Your misunderstanding here stems from a continued failure to grasp the historical relationship between Church and state during this period. As I’ve pointed out there was no separation of Church and state in the way we understand it today. The Church and secular rulers were not distinct entities, Church doctrine had a profound influence on secular law especially in matters of purity of blood during these times.
It’s not as simple as you think to distinguish between "secular" and "Church" when they were so often aligned in enforcing such laws. Limpieza de Sangre was enforced through Church institutions, as ecclesiastical bodies played a key role in validating, enforcing, and supporting these racial policies. If you believe there’s a distinction between the secular and the ecclesiastical in these matters then you are overlooking the theocratic nature of these times. The Church didn't only influence secular law it determined it especially where racial and religious purity were concerned.
So, no, it’s not as easy as saying "secular authorities did this on their own." You’ve missed the key point: the Church was deeply involved in shaping the racial and religious landscape of Iberia and its colonies through its doctrine and enforcement which includes Limpieza de Sangre.
While it’s true that canon law forbade usury the problem is your reductionism. Yes canon law did forbid usury and was enforced by secular authorities but the nature of the enforcement is important. The enforcement of usury laws by secular authorities was a consequence of the Church’s doctrinal stance meaning it was still an extension of Church teaching not a separate, independent legal framework. Your analogy here is shallow because it oversimplifies the actual relationship between Church and state during this period. They were not the separated institutions we know today.
That's what I am accused of here, not "oversimplifying" things. This is why people miss details that change the outcome of the analysis.
This misses a crucial point that Church law was inseparable from secular law at the time. There was no separation between the Church and state. The ecclesiastical authorities had full dominion over secular authorities in many matters, especially in Spain during the time of the Limpieza de Sangre. This reality invalidates your attempt to claim that canon law in secular matters can be compartmentalized from direct Church involvement. In other words the laws in question were not just enforced but authored and sanctioned by ecclesiastical institutions.
This is where you completely misunderstands the nature of Church power and its relationship with secular authorities. The Limpieza de Sangre laws were unequivocally influenced by the Church and were deeply embedded in the religious and racial doctrines in the post-Reconquista centuries. Religious orders like the Jeronimos, and even Catholic monarchs were instrumental in applying these laws. Their role was not just as advisors to secular authorities but as active enforcers of a racially motivated ecclesiastical doctrine.
To make this clear Limpieza de Sangre was directly connected to religious purity, which was doctrinally mandated by the Church, and its enforcement was mandated by the Church through its monastic orders and secular rulers who were the Church’s agents. This was a Church-sanctioned policy unlike the secular usury laws which were a more indirect enforcement of canon law in a social or financial domain.
The Limpieza de Sangre laws were in fact directly connected to Church teaching not just in a vague way but as ecclesiastically sanctioned dogma. The Jeronimos and other religious orders were agents of the Church and the implementation of these laws was necessary to preserve the purity of the Christian faith, as blood purity was tied directly to spiritual purity.
This is not some outlier or local custom but a widespread Church-endorsed law. To dismiss it as mere secular law is to misunderstand the interdependence of Church and state at the time. Doctrines on racial purity and spiritual purity have always been intrinsically linked in Christian orthodoxy. The Church did not separate the two. Claims like the Limpieza de Sangre laws being non-canonical are rooted in a modern misunderstanding of Church authority and fail to account for the fact that racial purity laws were a tool of the Church's larger goal of doctrinal purity.
You seem intent on compartmentalizing the issue but the reality is that the Church’s role in racial purity during these centuries was not an isolated matter for the Spanish crown.
I am not disagreeing with you on the locality. You do acknowledge that the Limpieza de Sangre laws were a specific response to the unique historical situation Spain found itself in with its long history of Muslim conquest and the significant presence of jews. Spain was a kingdom on the periphery of Christian Europe. The Church’s enforcement of purity laws wasn’t arbitrary but a reaction to the extreme demographic changes and foreign influence within its borders. Homosexuality is a universal sin in all humans, so is cousin marriage. Racial mixing is not the same as these as it requires two alien peoples to occupy the same space, which was not common back then.
