Quick question for everyone here, this may seem off-topic but I assure you it's not.
Is this man White?
The J. D. Vance Thread
- Thread starter Thomas More
- Start date
They do smell like curry, and that brown skin.. I only went there once, and it cured me of it for life. I had to end a date with one who claimed she was European but tanned but in person turned out to be Indian, and the another I had to avoid meeting altogether to not run into the same awkwardness with the repulsion from brownness and smell. It's just not worth it.
Regarding these two comments :
Most of us have taken a hit in one way or another from all the cultural subversion since the 1960s. The Overton Window is shifting, making wonderful strides at the moment, lets not be too unkind on Vance for his personal life. We can't instantly rewind the clock culturally to 1890..
This is similar to the situation with Alice Weidel, the lesbian leader of the AfD in Germany. Not quite what conservatives really want.
Not as bad as Merkel who was childless or Macron who is not only childless but with a woman 15 years older than him who is possibly secretly a man.
I don't think Weidel as a conservative is promoting gay stuff in Germany and Vance is in policy hopefully not going to push for more brownness in America. Such wonderful progress in American politics, and he gave Zelensky such a good serve in that discussion, we should not complain too much about this failing of his. Just make sure that every government to come in is more conservative than the one before and this healthy trend does not reverse.
I have zero confusion. You don't have to be White, be proud of what you are let Europeans be proud of what they are. No need to muddy the waters with this "no such thing" liberal argument. White is 100% European. We are barely 7% of the world population, the mixed-race people like Keanu do not count as European, they are a new race entirely. The liberal morons who only classify based on skin color completely avoid all knowledge of genetics.
1 out of 3 having more European features in the eyes alone is not White. You are deeply misunderstanding genetics. Recessive genes do not "lie dormant" and then suddenly "push out" dominant ones over generations. When a person with predominantly White European ancestry has children with someone of non-European ancestry, the offspring carry a mixed genetic profile that cannot be undone in future generations.
Mendelian inheritance doesn’t work that way. If a child is mixed-race, their genome is forever changed, there is no “reverting” to being fully European just because they inherit a few recessive alleles. That’s not how genetic recombination works.
The children of JD Vance and his Indian wife are neither fully European nor fully Dravidian. They are a new genetic admixture that has never existed before in history. They will always carry South Asian genetic material and pass it forward even if future generations marry White Europeans. Their ancestry has permanently changed.
All parents pass on recessive genes, but those recessive genes are not guaranteed to manifest in the phenotype of future generations. If a mixed-race child carries recessive European genes but continues to intermarry with non-Europeans, those genes will never resurface as a "White phenotype" because dominant genes will continue to be expressed.
This is simply incorrect. While certain traits are determined by specific key genes overall genetic ancestry matters immensely in shaping identity, appearance, and biological traits. A child who is 50% Indian and 50% White does not have a "minority of DNA" from either parent, they have an equal mix. There is no such thing as "vestigial remains" in genetic inheritance, every gene is inherited from a previous generation, and no genes are simply discarded.
This is completely false. Dominant genes do not get 'pushed out' by recessive ones. A recessive trait will only appear if two copies of the recessive allele are inherited. If a mixed-race individual keeps having children with people who are not White, then recessive White traits become even less likely to appear, not more.
This is why populations like African-Americans who are on average 20% European still do not produce large numbers of phenotypically European-looking people. Mixed people inherit a blend of genetic traits that never revert back to a "pure" ancestral form.
This is why your fallacy of simplification doesn't work. It never stands up to scrutiny.
You are downplaying the racial component of historical Christian laws because it contradicts the modernist narrative.
Preventing marriage with jews, muslims, and non-Europeans had everything to do with race for over four hundred years in Spain, Portugal, and even in the colonies, and that was backed by the Church. They were very aware of the issue of Marranos and Conversos poisoning wells, where do you think the trope comes from? That's why the blood purity laws existed there for so long even after the expulsion in 1492. They couldn't risk a resurgence in what led to the invasion and destruction of Espana from the Moors, whom the jews assisted the entirety of those dark centuries.
Seems you ignored that one on purpose because it's not convenient for your narrative. Here are more details about it, they're all over the internet and in libraries, you don't need me to prove this true:
Spanish "Limpieza de Sangre" (Purity of Blood Laws, 15th-18th century): 1449 doctrine and statutes supported by the Catholic Church to distinguish between "Old Christians" (those without jewish or Muslim ancestry) and "New Christians" (converts from judaism or Islam and their descendants). This concept became deeply embedded in Spanish society and law to prevent individuals of jewish or muslim descent from holding public offices, entering particular professions, even preventing them from joining religious orders. These laws institutionalized discrimination based on ancestry. That is a societal focus with blood purity.
The focus with blood purity extended to Spanish colonies in the Americas. Regulations were established to prevent those of jewish or muslim heritage from emigrating to the New World, aiming to maintain the perceived purity of the colonial populace. The cryptos were already there, that is why the New World eventually degenerated to such a point that it is now.
However back then the Spanish Empire especially in Latin America and the Philippines developed a racial hierarchy called the Casta system which categorized individuals based on their degree of European, Indigenous, and African ancestry. Even today with all the jews and mulattoes down there, the people still live de facto in this system.
Spain issued multiple Pragmáticas (royal decrees) regulating marriage. In 1776 King Charles III of Spain issued a Royal Pragmatic on Marriages which gave parents the right to withhold consent for marriages they deemed unsuitable allowing Spanish elites to continue to prevent intermarriage with non-Europeans.
Spanish and Portuguese officials extended Limpieza de Sangre beyond Jewish and Muslim ancestry to exclude mixed-race individuals from prestigious positions. The Spanish Inquisition investigated individuals suspected of having non-European ancestry. In Portugal similar laws prevented intermarriage with non-European groups especially in relation to African, Indian, and Brazilian Indigenous populations.
The concept of jewish racial distinctiveness was well-known in Christian Europe for centuries. The modern notion that jewish identity is "only religious" is a recent revisionist lie. Seeing as how they applied it to indigenous people as well, which Vance's wife is, then it equally applies.
Historically marrying a pagan non-Christian without their conversion was considered apostasy because it meant voluntarily engaging in a union outside of Christendom. Canon Law forbade it in both Catholic and Orthodox traditions, as marrying a non-Christian without conversion was grounds for immediate excommunication.
There is no "Christianization by marriage," the idea that Vance can marry a Hindu, participate in Hindu ceremonies, and then "Christianize" her later is not how the Church historically worked.
Unlike local European paganisms which were already weak when Christianity arrived, Hinduism is a global, strong, and ancient faith with over a billion followers today. This is not the same situation as medieval Christianization efforts.
The comparison is completely flawed for several reasons. Medieval European paganism was dying and in severe decline by the time of Christianization, being actively replaced by Christianity.
Forced conversions and destruction of pagan traditions, and the Christianization of Vikings, Slavs, and Germanic tribes was done through war, forced baptisms, and destruction of pagan temples. Hinduism's own disgusting temples are being planted in the west while race-traitors like Vance marry into their heathen hive. Conquering and converting is different from marrying into paganism because Christianity replaced European paganism through conquest and forced religious conversion, not through voluntary intermarriage.
Hinduism is not a dying religion, unlike pre-Christian European paganism, it is still a dominant, organized, and widespread religious system. Marriage to Hindus was never promoted by the Church. At no point in history did the Church promote or accept intermarriage with Hindus.
Thus Vance’s situation is completely different from medieval Christianization. His marriage is spiritually illicit and not part of a historical pattern, it is a modern, secular deracinating phenomenon.
