the northeast?:
Brewster [Sr.], described by one acquaintance as "a crustacean McKinleyite Republican," entertained many members of Congress at his Catoctin retreat. [. . .] Brewster's politics, however, were too extreme to be openly expressed in the mainstream GOP. His anti-Communism was so rabid and sweeping that his son remembered that "if I were considerate enough to visit him in Washington with a friend whose parents were somehow associated with the Roosevelt administration, it was natural that he should refer quite regularly to my 'Communist friends.'" [. . .] Brewster's political opinions and his business contacts with Germany led the FBI to start a file on him. While various information testified that he admired the Nazi system and claimed to have met personally with Hitler on visits to Germany, the FBI's investigation revealed little aside from the fact that "BREWSTER possessed a great hatred for Jews and regarded them with suspicion at all times."

Brewster's views on race and religion were perhaps most fully expressed in the works of his good friend the eugenicist Lothrop Stoddard, who believed that Anglo-Saxon civilization and America's ancestral purity were under threat from inferior races. Stoddard was, like Brewster, a Harvard Law School graduate and sometime resident of Brookline, Massachusetts. (Brookline was, not coincidentally, the location of the nation's first country club.) Stoddard's works included evocative titles such as The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy and The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under-Man.

American society, according to Brewster and Stoddard, was a racial aristocracy under threat [. . .] Many upper-class East Coast gentlemen shared the view that snobbery and racial exclusion were necessary to preserve their elite culture, even if they stopped short of Stoddard's conclusion that "race cleansing is the obvious starting-point for race betterment." Although Brewster's virulent racial opinions were welcome in polite society, most of his peers expressed themselves in more decorous terms. [. . .]

Brewster Sr. was a strikingly handsome man, with a magnetic appeal to women. He was married five times, although the legality of several of those unions was questionable. [. . .] Kingman Jr. recalled that at his father's funeral, it was his role to keep the wives apart; they were all still fond of him.

Kingman Jr. once told an interviewer that he had been "terrified" of the father who had given him "a stepmother in every port." [. . .] The son detested his father's fascism and ultraconservatism, and so kept some distance. [. . .]

Kingman Sr.s paranoid racism, extreme anticommunism, and unbridled hatred of Franklin Roosevelt reflected an entire class's inability to cope with drastic change.

Grey said...

"They have certain mental adaptations to operating within large-scale societies where everyone applies the same principles so it is in their benefit to eliminate all other cultural systems."

I think that is correct in theory but in practice they are achieving the opposite because they are operating on partial data.

They are hostile from personal life experience to that segment of their own population which isn't like them - the majority - but believe based on a *total lack* of personal experience that other populations are more like them and so are replacing the *bad* part of their own population with people who are in reality much further away from what they want than the people they are replacing.

Their initial lack of experience depends on growing up in homogenous communities but their ongoing lack of lack of knowledge of the reality depends on the media filtering the news.

W.LindsayWheeler said...

There was an earlier movement than the Quakers and that has to be Freemasonry. Freemasonry's only "doctrine" is the Brotherhood of Man. Not only do they claim that they built the Tower of Babel, but that is their goal in Modern Times, to rebuild it.

It has roots in Jewish Messianism that requires World Unity as a precursor to the coming of the Jewish Messaih. Jasper Ridley has a painting of the Tower of Babel on his book The Freemasons.

Anti-racism would be a necessary plank for both Freemasonry and Marxism.

I cover that in my book Part I, The Case of the Barefoot Socrates: Academic Myth-Making and the Jewish Transformation of Western Culture. The book is free and online and covers the origins of Political Correctness.

Anti-racism is very much a part of Political Correctness which is Cultural Marxism. They are all connected, the Quakers, Freemasons and Communists; all essentially Gnostic. In the rise of Cultural Marxism for globalism it is necessary to rewrite Classical Antiquity and smear Sparta, change the origins of philosophy. All of this to prepare the ground for Cultural Marxism. Marxism does have a Cultural side, and it includes anti-racism.

Anonymous said...

The opposition of Boas et al grew from the attempt of the founding Americans to defend their homeland from the transformational crush of mass migration from southern and eastern Europe. The defence of homeland was not racist.

The Congressional Record reports Representative William N. Vaile of Colorado, one of the most prominent restrictionists:

“Let me emphasize here that the restrictionists of Congress do not claim that the `Nordic` race, or even the Anglo-Saxon race, is the best race in the world. Let us concede, in all fairness that the Czech is a more sturdy laborer…that the Jew is the best businessman in the world, and that the Italian has…a spiritual exaltation and an artistic creative sense which the Nordic rarely attains. Nordics need not be vain about their own qualifications. It well behooves them to be humble.

