God, the Icon of European Union.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

I will mention right off, this post is not a proof or an attempt at proof of God's existence. And yet, I wonder if I can make godless atheists a bit more....god-full.

 

I heard Stefan Molyneux offer a bit of a personal theory of what happened after Jesus Christ died, more or less presuming his tomb was raided by thieves and maybe--just maybe--the first Christians concocted an elaborate hoax to inspire universal morality and destroy moral relativism in what may have been the most crucial point in Roman history before the Fall. 

 

Personally, I've always thought that either Jesus was a Roman philosopher (like say, a 4th philosopher to take the torch from Aristotle) whose philosophy was made into a religion by his disciples in order to unite people too dumb to think philosophically, or he was a Roman politician who managed to become the object of worship because of his perceived boundless virtue.

 

As to whether my or Stef's theories are even remotely true, I cannot say. It stands to reason that most likely if there is a God, he is very absentee and the Church greatly embellishes his involvement in man's affairs, or....well, either he is the God of Whites or the God of Jews in particular as both general groups of peoples grew to become the dominant races of the world (at least until recently). If there isn't a God than the raw horse power of the European genetic survival set was simply the best out there, and God was simply the simplification as to why Whites were so great in a time without genetic scientists to give definitive reasons for the behavioral and physical traits of the races. 

 

Around the same time as Jesus Christ was arguably the greatest ruler in European history: Augustus Caesar, First Emperor of the Roman Empire and the very basis for the word "Emperor" in most European languages.

 

When the Roman Empire fell after 250 odd years of decay and ruin, the Holy Roman Empire was formed by Kaiser Charlemagne, the first Christian Emperor of Europe whose empire would last nearly 1000 years (if you include the Austrian and German Empires as being successor states of the old Holy Roman Empire). Christianity's purpose was essentially that of a bully pulpit used to propagate moral values to the illiterate and low-IQ masses. Whereas the three philosophers of ancient Greece attempted to use reason to enable rational activity, Christianity, perhaps from inception, realize the simple fact that all people are irrational and yet believe themselves rational, and that the majority of people will always find themselves subscribed to someone else's theory of ethics or dogma. Therefore, rather than attempting to convince the world to be good for goodness's sake, the Church essentially said "Be good or be damned", which was of course irrelevant to the good people who do good regardless, but critical for the "bad" people and the "morally relative" people who either could not be bothered or were too uncaring to work for a bigger picture.

 

To conclude the topic's purpose, I have a simple set of questions;

 

"Is Christianity a benefit for European civilization?" 

 

"Is it better for many people to do good as a result of a lie, or for a few people to do good as a result of a truth?"

 

"Do the ends justify the means, and is Christianity a good means for spreading reason and virtue?"

 

"If we are created in God's image, assuming He is real, who is "we"?"

[Donnadogsoth]

"Is Christianity a benefit for European civilization?" 

 

Yes. Christianity preserved the Greek learning after the fall of Rome, while providing for a structured transition from Roman to Christian rule without which Europe would have been vulnerable to Oriental barbarism and tyranny (Huns, Mongols, Moslems). The Crucifixion as the image of absolute injustice (the best man receiving the worst fate) has inspired countless works of art and is a perennial transformative symbol. Without Christianity there would have been no Gothic Culture, no Renaissance, no nation-state (starting with France), no Enlightenment, no scientific revolution, no check to Communism, no Bill of Rights, and no Apollo program. Simply put, no Christianity means no defense against comets, asteroids, and meteors from Outer Space.

 

"Is it better for many people to do good as a result of a lie, or for a few people to do good as a result of a truth?"

 

Sometimes information is need to know, as there isn't time or inclination on the part of the listener to understand the fullness of the truth. And the truth itself can never be fully known. The principle at work here is LEADERSHIP, that the leader makes the best decisions he knows based on what he knows and can estimate, and the followers act on his orders or suggestions in good faith knowing that he knows best.

 

"Do the ends justify the means, and is Christianity a good means for spreading reason and virtue?"

 

(1) Yes. Three words: “Surgery on children”.

 

(2) Yes. Christianity undergirds the concept of a rational Universe, created with understandable laws.  Catholicism especially is highly invested in literacy, clarity of expression, and rational thought, cf., (a) the Summa Theologica, a little too rational for many, (b) How the Irish Saved Civilisation, about how Irish monks preserved the great books throughout the Dark Ages, and © the tradition of Jesuit schooling.

 

"If we are created in God's image, assuming He is real, who is "we"?"

 

Anyone with a rational soul, however developed or retarded.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

 

"Is Christianity a benefit for European civilization?" 

 

Yes. Christianity preserved the Greek learning after the fall of Rome, while providing for a structured transition from Roman to Christian rule without which Europe would have been vulnerable to Oriental barbarism and tyranny (Huns, Mongols, Moslems). The Crucifixion as the image of absolute injustice (the best man receiving the worst fate) has inspired countless works of art and is a perennial transformative symbol. Without Christianity there would have been no Gothic Culture, no Renaissance, no nation-state (starting with France), no Enlightenment, no scientific revolution, no check to Communism, no Bill of Rights, and no Apollo program. Simply put, no Christianity means no defense against comets, asteroids, and meteors from Outer Space.

 

"Is it better for many people to do good as a result of a lie, or for a few people to do good as a result of a truth?"

 

Sometimes information is need to know, as there isn't time or inclination on the part of the listener to understand the fullness of the truth. And the truth itself can never be fully known. The principle at work here is LEADERSHIP, that the leader makes the best decisions he knows based on what he knows and can estimate, and the followers act on his orders or suggestions in good faith knowing that he knows best.

 

"Do the ends justify the means, and is Christianity a good means for spreading reason and virtue?"

 

(1) Yes. Three words: “Surgery on children”.

 

(2) Yes. Christianity undergirds the concept of a rational Universe, created with understandable laws.  Catholicism especially is highly invested in literacy, clarity of expression, and rational thought, cf., (a) the Summa Theologica, a little too rational for many, (b) How the Irish Saved Civilisation, about how Irish monks preserved the great books throughout the Dark Ages, and © the tradition of Jesuit schooling.

 

"If we are created in God's image, assuming He is real, who is "we"?"

 

Anyone with a rational soul, however developed or retarded.

 

 

I knew there were great things Christianity was responsible for (either directly or indirectly) and most of those were knew to me. Got to say I like your answers.