The rest of Europe, Germany, England, Ireland, France, and Scandinavia were not subject to the same pressures that Spain was. These kingdoms were ethnically homogenous with their populations 100% European unlike Spain, which had been dealing with centuries of foreign invasions and the integration of non-European elements. Thus there was no existential threat to the racial purity of these nations and consequently there was no need for explicit laws like Limpieza de Sangre in nations like Germany, France, England, and Norway, where there was a clear and continuously undiluted European identity.
The threat of racial and religious contamination was unique to Spain and the Church’s enforcement of these laws was reactive. We could all do with laws like these now but instead our political and religious leaders tolerate Islam, Hindus, Buddhists, and every other junk religion in our homes on top of jewish mafias running everything.
There was an outgrowth from the Greco-Roman simplicities of the early faith before the Church became the dominant political power in Europe and the Mediterranean. The Church also grew from its infancy of sermons in the wild and catacombs to an economic and political powerhouse on top of a theocratic system of kingdoms.
In the apostolic era was defined by the apostles and early Christians being sent out on a very specific mission. Christ’s directive was to spread the Gospel to the nations, and in that context, the nations referred to the tribes and peoples of Europe particularly those rooted in Greco-Roman, Germanic, Gallic, Celtic, Slavic, and Nordic traditions. The apostolic mission was fundamentally about bringing these tribal identities into the fold of Christianity, not to impose the faith onto every corner of the world, but to unite these European peoples through faith while preserving the racial and cultural integrity of those tribes.
Christianity never sought to conquer or convert the whole world in the way modern dispensationalist missionary efforts might imagine. It was targeted by design to spread Christianity aimed specifically at the European tribes, those who shared the Aryan connection of a common heritage that was temporarily rooted in pagan beliefs which were seen as incorrect in the eyes of the Church. These were the tribes of the West, which is why the Gospel was not spread to Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, or other Asiatic and African peoples. There was no effort to cross those cultural and racial barriers until the last several hundred years, which have all ended in massive disaster or are ongoing in massive disaster.
First your underlying confusion is rooted in the false equivalence between ethnic identity and religion. I never suggested that any pagan Goth could marry a Christian woman just because he was Aryan by blood. The issue at hand is not that ethnic purity supersedes faith or that bloodline can be separated from faith. Rather it’s that the early Church in its foundational wisdom understood faith as the key unifier of the tribal bloodlines of Europe. This is where you fail to see the theological integrity of the Church’s laws and the spiritual necessity of those laws in preserving the European heritage.
You seem to misunderstand that the Church did not view faith and bloodline as separate. They were intertwined. The early Church wasn’t about making just any pagan a Christian it was about converting those who had the potential to accept the faith. Those were the European peoples. The Goths, Franks, Vikings, and so on were tribal Europeans, and thus, when they converted to Christianity, they did so with the recognition that their ethnic identity was not to be discarded but rather elevated through the shared faith in Christ. The Church wasn’t just preaching to a soul it was preaching to an ethnic group, a tribe whose cultural and bloodline integrity was paramount.
Faith and ethnic heritage are deeply interconnected, not as competing forces but as complementary parts of a single identity. Once the ethnic tribes of Europe embraced the Christian faith they did so knowing they were not only embracing spiritual truth but also affirming their own racial and cultural destiny. The early Church’s laws on marriage and conversion reflect this holistic view of faith as an integral part of maintaining the purity of both the soul and the bloodline, or one's generations.
You claim a contradiction between two points that don’t conflict in the least. First you misunderstand the role of the Church in preserving the purity of European bloodlines. Yes you're right to acknowledge that cultural norms themselves strongly discouraged intermarriage, but why? Because the tribes of Europe at their core recognized the sanctity of their bloodline and their identity. The Church did not introduce this instinct, but it affirmed it and protected it through doctrine and law. The Church didn’t create a racial instinct, it codified and enshrined it within the framework of divine law ensuring that it would remain untainted by outside forces.
You say “If people already had such a strong instinct not to intermarry, why was the Church needed?” This is where your philosophy betrays you. You seem to assume that the Church’s role was merely redundant, that the people’s natural instincts could keep them pure without any external enforcement. But you fail to recognize the reality of human history, the purity of the bloodline, the very foundation of Europe’s civilization, is constantly under threat from foreign invasion, migration, and cultural and racial dissolution. It wasn't a bunch of Lotus Eaters and Tree Worshipers who fended off the Moors, the Saracens, the Mongols, and the Ottomans.