On top of that, simply because his children are "baptized" doesn't mean they will keep the faith when they are older, and they are much less likely to do that in this secular age with the mother being a napkin believer who goes to a Church with him (what kind of limp-wristed Church allows an unbaptized Hindu to receive confession??). Your comparison of St. Vladimir's is flawed because Vance's situation does not resemble historical Christianization, it resembles a compromise with a false religion.
St. Vladimir’s father was a pagan but that was during the Christianization of Kievan Rus. Paganism was already on the decline and was eventually eradicated from the region. His grandmother was Christian and played a key role in converting the family and ultimately, all of Rus.
By contrast Vance’s wife is a practicing Hindu in a modern world where Hinduism is a dominant and thriving religion with over a billion adherents. Christianity has never accepted interfaith marriages where the non-Christian spouse remains in their religion. Since he had "multiple ceremonies in each faith" it means his marriage was not exclusively Christian.
In the case of St. Vladimir, Christianity won, and paganism was purged.
In the case of JD Vance, Hinduism remains dominant within his household and in the family of the wife.
But wait, there's more! His own words undermine his marriage. He refers to his children as "his wife's kids" what kind of cuck does this?
Even deranged liberal harpies who hate men with every fiber of their feebly propagandized minds see this as strange. Broken clocks are still correct twice a day.
Video:
This wording suggests a division in the household, his wife’s Hinduism is still central in their children's upbringing. If they were truly being raised as Christians, why would he phrase it that way? In traditional Christianity the father is the spiritual head of the household. If the mother remains in a different religion, who is raising the children in faith? This proves that Hinduism is not a relic of the past in the Vance household since it's presence is still actively shaping the family.
You simply cannot defend this marriage as Christian and valid, neither theologically nor historically.
Last edited:
Your original argument was that it was church teaching that race mixing was prohibited but now you are giving examples of secular laws and customs that dealt with the treatment of the offspring of mixed-ethnic marriages. If the church had forbidden such unions then how did these mixed marriages happen in the first place? For there to be a social hierarchy that is determined by percentage of Spanish vs Indian vs African blood there already had to be widely practiced racial mixing in the first place. Keep in mind this is back in a society where all marriages were done through the church. For your theory to be work the church would have had to have laws prohibiting ethnically mixed marriages but somehow the church still was marrying lots of mixed race couples.
Not only are the laws mentioned in your post being issued by the secular government rather than ecclesial, they aren't prohibiting mixed ethnic marriages but rather restricting the social climbing the offspring of such unions could undertake. I thought your claim was that these sort of marriages were absolutely forbidden under church teaching.
I'll also reiterate again that in all the non-secular church laws you quoted in your previous post, the laws were prohibiting mixed faith marriages not mixed ethnic ones.
You are conflating two separate issues, church teaching and secular law. The Church did indeed prohibit race-mixing in a spiritual and theological sense especially when it involved non-Christian groups. However secular laws in the kingdoms of Spain and Portugal (and other parts of Europe) were influenced by Church doctrine and aligned with it. You should not consider secular laws as entirely separate from ecclesiastical influence during this period as they were often a reflection of the same religious principles. Secular laws in medieval and early modern Europe were deeply influenced by Church teachings because the Church played a central role in shaping the laws of the land.
The Church had clear teachings on preserving bloodlines and was directly involved in regulating who could marry whom. The Limpieza de Sangre laws I refer to did not arise out of thin air. They were rooted in Church doctrine regarding the sanctity of Christian European bloodlines. The Church authorities held fast to these laws.
https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2021/09/l...ions-of-the-spanish-doctrine-of-blood-purity/
Secular laws regarding mixed-ethnic marriages reinforced the Church’s stance on preserving the integrity of Christian European bloodlines. The Church may not have outright banned mixed marriages in the sense of a universal prohibition on intermarriage but the social and religious consequences of such marriages were made clear by both ecclesiastical and secular laws.
So while you suggest that mixed marriages happened despite the Church’s supposed stance the reality is that such unions were very rare, and when they did occur, they were heavily scrutinized and regulated by both Church and state, under socially restrictive terms.
You mention the idea that a "social hierarchy" based on blood percentage would imply there was widespread racial mixing but this doesn't fully account for the specific historical circumstances that led to mixed-race populations in the Spanish and Portuguese colonies.
Conversos (jews who converted to Christianity under duress) and Marranos (jews who outwardly converted but secretly retained jewish practices) were persecuted in Spain during the Spanish Inquisition. Many of them sought to escape persecution in the Iberian Peninsula and fled to the New World particularly to Brazil and other parts of the Spanish and Portuguese colonies.
These Conversos and Marranos often interbred with indigenous populations and Africans creating a new mixed-race demographic. However their marriages were often not sanctioned by the Church and these types fell outside the bounds of acceptable Christian society, especially in the eyes of the Church and secular authorities.
Sailors, pirates, and other ne’er-do-wells of mixed jewish and Christian backgrounds were the early figures involved in the colonization of Brazil and other areas. Many of these men had children out of wedlock with indigenous women or enslaved Africans which directly contributed to the creation of a mixed-race population. Think of it as the original "passport bro" of the age of exploration.
The racial mixing you refer to was not widespread at first but rather a byproduct of specific socio-political conditions: the Inquisition's persecution of crypto-jews, the new social environments of the colonies, and the economic interests of colonial powers seeking to expand their empires through labor, trade, and conversion. These mixed-race individuals are largely descendants of jews and half-jews (whether converted or not), indigenous peoples, and Africans, formed a new racial class in colonial society, but this mixing was a consequence of abandoning Christian principles than a systemic or preordained process of racial integration.
The Church’s focus was on ensuring the spiritual integrity of Christianity, which in turn influenced how they perceived the racial and ethnic identities of non-Christians. In areas where non-European populations had been present for centuries, such as the Moors in Spain or the jews in Europe, there were established social structures and laws designed to restrict intermarriage and protect Christian purity.
These laws were reactionary not proactive. They were aimed at controlling the effects of racial mixing and ensuring the preservation of European Christian bloodlines rather than reflecting any cultural tradition of accepting or encouraging such unions. The social hierarchy based on blood percentage was a response to the side-effects colonial realities. It was not an indication of longstanding social practices.
The Church did not create blanket prohibitions against interracial marriages in the way that we understand race in a retrospective 21st century consensus. They heavily discouraged and regulated these unfortunate unions due to the deep association between ethnic and spiritual purity that Europe had for millennia.
Marriages between Christians and non-Christians (such as Muslims, jews, or indigenous) was severely restricted because these groups were seen as having incompatible spiritual values with Christianity, and their bloodlines were viewed as a potential spiritual corruption of the Christian people.
Intermarriage with jews in particular was prohibited by the Church and secular laws in many regions, as the Jewish people were seen as a distinct group with different spiritual and ethnic identities. Similarly, marriages with Muslims or Moors were restricted because of both religious differences and ethnic divergence.
Your 21st century opinion overlooks the fact that ethnic identity and religious identity were inseparable in the medieval period. When the Church prohibited mixed faith marriages, it was implicitly addressing ethnic mixing because religion was so deeply tied to ethnicity in the medieval worldview. It's hard to imagine a monolithic world when we are surrounded by mystery meat everywhere, but that is the reality of human history. We have to literally step outside the lens of modernity to understand the past with any trace of accuracy.
The jews, Muslims, and indigenous were not simply seen as different religions, they were perceived as separate peoples with distinct ethnic identities that were incompatible with the Christian European identity. Thus prohibiting interfaith marriage was a way to preserve racial purity. Men like JD Vance in the 15th century would have been degenerate scalawags from a broken home who had no real root calling and that is why there was a mixing in the colonies.
