The Barbarian Invasion of Europe

[MusicForThePiano]

I am not a Christian so far be it from me to judge but that sounds very anti-Christian.

What about the whole “love thy neighbour” thing and selflessness and sacrifice? Since when is helping others about receiving benefit (at least in the Christian world view)?

Did Christ not sacrifice himself for all humanity even though he received no benefit from it?

Doesn’t Christianity transcend race?

Is a devout Christian who is black and born in Sudan any less worthy of help from other Christians?

No, I'm not saying that an alleged black Sudanese Christian is less worthy of help, but he is not a priority before someone's own family. I'm simply saying that for White Christians in Europe and America, they need to destroy the liberalism that has taken their racial kindred away from the faith and focus solely on their own people who have strayed and not foreigners halfways across the world. It's weak and treacherous to betray one's own family and kin. We are commanded by God to look out for our own.

Do non-White Christians advocate for the future of White Christians? I've never seen that. I've seen plenty of the opposite. Universalist boomers of the EMJ vein lobbying and crying in public for blacks in Africa and indigenous in Central and South America. Never for their own people. It's pathologically suicidal.

In the future when Whites aren't in danger of becoming extinct they can decide whether or not to measure out some altruism, all it has done so far is bring about the demise of my race. Every bit of advancement brought about by Western Christian civilization to the non-White world has only given more life to the takers, and less to the makers. The populations of Africa and the other dark areas of the earth are booming, they were kept in check for millennia by the natural savage nature and short life-span of the lives of those tribes, now we have to accommodate these things at the expense of our own blood.

The few devout non-Whites who don't bastardize or further schism the faith are not indicative of their entire race. Would I refuse a helping hand of a non-White? Hard to say. I have helped many of them in the past, but nothing ever came of it. I only help White Christians now, and while that may sound selfish, the amount of Whites who have strayed from the Church is astronomical. My work will never end in my lifetime. The tide of liberal and communist marxist ideas that have descended from the jewish wave of degeneracy have infected the entire ecosystem of mankind and must be uprooted vehemently and callously, with zeal and consistency.

I am specifically talking about these White judeo-christian churches that sponsor "missions" to other parts of the world. They all waste their time. Their neighbors at home are descending into secular and liberal hell, or are practicing some kind of schismatic dogma, and they're off gallivanting and traipsing across the world on their holier-than-thou high-and-mighty trek to bring the Gospel to the cannibals of Papua New Guinea or some other forsaken place. It really is only a phenomena of the brainwashed Whites to behave this way. Where is the foundation and the validity for their "church" if their own blood does not believe? In the very least the Catholic expeditions into the new world were mostly corrupted by Marranos and Conversose, but the men of the cloth in Europe never let up and that is why it never failed or weakened in nearly 2000 years. Not until this last century did the jews finally shatter the righteous stranglehold of Christianity in Europe and America.

 

[Blade Runner]

Every other racial group in the world is either in on it or desires to mix themselves out of their base state because they inherently recognize the genetic imperative to produce something superior (like blacks with an inferiority complex who want to breed with whites, same with mesoamericans, southeast asians, indians, and darker arabs). There is a constant desire to project oneself upwards in terms of lighter skin from the darker perspective, the sole exception being black nationalists and supremacists like Ayo Kimathi and Farrakhan and their followers.

I noticed this quite a long time ago and it is a very uncomfortable reality for most, especially given modern egalitarian propaganda but the truth is everyone knows it. It's why non propagandized people, and I've said it before, realize that those with less common characteristics lose if they mate with anyone but those that have the similar characteristics; the mixture helps the one with the more common or base traits, though, of course. That's why things like the WGF in general existed, and why you see far more white women with black men, than the converse.

White women are so stupid in the west that they'll see a family clothing ad with a mixed-race family smiling and they internalize (I will be happy mixing races) without even thinking what they're doing, thats how effective this evil propaganda is, and how dumbed-down and deracinated Whites, especially the women, have become. Just like Eve, susceptible to the most blatant lies by the serpent-kind.