The Church was the guardian of European racial purity. It was not a passive observer. It imposed laws and provided the spiritual authority necessary to reinforce what people already felt. Without this institution there would be nothing to bind those natural instincts into a systematic force strong enough to resist the continual waves of cultural and racial dilution that were inevitably being thrust upon Europe from external forces of chaos.
You fail to distinguish between natural instinct and the need for institutional protection. Yes people naturally tend to marry within their own ethnic group but history shows that instincts alone are never enough to preserve racial purity because external forces like invasions, forced migrations, and ethnic or racial dilution constantly threatened these. This is precisely why the Church codified racial purity into law as was the case for the centuries of Limpieza de Sangre. It wasn't just about preserving what was "natural" it was about ensuring the survival of European identity in a world that was constantly pushing against it.
It's not an article, it is an encyclopedic entry from 1913 published by the Church.
You're either suffering from selective racial amnesia or you either haven't researched racial origins deep enough. This racial hierarchy isn’t “new” or “woke.” Aryan categories were widely used in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. Even with modern knowledge the essential European ethnic identity remains intact despite variations. The Church did not draw bloodlines the way you’re attempting to do. They were more concerned with preserving Christian Europe, which is why they included these peoples. And just because certain ethnic groups are acknowledged as European or Aryan doesn’t mean it somehow weakens the purity of other Nordic and Slavic groups.
Albanians and Roma are European peoples, historically and racially. Your claim that they were mixed and thus not Aryan is anachronistic and ignorant of the fact that these groups are Indo-European. The Albanians, in particular, are an ancient European people with roots going back to the Illyrians, a proto-European group predating even the Roman Empire. Their ethnic lineage is undisturbed European. Likewise the Roma are a people with European origins even though their history involves movement across Europe from the Indian subcontinent over 1,000 years ago (so genetically, since they are not Dravidian aborigines, they are Aryan in origin). The idea of their being somehow “not Aryan” is a modern fallacy based on contemporary racial ideas, not the historical reality of ethnic Europe.
Of course in the 21st century, if you go to Tirana you will see a host of people, undiluted and mixed, which just shows the perniciousness that Islam brought there, many Albanians under Turkic occupation were bred out of their purity.
The way you frame the issue here reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of both the historical context and the principles I’ve laid out. To suggest that I fail to draw proper conclusions from my sources is a weak attempt to deflect from the glaring flaws in your own reasoning. The facts I present are irrefutable, grounded in historical and theological truth, and it is your failure to properly address these facts that makes you uncomfortable, not the other way around.
I feel zero discomfort. I am not some modernist Catholic whose beliefs are shaped by the hollowed-out Vatican II agenda. I reject that globalist, secularized version of the Church entirely. I hold fast to the original teachings of the Church preserved through centuries of doctrine and consistent theological development long before the corruption of the 20th century. My faith is rooted in the timeless unyielding truths that the Church once upheld not in the watered-down multiculturalist "theology" of today. The fact that the modern Church has strayed into Frankfurt school multicultural jewish ideologies is a perversion of its original teachings. Your assertion that I might be uncomfortable with my own interpretation is a projection, it’s the modernist, globalist version of the Church that has failed not my interpretation.
Your comparison to the 'don't know what it like to be black' argument is completely misplaced and reveals your failure to comprehend the gravity of the struggle we (meaning myself and every other European) face. It's not about emotional discomfort or a feeling of exclusion, it’s about a very real, omnipresent, existential threat. When you equate our perspective to the typical grievance discourse of those with no skin in the game you’re ignoring the facts that European racial, cultural, and theological heritage is under active and systematic attack by forces that want to erase it completely. The blacks have zero claim to that. You don't understand this because you have the luxury of not having to live under constant siege.
It's not the length that is the issue it's that you often use quantity to substitute for quality. An example of this would be here where you used 4ch green text and screen shots from a guy mostly known for the "The Jew fears the Samurai meme" as a way to bolster the credibility of your post by including as many sources as possible without using the necessary discernment:
The origin of the "jews fear the Samurai" is not from the chans. The Meiji Japanese have always held their blood purity above their mingled Asian neighbors for centuries. The discernment for Asians vs Asians is not my realm, but I know when it comes to genetic and racial matters they have their own distinctions between themselves that my ontology could not experience first-hand.
If the Japanese believe they are more racially pure than the Chinese, then what of it? That's something to settle between Chow Mein and Sashimi.
You're conflating Christian Identitarianism with the zionist "British Israelite" project. The two are not only separate but fundamentally different. Christian Identitarianism is deeply rooted in the faith and bloodline of Christendom, tracing its origins back to the early Church, the Old Testament Kingdom period and beyond, which understood the importance of maintaining a pure bloodline for both spiritual and societal health. It's not a "theological novelty" or some fringe movement born out of 19th-century speculation. The Scots' Declaration of Arbroath in 1320 demonstrates an ancient understanding of the connection between the chosen people and Europe, declaring their descent from the Holy Land long before such ideas became fashionable in Protestant circles.
These perspectives are gaining traction now but it's not because they're novel or zionist. They are rediscovering the ancient, forgotten truths that were once self-evident within Christendom. This isn't some modern ideological shift but a return to original thought that ties the Church's teachings on all forms of purity to its mission of preserving the European peoples.
The fact that this connection wasn't widely embraced or fully recognized by the broader Church isn't evidence of its invalidity, it's simply a reflection of the suppression of certain truths that don’t fit the modern globalist agenda.
So no this is not a novelty it's a rediscovery of our heritage, one that has always been there, quite overlooked and systematically suppressed by the forces you defend.
You’re confusing societal marginalization based on skin color with the existential struggle of a people defending their identity and heritage from being erased entirely. The context of the European identity crisis is not one of "personal discomfort," but of a genocidal threat against an entire race and civilization. You aren't European and there is no target on your back. There is not a massive globohomo juggernaut that thrives solely for this entire purpose on the eradication of your blood, but it does for mine and my kin.
By that logic, no historian, scholar, or anthropologist could possibly have an accurate understanding of any people or culture they study unless they themselves belong to it. I’m sure you’re aware that such an idea is absurd. My deep understanding of jewish psychology and nature is derived from historical study, observation, and critical analysis. True scholarship does not require one to be of a particular ethnic or religious background to understand its intricacies with the glaring exception of the present dilemma.
Cowardly attempts to deflect and malign are common moves used by those who are intellectually bankrupt and desperate to silence inconvenient truths.
The survival of Aryan Europeans which you dismiss so casually cannot be fully understood by those who have no stake in it. The intentional demographic decline of Aryan European peoples across the world is a deliberate and orchestrated agenda from top to bottom (Kalergi Plan 1930s, Gastarbeiter 1950s, Morgenthau Plan 1944, Potsdam 1945, UNHCR 1950, Hart-Cellar 1965, Australian Racial Discrimination Act of 1975, CEAS 1999, Replacement Migration Report 2000, UN Agenda 2030). There is a concerted effort to erase the very bloodlines and cultures that built the modern world.
The reality is far grimmer than what those outside this demographic like yourself may see as just another issue in a globalized world. The systematic and intentional reduction of Aryan Europeans to a minority status in their own ancestral homelands with the dismantling of our culture, and the forced dilution of our bloodlines cannot be fully comprehended unless one stands to lose it all. The conscious push towards this extinction is an agenda not seen by those who do not belong to this group nor by those who do not have the personal and collective experience of living under the weight of this existential threat.
The fact that you call it a black man argument shows your callousness. You don't give a damn, that much is clear. The root of all our debates comes down to you hounding me with random accusations that ultimately ends with attempted discrediting via ad hominem. I have to deal with a detached non-White like you insinuating that I am somehow a crypto-jew when I advocate for the survival of my own kind. Of course only the other non-Whites resonate with this. This proves that no matter how cordial we Whites are to out-groups, they (you included) are maligned to our survival, even our expression for our survival, from the start.
Let's answer a couple of questions to see where the jew is here.
Do I believe races should mix? No.
Do jews believe races should mix? Yes, every race except their "own."
Do jews push race-mixing through all kinds of nefarious subterfuges? Yes.
Do non-Whites have some kind of vested interest in more Whites mixing themselves into oblivion? Yes.
Do jews constantly try to shut down discourse when too much truth is getting out? Yes.
Do jews consistently smear their opponents with rhetorical insults in attempts to discredit them in front of an audience? Yes.
Do I ever attempt to shut down discourse? No. I always promote more discourse and exploration of a subject.