But wait, JD Vance did come from a broken home and turned his back on his people, how remarkably identical he is to the ruffians who disobeyed Church authority. Do you think if some Spanish noble married his African slave that his social circle would applaud him for being brave and open-minded? No, they would have ridiculed him to no end and the offspring would never ascend anywhere! That's why most of the mixed-race unions and children of that age were out of wedlock. Man's affinity to be a baseless sinner expands all time.
Quick question for everyone here, this may seem off-topic but I assure you it's not.
Is this man White?
When passing a German soldier or a policeman on the street in occupied Poland he would have no doubt heard halt, papieren bitte. What race you were was on a case by case basis. Many Turkic Asians or Mongoloids have pale skin, dark eyes, and pitch black hair. It stands out when they're among Whites. It's gotten easier to pass for a white in America and Europe, as long as you're not black or a Saracen. The White Australia policy designated Greeks as the only people of color allowed in, if memory serves. There were Celtic mercenaries in Persia, and Herod had a two thousand strong German palace guard. The Vandals, dwelled in present day Poland and ended up in N. Africa, where Byzantium defeated them.
To be white by my standards, one must look white and also carry the genes for blue/green eyes and blond hair. So that he can produce white kids, as dark hair and eyes are what the rest of the world has.
Is the uniformed guy in your profile picture Pushkin, or some Haitian revolutionary? The side profile looks black:
Another huge wall of lies from Music, you're basically a heretic who just writes endless nonsense to try and convince those who don't read. I now understand how heresy spread back in the Ancient times. When I have some more time it will be easy to play "spot the lie" with you later.
You mean you can't tell?
It's a Prussian. Probably he was Germanic, with a bit of Slavic? Kant.
Keanu has those genes, so that would make him White by your standards.
You mean you can't tell?
It's a Prussian. Probably he was Germanic, with a bit of Slavic? Kant.Keanu has those genes, so that would make him White by your standards.
So this is called ad hominem, the same thing you accuse me of doing. While my behavior remains tacit and neutral, yours is escalating, attempting to discredit me through personal insults and dismissive language rather than engaging with the substance of my arguments.
Every one of your accusations against me you fail to bring evidence for. You have no substantive rebuttal.
By calling me a “heretic” without actually engaging in the theological or historical details, you're framing me as outside of the accepted norm, as if my views are illegitimate by default. This is a classic form of intellectual bullying where instead of engaging in thoughtful debate you attempt to marginalize what I write based on labels and subjective judgments.
Look at what you write, by your own admission, you behave this way for an ulterior agenda:
"I voraciously argue against them. This is on purpose, to either drive them away or persuade them out of the rut."
I'd ask @DanielH and @BrotherAugustine but you've already applied this tactic to drive them away. Your list of opponents grows thin. How convenient for you.
Let's bring in the other mods here and see what they think about your behavior. You are isolating everyone from you except for suckups who curry your favor because they only fear your bullying tactics. Have a true round table on this matter. @scorpion @Valentine Anyone?
Roosh never invested in threads where his influence as a moderator and administrator would be detrimental to the conversation. Why do you feel the need to impose yourself on everyone, especially for your past treatment of members like @It_Is_My_Time where you changed his faith and banned him when he was being civil? And you were "losing your patience" with him the other day threatening to do the same.
I won't call you a heretic because I am not a priest, but you are not behaving like a good Christian man with principles the way you lord over the discourse here, and when you can't, you result to thumbing down every post, and when that doesn't work, the smear campaign begins. I want you to be civil and engage intellectually, if you do not want to do that, and this is your forum, then you need to advertise that discourse is not welcome here.
Last edited:
You were the one conflating the church teaching and secular law by first making the argument "The historical Churches forbade" mixed marriages and "Both the Church councils and the various laws of Kingdoms and nations actively discriminated on an ethnic basis." and claiming it was church teaching and then using examples of secular law to back up your point. My posts were meant to untangle this and instead focus specifically on what the church teaching on mixed marriages were. There was secular laws against ethnic mixing - yes but your argument was that it was binding church doctrine to not allow it.
The church indeed had laws about marriage that were clearly stated. For example, there was the laws that prohibited marriage if the couple was deemed too closely related to each other. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman so polygamy and same-sex marriage is also absolutely forbidden. A man also must not have a woman as a concubine. These sort of prohibitions are clearly stated. I suppose you'll be able to come up with some sort of council ruling or canon law or even some passing remark by a bishop on the issue of mixed-ethnic marriage in the same way someone could easily find a quote of a church teaching on polygamy or same-sex marriage.
Guess not. Notice here you still have to bring in the secular authorities and prevailing social attitudes (the common layman not approving is not equivalent to church teaching) to bolster your argument. Who is conflating church teaching and secular law here?
This wasn't your original argument. Your first argument was "The historical Churches forbade this" not "the historical churches didn't forbid this but heavily scrutinize and regulated". This is major goal post moving.
You have a tendency to make a firm statement about something and then when someone reveals your error, you'll try to draw back on the statement but while still trying to maintain your original statement as true even when your drawing back completely contradicts what you were saying previously. A recent example of this is when you were debating Samseau on Franz Jägerstätter and his resistance to the Nazis. You said he didn't exist but when it was pointed out that he left living descendants and also was part of a church community that knew him (were they all in on the scheme?) you backtracked to that his role was exaggerated by the post-war government. (https://christisking.cc/threads/hit...round-of-world-war-two.797/page-10#post-82516) Something similar happened in the flat earth thread where to hedge after many people pointed your flaws in reasoning you said you weren't arguing for a flat earth but instead for a "non-spherical earth".
People absolutely had a conception of races and ethnicities that was separate from faith back then. The world that the church was birthed and grew up in was the Roman empire which as an empire was a mix of various ethnicities. If the church had wanted to prohibit mixed ethnic marriages we would have seen church rulings on say a Berber not being allowed to marry a Germanic, a Syrian not being allowed to marry an Ethiopian, etc.
I believe the church prohibited interfaith marriage for faith based reasons. I am simply reading the most simple and straight forward explanation for what the prohibition says. You on the other hand have to jump through multiple hoops and make semi-relevant inferences to somehow interpret and wrestle out an implied meaning that it was really about preserving racial purity. Which one our statements is more likely to pass Ockham's Razor?
Last edited:
In that post we were talking about men who idolize race over God (which is blasphemy and against the forum rules), funny how you automatically feels that applies to you? Very telling!
Also I never accused you of ad hominem - obfuscation, wasting people's time, spreading lies unintentionally or intentionally is what you're proven to do. It's not even an accusation at this point, you just write or copy paste giant word salads that is a giant waste of time to read or (especially) reply to.
Most of the time you repeat yourself, ignore key premises, or show a general lack of understanding of the subject matter. And rather than debate you of course I'd rather just downvote and move on. Why should I debate you? I have a life, and it's not spent arguing with idealogues online. When I have the time and feel like it, I'll respond to you. You simply aren't that important to me to warrant essay length responses every hour. You basically live on this forum, and it cannot be healthy. It's debatable if giving you a week ban you would help you.
I think for lent, you should probably just relax from the forum, would do you a world of good. There has to be better uses of your time brother.
You're operating under an artificially modern separation between church and state that simply did not exist in the historical context we are discussing. The notion that ecclesiastical authority and secular law functioned in isolated spheres is a post-Enlightenment framework that does not apply to medieval and early modern Christendom.
In Catholic monarchies and medieval Christendom the Church played a governing role in legal matters including marriage law. The Church was the arbiter of legitimacy and purity and its rulings heavily influenced or outright dictated secular policies. Canon law was law. So when you claim that I am “conflating” the two you are imposing a false dichotomy, one that would not have been recognized by those living under the very laws and customs we are discussing.