Yes, it's absurd how common on ads it is now that it's so clear. The only thing that makes me care less about it is that it's part of a population boom phenomenon. I think the dumbest thing I've seen by far is the good looking blonde girl with the black athlete. Nothing could be further from lasting than the entertainment sphere that is dying, and you had kids that look nothing like you for ... what? It's not like any female 7 can't find TONS of guys willing to marry her that give her plenty, including a real legacy.

The hardest pill to swallow still is the racial pill, because at its core the blood, our human blood, has divine characteristics, the jews are aware of this completely, their talmud talks about it nonstop and they know what they are doing both in activities beneficial of the blood and detrimental to it (pushed on the goyim). The Bible talks about it too, some references direct, some more obscure, some are parables, but people can only become completely racially aware once they are spiritually aware of what is going on.

I'm not sure about this, but I actually find it funny at this point that people act like they don't know the races are historically different and in major, significant ways. I think some spiritual realities quite clearly have to do with being able to see and tell the truth, but I'm not sure that the most mature spiritual people even care about "race" ... they probably see it as a fallen part of the world, regardless of any given racial group's gifts.

Do non-White Christians advocate for the future of White Christians? I've never seen that.

Jesse Lee Peterson. LOL, Uh-mazin! He's the only one I've seen, though, and he's a troll persona at this point, but I do think he's at least partially serious.

 

[Sandalwood Peak]

I am not a Christian so far be it from me to judge but that sounds very anti-Christian.

What about the whole “love thy neighbour” thing and selflessness and sacrifice? Since when is helping others about receiving benefit (at least in the Christian world view)?

Did Christ not sacrifice himself for all humanity even though he received no benefit from it?

Doesn’t Christianity transcend race?

Is a devout Christian who is black and born in Sudan any less worthy of help from other Christians?

I'm not going to speak on behalf of Christianity but first of all we're not all neighbors. I don't mean that in an inflammatory way but neighbor to me implies a community.

Second, do you think leftists love you now? I don't think these secular, liberal white people love anybody. They do it for their ego and for other devient psychological reasons. There's no two sides. There's groups and then there's outliers who coast on their privileges. White privilege would be an appropriate term here. Some white people acquire money and safety on the back of white society then they run around giving it away.

As far as other races go I'm personally very "loving" towards good people. I'm not sure love is the appropriate word in this context but let's roll with it. I would never think about hurting a group of people or an individual who value family, are respectful and work hard. I'm also against cruelty. Non-whites don't have to worry about me advocating they be stripped of dignity.

As @MusicForThePiano has pointed out if you can't love your own kind, or at very least the people you identify with, how can you love anyone else?

If you're proposing everyone co-existing peacefully I definitely think its possible in certain contexts. The problem we have as a human race is there's a rotation of bad, as in criminal/evil, people regularly coming into existence and organizing, so you always have to maintain a level of strength as a group as a deterrent and to survive.

Think about violence. Being violent is necessary for a grown man. Not every day but you have to be willing. A boy can afford to be a pussy. A grown man cannot. A grown man acquires resources, that can be taken away through force. Only violence can prevent it. If you have a family even more so. Your wife is getting harassed, your kids getting bullied, who's going to solve it? You. If you don't the level of suffering your family will endure will make you evil. Inaction against evil is evil itself. White leftists are evil and I feel no mercy for them. Your kids didn't ask to be born, its your job to keep them safe. One man can't solve all problems, that's why we lean on a community of people. A community you have to support to keep it strong. White people have outsourced all the violence to the police and now we see the fruits of this cowardice.

 

[Australia Sucks]

I think the dumbest thing I've seen by far is the good looking blonde girl with the black athlete.

I don't see it as a bad deal for the blonde girl. She is still getting an objectively high value man. Are you saying a pretty blonde girl shouldn't marry somebody like Tiger Woods if she were given the chance? Or you are talking about the more common case of a blonde girl marrying a low level athlete which I agree is a completely different thing and not necessarily great.

