M.2

I would check out the book by Milo Yiannopolous. he addresses the exact same issues you mention. https://www.amazon.com/Dangerous-Milo-Yiannopoulos/dp/069289344X

1. There is evidence to back your claim. Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia are not split along genetic lines, but along religious lines, and the same applies to Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. You can have a country comprised of multiple races, like Switzerland, Belgium, Russia, USA, China, Indonesia, but you cannot have a country with various ideologies. Or at least not a sustainable one. 2. I completely agree with you. It may be the new trend, but ethno-nationalism is not helping anyone. It is only a means to isolate yourself completely, and make yourself vulnerable. There will always be a nation bigger and badder than yours. The longest existing countries, like San Marino, Japan, Switzerland, Russia, UK, they have all placed an idea at their core, not their skin colour or their language. Sure, it helps when a people look like each other and speak like each other as well, but that is not the main pillar of a stable society. 3. You mean THE Identitarians, right? I don't really have a problem with them yet, and as far as I know they are doing a good job, but I am still sceptical of their values. They say they fight for "Europe", whatever that is. I'm not so sure their idea of Europe is worth fighting for. I myself am of the thought that Europe does not deserve to exist without Christianity. Quite simply because Christianity is the foundation of the Europe that we currently have. It is quite obvious that there is a correlation between religiousity and social stability. Hi, ofd . I guess you feel like you just dropped the mic. Could you support that statement with something? Because I am not yet convinced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks There have been far more than you have listed, Crusader1986 . Even this list is incomplete. Over 20 thousand deaths and 50 thousand injuries worldwide. The pattern is a bit different to what you theorise. Terror attacks have been steadily but slowly increasing since the 70s, peaking in 2004, then declining until 2008. From which numbers have been increasing rapidly, peaking in 2015. 2016 has been relatively mild, and 2017 seems to be less likely to top 2015.

Could you talk a bit more about the identity crisis? What is the identity worth wearing in you opinion? Do you think national identitarianism is the way to go, or should people adhere to an ideological identity?

Well, you are in luck. Australia has a very unique attitude towards people setting up their sovereign countries. Here is a link to all the micronations that the Australian government has or had recognised. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Micronations_in_Australia Here are other micronations all over the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_micronations I think the country of Minerva or that of New Utopia is what you are looking for. If you are asking for my suggestion, you can move to the most sparsely populated country on the planet, Mongolia, set up a tent in the middle of nowhere, with nobody around you in a 500km radius, dig a hole in the ground to access fresh water, dig another hole to get any minerals spanning from gold to uranium, eat pungy grass for sustenance (seriously it's really good, tastes like mild onions) and nobody in the world will ever even know or care whether or not you exist. Best part is that you can pee wherever you want. On a serious note, I don't think a voluntaryst society is possible without strict borders, by which I mean you can't successfully set up a community in an existing country. As soon as your community emerges as a shining beacon of freedom, you will get millions of collectivist parasites headed your way, and you can't stop them with the free market. Just look at Texas and the Californian refugees, Hong Kong and all the Chinese "tourists", Transylvania and all the Wallachians... etc.

Public education matters because it is the only education that exists, and even though it is coercive and evil, it is still a tool for providing some knowledge necessary for life. I would love to include homeschooling stats, but so far, even in the countries where it is legal, relatively insignificant number of people are homeschooled or unschooled. I have been traveling constantly since I was 3. And I can attest to the fact that it does help with education. For example, most of what Mr.Molyneux says about racial and cultural differences has always been glaringly obvious to me. When I go to Asia, I have to become a completely different person to what I am in Europe. So I am wll aware of why racial and cultural clashes happen. I think that is a fair criterion to consider, but I am not sure how to measure that across countries. As far as I am concerned, I am still not sure how property works. It strikes me as weird that the government can confiscate your land at any moment. Which means that it does not truly belong to you. Idk... going to have to do a bit more research on the points you gave. That is some very helpful insight you provided. So is Chile actually how it shows in the stats, or does it look a abit different on the ground? Also, which country did you place your vote on?