You even admit that "secular laws against ethnic mixing" existed. What you fail to acknowledge is that these laws were not operating in a vacuum, separate from the Church’s authority. The Church historically provided spiritual and moral justification for such regulations, and in many cases it was the Church itself that created or enforced them.
You're attempting a rhetorical burden-shifting fallacy here. You assumes that because the Church explicitly forbade polygamy, incest, and concubinage in direct legal language that it must have used the same style of explicit prohibition for ethnic mixing. Since you cannot find such a direct statement you assume there was no prohibition.
Unlike polygamy or same-sex marriage which were active and present threats in Christendom that needed clear bans, ethnic separation was already the norm in Christian Europe. Medieval and early modern Europeans did not live in highly mixed-race societies.
You want an explicit ban on racial mixing (which I gave you already) but you ignore the very real Church laws against interfaith marriage which were functionally racial in nature. There are multiple Canon Law prohibitions on interfaith marriage.
-The Council of Elvira (306) Canon 16: Explicitly forbids Christian women from marrying jews or heathens.
-The Decretum of Gratian (1140): Reiterates prohibitions on Christians marrying jews, muslims, or heathens.
-The Council of Trent (1563): Strengthened earlier laws by forbidding mixed marriages.
If the Church truly saw no issue with ethnic mixing then why did it uphold such strict prohibitions on interfaith marriage knowing full well that faith and ethnicity were almost always intertwined?
Virtually all non-Europeans at the time were non-Christian so these prohibitions on interfaith marriage effectively discouraged and limited racial mixing apart from bastardry. The Church did not operate in a vacuum because it worked in conjunction with Christian monarchies who had racial and ethnic concerns deeply tied to religious identity.
-The deeply Catholic Spanish and Portuguese Crowns enforced Limpieza de Sangre laws. The Church openly supported these within its own institutions in addition to the laypeople.
-The Catholic Habsburg dynasty practiced extreme in-group marriage avoiding foreign bloodlines for both religious and ethnic reasons.
-The Papal Bulls Dum Diversas (1452) and Romanus Pontifex (1455) explicitly recognized ethnic distinctions in the context of justifying conquests against non-Christians.
Why don't you also explain why the Church upheld laws and customs that enforced racial separation in practice since you're trying to give the Netflix treatment to the historical Church to make history more fashionably modern?
You assume that because you cannot find a single explicit ruling saying, "Thou shalt not mix ethnically," that the Church must have approved of such unions. This is faulty reasoning because the Church did enforce racial and ethnic separation in practice even if the language wasn’t framed in 20th-century racial terms. Church rulings on interfaith marriage, blood purity, and religious identity functioned as bans on racial mixing where it was relevant or most likely to occur due to the presence of alien peoples.
Your argument is historically inaccurate because it rests on an artificial separation between Church teaching and monarchical law. In Catholic kingdoms the Church and Crown were partners in enforcing religious and racial purity. The Limpieza de Sangre laws were literally enforced within Church institutions including monasteries, religious orders, and even the priesthood. The Spanish Inquisition was a Church-led tribunal that upheld these laws, and the Church made no effort to oppose them.
You dismiss social attitudes as mere “layman opinion,” but in a Catholic society, those attitudes were shaped by Church rulings, Inquisition policies, and Canonical Law. The very fact that mixed marriages were heavily scrutinized, restricted, and often forbidden in both religious and secular life proves that the Church did not accept them.
The question remains, if the Church was indifferent to racial purity, why did it help enforce limpieza laws?
You misrepresent my argument. The Church did not always forbid things through universal canon law as it used institutional barriers, restrictions, and legal scrutiny to achieve the same effect. The Limpieza de Sangre statutes enforced in Church institutions made it impossible for individuals of non-European or mixed ancestry to fully participate in Catholic society including marriage. The Council of Burgos and other Church rulings regulated mixed marriages to such an extent that they were functionally unworkable.
You seem to think that unless something is explicitly forbidden in canon law that means that it wasn’t opposed. But history shows that the Church frequently regulated undesirable practices out of existence rather than banning them outright. The end result was the same, being mixed marriages overwhelmingly discouraged, blocked, or annulled under Catholic rule. If that’s not a prohibition in practice, what is?
This entire paragraph is a classic ad hominem and red herring fallacy. Quite the transparent deflection. Instead of addressing the core issue here which is the historical reality of Church policies on racial mixing you are attacking my supposed debating style. Your attempt to connect this discussion to Jagerstatter (clearly lying propaganda regardless of its authenticity) or cosmology is irrelevant. This an obvious poisoning-the-well tactic to make me seem unreliable. Some of you have never forgiven me for consciously questioning Helios worship and masonic weltanschauungs.
The idea that I “backtracked” on Church teaching regarding mixed marriages is false. My initial claim was that the Church forbade racial mixing.
My expanded argument clarified that the Church didn’t always use universal canon bans but instead imposed institutional barriers and stringent restrictions that functioned as prohibitions in practice. Clarifying a position is not the same as contradicting it. It’s called adding historical depth.
My position has remained the same. The Church imposed racial purity restrictions, both through Limpieza de Sangre statutes and through the heavy scrutiny and prevention of mixed marriages. Whether this was done by explicit decree or de facto institutional enforcement the effect was the same as mixed marriages were overwhelmingly discouraged, restricted, or annulled. If you think that providing historical context and nuance is “goalpost shifting” then that says more about your debating tactics than mine.
It’s not accurate to assume that these communities were freely intermingling in the way 20th and 21st-century societies were and are. Ethnic distinctions were more rigid and marriages across ethnic lines were rare as well as culturally discouraged and shamed. Rome was degenerate, but even in the height of its multicultural degeneracy it did not parallel the genetic pollution that we are "familiar" with now.
When Christianity became the dominant force in the Roman Empire under Constantine and later emperors the Church’s first canons were about preserving the purity of the faith and bloodlines, which I have posted numerous times here. The prohibition of mixed marriages in these early Christian laws were directly tied to both religious and racial purity. Church leaders were keenly aware that race mixing would lead to the dilution of both faith and cultural identity which is why these prohibitions on interfaith and implicitly interracial marriages were enforced early on.
In historical contexts the term “race” was not always used in the modern sense but heritage, lineage, and genealogy were always deeply tied to ethnicity and blood. Europeans as a collective group were understood to have a distinct racial origin tied to a common European ancestry. Genetic evidence proves that over 90% of Europeans are still 100% genetically homogeneous. They are free from admixture with Semitic, African, or Asian genetic markers. This racial purity to which the Church and its laws contributed through centuries of restricting mixed marriages is reflected in the genealogical history preserved by the Church.
You’re misreading history if you think the Church was indifferent to ethnic mixing. From the time the Church became an institution of law in the 300s onward it was well understood that maintaining a pure European bloodline was just as important as keeping the faith pure.
The simple truth stripped of your attempts to obfuscate historical truths is that over 94% of Whites alive today are 100% White. These pure bloodlines exist because of the Church’s steadfast decrees which kept racial purity in the congregations, and its condemnation of mixed marriages. This is not some abstract “philosophical” notion this is history that can't be twisted. This nonsense about multiculturalism falls apart in the face of this irrefutable fact: the Church through its laws preserved the racial integrity of Europeans for centuries. The purity you now want to destroy is the very result of those decrees.
Here's an "Ockham's Razor" and an obvious simple truth for you to deal with: the Church kept Whites White. The only people who hate that fact are jews, pagans, liberals, cucks, and antagonistic non-Whites.
Absolutely. Saying don't marry muslims is the same thing as saying don't marry brown people. The church from a 1000 years ago may not of expressly mentioned skin color with regards to marriage because that would have been so reduntant and obvious, it would be like saying "don't ingest hemlock because it will poison you and you will die." If people think 1950's America was "racist" where mixed-race couples were routinely attacked in the streets imagine what medieval eastern europe was like? Race mixing was a no go and the church would never sanction mixed-race couples. If a mixed-race couple would have shown up at the doors of a medieval church demanding to be married they would have found themselves burned at the stake for being heretics.