However I think real problem is the white women who mix with ghetto blacks or ghetto latinos rather than the white woman who mix with black athletes or black businessman.

 

[Australia Sucks]

I'm not sure about this, but I actually find it funny at this point that people act like they don't know the races are historically different and in major, significant ways.

I understand this concept when people are talking about highly homogenous races like the Japanese or the Icelanders. But most countries are already very race mixed. You think that the average English man or Turkish person isn't highly race mixed already?

By the way I am not trying to claim that there is no difference for example between a Lebanese person and an Italian because they are both race mixed but am just pointing out its kind of silly to get extremely puritanical about race mixing in a country where the horse has bolted thousands of years ago. If the Japanese or Icelanders or South Koreans want to be puritanical about race mixing an argument can be made for that but at this point its kind of silly for people in a country like Colombia or Lebanon or Australia or England or U.S.A. etc to get pedantic about race mixing.

 

[BarrontheTigerCat]

I don't see it as a bad deal for the blonde girl. She is still getting an objectively high value man. Are you saying a pretty blonde girl shouldn't marry somebody like Tiger Woods if she were given the chance? Or you are talking about the more common case of a blonde girl marrying a low level athlete which I agree is a completely different thing and not necessarily great.

However I think real problem is the white women who mix with ghetto blacks or ghetto latinos rather than the white woman who mix with black athletes or black businessman.

This is where we will disagree.
I always watched people like Ernst Zundel being asked about mixed race children and saying "why would you do that to a child?"

I didn't understand at first.
But I recently read the abstract of a suppressed Harvard study with jewish authors:
"Since 1970, the fraction of mixed race black-white births has increased nearly nine-fold. This paper describes basic facts about the behaviors and outcomes of black-white mixed race individuals. Unsurprisingly, on a host of background and achievement characteristics as well as adult outcomes, mixed race individuals fall in between whites and blacks. When it comes to engaging in risky and anti-social adolescent behavior, however, mixed race adolescents are stark outliers compared to both blacks and whites. We argue that these behavioral patterns are most consistent with a two-sector Roy model, in which mixed race adolescents – not having a predetermined peer group – engage in more risky behaviors to be accepted."

So the mixed kids are smarter than the Black Bell-Curve but in the aggregate dumber than the Whites, AND they have the worst anti social behaviour.
I've seen this in my own life. I know plenty of mixed kids from nice middle class families (a small amount in the main, but a big enough sample size) who have a major chip on their shoulder and constantly court problems with the authorities or authority figures.
They feel like they don't belong and I have heard the same thing relentlessly "I was brought up by a mainly white family that didn't look like me" - well, boo hoo.
You'll hear that from famous mixed race Brits who've been given everything in terms of money, fame, status etc. It is never enough.

And its interesting that you mention Tiger Woods - who came up with the term "Calabinasian" to describe his ethnicity.
Talk about a guy who doesn't know what his real race is.
And Tiger Woods, before his wife freaked out with the ridiculousness of it all, was notorious for being a good golfer but an absolute nightmare as a man.
He was seen as lacking any kind of emotional maturity, completely compulsive and surrounding himself with the worst social crowd.
Great trainers and coaches but everything else was sex parties, gambling addiction and an endless stream of strippers and prostitutes (had to be white, blonde women) every weekend. That was widely known long before he and his wife finally had their showdown.

There is of course the example of OJ Simpson and Nicole Brown. OJ was rich and had been trained specifically to present himself well to white audiences. (note: OJ and Tiger both had a jones for White, Blonde women on their arm.)

Opinions will vary of course.
I can see a lot of race mixing amongst the poor and unemployed in the UK but we'll see .. I see a lot of openness to race mixing in the middle classes but I don't see a lot of actual race mixing in the more moneyed and middle class.
All the whites I know from my childhood and familial circles are not race mixing.
So it is certainly not all lost in terms of race mixing in the west, maybe the media narrative might try and say it is.