I haven't read the book, so please be patient with me. I have so far only read Everyday Anarchy and Practical Anarchy. The question I always wanted to ask anarchists is: Do you want to be left alone, do you want your society to be left alone, or do you want everyone to leave everyone alone? - If you want to be left alone, I suppose you can move to a remote uninhabited location where no government has the power to reach you, like Greenland, Northwestern Territories, Siberia, or if you don't like the cold, then Western Sahara, Sahara Desert, Australia, Patagonia, or the Congo Jungle. In Australia, there a number of recognised micronations that the Australian government never touches. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Micronations_in_Australia - If you want your immediate relatives to be left alone, why don't you move to one of the freest countries in the world, like New Zealand, Chile, Switzerland, or Monaco? Dismantling a smaller government is much easier than a big one. https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/50034-which-is-closest-to-ancap-paradise/#comment-454254 -If you want everyone to be left alone, then what have you done so far to reach that goal?

The idea has occurred to me as well, but then I realised that I probably wasn't the first to get such a brilliant idea. Which can only mean the Mr.Molyneux does not want the forums to be used that way. There have been people who posted their full profile to get some attention, and I think that is the best we surrently have. It is however very tempting, I grant you, to know that the most intellectually inclined individuals in the west may well be here on the forums.

Hi, Hawkland Would you be willing to consider that maybe there is something wrong with the definition of love? I have found that love is not an emotion, but an action, which is self-sacrifice. If you love someone, it manifests in you sacrificing your time, yur energy and your life for their good. According to the Catholic Church, it is anything but an involuntary response. It is a very conscious decision that you make. Your problem is that you have had people around you who it did not cost you much effort to love. More than likely, they were the ones sacrificing more for you. If you don't love, that means you have not sacrificed enough yet. A parent loves a baby not because the baby is so virtuous. There is absolutely no virtue in shitting your pants and screaming for attention. The parent loves the child because of all the time and energy they have invested in it. If you want to FEEL LOVE, you should try loving someone for no reason whatsoever. Try visiting an orphanage, a hospital, a retirement home, or wherever you can give without getting back. If you give love only if you get love back, that is not love, but business. If you don't give love, and only take love, you are a parasite. If you never get love and never give love, you are probably dead inside. If you give love regardless of what you get back, you are a saint, which few of us are.

If you want to get REALLY technical, you have the Holy See. I added it to the list just for kicks. In the Vatican, half the opulation have a Phd, there are zero taxes, everyone adheres to an absolutist ideology, never violated the NAP (debatable), and has the deadliest military in the world (the best of the Swiss population to pull from). And yeah, the wealthiest people in the world invest in its existence. But also the poorest, including me.

I can only give you the official catholic teachings. Hope this helps: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/before-sin

1. By strength I mean militarisation. Maybe I should have used the word "readiness" instead. If america joins a war, over half of the citizenry cannot contribute, and is therefore a liability. Israel is fiirst because pretty much everyone there is ready to hold a weapon at any given time. 2. It is NOT ACCURATE, but it is the best I can do. 3. I have linked 2 sources. One of them is a very bad list, the other is a more qualitative analysis of various education systems. 4. I think that is covered in absolutist ideology. Otherwise, I don't have a way of measuing that.

I included the data I found relevant, reading the book "practical anarchy". But all you deem relevant is important too. There is a reason only 50 thousand people live on Greenland. Here are the stats for Russia: Top 40th in education, +50 in economic freedom, 40% in ideology, 6th in strength The reason I did not include Russia, is that I only picked countries that don't score well in economic freedom if they excell in 2 other fields. Russia only leads in strength, and that is the least important of the criteria. Hey, I love Russia too, but then again, I am not an anarchist. Poland is not nearly the coldest of countries I listed. In case you were wondering, Poland scores so low on strength because of their extremely powerful neighbours. Otherwise they are very strong and will only grow as Germany wavers.

I have posted a thread asking the question a while ago "which country is best?" It was meant to be a completely open question, and I received a lot of replies. Most emphasised the importance of NO GVERNMENT as a prerequisite for a moral society. So I have been doing some research and reading Practical Anarchy and Everyday Anarchy to broaden my horizons. Here are the countries I have narrowed down my search to, and would like to get a few opinions on which is truly the closest candidate. Here are the largely undisputed data. Please add a few criteria if there are any. There seems to be 5 main requirements for an ancap paradise: (I deliberately used data only from wikipedia, as they have the lowest possibility of being controversial) 0. No government. Everyone fails this one, so I won't include it. 1. Freedom of education. This is pretty hard to quantify so I only gave them general rankings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_education 2. Economic freedom. This is probably the most important one. Sadly, there is only quite unreliable data out there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom 3. Absolutist ideology. Sorry, so far any form of atheism is not one. Only contemporary powerful ideologies count. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_country 4. Moral population. Respect for the NAP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index 5. Strong Population. Not gross strength, but strength per capita in the given geopolitical predicament . What good is a society if they can't defend themselves, amaright? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Global_Militarization_Index