“What we do claim is that the northern European and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But… [t]hey came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it.

“We are determined that they shall not…It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves.” [Cong. Rec., April 8, 1924, 5922]

Anonymous said...

The evolution of antiracism is tied to the evolution of racism. Racism itself was a very new concept, which arose due to the application of Darwin's theory ( and the work of biologists before him). Advances in biology made it possible to look at certain racial groups as biologically and not just culturally inferior(excepting blacks who I think were always viewed as biologically inferior).

"This new religion became a vehicle not only for moral universalism but also for belief in human equality. For if morality is universal, all humans must have the same capacity to follow its rules."
Equality before the law maybe( even that is new), but the belief in equal mental capacities for different races, ethnicities, and the two genders is very recent.
And same capacity to follow rules? Rather same obligation and equal salvation for all.

And we have basically given up our faith in universal morality and tacitly encourage practices in other countries by offshoring cheap labor and extraordinary rendition, selling arms through third parties etc. Anything goes so long as our hands are not dirty.


Anonymous said...

Universal morality IS NOT based on same rules for all people, derived by western novel values BUT about is about what is right and wrong irrevocably.

Universal not exactly by sense of ''all people'' but ''universal objectivity of real empathy''.

But today this kind of principles are used by ''others'' by selfish interests.


Peter Fros_ said...

Anon and Grey,

I suppose you're talking about Jewish Americans. Until the 1930s, there was no antiracist consensus within the Jewish community, only a consensus against anti-Semitism (and even on that issue there was a wide range of opinion as to how it should be fought).


Boas was opposed to immigration restriction, but he rationalized his opposition on the grounds that differences among Europeans were environmental in origin. He hadn't yet gone to the stage of arguing that all humans are fundamentally the same. That position came later, in the mid-1930s.


Antiracism never really ceased to be dominant in the northeast, although it was considerably weaker even there by the early 20th century. Most northeastern states had laws banning racial discrimination in schools and public accommodations throughout that period.


Neither Darwin nor his successors used the term "racism" to describe their beliefs. "Racist" was initially a translation of the German term "volkisch", i.e., a blood and soil nationalist. It was essentially a synonym for "Nazi." It was later, especially after the war, that it took on its current meaning.

Before Darwin, there was often a fuzzy distinction between innate and acquired characteristics. The position of the Church was that all humans are descended from Adam and that Adam lived only a few thousand years ago. The unity of mankind was a core belief, as Augustine made clear:

"Yet whoever is born anywhere as a human being, that is, as a rational mortal creature, however strange he may appear to our senses in bodily form or color or motion or utterance, or in any faculty, part or quality of his nature whatsoever, let no true believer have any doubt that such an individual is descended from the one man who was first created."
De civitate Dei 16: 8

I've discussed this point with Christian pastors and they normally argue that all humans have the same capacity to obey God's will. To argue otherwise is to deny moral agency, i.e., the capacity of everyone to choose between right and wrong. If I press the point, they'll admit to exceptions (infants, the mentally retarded, etc.) but they try to define these exceptions as narrowly as possible.

Peter Fros_ said...


I'm not so sure. Many Freemason lodges in the U.S. barred African Americans. My mother's family were Freemasons, and from what I heard they were a mutual aid society. My great-grandfather came to Canada with only his suitcase. He initially worked as a peddler and then gradually worked his way up to having his own general store, thanks in no small measure to help from other Freemasons.

W.LindsayWheeler said...

The Freemasons are the institutionalization of the Hermetic Tradition. If you pick up Albert Pike's Morals and Dogmas of the Scottish Rite branch you will the Hermetic Tradition plus many quotes from the Kabbala. The Kabbala is a carrier of Jewish Messianism. There are two main branches of Freemasonry, religious and atheistic but both preach and teach "The Brotherhood of Man".

Amongst Catholic literature from the late 1800s to the WWII one would find the phrase "Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevism" quite frequently. They are interconnected. They are all based on World Unity. If you can read the Catholic entry on Freemasonry at the Catholic encyclopaedia and it has this to say: "The Mason is called a "true Noahida", i.e. an adherent of the pre-Christian and pre-Mosaic system of undivided mankind."

In order to create and have an "undivided mankind" you must attack the Natural Law of group dynamics of the sense of belonging and volkenhass. (It is Johann Herder that defined it.) Undivided mankind is one of the goals of Jewish Messianism.

Much in Masonry is of double meaning. This is why it is a secretive organization anyway. Freemasons and Rosicrusians take much from Giordano Bruno, which you can say is the intellectual founder for both movements. It is so chaotic that you can make of it as you please. Yes, their cover is a "mutual aid society" but it also teaches a lot of esoteric stuff, the Kabbala being one of them.

Yes, Freemasonry started out as a unity amongst Europeans but it can also adapt and move further once society moves progressive.

Grey said...

@Peter Fros

"I suppose you're talking about Jewish Americans"

Upper middle class Anglos with a puritan background - like your north easterners.

They tend to need to be upper middle class (nowadays if less so in the past) because they need to have direct personal experience of non universalist beliefs among their own ethnic group (leading to hostility towards them) but no experience of the lack of the same among other ethnic groups hence their distorted thinking.

Luke Lea said...

"The first efforts to universalize morality—to create a single moral system that could apply to everyone—"arose simultaneously around 500 BCE in various parts of the world, from China in the Far East to Southern Italy in the West" (Assmann and Conrad, 2010, p. 121). These efforts were initially driven by the need to form alliances between different peoples:"

In my opinion the first efforts to universalize morality occured sometime in the second Millenium BCE -- probably at the end of the Bronze Age -- in the Mesopotamian cultural zone. This is when a small band of semi-nomadic trading/herding people sought to survive in the midst of a disintegrating civilization.

Being "few in number" they depended upon the goodwill of their more powerful neighbors among whom "they lived, and moved, and had their being." In short, their reputation for honesty and fair dealing was the key to their survival. Thus they put forward the concept of a "Most High God" who judges every man with according to his deeds by a single standard of equity, and whose writ runs to the ends of the earth. ,

You can read about it in detail in an essay I wrote many years ago, "The Torah and the West Bank" which you can find on the web.

W.LindsayWheeler said...

A universal morality is not the same as anti-racism. Anti-racism is not morality. It is about "reshaping consciousness" and having people dismiss and submerge their racial instincts.

Anti-racism is a platform for Progressives/Utopians. It is a sin against Progressiveness which is a cult. Since Progressiveness teaches anti-racism, racism becomes an evil. Not due to morality but due to attacking the Natural Order. Anyone who is for his race, hence becomes "evil" in the eyes of Progressives.

The Bible has tons of laws against miscegenation and of mixing with pagan cultures. Even the Hebrew Tribes were not allowed to intermarry. The Hebrew Term "mamzar" is "halfbreed". Mamzars were NOT allowed in the Temple. That is how evil they were in the sight of God. In the prophets, there was one that forced the Jews to repudiate their pagan spouses and children. (This is why many people could link Nazism to Judaism, as I point in my book linked above. Jews and Gentiles both saw the correspondence between the Nazis and the Judaisms miscegenation laws. The secret doctrine of Judaism is their race. The central feature of Nazism is race.)

The Doric Greek societies of Crete and Laconia prevented outside marriages. In Athens, with so many foreigners, a law was finally passed that one could only be a citizen if BOTH parents were Athenian citizens.

That didn't prevent them from forming alliances.

Alexander the Great, was the first to propose mixed marriages. When he conquered the Persian Empire, he came up with a plan for the Greek military to take up Persian wives. Shortly after this, he died (he may have been poisoned.)

Medieval Jerusalem is a good example of a mixed city but all the races/ethnicities remained separate in their enclaves. The same situation existed in Hellenistic Alexandria. Races lived together in their separate enclaves.

Jewish Messianism as a doctrine came into existence approximately 400 A. D. in the Talmud. It presupposes deracination. But this deracination is for the goyim and not for the Tribe.

W.LindsayWheeler said...

Orthodox Traditional Christianity operates upon the dogma of Original Deposit; the faith was delivered whole and complete on Pentecost. The Church never condemned slavery. Though many Christians bought slaves in order to free them and they did try to end slavery, the Church never condemned slavery. The Church in the Seven Ecumenical Councils anathematized those that sought to teach slaves to run away from their masters. Second, slaves, in order to enter the priesthood, had to get permission from their Masters. The Greek Orthodox Church even today, has not condemned slavery nor will it.

On the other hand, one must understand the Quakers. The Quakers rejected the dogma of the Trinity. They are extreme heretics. To take a heresy and to give credence to their teachings as true and catholic is false. Quakerism grew out of the English Civil Wars that at an earlier time gave birth to the Puritans. Both were anti-clerical. The Anglicans called the Puritans, "demi-jews". The same can be said about the Quakers. Progressivism grows out of these movements when the next generation of young reject the religious ideas but keep the social ideas. As they were "Christian Reformists" they were also "Social Reformists" and this "Reforming spirit" became Progressivism. q.v. MacDonald King Aston's Yankee Babylon

Eric Voeglin characterizes Puritainism as Gnosticism and one of the characteristics of Gnosticism is hatred of the world, of the cosmos; i.e. hatred of the Natural Order. What is going on is not morality. Anti-racism is connected to progressivism and ultimately Gnosticism.