I don't think race mixing is something to engage in blithely with a sense of optimism that the kids will be alright.
They won't just "be alright.."
They may end up a lot worse off than a child from a mother of the same race.

 

[Blade Runner]

She is still getting an objectively high value man. Are you saying a pretty blonde girl shouldn't marry somebody like Tiger Woods if she were given the chance?

No, this is where the confusion is and is more akin to the way women and low IQ people think (short time preference and immediate wealth trumps all). He's not high value, actually. He plays a sport that is fairly meaningless historically and will go away into something that won't pay in the future. And then the tradeoff is the characteristics you've just mushed, just because you want to get paid now or in your life. I know it's common, but that just shows how little people think about what people gift their kids, or about the future in general. As Barron points out, your choosing Tiger is funny because it's the best example to prove our points. By the way, my blame still goes on Parnevik's nanny: truly, she has her reward, but it's only monetary when you think about it big picture. That's sad. Tiger was gonna try to do what he was going to do, and he did exactly that, so you can't really blame him. She actually lost way bigger because all she has to stand for her life at this point is money and kids that look nothing like her, from a spoiled rich kid dad and a bad, public relationship. She couldn't have just had a great life with swedish guy and a real legacy with proper children? Nope, she needed massive money for no good reason.

By the way I am not trying to claim that there is no difference for example between a Lebanese person and an Italian because they are both race mixed but am just pointing out its kind of silly to get extremely puritanical about race mixing in a country where the horse has bolted thousands of years ago. If the Japanese or Icelanders or South Koreans want to be puritanical about race mixing an argument can be made for that but at this point its kind of silly for people in a country like Colombia or Lebanon or Australia or England or U.S.A. etc to get pedantic about race mixing.

The question is not what has happened before you, which I agree is complicated, but what do you do now. I'm not promoting puritanism of any sort. I'm saying that you are going the route that they want everyone to go in ... what's the point, just mix, we might as well Kalergi since XYZ, etc.

Even in Colombia or Lebanon I guarantee you there are classes that value certain traits. I don't find most of this stuff convincing. I'm not asking others to care about this like I do either, by the way, I'm just telling you that there are reasons that I think the way I do, and they aren't arbitrary, they are thinking about your kids and what you gift them. I've stated that I'm OK with that being a high risk thing that might exclude me from having kids at all, which is the price one must pay, of course.

You'll hear that from famous mixed race Brits who've been given everything in terms of money, fame, status etc. It is never enough.

Yup, I've seen it too. We're living in a confused time. The money will run out though, and it will happen in our lifetime. When, I'm not sure, but I can guess.

 

[Shaquilleoatmeal]

That's why things like the WGF in general existed, and why you see far more white women with black men, than the converse.

WGF?

 

[Blade Runner]

WGF?

White God Factor, an old acronym for a concept in East Asia, generally speaking.

 

[Shaquilleoatmeal]

I'm not going to speak on behalf of Christianity but first of all we're not all neighbors. I don't mean that in an inflammatory way but neighbor to me implies a community.

Does the Bible suggest that?

Second, do you think leftists love you now?

“Turn the other cheek?”

 

[Shaquilleoatmeal]

White God Factor, an old acronym for a concept in East Asia, generally speaking.

Never seen that before. Too often I see abbreviations online with no clue what they mean.

 

[Blade Runner]

Does the Bible suggest that?

No, the parable of the good Samaritan disproves that but it's not really that simple, since Sandalwood's point is in the context of nation states, laws, welfare, state theft via taxes to give to other people, etc.

People can tell by my posts that I might be classified as a "racialist" which is probably just a race realist, since it's sorta annoying to coin terms to define people. I don't treat individuals any different in life when they pass me by, but I do avoid certain people who give off certain energies or fit certain types - like we all do. One thing I will not do is lie about the differences in groups, though, which is the problem with the modern day. All the insecure people of group X want you to look at them as group X for one thing politically, but then not look at them as group (the negative characteristic) for another thing that of course they get to choose, lol.