It´s jews who mix race purity with religion. Not catholics.
Catholic church never prohibited. And will never prohibit marriage between different ethnicities. As long as they are Catholics. Cause for the catholic church. Christianity is universal. And everybody can and should become christian.
In colonies there were probably thousands of interacial christian marriages celebrated by the church. To which the church accepted. And we are are going back hundreds of years. It was different than now. Cause it feels we are being invaded. When in the past it was the opposite.
Don´t know much about hinduism. Only that India is a gigantic savage shithole. And therefore anything coming from India must be converted to european standards. They like shit a lot.
She shouldve converted. She is in a majority christian country. It´s bad for him. But the dating market is so shit in US the guy not only marries an indian but she wont even convert to the man religion???. How weak is this shit? This ship is going down. Even Obama was formally christian. Dude was an Ivy League student. And the best he could get was an hindu. She was richer than him. But he is european and christian. So she must bow. Bow to christ hindu savage.
If one day Vance becomes president. Hinduism will be celebrated in the white house. An hindu first lady is a shame. Which is pretty fucked up. At least she is not jew.
Catholic church never prohibited. And will never prohibit marriage between different ethnicities. As long as they are Catholics. Cause for the catholic church. Christianity is universal. And everybody can and should become christian.
In colonies there were probably thousands of interacial christian marriages celebrated by the church. To which the church accepted. And we are are going back hundreds of years. It was different than now. Cause it feels we are being invaded. When in the past it was the opposite.
Don´t know much about hinduism. Only that India is a gigantic savage shithole. And therefore anything coming from India must be converted to european standards. They like shit a lot.
She shouldve converted. She is in a majority christian country. It´s bad for him. But the dating market is so shit in US the guy not only marries an indian but she wont even convert to the man religion???. How weak is this shit? This ship is going down. Even Obama was formally christian. Dude was an Ivy League student. And the best he could get was an hindu. She was richer than him. But he is european and christian. So she must bow. Bow to christ hindu savage.
If one day Vance becomes president. Hinduism will be celebrated in the white house. An hindu first lady is a shame. Which is pretty fucked up. At least she is not jew.
Last edited:
In the beginning of the post you are already doing two of the things I said you've been consistently doing in your arguments. 1) Conflating church teachings and secular law and 2). confusing the two so you can somehow squeeze out the notion that being there was some sort of church ban on mixed-ethnic marriages. You can't produce any sort of ban since it doesn't exist so instead you have to do your usual tactic of throwing together a bunch of facts that have some slight relation to the subject and hope a reader gets overwhelmed and doesn't notice that you aren't actually producing the needed argument for proving your point. "Well I can't say that there is explicit church teaching forbidding mixed-ethnic marriages (since there isn't one) BUT since church and secular authorities often worked closely together and because a lot of people in society disapproved of mixed-ethnic marriages AND people were more religious back then it must mean that somehow the church was against mixed-ethnic marriages too".
That is basically your argument but you are making it seem more impressive then it is by stretching out the number of words needed to express it and by using sources but sources that don't even prove your point ie. here is a secular law about purity of blood and here is a church teaching about not marrying a non-Christian. WAIT this must mean the church must also disapprove of mixed-ethnic marriage because these laws are both about not mixing and because church and state had a closer relationship back so ergo the church must have had somehow been trying to prohibit mixed-ethnic marriages.
However the early church did exist in an empire that was mixed. Why was there no bans between a Germanic marrying say a Syrian or Assyrian or Berber or Ethiopian? Once again this is another example of you not being able to give a clear definitive argument for your position so instead have to try and guess at what the church was trying to do and make an assumption on what the real goals of the church was by having the sort of prohibitions it did on marriage."
You still have not provided any sort of church teaching about racial mixing. You've even already admitted there isn't any sort of explicit banning so you instead have to assume there was a secret meaning behind the prohibition on interfaith marriage. If you are referring to the Limpieza de Sangre laws then that's another example of you conflating church and secular law. Those laws were enacted by the secular authorities. Having some church men approve of these laws is NOT the same as it being church teaching in the same that having priests like James Martin make statements approving of LGBT relationships does not mean the church approves of LGBT relationships.
More examples of church laws that are prohibiting INTERFAITH marriages that don't support your argument that the church prohibiting of inter-ethnic marriages
As for why the church uphold strict prohibitions of interfaith marriage - the answer is pretty obvious. It's because the church is a FAITH institution and is concerned on preserving the faith in it's members and the members to be born. Having either father or mother in the family be a non-Christian is going to decrease the probability the faith will be transmitted properly. There is no need to introduce a secret implied motive behind these prohibitions on how it's really about also preserving race.
The Canon from the Council of Elvira is from the multiethnic Roman empire days and one of it's prohibitions was on marrying a heathen. This was NOT a time when Christian automatically meant white. A Christian woman wouldn't be able to marry a pagan Germanic no matter how much of a Chad Barbarian Aryan he was. Sounds like the church was more concerned about faith than preserving pure, elite blood.
An ad hominem would be if my argument was just based on something about you that had nothing to do with the argument such as if I was saying your arguments don't work because you smelled bad or because you married a woman that smelled bad. Instead what I was doing was calling into question your reasoning abilities and how I think it's affecting your ability to make logically coherent argument and provided some examples from your past debates where you exhibited similar mental patterns. So yes, a purpose of this attack is to make it clear to readers on the sidelines that you aren't fully reliable.
There's people here that might look at your posts and think there's something to them merely because they are long and because they are supported by quotes and links to articles or Bitchute videos or 4ch memes. Since your posts are so lengthy people might not actually look into your sources and quotes and think that just because you have a lot of them that your post must have some of weight behind them just because there's so much content. What I'm doing here is illustrating to other forum posters is that you have a marked tendency to make use a lot of quotes and sources that don't even support your main point and you hope to overwhelm a reader by sheer quantity rather than quality.
I'm aware of the church canons on purity of faith. Once again, please post the church canons on purity of bloodline. And no I'm not saying a canon that from your personal interpretation was really about preserving bloodlines. If you are going to make a strong claim about how the church was concerned about preserving bloodline then you should be able to provide a strong and definite clear statement from the church on this. If you look at institutions like the Nazis that actually had very clear and strong stances on this issue, it's simple to find plenty of rulings from them on it. If the church had a clear and strong stance on this issue then it should be equally simple for you to reproduce the materials on them.
Based on your examples and the laws you quoted, it seems like it was the secular authorities that kept whites white. If you had just kept your statement to this from the start, no one would be arguing against you. Seems like this would the most straight forward "Ockham's Razor". What is the simpler and more straight forward statement: "The secular authorities kept whites white" or "Well it was the secular authorities that kept whites but back then the church was also intertwined with the secular authorities and here is some canons that prohibited inter-faith marriages and since whites were Christians - well except for those vikings and unconverted Germans but you have to understand these Germans were actually lost tribes of -"
He puts on her shoes describing the situation as seen from his wife' perspective. A non-issue.
Immigrants erecting temples for idols in a non-polytheistic, Christian country is terrible. God blesses the nation that worships Him- https://biblehub.com/psalms/33-12.htm
Can't let Voodoo, Mohammedanism, or Talmudism in.
A country is people who have come together because of common religion, culture, and genetic stock.
Like when you mix blue and brown paint.
You mean you can't tell?
Keanu has those genes, so that would make him White by your standards.