Anonymous said...

"A universal morality is not the same as anti-racism."

but does it create a fertile seed bed for it?

W.LindsayWheeler said...

Mangan has a post at his site that that has meaning for this discussion Evolutionary dominance of ethnocentricity

In answer to the question of morality, Ethnocentricity points to an answer. Aristotle said that humans are "social animals" (not political). He mean "social" for he points to bees.

All the animals except the cat that he has domesticated, bovine, horse, dog, sheep, goat, chicken are all social animals, i.e. herd animals. Man is a herd animal. Jesus Christ refers to this in one of his talks when he refers to his believers as "sheep" and Him as the "sheepherder". Does not God know his own creation?

This is not about morality, but instinct. If the atheists believe in evolution, and man evolved from apes (which I do not believe), then apes who are social animals would have passed this on to humans.

Ethnocentricity is an INSTINCT. It is a part of man. When a man is dishonored, it shows, he feels that in his chest. When his nation/race/tribe is attacked, a man FEELS. Watch the meerkats on DVD. Human beings are herd animals.

So what comes into this? Loyalty. Duty. Honor.

To attack and betray one's group is disloyalty. It is Treason. In his second not well known book, Hitler does give a reason why he put Freemasons in the camps--for they, because of their ideology will commit Treason.

Now Treason is not in the Ten Commandments, neither is it in the Bible but Jesus spoke on it. When Judas betrayed him, Jesus said, "Better had he never been born".

Communists, Marxist, Freemasons who blather on about One World, Globalization and attack the Natural Order, are commiting Treason. Is that morality?

Did Judas break the Ten Commandments or did Judas break the Natural Law?

Since we are herd animals, social animals, the Natural Law comes in and the Natural Law of group dynamics governs that. Johann Herder's sense of belonging and volkenhass. The Push/Pull. Pull is ethnocentrism/sense of belonging. Push is volkenhass. Jesus Christ said "You can't serve two masters". You can NOT both serve your kinsmen and the other. You must either love your kinsmen and dislike the other or you must dislike your kinsmen and serve the other.

Liberals and Marxists serve the other in detriment to their kinsmen, thus committing Treason. Now this is moralality. It is not moral to commit Treason.

The Good defines morality. What is The Good? Your Group. Your Kinsmen.

Bruce said...

There’s a claim, often repeated on the far right, that the term “racism” was invented by Leon Trotsky. Have you looked into this claim?
I have seen evidence (via a google literature search tool that someone pointed out to me) that the term existed in a few French publications in the early 1800s but never caught on until it was reinvented in the 1930s.

W.LindsayWheeler said...

The article states that Jewish intellectuals came to a sudden realization that "racism" had to be fought. (quoting Frost {who is probably Jewish himself})

How then does Rosa Luxemborg a Jewish communist write a pamphlet "Nationalities Question" in 1918? How does that square with the revelation of Jewish intellectuals sudden conversion to anti-racism? People need to go to link of my book above. What I find outrageous, is that Jewish intellectuals do not know their own program, their own ideology that calls for the existential genocide of all the nations on the earth. These people are delusional. Before Hitler ever rolled around, Rosa and Karl Kautsky all furthered the communist program. Communist organizations were first called INTERNATIONAL Socialism first. Why was it "International"? For it wanted to do away with nations.

Boas's stance is just duplicity. They know what they are about and then they act dumb. They are hypocrites. They are of the double mind.

Karl Marx, which is referenced in the link above, called for the genocide of reactionaries. What is a reactionary? A nationalist.

Anti-racism is a program from deracinating and for the destruction of race. It has nothing to do with morality.

The article writes that "Catholicism would radicalize to the point of splitting away and becoming Protestantism".

That is so wrong. Protestantism was influenced by Jewish critics and missionary activity in Europe. Catholicism radicalizing is the Tridentine mass, not creating Protestantism. The Anglicans called the Puritans demi-jews because they saw the true origins of Puritans in Judaism. The "sola scriptura" of Protestanism is Jewish inspired. It is Puritan ideology that underscores the New England Progressive ideas.

True orthodox Catholicism is not "sola scriptura", but Tradition and the Natual Law. That is the basis of Catholicism. Therefore, you see respect for the world's institutions under Catholicism. True orthodox Catholicism was not progressive but had a respect for the Natural Order. Protestantism with its "sola scriptura" and philosemitism is the problem.