It's actually not the conservatives that do the group based thinking. They are prompted to tell the truth about them because the collective keeps bringing up groups and commie mentalities.

 

[Australia Sucks]

He plays a sport that is fairly meaningless historically

All sports are meaningless but Golf is a high profile sport and being the top golfer gave Tiger Woods huge respect and social status. And women desire social status above all else.

Even in Colombia or Lebanon I guarantee you there are classes that value certain traits.

That is very true but even those people with certain traits are still typically race mixed to at least some degree if you do genetic testing on them.

But yes I concede the point you are making that in some cases further race mixing could further dilute those desirable traits and therefore it can be better to not race mix.

The other thing to be considered for most people real life is rarely an "all else is equal" situation. Reality is messy and typically involves trade offs. Even if you think the race mixing thing is true and keeping to the same race is more desirable in a practical sense the tradeoffs can be too great to make it worthwhile.

For example if a guy is born in Sweden should he marry a 32 year old Swedish woman with a body count of 15 or marry an 18 year old submissive virgin from Thailand? Because realistically an 18 year old Swedish virgin is not looking to get married.

This are the types of choices that the majority of men actually face in real life. I know you are aware of this reality already and have stated indirectly that you are aware of this reality, its just a matter of where the priorities of each individual man lay.

 

[Sandalwood Peak]

Does the Bible suggest that?

“Turn the other cheek?”

Huh? Turn the other cheek? What?

@Australia Sucks is promoting individualism. You're your own person and that's all that matters. Life is about what you can get out of it. Everyone is human. So I assume he likes leftists for their "worldliness".

I'm trying to explain the rational for racism. Racism is a very shaky concept but unfortunately liberalism is an extremely popular ideology, globally.

I've mentioned somewhere that a lot of modern behavior parallels aristocrats of old. Implication being people are privileged and feel they have the luxury of being "individuals", above the "masses" and their "ignorance".

First of all a person's individualism is a very shaky concept to begin with. Individualism as a concept doesn't work unless there's complimentary concepts in play. Those being "uniqueness", "universalism" and "impartiality".

• In order to be an individual you have to be unique.
• In order to be an individual there should universal truths where people are measured by their proximity and deviation from it. If certain things are arbitrary then that would imply there's environmental pressures diminishing the case for your "uniqueness".
• There also needs to be impartiality for individualism. How can you be an individual if you're not able to make rational decisions?

After reading this I'm assuming people will feel uneasy. They will feel like I'm attacking Christianity. People will say "I don't like what you said, there's God's truth, there's the fact you have a soul and God gave us free will.".

That's the fascinating thing about the topic. Do you see how the west is built completely on Christianity? The west is ideologically Christian? Do you see the inspiration for modern thinking?

I personally don't see individualism as a core concept of Christianity. There's too many contradictions. How does the original sin work in the framework of individualism? Does God judge "groups" of people or not?

I'd love someone to explain this to me. Please do.

What we do see on the other hand with tribalism is it makes sense and is an integral part of human existence.

• People project themselves on people similar to themselves and feel more empathy towards those people.
• People are happiest amongst their own.
• People are social and need other people. They can't function on their own.
• People don't like the strange and the unknown.
• People resist norms alien to them. This is why communism fails in spectacular fashion. People revert to nature.
• Human survival depends on cooperation which is at it's highest in their ingroup.
• Human beings are taught how to behave, they don't choose.
• Survival dependents on your group being able to ward off threats.
• The resources you acquire requires cooperation. You didn't actually "earn" money, you were paid. A contract was honored.

Thoughts?

 

[Thomas More]

Huh? Turn the other cheek? What?

@Australia Sucks is promoting individualism. You're your own person and that's all that matters. Life is about what you can get out of it. Everyone is human. So I assume he likes leftists for their "worldliness".

I'm trying to explain the rational for racism. Racism is a very shaky concept but unfortunately liberalism is an extremely popular ideology, globally.

