Stolypin is based as fuck

All Jews are leftists. No need to qualify.

This was the assassin

http://www.jewornotjew.com/profile.jsp?ID=1864

There’s one sect I haven at least a little respect for. I forget their name, but they’re the fundamentalists of jews and are viciously hated by the rest because of it. They completely reject the Talmud and say it’s false. They believe only in the Torah.

I'd rather not risk it and not trust any

I agree, but there’s always the chance we could use them to cause even more strife and disunion amongst the Jews.

They're called Karaites.

YES

That’s right

Thank you

It was bugging the hell out of me that I couldn’t remember

Stolypin made the day of the rope real 😻

Nobody hates Jews quite like other Jews

They love stepping on each other’s toes all the time

I'm into a history of philosophy podcast right now, and it just wrapped up Jewish and Muslim philosophy in the Middle Ages. The Karaites come from the same philosophical strain as the Islamic Ash'arites, who currently dominate theology in Islam.

The enemy is not nearly as organized as the facade they put up leads us to believe

The big difference between the Karaites and the Ash'arites is that while the Karaites rejected the rabbis, the Ash'arites rejected everything non-Islamic. Ash'arite theologians banned philosophy, which in the 9th century consisted of everything from metaphysics to geometry. It's why Islam is crazier now than ever.

Both Muslims and Jews are the enemy

Muslims don't really seem to hide it though

Whilst Jews attack from within

Iirc the Eastern Catholics don't include the Filiqoue in the creed in Greek

And by non-Islamic, I mean everything but the Qur'an and the hadith. Even traditional Islamic theology got trashed for being too Aristotelian. Ibn Ash'ari was the primary inspiration for ibn Taimiyya, who would later found Salafism.

The filioque wasn't in the original Greek version of the Credo. It was added when it was translated into Latin, possibly deriving from a tradition in the west of expressly and emphatically emphasizing the union of Father and Son as a safeguard against Arianism.

I'm aware, but it is a division in theology between east and west right?

From the time of Nicea until the 9th century, East and West regarded the difference purely of culture. In 810, the patriarch of Constantinople made it an issue for the first time.

my trad uni chaplain thinks it really just more semantics once you get past all the theological definitions and in terms of spiritual life etc we believe the same

It really is just a semantic split.

Photius of Constantinople, in 810, decided that the addition of the filioque constituted the creation of an alternate creed, and thus, a different religion. No one cared before then. Many a small local council (and a few big ones) had determined that it was just a cultural thing.

The Filiqoue is basically an excuse to be schismatic

The Eastern Churches in union with us don't have it either

The entire schism was basically temporal politics

Something that the EO still struggle with to this day

Daily Mass Squad-- Gang Gang

See: ukranian-russia-constantinople schism

Then Orthodox still have the choice between nation-orthodox

i cant wrap my head around it

some even have several national ones

Near my city there's a "free Serbian" orthodox monastery, which is different to the "Serbian" orthodox Church in the city

i dont get it at alll. #Catholic

I mean, should boomer parishes be considered Catholic..?