You replied quickly without thinking. I thought he was black and maybe then you as well. lol. Poor resemblance and a huge disservice, what you have there is the woman in the center, but with a slanted forhead:
Kant didn't like Poland and thought Germans should bring civilization there, so maybe it's my imagination activated subconsciously giving me that perception.
I didn't know it was Keanu either. He's always seemed rather alien and Asiatic to me, not particularily white, could play a Tatar raider, that's why I said he would have looked suspicious to an SS-man. So he doesn't meet the first condition. When I see him I think it's some Iranian or Afghan ethnicity- a Mehmet Ali Agca with lighter skin:
Bulgarians are Turks and look the part, so not white to me, again nothing wrong with that, and no reason to despair, embrace it when you're part of the Gypsy looking crowd, but I won't let anybody with the passion worthy of a transgender ideologue tell me otherwise. It's amusing how offended Albanians, Georgians or the like seem to be when they get told the truth. At least Tulsi Gabbard honestly describes herself as a woman of color, when I first heard about, and saw her, that 'leftist Gypsy woman from Hawaii' was what stayed in my memory. But yeah, with migrations, troop movements, and slavery there are white people among them just like their types used to be encountered in historically white populations. As long as you're culturally European, or a person of good will, you're OK with me. In civilized Rome, those backward Germans with unshaven beards weren't admired.
Last edited:
Shaquilleoatmeal
Protestant
Kamala Harris made the first run at the White House as an Indian. Trump and Elon want to bring in H1Bs from India, and Trump also wants Canada as a 51st state which has a bunch of Indians.
And last but not least there’s the brown dude Vivek Ramaswamy, who also wants H1Bs, so in the next Republican primaries we will choose between Vivek Ramaswamy, who is Hindu, vs JD Vance who has a Hindu wife.
This is a false dichotomy. Are you familiar with the simple concepts of "Union of Church and State" versus "Separation of Church and State"? One is Christendom, the other is post-"enlightenment" judeo-masonic devilry. All of your opinions are under the framework of the latter, and your arguments in this discussion are wrong from the beginning because you assume a separation of church and state in Europe pre-enlightenment.
Europe was a Christian civilization. The Church and secular authorities were not separate entities in medieval Europe but worked in concert. You keep looking through a modern lens. As a schism of a schism, and a non-European, it is not going to be easy for you to internalize these historical realities. The very concept of Christendom meant that kings and rulers upheld Church doctrines and canon law influenced secular legislation. The Limpieza de Sangre laws were enacted in a society shaped by Catholic doctrine, the Inquisition, and ecclesiastical decrees about blood purity. The Church didn't need to issue a separate "racial mixing ban" when its teachings already ensured that such laws would emerge naturally through state enforcement.
This is a cop-out avoid addressing the argument. My sources directly show that Church enforcement of policies shaped racial realities in Europe. If your rebuttal is that I "overwhelm" with facts then that’s an admission that you cannot refute them. You rely on a modern, artificial separation between race and religion, one that did not exist when these laws were enforced.
The Church didn’t function like a modern bureaucracy issuing racial purity laws in 20th-century legalese. It enforced a religious framework that made ethnic separation inevitable. The prohibition on marrying indigenous, jews, and Muslims ensured that interethnic unions were nearly nonexistent. If a society’s entire religious structure bans marriage between groups, the result is ethnic separation. That’s the reality of medieval Christendom.
The medieval Church didn't just "work closely" with secular rulers it defined the moral and legal structures of Europe. Popes had the power to excommunicate kings, launch Crusades, dictate marriage laws, etc. The idea that secular rulers just "happened" to enforce racial separation without religious influence is absurd. Laws against interfaith marriage were racial barriers because religion and race in Medieval Europe were inseparable. The Church’s role in shaping these laws is undeniable.
This is classic deflection to attack the form, not the content. The length of an argument does not determine its validity. The reality is my argument is sourced and detailed because history is not some simplistic modern hor d'oeuvres. If you finds it overwhelming that’s your own intellectual failing not an indictment of the argument itself.
This is another attempt to create artificial separation. The Church’s laws on marriage were absolute moral dictates. All rulers who enacted purity laws did so within the framework of Christian ethics. If the Church did not approve of it, it was not a law. This is not mere coincidence because the Church’s laws provided the foundation, and this was on top of acknowledging that blood identity and faith identity were inseparable in pre-modern Europe. To pretend otherwise is to impose modern secular thinking onto a religious civilization.
We do not live in a religious civilization anymore. If you think Europeans were not cognizant of their blood and the sacredness of it, in a civilization built upon glorifying the blood and sacrifice of God, then you don't know Europe. What you see when you go to the little wretch of Europe now is a maggot-infested corpse morality, with few holdouts of Christendom preventing total darkness.
The Church did not "somehow" prohibit mixed-race marriages. It did so explicitly. The Church banned marriage between Christians and non-Christians. In an era where religious identity was nearly synonymous with ethnic identity, this was a de facto racial separation. The results speak for themselves. European ethnic groups remained overwhelmingly completely intact for over a thousand years. If the Church had wanted racial mixing we would see a far different historical and racial reality.
You weren’t around in the 1st Century. Do you honestly believe the hodgepodge of ethnic scabs and vagabonds living under Roman rule were intermarrying and copulating freely like a modern-day cosmopolitan fantasy? The vast majority of people lived and married within their own ethnic enclaves, even when under the same empire. The idea that a Syrian merchant’s daughter would just go off and marry a Germanic tribesman without social repercussions is absurd. Do you think Roman fathers, Greek fathers, or even Germanic fathers let their daughters walk around like open invitations for foreign men? You are applying modern assumptions to a society with strict traditions, honor codes, and ethnic boundaries.
You keep demanding some explicit decree banning 'Germanic-Syrian marriages' or 'Berber-Ethiop unions' as if that's how ancient laws worked. But the reality is that ethnic separation was the default. The Church didn’t need to constantly create new prohibitions when cultural norms already ensured that ethnic groups married among their own. Just because the Roman Empire housed many ethnicities does not mean they all mixed freely. Conquest and hierarchy made it less likely that a ruling ethnicity would allow dilution of its lineage.
You act as if Rome was a giant racial melting pot where all groups freely intermixed. The reality was that Rome was hierarchical and segregated. Ethnic Roman aristocracy did not marry common provincial subjects. Germanic mercenaries may have served the empire but did not become Roman elites. Even within conquered territories local populations married within their own, especially in the upper classes where lineage was everything. Rome ruled diverse peoples but diversity did not equal integration.
How do you not understand Limpieza de Sangre? It wasn't some loose secular half-hearted system with the Church idly standing by. The Catholic Church was literally the enforcer of these laws. The monastic orders, the cathedral chapters, the seminaries, the inquisitors, the clergy, these institutions didn’t just approve of the system they implemented it zealously and rigorously. When a family was accused of impure blood it was the Church that carried out the investigation not secular authorities.
The Jerónimos (Hieronymites) were among the first religious orders to adopt limpieza de sangre statutes. In 1496 they sought and received approval from Pope Alexander VI to implement these measures, barring individuals of jewish or Muslim ancestry from joining their ranks, even the conversos.
The Cathedrals of Badajoz (1511) and Seville (1516) mandated proof of pure European Christian ancestry for appointments thereby excluding those of converso or morisco heritage from ecclesiastical positions.
Major educational institutions like the Colegio Mayor de San Bartolomé in Salamanca adopted limpieza de sangre statutes in 1482 preventing individuals of non-Christian lineage from accessing educational and clerical opportunities.
The Spanish Inquisition's activities directed societal suspicions toward "New Christians," supporting the enforcement of limpieza de sangre statutes. Most of their efforts were directed against those who converted but because of their impure blood they continued to practice demonic religions.
You seem to be unable to escape the 21st century separation of Church and State mindset. You focus on "interfaith" as if that is the core issue while neglecting the racial and ethnic realities tied to these laws.