I've mentioned somewhere that a lot of modern behavior parallels aristocrats of old. Implication being people are privileged and feel they have the luxury of being "individuals", above the "masses" and their "ignorance".

First of all a person's individualism is a very shaky concept to begin with. Individualism as a concept doesn't work unless there's complimentary concepts in play. Those being "uniqueness", "universalism" and "impartiality".

• In order to be an individual you have to be unique.
• In order to be an individual there should universal truths where people are measured by their proximity and deviation from it. If certain things are arbitrary then that would imply there's environmental pressures diminishing the case for your "uniqueness".
• There also needs to be impartiality for individualism. How can you be an individual if you're not able to make rational decisions?

After reading this I'm assuming people will feel uneasy. They will feel like I'm attacking Christianity. People will say "I don't like what you said, there's God's truth, there's the fact you have a soul and God gave us free will.".

That's the fascinating thing about the topic. Do you see how the west is built completely on Christianity? The west is ideologically Christian? Do you see the inspiration for modern thinking?

I personally don't see individualism as a core concept of Christianity. There's too many contradictions. How does the original sin work in the framework of individualism? Does God judge "groups" of people or not?

I'd love someone to explain this to me. Please do.

What we do see on the other hand with tribalism is it makes sense and is an integral part of human existence.

• People project themselves on people similar to themselves and feel more empathy towards those people.
• People are happiest amongst their own.
• People are social and need other people. They can't function on their own.
• People don't like the strange and the unknown.
• People resist norms alien to them. This is why communism fails in spectacular fashion. People revert to nature.
• Human survival depends on cooperation which is at it's highest in their ingroup.
• Human beings are taught how to behave, they don't choose.
• Survival dependents on your group being able to ward off threats.
• The resources you acquire requires cooperation. You didn't actually "earn" money, you were paid. A contract was honored.

Thoughts?

I wonder if Turn the Other Cheek is only meant to be understood in the most literal terms? If someone smacks you in the cheek, you are to turn the other cheek and invite them to smack it too.

But it doesn't have any broader application, such as how to react in a verbal discussion with your brother in Christ on the internet. Right?

 

[MusicForThePiano]

Huh? Turn the other cheek? What?

@Australia Sucks is promoting individualism. You're your own person and that's all that matters. Life is about what you can get out of it. Everyone is human. So I assume he likes leftists for their "worldliness".

I'm trying to explain the rational for racism. Racism is a very shaky concept but unfortunately liberalism is an extremely popular ideology, globally.

I've mentioned somewhere that a lot of modern behavior parallels aristocrats of old. Implication being people are privileged and feel they have the luxury of being "individuals", above the "masses" and their "ignorance".

First of all a person's individualism is a very shaky concept to begin with. Individualism as a concept doesn't work unless there's complimentary concepts in play. Those being "uniqueness", "universalism" and "impartiality".

• In order to be an individual you have to be unique.
• In order to be an individual there should universal truths where people are measured by their proximity and deviation from it. If certain things are arbitrary then that would imply there's environmental pressures diminishing the case for your "uniqueness".
• There also needs to be impartiality for individualism. How can you be an individual if you're not able to make rational decisions?

After reading this I'm assuming people will feel uneasy. They will feel like I'm attacking Christianity. People will say "I don't like what you said, there's God's truth, there's the fact you have a soul and God gave us free will.".

That's the fascinating thing about the topic. Do you see how the west is built completely on Christianity? The west is ideologically Christian? Do you see the inspiration for modern thinking?

I personally don't see individualism as a core concept of Christianity. There's too many contradictions. How does the original sin work in the framework of individualism? Does God judge "groups" of people or not?

I'd love someone to explain this to me. Please do.

What we do see on the other hand with tribalism is it makes sense and is an integral part of human existence.

• People project themselves on people similar to themselves and feel more empathy towards those people.
• People are happiest amongst their own.
• People are social and need other people. They can't function on their own.
• People don't like the strange and the unknown.
• People resist norms alien to them. This is why communism fails in spectacular fashion. People revert to nature.
• Human survival depends on cooperation which is at it's highest in their ingroup.
• Human beings are taught how to behave, they don't choose.
• Survival dependents on your group being able to ward off threats.
• The resources you acquire requires cooperation. You didn't actually "earn" money, you were paid. A contract was honored.

Thoughts?

Everything there with tribalism is spot on. Everything that is coerced on us to do the opposite of those points you listed is a sham, an artificial force from an artificial belief system that is of Marxian socialism, or full blown communism and bolshevism. Whereas the Nationalistic expression of socialism, which is literally one word and not two, nazionalesocialismus, (there is no English equivalent) means a "national people" which is identical to a tribe.

Individualism is found often in post-Socratic and pre-Christian pagan tribes. The values of pagan tribes usually had things like wife-sharing, the strongest becomes the leader in literal barbaric melee to the death, and many other obtuse thoughts.

Today's so-called Christian churches outside of Catholic Apostolicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are mostly morally bankrupt (though this is changing God willing), and most people have fallen away from them because of this conundrum (Whites are spiritual souls and they cannot gravitate to spiritually empty doctrine or anemic faiths). Even those who have not resorted to paganism have nevertheless stayed away, and have no moral or folk identity at all. Many of them call themselves “cultural Christians” but they have no idea what Christianity really is. Therefore except for a few Medieval trappings, such as may be found in some of the holiday rituals, having no real religious compass they also participate fully in jewish pop-culture.

Perverting Christianity from within, promoting atheism, paganism, humanism (which spawns individualism) from without, the jew has everyone believing in nothing of substance, and everyone participating in the jewish religion of materialism and pop culture. Everything we've witnessed in media scandals for the last several decades couldn't make this more clearer. There is no Christian ethos in charge, it is a chaotic talmudic, satanic, and bubonic presence that has unleashed Gomorrah living on everyone.

The only effective answer to all of the ills from within caused by the jew, and the only effective defense against threats from outside such as the muslim, is a proactive and positive Christianity. This was the Christianity of Charles Martel, who saved France and in reality saved all of Europe from the muslim scourge at the expense of the self-righteous churches of his own time, and they hated him for it because it cost them their gold. While Martel fought off the aliens, tribes of unconverted pagan Saxons who were kindred in race were a hindrance rather than being of any assistance to his cause. Martel's grandson, Charlemagne, eventually defeated them and turned them to Christianity.

It's the same for today. These modern Whites who are effectively race traitors are not Christians by any means. They may not actively get in the way of a Theocratic or National movement, but they will certainly hinder it. That is why there is no place for individualism from the group perspective, within Christendom. It leads to fissures and cracks in the walls against external threats, and quite frankly these fissures are caused by internal threaes (IE spiritual misleading from jewish and other demonic cult influences). There is no place for personal individualism in a Christian life because we are instructed to help our kin, our neighbor. The strength of a people is not from one man, it is from all of them living and believing in unison, even if there are weak links, the stronger ones cover for these gaps.

About free will and individualism, there is a difference. We have the will to act, and the best course of action usually involves a man sacrificing his time, energy, earnings, blood, tears, and more for his loved ones, sometimes even his life in troubled times. These are the burdens of our mortal coil. We are given the choice to make the right decision, and in my Anglo-Saxon Aryan Christian consensus, the right decision lies within following God's laws, a subset of which are all the natural laws, and maintaining His laws and commandments among kin without strife, without sowing discord, without manipulation, and without force, unless that force is necessary to protect the faith from being overtaken by an alien way of life.

 

[Sandalwood Peak]

About free will and individualism, there is a difference. .

Point being about western civilization is that enlightenment ideas were spun from Christianity. There's been a perversion of Christian ethos and that's why we get these arguments "I though you Christians were suppose to be nice" because we have actual "Christians" misrepresenting the religion, especially with this love and turn the other cheek stuff. Christians are trying to make Christianity compatible with enlightenment ideas because they're "enlightened" first, "Christians" second. That's why it sounds so so strange when someone preaches hardline positions, like against homesexuality. That's why have the current status quo. We have so people saying "Thanks for the philosophy Christian ancestors, I too believe in equality, but I don't need God, I'll believe in equality itself as a concept, not equal in the eyes of the Lord".

People took Christianity, removed God, amplified ideas they liked and discarded the rest.

This is my issue with modern churches and why I made arguments "they're not doing enough". I'm not going to double down on these statements since I'm not even sure what we can do at this point.

Personally I believe people have a spiritual baseline, I believe human life is a defined [partially-destiny] journey for anyone who doesn't stray too much, people are able to make abstact choices not directly beholden to environmental factors but I will not worship such phenomenon on it's own. If someone wants to say human beings have "complete" free will, even if they do why pride yourself on it? Sounds Luciferian. Humble yourself, if you have free will then the implication would be the sins you've commited, the good you chose to ignore, the good you chose not to give back to the world, is 100% your fault. Have some shame and humility.

 

[RedLagoon]

I wonder if Turn the Other Cheek is only meant to be understood in the most literal terms? If someone smacks you in the cheek, you are to turn the other cheek and invite them to smack it too.

But it doesn't have any broader application, such as how to react in a verbal discussion with your brother in Christ on the internet. Right?

Turn the other cheek means to withhold yourself from beating the living crap out of someone who's done you or your family wrong. It's not that you're scared of them but that you're scared of what YOU would do and the consequences you will face.

Something I struggle with and causes me great anxiety as the whole system is rigged.

 

[Droughtmeat]

Regarding the high value status of an athlete, by the standards women are attracted to they are absolutely high value because of money, social proof, celebrity status, confidence etc. The two reasons a truly good woman would avoid them are uncontrolled spending aka questionable financial decisions and, of course, cheating. Especially if that cheating can lead to him having children with other women.

Only 20% of pro athletes in the US don't go broke. So it's definitely a gamble for a woman who wants a reliable husband.

As for mixed children of Black's and White's, they usually get rejected by the Black American community, if they don't exhibit typical ghetto traits. They do have that chip on their shoulder to listen to hip hop, use black American vernacular etc. Simply so that they can fit in, despite coming from a solid middle class background with nice financial means. So, yea, a great deal of good parenting is needed to make that work.

The study that was mentioned was interesting. I remember Thomas Sowell looking at something similar, but the study he mentioned broke black Americans down into two groups, something along the lines of "real black Americans" aka descendants of slaves (I'm using this description very broadly) and then black people who migrated to America voluntarily. The study found that the latter group tends to reject the undesirable aspects of the former's culture and that they generally rise to higher social status, are less criminal, not obsessed with being thugs etc.

Thus, it seems as though black American culture is simply degenerate at its core. Which is also why Africans or even "Euro blacks" struggle to identify with black Americans. Would be interesting to see similar studies done in Europe, but those aren't common here and no university would allow it, while it has no relevance in those that would, like Russia or Bosnia.

 

[Blade Runner]

The study found that the latter group tends to reject the undesirable aspects of the former's culture and that they generally rise to higher social status, are less criminal, not obsessed with being thugs etc.

Yes, because they have an identity. It's just a sad part of history that an amalgam group was shipped to another place and then became a creole culture, most of which is reflective of low IQ and base interests. There's nothing we can do about it, which is even sadder, but tell them there are solutions, but they are all hard (family, future thinking and planning, or Christianity). Not many in the modern, materialist west want to hear this, least of all people who descended from low time preferences types that no longer have some larger coherent group structure.

What's even worse is that the immigrant groups come in and their kids just resort to the bigger American ethnic minority culture, which is a plantation psyop, for lack of a better term. Not all, but most, and the only exceptions would be military or other small % outliers. Then you have the problem of finding a woman ... man, it's a mess.