 

I don't have much to add here, since I feel you pretty much said everything either I believed about Christianity or gave me a few new things to appreciate about our religion.

 

However, now this may be a personal interpretation, but for the last question I always assumed and continue to assume that if God made us in his image, "us" are the Whites, and the Whites specifically. 

 

Like I said I don't much to add at this time, so I'll just keep waiting for new responses to these thought provoking questions and see what comes out of them.

[Troubador]

I think you are conflating European Civilization with the European Union. They are not synonymous, there are also crucial cultural differences which actually I for one embrace and enjoy. As an Englishman I relish those aspects we have in common, I am proud of what culturally my nation has contributed, but I am also in awe of a great many of the cultural achievements of my neighbours. I think it would be a very boring world were we all the same.

 

Onto God, indisputably Christian denominations have been at the beating heart of our cultures for over a thousand years. However that too speaks of differing approaches, you have Catholicism, Orthodoxy and the many branches of Protestantism. All of which have produced variations of music, art and architecture.

 

However I keep wanting to come back to the enlightenment, working towards the separation of church and state is crucial. I'm a man of faith myself, but that is my own personal and private experience. My culture is one that recognises this and everyone is afforded the liberty to pursue or not pursue a religion as is their choice. I am reluctant to make Christianity any sort of default, as ideally I want my brothers and sisters of differing faiths, or indeed atheists and agnostics to feel like vital and fully invested members of our shared culture. After all there have been colossal contributions to our culture made by such people.

 

We should also be cognisant of the pre-enlightenment times when nations march under religious banners, even when purporting to worship the same deity, well shit tends to get broken so let's not go back there for heaven's sake...

[Siegfried von Walheim]

I think you are conflating European Civilization with the European Union. They are not synonymous, there are also crucial cultural differences which actually I for one embrace and enjoy. As an Englishman I relish those aspects we have in common, I am proud of what culturally my nation has contributed, but I am also in awe of a great many of the cultural achievements of my neighbours. I think it would be a very boring world were we all the same.

 

No, I am not. I said "European union", not "the European Union". I meant White nationalism not White globalism, i.e., the existing institution that masquerades as a White nationalist organization.

 

Onto God, indisputably Christian denominations have been at the beating heart of our cultures for over a thousand years. However that too speaks of differing approaches, you have Catholicism, Orthodoxy and the many branches of Protestantism. All of which have produced variations of music, art and architecture.

 

Historically the particular sect seems to have more political meaning than moral meaning. Although if I had to insist on the "true Christianity", I'd argue either Roman Catholicism or Byzantine/Moscow Catholicism. The East-West Catholic Churches are the ones most important to European history and future European fraternity.

However I keep wanting to come back to the enlightenment, working towards the separation of church and state is crucial. I'm a man of faith myself, but that is my own personal and private experience. My culture is one that recognises this and everyone is afforded the liberty to pursue or not pursue a religion as is their choice. I am reluctant to make Christianity any sort of default, as ideally I want my brothers and sisters of differing faiths, or indeed atheists and agnostics to feel like vital and fully invested members of our shared culture. After all there have been colossal contributions to our culture made by such people.

 

Diversity + Proximity + Scarcity = Thirty Years War part 2. Homogeneity is preferred. Otherwise dividing of particular subsets of people into nations/states/towns is ideal for mutual survival. Also, for European union, religions like Islam which is antithetical, and more benign ones like Judaism which doesn't often lead to violence but stymys assimilation must not be tolerated. As Socrates (or Aristotle?) said: "Tolerance is the last virtue  of a dying society". That being said I would not belitle the contributions of non-Catholic countries, especially England and America which had both at their peaks revived the Roman Empire of the 1st and 2nd century.

We should also be cognisant of the pre-enlightenment times when nations march under religious banners, even when purporting to worship the same deity, well shit tends to get broken so let's not go back there for heaven's sake...

 

The First, Second, and Third Crusades come to mind as when religious banners saved European civilization and simply Europeans in generally. Plus almost every war fought by Whites had zealots and fanatics for either the fatherland or Christ in its ranks.

 

Although my personal stance is "Do what you will so long as it does not initiate violence against me or my kin", I realize the best course of limiting future civil strife is to remove all cultural, racial, and religious diversity either by segregation long distances, or the genocide/assimilation of all into one.

[Donnadogsoth]

I think you are conflating European Civilization with the European Union. They are not synonymous, there are also crucial cultural differences which actually I for one embrace and enjoy. As an Englishman I relish those aspects we have in common, I am proud of what culturally my nation has contributed, but I am also in awe of a great many of the cultural achievements of my neighbours. I think it would be a very boring world were we all the same.

 

Onto God, indisputably Christian denominations have been at the beating heart of our cultures for over a thousand years. However that too speaks of differing approaches, you have Catholicism, Orthodoxy and the many branches of Protestantism. All of which have produced variations of music, art and architecture.

 

However I keep wanting to come back to the enlightenment, working towards the separation of church and state is crucial. I'm a man of faith myself, but that is my own personal and private experience. My culture is one that recognises this and everyone is afforded the liberty to pursue or not pursue a religion as is their choice. I am reluctant to make Christianity any sort of default, as ideally I want my brothers and sisters of differing faiths, or indeed atheists and agnostics to feel like vital and fully invested members of our shared culture. After all there have been colossal contributions to our culture made by such people.

 

We should also be cognisant of the pre-enlightenment times when nations march under religious banners, even when purporting to worship the same deity, well shit tends to get broken so let's not go back there for heaven's sake...

 

I disagree, I think Christianity should be the official religion of the West.  Not mandatory, just official, in order to preserve its cultural relevance.  Other religions or devotions, such as atheism, should be tolerated or, if they cause enough of a stink, actively discouraged.  Believers in Shariah law should be expelled and blocked from immigrating, for example.  "Freedom" is not a suicide pact.

 

The real difficulty lies in determining what first the principles of Christianity are that can be articulated in a manner so as to be consistent with a 21st Century republic.  Lyndon LaRouche, René Girard, C.S. Lewis, and Thomas Aquinas look meet to consult on this issue.