Yes the Church was a faith institution but it was also deeply intertwined with racial and cultural identity in Europe. It’s a historical fact that the Church's efforts to convert Germanics, Gauls, Celts, Slavs, and Nordics were not purely about saving souls but about incorporating these people into a racial and religious European identity. The conversion of European tribes was racialized and it was about preserving European bloodlines just as much as it was about faith. Gathering the lost sheep back unto the fold. The Church sought to preserve the ethnic cohesion of Europe and Christianity became a central part of that racial unity. That’s why the Church aggressively converted the European “heathens” and sought to preserve their ethnic purity. They didn’t do the same for jews, Arabs, or Africans because their racial and cultural identity was alien. Simply forcing the heebs to convert showed their true colors as we have in actual history from Iberia.
There is a consistent effort from non-Whites who call themselves Christian to attempt to erase the distinction between faith and race.
Everyone knows Roman territories were multiethnic but it’s a distortion of historical reality to claim that Christians had no racial or ethnic awareness. Christianity in its early days was rooted in Aryan peoples not just "white" in the modern sense but in terms of Mediterranean peoples, who were ethnically cohesive with shared Aryan bloodlines. This was the Greeks, the Romans, and the non-mixed tribal Israelites (not the edomite "jews")). You might look at people of that region today and not see them as white, but that is because of the results of Islam spreading, the Moors and Ottomans raping many Aryan women in antiquity causing mass Arabization.
The people of the Roman Empire were Aryan by blood, barring Nubians, Edomites, Canaanites, Hindus, and other obvious non-Whites. Therefore, it was not race as we understand it in the modern, oversimplified sense but ethno-cultural cohesion that defined Christian identity.
If you don't believe the Church used "Aryan" language, I once again cite the Catholic encyclopedia from 1913 on Europe where the term is specifically mentioned:
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/cathopedia/vol5/volfive474.shtml
The concept of Aryanity was something that developed in parallel with the Church becoming more influential throughout Europe. The racial homogeneity of the Christian community as it expanded through Europe was of paramount importance. As the Catholic Encyclopedia notes, Europe’s population was primarily composed of Aryan races (Teutonic, Romanic, and Slavonic), and this unity persisted throughout the rise of Christianity until the present.
That's why despite Elvira seemingly applying to European tribes in the 300s, we have the Church overseeing massive conversions of the Germanic tribes and later Northern Europeans not long after. It was done with the understanding that these peoples were already ethnically similar to the larger European Christian family. This was not a matter of simply accepting anyone into Christianity but recognizing these tribes as part of the same racial and cultural lineage.
The Church did not make similar concessions for non-European peoples like Arabs, Chinese, Indians, Africans, or jews, who were treated with much more caution because they were racial and spiritual aliens.
When you can’t counter logic, the next best step is to undermine the messenger.
It’s interesting that you have to rely on questioning my 'reasoning abilities' rather than responding to the substance of the arguments I've laid out. Is it because you cannot refute them, or is it that you find the implications of those arguments uncomfortable? It would be far more compelling to address the evidence and logic rather than dive into personal attacks. Attacking my ability to reason doesn’t add weight to your position it just shows you’re unable to counter my arguments directly.
I would argue that my reasoning is rather strong because unlike your approach I focus on facts and historical evidence to construct my arguments not on trying to discredit the person making them. You seem to think that if you can discredit me, my points somehow lose their validity. That’s a fallacy that ultimately only harms your own credibility.
One look at JD Vance and his willingness to pollute his lineage is instinctively troubling because it reveals something inherently wrong about his choices, no words are necessary. It's a primal, inherent recognition that betraying one’s own people, spiritually and racially, is a profound transgression. As someone who is part of this lineage, I see Vance's actions as an abandonment of the very essence of his heritage for the sake of a racial alien and spiritual heathen.
I doubt you understand this as someone who isn't Aryan and doesn't have to contend with the daily reality of having one’s identity actively targeted from every direction. In this current system, you are allowed to thrive and are encouraged to do so precisely because you are used as a tool for their agenda. You will never fully understand the existential struggle that Aryans face because you are not Aryan. The ability to recognize a betrayer like Vance, someone who is aiding in the destruction of his own people, is critical for the survival of lineage. You can relax and know that there are billion more Wutang's out there because your lineage is not under siege.
The other White Christians on the sidelines here can clearly see how a non-White has to view Christian history from a simplistic spiritual-only perspective and constantly put down anyone who brings up heritage because it offends his stolen and altered worldview.
You claim that the length of my posts along with the volume of quotes and sources somehow undermines their credibility. How is Bitchute unreliable when it is not censored like YouTube is? How is Gab unreliable when it is the only true place for free speech when jew-owned twitter/X isn't? Where are these 4chan memes at? You are leveling the same insults at me that the rest of the philosemites here do.
In any serious intellectual discussion evidence is the foundation of valid arguments. The more detailed and substantiated an argument is the stronger it becomes. What you mistake for “overwhelm” is a thorough and disciplined approach to constructing a logical framework supported by factual data and primary sources.
Then you claim that my sources "don’t even support my main point" which is an accusation that is not only unsubstantiated but completely evasive. You are simply making a blanket statement hoping it sticks. It’s easy to throw out an accusation but far harder to provide a coherent rebuttal grounded in facts.
The reality is that when one is faced with logical rigor and historical truth, those who cannot respond directly are often left to attack the presentation rather than the content. You’re doing exactly this. You want to argue about the structure of the argument, but you can’t refute the argument itself. You mistake thoroughness for overwhelming.
You’re asking for explicit Church canons on racial purity yet you fail to recognize that the very existence of a racially cohesive Europe for over a thousand years under Christendom is proof enough that the Church didn’t need explicit rules to maintain racial integrity. While you demand a "canon" explicitly forbidding racial mixing you ignore the historical fact that the Church’s enforcement of policies like Limpieza de Sangre, the active separation of racial groups, and the political and social structures built around these principles led to a racially unified European identity that survived for centuries. This is not some coincidence, it was actively enforced through the Church's influence and its role in governance, and anyone with basic historical awareness can see that.
How is it possible that European Christendom, without such explicit canons, maintained such remarkable racial cohesion when today, in the so-called enlightened 21st century, the same Church now compromised by modern ideologies has become complicit in the destruction of that very cohesion? What changed? In the past the Church held a moral, spiritual, and even genetic role in preserving the racial identity of its people, enforcing the necessary social and cultural laws to ensure Europe remained European.
The reality is in modernity the Church has failed miserably. Too many homosexuals, infiltrators, pedophiles, and actual heretics using their clerical office to betray God's laws. The racial purity that was preserved across Europe for over a thousand years under Christian rule is now rapidly disappearing because the very same institutions that once upheld racial cohesion are now actively encouraging racial dilution through mass immigration, "multiculturalism," and a soft, passive endorsement of racial mixing courtesy of political agendas and globalist forces that are accelerating the racial extinction of Europeans.
Based on my own family which has been Catholic since before the Norman expansion, I would say that the procreation of an untainted European lineage is because of the Church more so than any temporary secular effort. The Church was the primary moral and cultural authority that guided secular governance. The very concept of “secular authority” as we know it today didn’t even exist until the Enlightenment. You don't need a Canon to see Church enforcement, far beyond mere Church "complicity" in European endogamy.
This is what you fail to see because you are not European, and on top of merely being European one has to be awakened to their history. Your cheap dismissal of the Church’s historical involvement by reducing it to mere "interfaith marriage prohibitions" is exactly why your argument falls apart. The idea that these prohibitions were solely about "faith" and had nothing to do with the cultural and racial integrity of Europe is laughable. Faith was part of the larger cultural identity, and that identity, the European identity, was inseparable from racial and ethnic cohesion.