Hi, Kristoffer Trolle Ever since you first posted this topic, I have been digging on the internet for data on genetics of pre-communist countries, but I couldn't find any presentable evidence for the pretty obvious fact that genetic composition does change under communism. Genetics is a rather new field, and was certainly not applied before the rise of communism, and was even more certainly not applied during communism. Now... so far I have been only using the word "communism" for a reason. That is because it is a universally accepted theory that Communism is the ultimate form of Socialism. There have been some developments that, safe to speculate have had a considerable effect on the genetics of the population. Here are the big ones. Maybe you will have better luck finding data. 1. Purging of intellectuals: In almost all communist countries, the higher and intellectual classes (you know, the smart ones) were systematically eradicated. I don't think it is a question whether or not that affected the gene-pool. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge 2. Cultural Genocide: Socialists generally do not like culture, and are all very big on "progression" and leaving the past behind. This had manifested itself in the destruction of religion, manners, tradition, language and history. Example: The Great Leap Forward. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward 3. Population Control: For some sick reason, people like to control how many of the lowly peasants there are. The old communists were no exception. They promulgated decrees on how many children should be born, shamed women through media who had too many or too few children. We all know about the Chinese One-Child policy, but this has happened and is still happening in all socialistic governments. I posted a reference to a Romanian state action. I'm sure Wuzzums can tell more about it from a personal standpoint. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_770 4. Forced Labour Participation: It was literally a felony to not have a job in the old communist states. If I'm not mistaken, maternal leave was restricted to 3 months or even less in most countries. That has no doubt influenced the decisions of many mothers. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1937939?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents 5. Orchestration of ethnic conflict: Although divide and counquer is an ingenious tactic short term, even Caesar failed at it eventually. Such was the case of Ceausescu of Romania, who tried to blame every problem in his country on the Hungarian minority and other hostile powers threatening the integrity of Romania. In his last speech ever, he does that as he always has, by then however, it has been sorely played out. That said, by this time, the percentage of the Hungarian population was halved compared to the pre-war era. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Romania 6. Transplantation of Populations: There were some crazy things socialists always fancied doing to ethnic groups, but probably one too much even for Sweden (don't get any ideas, Merkel!) is the literal uprooting of an entire country and its population, and transplanting it thousands of miles away, only to maybe return them to the same location a few years later. An example of this is the expulsion and repatriation of the Chechen population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aardakh Another example, and most tragic in my opinion, is the displacement of the Germans of Prussia Sudetenland, Silesia, Transylvania, Hungary, Vojvodina, Volga and elsewhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944–50) 7. The big one... Feminism. I don't think I need to explain. Unfortunately, I could not find data aside from a book here that addresses the question of labour and women in the USSR It is not for free though, so I haven't read it: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0147596783900835

I think it is very courageous of you to pose this question. Don't think I'm trying to diminish the value of your stated wishes, but your definition of success bothers me for some reason. There are very few people in my vicinity who have good looks, high IQ, hot wife, big property, well-paying job, beautiful children, etc all at once. In fact, if such were the goals of my parents, I probably wouldn't exist. To be even more honest, I don't like hanging around people whose definition of success is like yours. I'm going to guess you live in the materialistic west, and that was probably what defined success for you. Not to tell you what to do, but have you thought about redefining your success?

Right. Sure, I think that is often the case. The "Muh-Gib-me-datz" doctrine is at the core of communism. They know their ideology very well, even if just subconsciously. Communism is the ideology that actually tried making theft a UPB. And since theft exists in every society and every race, they managed to go global. However, since theft as UPB is logically inconsistent, Communism is not viable. I think you have something to look into now, haven't you? You already seem to be interested in Paganism. Let me know if you find a sure explanation for the rapid fall of Paganism in the world. Ah. I should have reckoned it hadn't been covered by the leftist news media that much. Would have only added to the pile of proofs that liberalism doesn't work. By "we" I meant those of us who have already beaten the left in a civil war: Russia, Poland, Hungary... Much like America is doing currently. You can look up the details if you are interested. Here is footage of the very underreported Russian civil war of 1993: Here is a footage of our tiny but literal civil war in Hungary in 2006: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWRHGGSya-4 Would you care to elaborate? I have heard only rumours of the slow decline of Ireland, but no data yet.

I can see all that happening. Already begun. http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/08/12/germans-flee-hungary-escape-angela-merkels-migrant-policy/ I said "most". Since most ideologies haven't developed a viable set of UPB, their audience cannot go beyond the genetic boundaries. Christianity however, and Communism too for a brief time, can bring people of varying genetic backgrounds to subscribe to a their UPB, thus proving that genetic behavioural patterns can be overridden. So that is the story of Rome and Greece. What about the Germanics, the Celts, the Subsaharans, the Americas, the Polynesians, the Mongoloids? I will not accept the argument that they were converted by force, because if that were true, the Christians should have also succeeded where Islam was present, in North Africa, Indonesia, the Subcontinent, the Middle-East, Southern Philippines, Malaysia, Caucasia. So my question is rather: Why does Paganism fold so quickly in comparison to other ideologies? Even Buddhism and Hinduism are declininng slower. I am not sure what lesbian cuckery is, but I assume it has something to do with the faggottisation of Western males. Eastern Europe was ruled by the left for 45 years. I think we have a good idea of what the left is. I would go as far to say that we have a better idea. In fact, most of us have already had our tiny civil war with the left, and since then, we haven't been voting left. Here are some maps to illustrate my point: You can clearly see where the left has messed up... Poland in 2001: Hey, let's go left! Hungary in 2006: Shall we try left? Germany in 2009: How about left? Germany today: How about left? Poland in 2005: Literally anything else... Hungary in 2010: Not a word of this again. Germany in 2013: How about left? (Disorder probably genetic by now) Poland today: What do you mean by "left"? Hungary today: Soros? I don't know... why you asking me?

The "devolution", as I call it, of the German peoples is the best example I can think of. Whatever it is that the poor germans believe now, it was not their thought-child, and it definitely wasn't a natural development. Someone else purposefully planted their current belief system into their heads. And today, they don't behave anything like their ancestors did before the Cold War. I think you know the details. You may argue that this is simply a hiccup in the glorious history of the Aryan race, and that the general trajectory remains unchanged. Sure, I disagree, but I can see that argument. I believe that ideology can override any genetic predetermination. If I didn't believe that, I would be much less hopeful about the future. There are tons of examples in the world where a single ethnic group was divided into two, with their circumstances differing only in the dominant ideology. Now of course, I wouldn't say that ideology has nothing to do with genetics. As I have argued earlier, most ideologies have a preferred audience. Right. That's a good point. Why do we need christianity if paganism is just as good, right? Do you have an idea why paganism folds so quickly in the presence of christianity? I'm sorry to say, but more than 2/3 of Western Europe are still voting left, for open borders, for the EU. You can understand how it all looks from here, right? The information is out there. Literally everyone has access to the internet. I feel very sorry for them, but they are running out of excuses. I would have hoped that by 2017 they would rethink their stance on most issues. Yes, I know Slavs are Aryans. That is why I mentioned them separately. Even though they were a bit late to the party, we are glad to have them. I have been following the ongoings in the west very closely. November 8th was one of the best days of my life, and I know we owe it all to the whites in America. However, as of now, what we see from here is that our western neighbours are still sabotaging the Syrian civil war, still importing migrants over the mediterranean, still voting left. From our perspective, you are a net negative. I trust you can see it from our point of view. Technically, baptism makes one christian. My claim was not that christian countries have less crime. My claim was that we have developed a UPB that actually works across cultures and ethnic lines. To address your point, your map is terribly flawed. Even in 2012, China, the most secular country on the planet besides North Korea, could not have had less homicides on average than Mongolia. Same goes for Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Algeria, and all the other champions of virtue. This map is highly dependent on the given country's definition of homicide, and also on their ability to accumulate data. If you wanted to study this mup fairly, you would compare countries that have similar definitions of homicide. For example, countries within the EU. Doing that however does not provide a clear correlation between crime and secularism. https://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp?title=2017-mid&region=150 How cordial of them to ommit that Soros is hungarian. I think I have made clear that I also find the involvement of the Jews in the fall of the west quite fishy. However, I am of the view that Israel, the state of the Jews, is on our side. We can have a debate on that too of course.

Well, for starters, there is Bosnia and Kosovo. That is undisputedly violent ethnic cleansing towards the Serbs. There are also the bit less violent forms, which are occurring in major urban areas in France, Germany, Belgium, and UK (as you probably know better). People are moving out of certain areas for fear for their safety, and they are not shy to admit it. You only need a couple of stabbings in an area to make property prices plummet. Any sane person does not stay. As far as I know, there is currently no ethnic cleansing that is targetting muslims. The only cases I have heard of is that on certain islands, Corsica and Sicily to be exact, people are very hostile towards muslims, and destroy their shops and businesses. I guess that counts. Well put. I agree. It all starts with education. Which is why I have chosen that field. The various education systems of Europe will collapse eventually; and I want to be there when they do. I think if you sent this exact quote, you would get a pretty interesting rant out of him. Maybe you could expand on how you came to the 10 years approximation.

Wow. You are very bad at this. No offence. I am not going to try again. Alright. This is the last time I will indulge your intellectual laziness. And only because I try to be a good christian. Let's go with your example; taxation. Since you haven't specified which legal system, which monarchial system, which era we are talking about, I will use a gigantic brush. In a traditional european monarchy (note: not every type of monarch owns the land) every spot of land belongs to the monarch. We can argue about how legitimate his claim over the land is, but it is a simple fact that he is the one who was recognised (by whom is varying) as legitimate owner of the land. If you are someone on this land, you are subject to his rules. If you are using his land, (for example, farm, mine, build on it) then you owe him what he charges for the use of his land. That is what we call tax. If you suddenly refuse to pay, then he has the moral and legal right to send in armed men to force you to pay or to leave. Quite simply because it you who is stealing from him.

You are from the UK, correct? Have you been on the call-in show recently? I know someone brought this topic up. There is a lot of room for speculation there. I have been to the UK, France, Belgium, Germany, but I haven't seen the signs of outright partitioning as of yet. You use the word "forcing" a lot. In the FDR community, we put much emphasis on the respecting of human free will and peaceful dialogue. This does not mean we shy away from physical conflict when it presents itself, but still, it would be better if nobody got hurt. That being said, I understand you don't think a peaceful resolution is likely at this point. Right? So let me ask you a few things. If it comes to outright civil war, the like of which occurred in Yugoslavia, would you be willing to grab a weapon, take a bullet, and personally kill unarmed women and children? That is what you are suggesting, as I'm sure you understand. And if you would, what exactly would you do it for? The west? What does that mean to you? I wish I had more hope, but I also think ethnic cleansing, at least to some extent, will come to pass. I think it has already started in some areas. No, it is not ignorance that feeds Islam. "If only they could see it our way" is a very misguided attitude. When missionaries go to the middle-east, books are only a small utility. Their primary weapon they bring with them is willpower and sacrifice. Knowledge is only the seed, but blood is water to it. Unless Westerners are willing to show at least as much sacrifice as the Muslims are, they will lose. When Asians visit Europe, they don't say "Wow, look at all their good arguments - I may have to join the winning side.", but rather "Wow, those are some huge cathedrals that they had to build for 300 years with blood, sweat and tears - these guys sure love their god." What draws me to FDR is the commitment that Mr.Molyneux has for truth and values. Even though I don't agree with him on everything, I am confident that he would be more than willing to shed his blood for roughly the same values that I hold, if it comes down to it.

Damn right it wasn't an argument. What does "mostly" mean? What does "above the law" mean? What does "law" mean? Do you think the monarchs just did whatever they felt like doing? Which century are you talking about? Which culture? Which country? What legal code? The Queen of England is a terrible example. The UK is a constitutional monarchy, which means the authority of the Queen is restricted by the constitution. That was the point of the Magna Carta. If you want to bring up Saudi Arabia, as an absolute monarchy, that is another bad examle, since Saudi Arabia is governed by strict Wahhaabist Sharia law which applies to the royal family as well. Even if you bring up the most absolute of monarchies, the Holy See, even there the Pope abides by canon law. So I have no idea what you are talking about. Yes, even it is not strictly called "law", there is always some form of restriction that applies to monarchs, usually set up by the religious class, the ruling class, or a previous monarch. As examples provided above. Ostracism was definitely applied, even as far as WW1. You made a bad move, you had made enemies among the populous, the ruling class, the religious class, and even other monarchs. I think what Gavitor is complaining about is that Civil Law or Common Law does not apply to rulers, or at least not in the same manner as it applies to us common folk. I'll try to clear it up with a present day example... Suppose there is a politician in a foreign country with diplomatic immunity. That does not mean that the politician can do whatever he wants. In fact, even the slightest of blunders can get him recalled to the home country and court-martialled. Same with a monarch. He is not tried under the same laws that a commoner is, but he does not escape justice.

Hi, Crusader! Thanks, I'll check out the book. Russia has always been a multiethnic empire. Only 77% are Russian. It is concerning, not only to us, but to the Russian leadership as well. However... the minister of defence in Russia is a Tuvan guy (Sergey Shoygu). I don't think he is muslim, but this is a testament to the fact that it is possible to be an oppressed minority, and still be a loyal soldier of Russia. The Russians have always employed their minorities in the military (see Kosacks), and they have been the right arm of the Russian Military since Peter the Great, through the Russian Civil War, and up to this day. It is also a recurring trend in Russian history that they utilise one minority to oppress another. Russians are smart. Personally, I don't fret about it so much. Notice I said "islam" and not "muslims". In my opinion, it is mathematically impossible to expell all muslims from Europe. Muslims populations have always existed in Europe to some degree. For instance in Tatarstan, Bosnia, Albania, Thracia. I have a very strong suspicion that it will eventually come to a bit of ethnic cleansing. But it will not settle the matter forever. Ethnic cleansing has been successful only in a minority of cases in history. My hope is the same as that of Mr.Molyneux. That an absolutist ideology is the only thing that can stop an absolutist ideology. Although Mr.Molyneux has been drawing closer to Christianity recently, he still thinks that a new value system has to be created. Even if I agreed with him on that, I doubt there is actually enough time to do so. Notice that at the edges of Europe, Christianity is extremely strong. Russia, Armenia, Georgia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia, Sicily, Malta, Spain are all at the top of the list when ranked by faith. This is the only way a society can possibly survive when pressed up against a robust ideology like Islam. If we manage to return to an absolutist ideology, then there is hope for bringing over the Muslims to our side. That is our only way of doing things peacefully. As anecdotal evidence, I have spoken with many migrants coming to Europe, and it is really not that hard to impress them with Christianity. The only problem is that they are going to countries where the natives are not Christian themselves. What are they supposed to integrate into when there is nothing to integrate into?

I take it chino means chinese and dindu means black. Yes, I have. But that is anecdotal evidence. Aha. So you believe that people make ideas, and not the other way around. Then I wonder why FDR exists. Is Mr.Molyneux just preaching to the choir? A good example of an ideology changing a people is the conversion of East-Timor. The differing ideology made them so incompatibel with their brothers on the same tiny island that they had to secede and become a new nation. Same island, same genetics, different religion. I don't know whether or not "mongrel" is a derogatory term, so I'll leave it at that. I think ideology is the only thing we have. Even your alt-right mentality is an ideology. I don't think Paganism was anything like Christianity, and I think it takes a very uneducated person to claim so. "So many" is not a number, so I cannot confirm. Degeneracy is pretty 'rampant' among Aryans as well, I would say. I mean... inviting a barbaric alien culture into your lands and having them take your women... what is wrong with you? Please don't take moral agency away and blame everything on the Semites either. That is just pathetic. Don't misquote me. I think a culture without an absolutist ideology deserves to die, nevertheless I have fought for your precious race probably more than you ever have. I have seen the Balkan Wall, I have been to the migrant camps, I have patrolled the streets of Budapest, and my taxes are going directly to the maintenance of the Balkan Wall. All while you Aryans are ferrying the Muslims in over the Mediterranean. Before the Slavs joined us in the fight, there were only the three non-aryan groups, the Hungarians, the Maltese and Finns fighting Islam. What are you and your proud pure-blood Aryans doing in the meantime? I ask again: How exactly are you contributing in the struggle against Islam? I don't think you understand what Christianity is. We are by no means pacifists. Sure, you can give your own cheek to get slapped, but you cannot offer up someone else's cheeks. Have you heard of the Just War Doctrine? No, not theory, but doctrine. And just because I am ready to murder people, doesn't mean I do. It's a warzone here in Belgium. ...Also coming to a town near you! At least some amount of data to back your points up would be welcome. Only a third of all catholics are white or "Aryan" as you would say. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/02/13/the-global-catholic-population/ Right... Do you get called racist a lot? Like... more than average "straight-white-cis-males" gets?