 

I think you are conflating European Civilization with the European Union. They are not synonymous, there are also crucial cultural differences which actually I for one embrace and enjoy. As an Englishman I relish those aspects we have in common, I am proud of what culturally my nation has contributed, but I am also in awe of a great many of the cultural achievements of my neighbours. I think it would be a very boring world were we all the same.

 

No, I am not. I said "European union", not "the European Union". I meant White nationalism not White globalism, i.e., the existing institution that masquerades as a White nationalist organization.

 

Onto God, indisputably Christian denominations have been at the beating heart of our cultures for over a thousand years. However that too speaks of differing approaches, you have Catholicism, Orthodoxy and the many branches of Protestantism. All of which have produced variations of music, art and architecture.

 

Historically the particular sect seems to have more political meaning than moral meaning. Although if I had to insist on the "true Christianity", I'd argue either Roman Catholicism or Byzantine/Moscow Catholicism. The East-West Catholic Churches are the ones most important to European history and future European fraternity.

 

However I keep wanting to come back to the enlightenment, working towards the separation of church and state is crucial. I'm a man of faith myself, but that is my own personal and private experience. My culture is one that recognises this and everyone is afforded the liberty to pursue or not pursue a religion as is their choice. I am reluctant to make Christianity any sort of default, as ideally I want my brothers and sisters of differing faiths, or indeed atheists and agnostics to feel like vital and fully invested members of our shared culture. After all there have been colossal contributions to our culture made by such people.

 

Diversity + Proximity + Scarcity = Thirty Years War part 2. Homogeneity is preferred. Otherwise dividing of particular subsets of people into nations/states/towns is ideal for mutual survival. Also, for European union, religions like Islam which is antithetical, and more benign ones like Judaism which doesn't often lead to violence but stymys assimilation must not be tolerated. As Socrates (or Aristotle?) said: "Tolerance is the last virtue  of a dying society". That being said I would not belitle the contributions of non-Catholic countries, especially England and America which had both at their peaks revived the Roman Empire of the 1st and 2nd century.

We should also be cognisant of the pre-enlightenment times when nations march under religious banners, even when purporting to worship the same deity, well shit tends to get broken so let's not go back there for heaven's sake...

 

The First, Second, and Third Crusades come to mind as when religious banners saved European civilization and simply Europeans in generally. Plus almost every war fought by Whites had zealots and fanatics for either the fatherland or Christ in its ranks.

 

Although my personal stance is "Do what you will so long as it does not initiate violence against me or my kin", I realize the best course of limiting future civil strife is to remove all cultural, racial, and religious diversity either by segregation long distances, or the genocide/assimilation of all into one.

 

I trust by "genocide" you mean genetic amalgamation and not wholesale murder?  It's good to be clear here.

[Mister Mister]

  I didn't answer your poll because you didn't provide definitions of Faith or Worship which I considered necessary.  I've been thinking about this subject, and I think there are different senses in which people can be religious, some more primitive and some more cultivated.

  In a primitive sense, Faith means belief in something you cannot see.  In a more cultivated sense, faith means conviction in the validity of a principle, without knowing for sure how things will work out.  The classic Christian story with the "doubting" apostle Thomas, who doubts the resurrection of Christ until he sees it for himself, then is lectured "You believe because you have seen.  But blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe".  This could be interpreted both ways.  Belief that a man rose from the dead without evidence IMO is very primitive, but belief in a moral principle is very sophisticated.

 

  I've noticed that a lot of petty nitpickers will argue against libertarians by saying things like "mythical free market", because there has never been a completely free market.  They view us like religious people, who cling to an idea despite never having seen it in real life, and in some ways they are right.  Statists don't really have a core moral principle, and try to base their ethics on pure pragmatic empiricism.  They compare one state policy to another, and decide which one "works better" i.e. satisfies their unconscious emotional prejudice.  In this sense, having "faith" in one's values or principles is actually a good thing.

 

  Worship in a primitive sense means obedience and unquestioning praise.  Those who conceive of a narcissistic authoritarian God as described in the Old Testament and other religions often practice this kind of worship.  But a more cultured version of worship I think has to do with admiration and wonder and gratitude.  I find myself often in awe of both the beauty of nature and the ingenuity of humankind.  Not primitive rituals of feeding an ego, but living with respect for the majesty of the world, acknowledging your fortune and the generosity and courage of others, is a kind of worship that I think is consistent with rational thought.

  I was recently hosted by some Christians, for a house concert, and before we had dinner, she asked us to pray with her.  Years ago I would have rolled my eyes and felt uncomfortable with it, but in listening to her prayer I realized it didn't really matter if God was listening, it was a way for all of us to connect with the occasion, and show gratitude to one another for being there and contributing to the event.  I wish that secular people would have more purposeful "rituals" like this, as it really brings people together.

  I've also seen in Japan, parents writing "prayers" asking for their kids to get good test scores, and rubbing a Buddha statues belly for good luck.  By comparison, this kind of prayer or worship is a silly superstition which a modern society really should have outgrown.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

 

 

I trust by "genocide" you mean genetic amalgamation and not wholesale murder?  It's good to be clear here.

 

No, I meant wholesale murder. There must be homogeneity for there to be a lasting peace in a country. Therefore, all must become one either by assimilation, amalgamation, or genocide. If group A cannot assimilate into B, then A and B must become C otherwise A or B must die for the other to remain whatever it is/was before proximity.

[Donnadogsoth]

 

 

 

I trust by "genocide" you mean genetic amalgamation and not wholesale murder?  It's good to be clear here.

 

No, I meant wholesale murder. There must be homogeneity for there to be a lasting peace in a country. Therefore, all must become one either by assimilation, amalgamation, or genocide. If group A cannot assimilate into B, then A and B must become C otherwise A or B must die for the other to remain whatever it is/was before proximity.

 

 

That would be unjust, Augustus.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

That would be unjust, Augustus.

 

Don't blame the birdwatcher for stating the nasty way birds have sex....

[Donnadogsoth]

Don't blame the birdwatcher for stating the nasty way birds have sex....

 

Humans are not birds, Augustus.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

Humans are not birds, Augustus.

So humans of different moralities can co-exist without violence or synthesis? Do you have any examples of such a magical society where diversity does not equate with death and destruction, or the assimilation of one into the other, or the synthesis into the median of their parts?

 

You are aware there are people known as "Muslims", right? Muslims don't like non-Muslims. They either kill or enslave non-Muslims when and where they can. 

 

You are aware of "Black Lives Matter", right? They frequently attack and lynch Whites in the big cities, and expose the privacy of "racists" for racial violence.

 

Or perhaps a more racially similar society; the Austrian Empire (post Holy Roman). In Austria, there was only a minority of Germans in the Empire, and the Slavs were, much like the Germans of old Rome and the Muslims of today, demanding more and more of the Empire which had at its final moments a Slavic Kaiser, who mourned the death of his Slavic son who advocated for Slavs but for some reasons was killed by a Slav from Serbia, unleashing the pent up violence of a people (the Germans in the Empire) who, despite founding the Empire, were treated as second-class citizens in their very own capital, Vienna. 

 

And what the Austrians suffered from biologically similar Slavs is very little compared to what Whites suffer from biologically opposed blacks and Muslims. If two similar peoples cannot assimilate or successfully amalgamate, they will destroy each other. I don't need to tell you what happens with two very opposite peoples...

[Troubador]

I didn't catch the lower case u in union, apologies. My view is that religion goes very wrong when it becomes concerned in any way with governance. Any faith concerns the transcendent or metaphysical aspects of humanity. The moment it becomes a government or in any way an organisation that dictates it has moved away from its essential purpose to further the spiritual nature of man, and then becomes trapped in cycles of power and control.

 

If it wants to provide places to worship, reflect, study or meditate, gather resources to aid people in desperate times through charitable works. That should be the extent of any religions interactions with the temporal sphere. We have to co-exist with our fellow human beings and that means respecting (not just merely tolerating) other people's choices. A secular attitude is the only way to achieve this.

 

Anyone who cannot get on board with this is incompatible with western civilisation. So we should by no means embrace those who would wish to annihilate these values. I would most likely be an atheist were it not for personal experiences with what I ascribe to be the divine. However nobody should hang their hat on third party experiences I have had. Can we also drop the self righteousness just because we have faith. Greater human beings than me have walked this earth who have had no particular faith, and much much worse ones have walked it with it.

[rosencrantz]

which had at its final moments a Slavic Kaiser, who mourned the death of his Slavic son who advocated for Slavs but for some reasons was killed by a Slav from Serbia

 

Get your history straight. Franz-Joseph was Franz-Ferdinand's uncle. How exactly were Franz-Joseph or Karl Slavic? How did they promote the Slavic cause? 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

Get your history straight. Franz-Joseph was Franz-Ferdinand's uncle. How exactly were Franz-Joseph or Karl Slavic? How did they promote the Slavic cause? 

 

Good question. I first heard of it reading (the audio book of) Mein Kampf, I think, but from looking again at his wikipedia page his mother comes from Bavaria, I assume his father is Austrian, and his wife is also Bavaria. Therefore unless the "Slavic" part meant he favored Slavic interests politically, I can't find much immediate evidence to a Slavic gene pool.

 

He may not have been Obama but he would be Bush III (iJeb!) cucking out the native Germans in favor of foreign "fertile" Slavs. 

[Donnadogsoth]

So humans of different moralities can co-exist without violence or synthesis? Do you have any examples of such a magical society where diversity does not equate with death and destruction, or the assimilation of one into the other, or the synthesis into the median of their parts?

 

You are aware there are people known as "Muslims", right? Muslims don't like non-Muslims. They either kill or enslave non-Muslims when and where they can. 

 

You are aware of "Black Lives Matter", right? They frequently attack and lynch Whites in the big cities, and expose the privacy of "racists" for racial violence.

 

Or perhaps a more racially similar society; the Austrian Empire (post Holy Roman). In Austria, there was only a minority of Germans in the Empire, and the Slavs were, much like the Germans of old Rome and the Muslims of today, demanding more and more of the Empire which had at its final moments a Slavic Kaiser, who mourned the death of his Slavic son who advocated for Slavs but for some reasons was killed by a Slav from Serbia, unleashing the pent up violence of a people (the Germans in the Empire) who, despite founding the Empire, were treated as second-class citizens in their very own capital, Vienna. 

 

And what the Austrians suffered from biologically similar Slavs is very little compared to what Whites suffer from biologically opposed blacks and Muslims. If two similar peoples cannot assimilate or successfully amalgamate, they will destroy each other. I don't need to tell you what happens with two very opposite peoples...

 

I concede your point. Empires, countries, city-states, and families can maintain diversity so long as the government retains sufficient power and will to check hostilities and foster understanding among competing groups. If these things are removed we get a Yugoslavia.

 

We also see it in democracies when racial groups start voting as blocs . As you probably know, in Africa many countries are hopelessly un-democratic, mere mobocracies, despite technically being democracies, because everyone votes for his tribal relative, hoping for special treatment. When the Western populations of Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, and Moslems swell sufficiently we will no doubt see tribalism here, too.

 

That said, humans, I reiterate, are not birds. We can alter ourselves through culture. Classical humanist culture, which has yet to become dominant anywhere, is by nature trans-racial and so to an extent ameliorative of racial animosity and competition. The image I give is of a multi-racial choir performing “Jesu Meine Freude”. Highest possible culture, which preoccupies and transforms the minds of the participants to the point where racial divisions, not disappear, but are put in a better perspective. The more so preoccupied a population becomes, the more minimised are the forces leading to bloodshed and destruction.

 

This is threither destruction, nor assimilation, nor syncretisation, but the introduction of a higher culture that no race has yet to participate fully in. In bulk European, but not “pop” culture, not national chauvinist culture, rather something alien races would be clinically insane not to adopt for themselves.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

I concede your point. Empires, countries, city-states, and families can maintain diversity so long as the government retains sufficient power and will to check hostilities and foster understanding among competing groups. If these things are removed we get a Yugoslavia.

 

We also see it in democracies when racial groups start voting as blocs . As you probably know, in Africa many countries are hopelessly un-democratic, mere mobocracies, despite technically being democracies, because everyone votes for his tribal relative, hoping for special treatment. When the Western populations of Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, and Moslems swell sufficiently we will no doubt see tribalism here, too.

 

That said, humans, I reiterate, are not birds. We can alter ourselves through culture. Classical humanist culture, which has yet to become dominant anywhere, is by nature trans-racial and so to an extent ameliorative of racial animosity and competition. The image I give is of a multi-racial choir performing “Jesu Meine Freude”. Highest possible culture, which preoccupies and transforms the minds of the participants to the point where racial divisions, not disappear, but are put in a better perspective. The more so preoccupied a population becomes, the more minimised are the forces leading to bloodshed and destruction.

 

This is threither destruction, nor assimilation, nor syncretisation, but the introduction of a higher culture that no race has yet to participate fully in. In bulk European, but not “pop” culture, not national chauvinist culture, rather something alien races would be clinically insane not to adopt for themselves.

 

 

I've already given the example of the Austrians, and the Yugoslavians also serve as a fine example. 

 

The three means which peace can be maintained is by Assimilation, Amalgamation, and Annihilation (a bit more eloquent than my previous phrasing). I think your idea is assimilation, to assimilate disparate cultures into one dominant culture supportive of racial bio-diversity. While a minor improvement over the Multikult, I believe it equally mistaken and equally doomed to fail. At best we can give every nation a state (to us America as an example), and all they'll wind up doing is forming racially motivated blocs rather than assimilating as one union. At worst, violence and annihilation will ensue. 

 

Because I'd rather not aim for a "lofty" goal like a salad bowl that will inevitably cause more pain and death in the long run, I'd rather we exist as isolationist nation states that interact with others of the same bloc or act as imperialists and exterminate those that do not fit into our bloc. 

 

Otherwise it is eternal war and suffering into an experiment tried for nearly 200 years (or longer, depending if you count the later half of the Roman Empire). The result then was the Dark Ages, I'm sure the current future would be no different.The best age was the 17th to 19th centuries when the Europeans for the most part formed two co-operative blocs and dominated the world. The European peace was not always peaceful, but compared to the Dark Ages or the Thirty Years War, it may as well have been paradise. America from around 1815 to 1915 was easily the best time to be alive, and the most capable of trying the multi-generational process towards either anarchism or min-archism. Now that we "ran out of time", we must reset the clock and make the second dark age as quick as possible.

[Brainwright]

  I was recently hosted by some Christians, for a house concert, and before we had dinner, she asked us to pray with her.  Years ago I would have rolled my eyes and felt uncomfortable with it, but in listening to her prayer I realized it didn't really matter if God was listening, it was a way for all of us to connect with the occasion, and show gratitude to one another for being there and contributing to the event.  I wish that secular people would have more purposeful "rituals" like this, as it really brings people together.

 

It's thoughts like this that never let me board the atheism train.

 

As I've grown up, I've seen plenty of Catholics grow into atheists and then preach against it.  The world they've made isn't one especially absent irrational fervor, and they have encouraged the destruction of various community activities solely because of their religious connotations.  Thing is, those community activities were the community, and these atheists haven't been able to pass their values on to others very consistently. What we have is a cultural wasteland as a result, where none of these rationalists rule because they have their heads up their asses rather than out in a community.

 

I maintain good faith with the Church because it is the one place, in terms of the priests and the community, that has always welcomed me with open arms.  If it means I must say thanks to the Creator of the universe now and again, I don't see that as a problem.

[Donnadogsoth]

Because I'd rather not aim for a "lofty" goal like a salad bowl that will inevitably cause more pain and death in the long run, I'd rather we exist as isolationist nation states that interact with others of the same bloc or act as imperialists and exterminate those that do not fit into our bloc. 

 

Why would you "exterminate those that do not fit into our bloc"?  Is this related to your thesis that only whites are made in the image of God?

[Siegfried von Walheim]

Why would you "exterminate those that do not fit into our bloc"?  Is this related to your thesis that only whites are made in the image of God?

 

Partially. I am not religious but I do have a strange tendency to feel religiously inclined. My assumption here would be that I have what Stef referred to as the "indoctrination" or "zealot" gene, therefore I feel moments of faith without substantial evidence or proof.

 

Mainly my reason is that I know from experience, studying of history, and the studies on multiculturalism that the more "diversity" there is, the lesser the social trust and cohesion, which inevitably leads to violence with the crueler and more violent side taking advantage of the weaker or more pacifistic side. Since I have no doubt Whites would, if experimented with again, cuck themselves out of existence, I would rather we embrace the extreme of ethnic cleansing of the other races than allow ourselves to be raped and robbed from. 

 

Plus I cannot help but feel that Whites were made to dominate the Earth, and only we and the East Asians are capable of moving past the barbarism of the past and conquering the Heavens (i.e., maybe the free market can find a practical use for Outer Space).

[Kikker]

Partially. I am not religious but I do have a strange tendency to feel religiously inclined. My assumption here would be that I have what Stef referred to as the "indoctrination" or "zealot" gene, therefore I feel moments of faith without substantial evidence or proof.

 

Mainly my reason is that I know from experience, studying of history, and the studies on multiculturalism that the more "diversity" there is, the lesser the social trust and cohesion, which inevitably leads to violence with the crueler and more violent side taking advantage of the weaker or more pacifistic side. Since I have no doubt Whites would, if experimented with again, cuck themselves out of existence, I would rather we embrace the extreme of ethnic cleansing of the other races than allow ourselves to be raped and robbed from. 

 

Plus I cannot help but feel that Whites were made to dominate the Earth, and only we and the East Asians are capable of moving past the barbarism of the past and conquering the Heavens (i.e., maybe the free market can find a practical use for Outer Space).

So would you consider the abolition of slavery in the USA a step backwards towards instability or a necessary evil to prevent genocide?

So would you consider the freedom to practice any religion you want also a step backwards within the christian faith which allows for so much diversity?

So would you consider the defeat of Nazi Germany the begin of the demise of western culture, or did that happen when the Soviet Union broke down?

So would you consider the two party system in the USA to diverse of different ideologies and should be reduced to a one party system?

So would you consider the renaissance perhaps the most destructive event happening in Europe because of the diversity which came from it?

[Siegfried von Walheim]

I sure miss the bullet-point style of internet debates 

 

 

 

So would you consider the abolition of slavery in the USA a step backwards towards instability or a necessary evil to prevent genocide?

 

No. My problem with slavery isn't moral (for I believe if a man wants to be owned, or own, why should I stand in his way?) but that it is grossly inefficient. While it would make a difference to me if the slaves were of the same race or nationality as the owning class, it would be a moral difference rather than a practical one. The practical problem is that slave labor tends to be woefully inefficient compared to paid/incentive-driven labor and retards societies devotion to labor-saving devices. I've heard a theory that with the Roman mass enslavement of Greeks from the 3rd century onward sparked the downward spiral, as the slaves made the native workers largely obsolete and made the ruling class lazy, plus with the increasingly overbearing government the entrepreneurial class was quickly snuffed out.

 

So would you consider the freedom to practice any religion you want also a step backwards within the christian faith which allows for so much diversity?

 

Yes. Morality tends to trump race, especially among the higher IQ (and by extension more desirable) populations. Therefore while I support a diversity of ideas and freedom of speech, I do not support a diversity of moral values. However I do support challenging existing beliefs in order to adapt to new information. For example I support peaceful parenting partly because it is far more efficient (and frankly far more moral) than child abuse. 

 

So would you consider the defeat of Nazi Germany the begin of the demise of western culture, or did that happen when the Soviet Union broke down?

 

I used to think that (the second as a Communist and the first when I became a National Socialist). I'd say Western culture started going downhill with the rise of the welfare/warfare state in Euro-America and the rise of feminism in destroying the family unit (which according to some sources I've read may have actually been their intended goal from the get-go, as many of the first feminists were also Communists). 

 

So would you consider the two party system in the USA to diverse of different ideologies and should be reduced to a one party system?

 

Fundamentally the conservatives of today were the liberals of 20 years ago. The conservatives of 20 years ago were the liberals of 40 years ago.  I do not consider the Republicans or Democrats to be very different. The only noticeable differences is that one tends to be in favor of low taxes and a burgeoning entrepreneurial class while the other tends to be in favor of a Soviet-style International Realm.  Personally I think democracy cannot work without an intelligent and homogeneous population. I'd prefer a min-archist hereditary monarchy that spends more time on drinking wine and getting out of the business class's way than mob rule. While monarchs can be great, they're usually uninvolved or only involved with family politics and making/breaking military alliances with other monarchies. However they're usually restrained from doing anything stupid by either aristocrats or wealthy interest groups. I think rule by the smart and wealthy is preferable over rule by the poor and stupid, and rule by one tends to be a coin toss only worthwhile in the most dire of circumstances.

 

So would you consider the renaissance perhaps the most destructive event happening in Europe because of the diversity which came from it?

 

Which renaissance? The Italian one that was basically a new Roman peace? I'd say the opposite as the Italian princes generally stayed out of the people's way, and while it wasn't a "perfect" free market it did bring back the glory days of the Roman Empire in terms of high standard of living and social mobility. Frankly I'd say this was one of the best times to be alive, although I'd say the American North of the 19th to early 20th century was THE best 150 odd years of world history. While we have advanced considerably in terms of medicine and technology, that time was the best in terms of having both Nationalism and Capitalism work in harmony with one another.

[Kikker]

I sure miss the bullet-point style of internet debates 

 

No. My problem with slavery isn't moral (for I believe if a man wants to be owned, or own, why should I stand in his way?) but that it is grossly inefficient. While it would make a difference to me if the slaves were of the same race or nationality as the owning class, it would be a moral difference rather than a practical one. The practical problem is that slave labor tends to be woefully inefficient compared to paid/incentive-driven labor and retards societies devotion to labor-saving devices. I've heard a theory that with the Roman mass enslavement of Greeks from the 3rd century onward sparked the downward spiral, as the slaves made the native workers largely obsolete and made the ruling class lazy, plus with the increasingly overbearing government the entrepreneurial class was quickly snuffed out.

 

You didn't respond to my statement, you mentioned diversity zero times while I asked you specifically about that. If you don 't think slavery and diversity are related explain why.

 

Yes. Morality tends to trump race, especially among the higher IQ (and by extension more desirable) populations. Therefore while I support a diversity of ideas and freedom of speech, I do not support a diversity of moral values. However I do support challenging existing beliefs in order to adapt to new information. For example I support peaceful parenting partly because it is far more efficient (and frankly far more moral) than child abuse. 

 

Explain how challenging existing beliefs doesn't result in diversity of moral values.

 

(No), I used to think that (the second as a Communist and the first when I became a National Socialist). I'd say Western culture started going downhill with the rise of the welfare/warfare state in Euro-America and the rise of feminism in destroying the family unit (which according to some sources I've read may have actually been their intended goal from the get-go, as many of the first feminists were also Communists). 

 

So you actually think the rise of the female workforce during WW1 was the begin of Western demise?

 

Which renaissance? The Italian one that was basically a new Roman peace? I'd say the opposite as the Italian princes generally stayed out of the people's way, and while it wasn't a "perfect" free market it did bring back the glory days of the Roman Empire in terms of high standard of living and social mobility. Frankly I'd say this was one of the best times to be alive, although I'd say the American North of the 19th to early 20th century was THE best 150 odd years of world history. While we have advanced considerably in terms of medicine and technology, that time was the best in terms of having both Nationalism and Capitalism work in harmony with one another.

 

I was referring to the splitting of the church during 1500(or 1450)-1600.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

You didn't respond to my statement, you mentioned diversity zero times while I asked you specifically about that. If you don 't think slavery and diversity are related explain why.

 

Slavery is to diversity what bread is to butter; can be combined, does not need to be. Not all slavery is one race owning another, much of slavery is people of the same ethnicity owning others of the same ethnicity.  I am against the owning of people who are of the same nationality or ethnicity for moral reasons, and against the owning of people in general for practical and economical reasons.  

 

I can't find where you stated "diversity" in the question as to whether I believed abolitionism negatively impacted the Whites. If anything I'd argue Whites benefited immensely from abolitionism and the blacks actually lost from it, especially considering the death toll of killed blacks in the Civil War.

 

 

 

Explain how challenging existing beliefs doesn't result in diversity of moral values.

 

The same way that if Man A thinks irrigation should be conducted with machines rather than Man B's shovel-based irrigation isn't a difference of morals but of efficiency. 

 

To use a more historically important example, when Martin Luther challenged the Catholic Church on its failing to teach the Bible in German/Italian (or at least have the stuff printed out in German/Italian) it was less a matter of moral differences but of political and social change. If the "clergy elite" had a monopoly on the teaching of values they could (and I think around this period actually were on a large scale) con the stupid and illiterate for extra tithes. And probably more, I haven't done much research of the event.

 

Christianity had a resurgence when the dead weight of the established clergymen and the zealots were overthrown and reason returned to the Catholic Church. 

 

 

(No),

 

Why are you putting a "No" before my statement? 

 

So you actually think the rise of the female workforce during WW1 was the begin of Western demise?

 

More the Federal Reserve and the increasing Socialization of the West at large. These are the roots of conning women (especially young ones) into fearing men and destroying the family unit and community units across the nation. While Feminism was great at putting a dent in domestic abuse, few Feminists actually did anything to help women (or male victims of women) and instead focuses on making man-hate and the myth that "women are wonderful" mainstream. It only took 2 and a half generations to destroy masculinity and replace it with a gynocentric matriarchy that is now smothering the life out of the West.

 

Theoretically, if Feminists had actually done what was best for women (i.e. teach about bad men while praising the good men, and in general orienting young women towards starting and raising families with stable providers rather than telling them "You can do it all, Girl!"), the West would currently be in the Tenth Crusade against Islam right about now.  

 

I was referring to the splitting of the church during 1500(or 1450)-1600.

 

Like say, the Thirty Years War? 

 

From a German perspective it was a bloody mess that resulted in the purging of rotten and zealous fanatics and corrupt politicians, albeit at the cost of 1/4 of the German population. From a Northern perspective, the Great North was freed from foreign rule and able to pursue the possibility of inventing a system better than the South and potentially conquering them (which of course didn't happen, as the North essentially failed to unite and instead tore out each other's throats with the Danes preferring their Southern neighbors and the Swedes failing to sustain itself in the face of enemies in every direction and a shrinking populace/economy).

 

From the French perspective, it was a revolution that thrusted France into power and prominence. Very little long-term except for the severance of German-French relations for the next 500 years, and an angry and starving public.

 

From the English perspective...? No idea how involved they were, as I think they basically played it smart and just watched.

 

From the Spaniards, basically just another slaughter fest.

 

From a pan-European perspective, I'd say the wars were a necessary evil to destroy Church elitism and give those who were able to carve out a future in the war a chance of reinventing Europe in terms of "who is the smartest and most able to rule the world".

 

Sadly it was a "trick war", in that only those who didn't participate and instead focused on their own affairs "won". As the British Kingdom would eventually become an Empire and lead the world in civilization and culture.   

[Kikker]

"Slavery is to diversity what bread is to butter; can be combined, does not need to be. Not all slavery is one race owning another, much of slavery is people of the same ethnicity owning others of the same ethnicity.  I am against the owning of people who are of the same nationality or ethnicity for moral reasons, and against the owning of people in general for practical and economical reasons.  "

 

Thank you, I was asking because I wanted know whether your statements would be coherent. If I wanted to argue

 

"I can't find where you stated "diversity" in the question as to whether I believed abolitionism negatively impacted the Whites. If anything I'd argue Whites benefited immensely from abolitionism and the blacks actually lost from it, especially considering the death toll of killed blacks in the Civil War."

 

My mistake, you mentioned instability as a direct consequence of diversity. I assumed it was an if and only if connection.

 

"The same way that if Man A thinks irrigation should be conducted with machines rather than Man B's shovel-based irrigation isn't a difference of morals but of efficiency. "

 

So you can challenge ideas as long as they aren't moral?

 

"To use a more historically important example, when Martin Luther challenged the Catholic Church on its failing to teach the Bible in German/Italian (or at least have the stuff printed out in German/Italian) it was less a matter of moral differences but of political and social change. If the "clergy elite" had a monopoly on the teaching of values they could (and I think around this period actually were on a large scale) con the stupid and illiterate for extra tithes. And probably more, I haven't done much research of the event.

 

Christianity had a resurgence when the dead weight of the established clergymen and the zealots were overthrown and reason returned to the Catholic Church. "

 

So even though Luther had quite literally moral qualms with the catholic church on how they practiced their faith it actually wasn't a moral issue? When is something a moral issue?

 

Why are you putting a "No" before my statement? 

 

Because I assumed you disagreed with the statement instead of amending it. There is a big difference between saying the fall of Nazi Germany was part of the demise but not the beginning and the fall of Nazi Germany wasn't part of the demise.

 

"More the Federal Reserve and the increasing Socialization of the West at large. These are the roots of conning women (especially young ones) into fearing men and destroying the family unit and community units across the nation. While Feminism was great at putting a dent in domestic abuse, few Feminists actually did anything to help women (or male victims of women) and instead focuses on making man-hate and the myth that "women are wonderful" mainstream. It only took 2 and a half generations to destroy masculinity and replace it with a gynocentric matriarchy that is now smothering the life out of the West.

 

Theoretically, if Feminists had actually done what was best for women (i.e. teach about bad men while praising the good men, and in general orienting young women towards starting and raising families with stable providers rather than telling them "You can do it all, Girl!"), the West would currently be in the Tenth Crusade against Islam right about now. "

 

I don't understand, it was an arms race and a manpower issue. If a nation could make use of it's full population by employing women and the other nation could not the first nation would win provided they had similar population and industry. A nation without women empowerment would be crushed by a country with women empowerment and therefore superior numbers and weapons, doesn't that make it a more efficient country?

Like say, the Thirty Years War? 

 

No like say challenging the idea that actions are more important than intentions which was at the time advocated by the catholic church. Challenging this idea (among other things) meant more diversity and therefore more instability. Furthermore according to your own narrative the more cruel side would take advantage of the more pacifist side which means that in history because the protestant managed to gain permanent foothold in Germany and Northern countries that must mean they where simply crueler than the Catholics in those regions, otherwise the Catholics would have remained dominant.

 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

Thank you, I was asking because I wanted know whether your statements would be coherent. If I wanted to argue

 

 

"If I wanted to argue (I'd)...?" Don't mean to pick on you, as English might not be your first language or this is a typo, but I assume your intent is either to figure out my position and find inconsistencies for the sake of argument or to simply find out my position for the sake of curiosity. 

 

 

My mistake, you mentioned instability as a direct consequence of diversity. I assumed it was an if and only if connection.

 

 

To be precise, there are many causes of instability. Ethnic diversity can be (and almost always is) one of them. 

 

So you can challenge ideas as long as they aren't moral?

 

Sort of. I mean to say I support the freedom of speech (as was apparently heralded by the Catholic Church except for the times it wasn't, for some reason or another) in general, and therefore would not want governments to use force to suppress dissident ideas unless the people following the ideas are using force against nay-sayers or others in general. 

 

Ideally, I support the idea that everything can (and perhaps must) be challenged but certain key things must be vigorously maintained as if part of a "lost tablet" inscribed in gold: Loyalty to one's race (after one's spouse and children), respect for one's property and productivity, and adherence to the Non-Aggression Principle (at least against the race). 

 

While I have my own opinions on what is best I would not want to aggress against people who oppose it unless they use force to impose their own values on me. However if we get to a point of Balkanization (i.e. fragmentation and disintegration of communities, the normalcy of violence and ethnic conflict, etc.), then for the sake of the race, force must be exercised.

 

Things like feminism, child rearing,  Socialism, etc. must be evaluated publicly by how they impact the family unit and the people as a whole. However the government (in my ideal society at least) must not be allowed to use force to impose their chosen values upon the populace (as I am a Min-archist in that the only thing I want the government for is national defense and possibly law enforcement if D.R.O.'s don't work).

 

 

"To use a more historically important example, when Martin Luther challenged the Catholic Church on its failing to teach the Bible in German/Italian (or at least have the stuff printed out in German/Italian) it was less a matter of moral differences but of political and social change. If the "clergy elite" had a monopoly on the teaching of values they could (and I think around this period actually were on a large scale) con the stupid and illiterate for extra tithes. And probably more, I haven't done much research of the event.

 

Christianity had a resurgence when the dead weight of the established clergymen and the zealots were overthrown and reason returned to the Catholic Church. "

 

So even though Luther had quite literally moral qualms with the catholic church on how they practiced their faith it actually wasn't a moral issue? When is something a moral issue?

 

I cannot claim to know all of what Martin Luther had challenged the Church with, and ideally the Church would have to accept the challenge and either rebut him or adapt Luther's qualms as part of the dogma. As to what the conditions are for amendment, I would say something like "whether or not it is consistent with the Three Principles of Innovation, Industry, and Competition as well as consistent on whether it would benefit the race more than the existing principle". To elaborate on the Three Principles, I am essentially putting forward the ideals of creativity, hard work, and the free market as the ultimate sources of wealth and creation for the elevating of the best of the race to the top and weaning out the worst to the gutters, and increasing the general standard of living. 

 

In practice that didn't happen, as the Church (from what I understand) became corrupt and hypocritical. 

 

Something is a moral issue when it affects the life and death of the people, either directly (like war) or indirectly (like whether to economically plan centrally or with a free market).

 

I have not defined strongly what a moral issue is, as I do not care about things like homosexuality or private actions unless they impact children and by extension the race in the future. Therefore my only imposition on the people would be to explicitly forbid sexual (but not moral) deviants from having children (moral I exclude because if I am wrong about something the "moral deviant" believes in, then I would not want to violate their privacy unless they are physically abusive). 

 

Because I assumed you disagreed with the statement instead of amending it. There is a big difference between saying the fall of Nazi Germany was part of the demise but not the beginning and the fall of Nazi Germany wasn't part of the demise.

 

True. I suppose to clarity my position on the Third Empire, I'd say it is a reaction to the decadent fatherless welfare state of the Weimar Republic rather than a paragon of Western Civilization. Personally I would wished they didn't start invading Poland (I heard it might not have been so one-sided but then again...) and fight the West. There were no winners in WWII, only losers as everyone lost more than they gained (except maybe the Jews, who had their Never Again moment and built themselves a country, although I don't know if the hundreds of thousands or millions that died were worth it).

 

 

I don't understand, it was an arms race and a manpower issue. If a nation could make use of it's full population by employing women and the other nation could not the first nation would win provided they had similar population and industry. A nation without women empowerment would be crushed by a country with women empowerment and therefore superior numbers and weapons, doesn't that make it a more efficient country?

 

For the impact of the Federal Reserve and Feminism I refer to Stefan Molyneux's vidoes, for while I am a layman of the subject I am not informed well enough to confidently or clearly explain the problem of the Fed, whereas Feminism requires some citing of older Feminists and the Communist Manifesto to really give gravitas to. 

 

In terms of manpower, I can easily debunk the idea that women soldiers are an addition by simply referring to the state of the current U.S. Army which has disintegrated and lost it's army values with the introduction of women soldiers, whom the men just compete for. Having just one woman soldier is enough to destroy the integrity of 100's. I refer to Stefan Molyneux's interview with an army dude (I don't think it is too hard to find, he uploaded it on YouTube a few weeks ago) for the rest. 

 

Also, while resources are great and all women workers don't produce the same value as males and tend to take value away in the long run as for ever female worker is approximately 3 less children that could have been brought into being (assuming a quality childhood is desired, which I argue it is since bad childhoods invariably result in high criminality and defeatism). 

 

Quality over quantity is the general theme, as men who recently married and have kids tend to work enough for 5 people whereas women who work generally only work minimum wage as either clerks or "administrative assistants" .

 

While I would ban female soldiers, I would not ban (just discourage) female workers except those rare geniuses who choose to work something useful like a business or a science. 

 

No like say challenging the idea that actions are more important than intentions which was at the time advocated by the catholic church. Challenging this idea (among other things) meant more diversity and therefore more instability. Furthermore according to your own narrative the more cruel side would take advantage of the more pacifist side which means that in history because the protestant managed to gain permanent foothold in Germany and Northern countries that must mean they where simply crueler than the Catholics in those regions, otherwise the Catholics would have remained dominant.

 

Cruelness relative to the cruel is largely irrelevant, as I mainly mean to compare the largely inert American soldiers in the Middle East to the ethnic-cleansers of the the Arabian/Muslim factions. We could easily win if we simply destroy every city and kill every living thing there until their factions surrender, at which point we can leave. 

 

In terms of the 30 Years War, no one won although Protestantism did not become strong as a result of war but of a winning argument. The Catholics failed to maintain their values and so the Northerners left the Empire, and the Empire failed to reclaim the North, as a result the war ended largely with a compromise that officiated (? or inspired?) the separation of Church and State.

[regevdl]

being faithful doesn't always pertain to religious context or god.  I'm not particularly religious but do want to preserve Christian values and am faithful to my husband...I don't know if I would be defined as being faithful to God.  So your poll wasn't clear as there needs to be a clearer definition of what 'faithful' is referring to.