When you say "the secular authorities kept whites white" you conveniently sidestep the massive role the Church played in defining who could marry, who could inherit land, and who could be integrated into the social order. The Church was central to all these decisions.
The historical reality is brutal for race-mixers. Racially-mixed unions were virtually non-existent in history. Over 99% of mixed-race individuals were not born from Church-approved marriages but from conquest, rape, and generational violence. These were not unions blessed by the Church but the direct result of subjugation either by foreign soldiers violating local women, slave masters exploiting their chattel, and the brutal realities of one race's expansionism ceding territories inhabited by another race. This generational trauma is deeply ingrained, manifesting in identity crises, resentment, and psychological scars that we see in virtually all mixed-race individuals of the present. If the Church had ever truly promoted racial mixing, we would see clear, widespread evidence of stable, Church-sanctioned mixed-race lineages. Instead what we see is chaos, fatherlessness, and the consequences of violent miscegenation not the fruit of any ecclesiastical decree.
Don't mistake my tone for hating these people. I truly do feel sorry for them and wish they would never be tormented by their identities, but they were born as the selfish decisions of their foolhardy parents who chose to ignore God's laws. Vance is implicit in the suffering his children will have in the future. He should be a lesson for all American and European men on what not to do when you marry.
Yes if you actually study migratory patterns, genetics, and the Biblical Marks of Israel, you would see that not only the Anglo-Saxons but the Germanics of the Jutland Peninsula and the other tribes around Denmark (Dan's Mark) do have a deep connection to the post-captivity Israelites. Keep mocking it, but more White and European Christian men are coming to these conclusions and exploring these claims, much more outside of this shrinking brown echo-chamber.
The vested interest of your biological ambition would find it rather difficult and uncomfortable if there were strict modern theological proscriptions on racial mixing, would it not? That is the litmus test of who endorses this separation of faith and race ideology. From the perspective of the non-White, who is bombarded with layers of jewish propaganda that galvanizes Whiteness into something that is both heavenly desirable but also abysmally detestable, it creates a natural inferiority complex in all non-Whites that extends into altering European history to achieve their own assimilation with the people who created the greatest civilization to ever graced the Earth, even if it means defiling those people further. To the European who has not been deracinated by New World Order brainwashing nor has been spiritually castrated by hollow creeds, this soul understands the realities and duties of the here and now and the preparation for the hereafter are not separate but intertwined. That is why those who obey God's laws and stick to their own are not confused and don't try to adopt another race's religion, nor marry into another race, nor blend some falsified ideal of the two actions as a positive phenomena that is made permissible by an interpretation of a power not of this Earth, when it is quite the opposite.
I don't doubt your intelligence, nor your commitment to the Almighty, but there have been disagreements in matters of faith from the beginning and there will be disagreements in matters of faith until the end. To understand the perspective of historical European Christendom is impossible for an outsider. That is why it is always best for each bird to fly with their own, just like they do in nature.
Last edited:
I bolded a part of that paragraph because I think it will give us a pretty good way to see if there is indeed church doctrine about blood purity. I agree that there were secular laws like the Limpieza de Sangre laws enacted by the kingdom. I also agree that that church and secular authorities worked in concert. In fact, given that we do indeed have a lot of cases of kings and ruler enforcing canon law I think it would be simple to find some sort of church teaching that then influenced secular law and where people were held accountable for violating these laws.
A case example would be with usury. Church canon law forbid usury and people would actually be tried in court for violating these laws. The church set down a law and when people were thought to have violated the law they were summoned to a court to answer these charges. This would be an example of what we are looking for when "canon law influenced secular legislation". We go from church makes a law -> these laws are enforced and up held in the secular realm.
The law being implemented in England in response to church teaching:
Enforcement of the law:
This is an example of how we go from church teaching to influencing the law of the land. Can you provide your own example of this sort of progression from church teaching to influencing the law of the land? The Limpieza de Sangre laws you used as an example does NOT have this sort of progression. The examples you gave of Jerónimos and religious orders applying these laws are not examples of canon law or binding church teaching that applies to all the faithful in the same say a teaching on the prohibition of usury or homosexual behavior or divorce.
Keep in mind that the argument you have been trying to make is the prohibition of inter-ethnic marriage is on the same level as the prohibition of homosexuality or cousin marriage The sort of prohibitions in Spain that you have been bringing forth are not that. Those blood purity laws were specific to the Spanish kingdom (as they were enacted by the Spanish crown) and because of their history of being conquered by the Muslims and for the amount of Jews that were present in the kingdom.
Your argument is that the prohibition against interfaith marriage was in reality a prohibition between a prohibition between ethnic groups since ethnic and religious identity were one and the same in the middle ages. However, you had previously wrote "From the time the Church became an institution of law in the 300s onward it was well understood that maintaining a pure European bloodline was just as important as keeping the faith pure." This was a time when there was still pagans all around Europe. As I pointed out, the church would have been against a Germanic or Roman pagan marrying a Christian woman no matter what their blood was. In the 300s religious identity not been the same as a ethnic identity.
Your main argument has been "Well I can't quote any sort of church canon law on inter-ethnic marriage in the same way I can easily quote a teaching on inter-faith marriage but hold on, since ethnicity and faith are the same this must mean that prohibiting inter-faith marriage is really about prohibiting inter-ethnic marriage" Are you suggesting that church law would been approving of a pagan Goth marrying a Christian woman since if he's Aryan it must mean he's really Christian even if he prays to Odin?
You are contradicting your own argument that it was the church that kept racial groups pure. If people already had a such a strong instinct to not intermarry, then why is the church needed to maintain these standards? You even already say yourself by saying the church didn't need to be involved when cultural norms by itself assured that most people married within their own groups. I'm surprised you would even bring this up cause it completely undermines the base of your arguments - that the church was responsible for preserving the purity of white blood through it's teachings.
If keeping to your own ethnic group marriage is the default, then what is the need for the church to teach the flock to keep their blood pure? I could have just kept my post to this one point and it alone would contradict your assertion that it was the church that ensured purity.
This article also includes Gypsies and Albanians within the Aryan groups. I had no idea Aryans are woke and inclusive enough now to include these groups within their ranks. I don't suppose you are going to start extoling the genetic superiority of Albanians and Gypsies now?
You quote facts and historical evidence plenty but you seem to be unable to draw the proper conclusions from them and you don't seem able to be able to grasp that your sources and facts don't actually prove the points you are trying to make. This is me responding to the substance of your arguments. As for finding the implications of an argument being uncomfortable:
Here's a good example of this. Seems like you personally would find it pretty uncomfortable if your own personal interpretation of Catholicism - which is at odds at what the Catholic church teaches - was wrong. What you write here sounds a variation of "you just don't understand what it's like to be a black man" that blacks give in lieu of an actual argument.
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:
I noticed in the thread dealing with this (https://christisking.cc/threads/10-lost-tribes-we-wuz-kangs-bruh.825/) no one answered the question of if this means there was no people there in Europe prior to the destruction of the Israel Northern Kingdom or how it's strange no one in the church seemed to made the connection between Europeans and the lost tribes until some Protestants started speculating on this issue in the 19th century. Are the men exploring these claims doing so under the auspice of church authority and teaching or are they trying to introduce theologically novelty - say perhaps a reformation in the way the church thinks?
"You don't know what it's like to be a black man" argument again.
If you can only understand a group by being a member of this group, then how have you come to such a deep understanding of Jewish psychology and their nature? By your argument you must be some sort of crypto-Jew.
Shaquilleoatmeal
Protestant
thread I found on Reddit regarding “Great Replacement.”
Last edited: