I've been thinking about race, politics, family and all the crap that's been going on.
And one of the things I've realized about the elites, is that they hate poor whites and middle class whites more than anyone else, and I think the reason for hating whites makes sense when you think about it.
White people everywhere, wherever they are, generally think about freedom and push for freedom everywhere. That is a problem for them. They are only going to replace and remove whites from power in their countries because they can't control them, the goal is to put trojan horses in power that are also white or look white, and only replace them completely afterwards (this is where we are right now, notice how the whites in power is always a Marxist, it is never just about their own country and people).
We are actually seeing how all these Marxist supporters of Palestine are being pushed aside by the authorities (we know the don't give a shit about "minorities" at all), they immediately lost political influence and out of nowhere the "right wing" media now has the narrative power because they decided it is necessary, but when we are no longer useful to protect them, they are going to go back to whatever they want and kick us again, all of us, right and left alike.
They used leftists all this time to destroy our countries and gradually put control laws over our lives, when people went after them in 2011 with the whole Wall Street situation, they used leftist ideology to divide us, now that they are being attacked again, they are using the right to move the rage towards Muslims. (Who deserve it no doubt, but let's talk about who is really in control here).
So all this time, we have been being used by the elites and because the internet exists, they can no longer hide (that's why they want to control all social media as they did with the mass media), I think the "change" of narrative we are seeing that benefits the "right" is nothing more than another operation to protect themselves.
And here is the craziest thing I think is happening ... we are allowed to talk about protecting white countries and white people, because they are actually thinking of using white people as their strike force if shit goes down in flames ... white supremacist armed forces funded by Marxist globalists are on the table, because if necessary, they will not only have stronger white men killed in battle, but they will also imprison the survivors who win said race war through a new type of Nuremberg trials (the strongest will be dead, and the rest will be politically assassinated).
They thought they could control the browns and blacks because they really think they are racially superior (the white elite who are under Zionist influence, and the Zionist Jews themselves), but seeing how no one is publicly defending them, they have panicked and are thinking of using whites to defend them. And furthermore, the other reason why they were bringing Africans and Asians, among other Muslims to America and the West, is because black Americans and Hispanics are coming into ideological contact with whites and they can't let that happen.
But as I said before... now that the machine is running and the bureaucracy is too big to handle it, they can't stop the whole operation (mass indoctrination has that problem, that the machine doesn't stop running even if you try to stop it, because the useful idiots will continue to operate against your orders, they now believe the lies and that's why they are Marxists), so they are planning ahead. ... and as I said, the white supremacist groups are going to be controlled by the CIA and the feds, and they are going to be used as pawns, shock troops, or exterminators if necessary.
Crazy fucking long post but, i'm i seeing too much into this whole situation?.
It's less about being inconvenient for the proverbial they, and more about what their goals are and who they serve.
Leftism is inherently and inextricably satanic. The devil's great lie is "equal.". Equal is the first and most deadly false idol. The only non mathematical equality in existence is that we are all equally worthless before the majesty of God.
This, leftism was always going to (d)evolve into being anti white. That was inevitable ecause the ultimate inequality on this earth is genetics. It is undeniable, inescapable and immutable. To put it in an old fashioned way, blood will out. So of course the servants of evil strike out against it. The sole means for them to eliminate this jarring truth, this monolithic stand against their narrative, is to eliminate the difference.
God bless you, you are always spot on.
May God bless you and yours as well.
Honestly I think you might be on to a few things. Despite the ideology they propagate, they do consider themselves racially superior - they're not stupid.
Re: the white shock troops, the only white violence that's acceptable to demonstrate in media is military-coded, because white people are on average both the core and the tip of the combat arms spear. They obviously don't want them to drop out for now, and yet it is happening. It remains to be seen how well the blacks and browns can be pressed into service for Zionism, but so far the answer is "poorly."
Yup, when the military dropped the new ad with only white men, it's easy to see that they are actually panicking and trying to back off all their bullshit out of desperation.
China is a true ethnic supremacist state and their goal is to subjugate everyone for their national benefit, and they can't fight that Asian killing machine without whites. And now with China actively supporting Russia and not saying a word about Palestine and Israel, these dumb fucks are realizing that China has been playing them all along.
Actually they are so blind smelling their own farts, they thought only they could play that long subversive game, the real golem is China, not these dumb useful tools in the west.
Funny enough China has been saying a couple things here and there about Israel, but in support of Palestine. Lol
China doesn't need to really say anything directly. They'll just point the TikTok NPCs to whatever position they want.
I think you've got one major thing wrong. The idea that the elites made a mistake and now need whites to solve their problems so they'll run the White Nationalist groups to use as shock troops...
Incorrect.
The elite always specifically create wars for whites to fight in order for whites to die, like Ukraine, like WWII, etc... The elite are planning a White vs. Muslim battle so they can genocide white people without making it look like a genocide, just like what they did in Ukraine. The object has always been to kill-off white people. They do not believe they need whites any longer and they are not scared of the Muslims or Black or Hispanics. Those races are doing exactly what the elite want them to, perfectly. The only time they get a little "scared" is when the non-whites veer off into antisemitism but they've done a good job controlling that so far.
In Japan everyone was samurai during war times, but only an elite few were samurai during peaceful times.
There is something to this but you are making the mistake of "correlation being causation". Yes, (some) white people are a barrier to totalitarian control of the world. Yes, this is (partly) due to the difficulty in controlling these people.
But this is only correlated with them being white. It is not caused by them being white. There is nothing inherent with white people, due to their genetic ancestry, that makes them resist totalitarian control. After all, plenty of totalitarian regimes have been white. Plenty of those currently pushing for totalitarian control (e.g. those you call "leftists") are white.
The focus on white people in terms of their skin color and DNA is a psyop. The point is to keep you distracted so you cannot diagnose what is actually going on. The point is to take advantage of the primitive heuristic within people to assume people that 'look like them' are on their side. Like all heuristics, like all instincts from our primitive lizard brains, this heuristic is useful for making snap judgements, when time is of the essence and response is needed immediately, but poor when making the best judgement when time is not of the essence, and we have time to think about things.
So what is the underlying cause then, if not skin color or genetics? It is the beliefs inherent in the culture of white people. It is the beliefs that have been honed and developed over centuries and passed on from generation to generation, sometimes progressing further, sometimes regressing, as each generation makes its mark. The core of these beliefs, however, is not a random vacuum. The core of these beliefs is European Christianity. It is the values and virtues from Christianity that is the basis of Western and European civilisation and success. It is the values and virtues from Christianity that are most under the attack. Those after totalitarian control are more interested that no one has these values and virtues than the color of your skin.
The misdiagnose means people cannot fight the actual problem. By focusing on skin color, people chose to help those that would harm them (e.g. 'woke' white people) and chose to harm those that would help them (e.g. Asian or African Christians). They focus on electing populist politicians, based on a misguided idea that there is some cheat code to fixing these problems (let's just elect X, he will close the borders and we'll all be saved!), when there is no cheat code - even if the European countries were 100% white, there will still be those 'woke/leftist' white people subverting these countries from within.
The actual diagnose - that Christianity is the threat to totalitarian control that is under attack - demands a totally different solution. It demands that we focus on following Christ, our Lord, and the virtues and values espoused by His teaching. (Re)building our societies with Christ as our King. There are no short cuts. No cheat codes. Only the long slog trying our best to be obedient (to God) and pious, teaching His word to our brothers and sisters (whatever the color of their skin), and praying to our Lord.
that's a severely long way to disprove the beginning point of your own post.
European Christianity is a White thing (possibly what the European part means...). non-White Christians, unfortunately, tragically, and regrettably prove themselves unable of the same Christian values. for example, Zimbabwe is supposedly 84% Christian - would you say the commonplace state-encouraged rape and murder of White farmers is in accordance with Christianity?
if the answer is "they are obviously false Christians" then i propose that non-Whites are immensely more likely to falsely claim to be Christian than Whites, who most often have Christian values ingrained into them even if they claim to be atheist or agnostic. you would then argue as you already have that it is Christian-developed culture that results in this, and I would then ask what culture the original Christians had to go off when primordially deciding what the next two thousand years of development would look like. then it could be claimed it was not them but our Lord Jesus Christ who decided that, but that can be easily disproven by the very many who did not follow Him, such as the pharisees who later became modern judaists, and violent political revolutionaries in our dear Europe...
eventually we have to arrive to the fact that there is something not sociopolitical about Whites that resulted in our current sociopolitics. everything has its cause, and the cause of our current everything is our DNA, just as african poverty has its cause solidified well before colonialism occurred and just as mexican cartels mimic their aztec past with their evil torturous methods despite having access to modern, civilized culture.
nonetheless, race cannot and should not be worshipped. the way forward deeply involves Christianity, we agree on this. but you will only make it harder on yourself by ignoring the racial aspect and attempting to reason with those for whom reason is a biological impossibility - casting your pearls before swine, if you will.
All you are doing is trying to merge the heresy of Darwinism into Christianity. This will fail. Darwinism is materialist and whereas God acts at a spiritual level. The battle is a spiritual one, as it always has been, one that the West is failing.
Equally, your argument about the success or otherwise of African countries is also largely materialist, and extremely limited.
For example:
Whether or not people from Zimbabwe are 'true' Christians is not for me or you to judge. That is up to God. Equally, following God and our Lord Christ does not guarantee you will have a successful materialistic civilisation, instead He offers the chance that each of every one of us will attain the rewards of eternal life at the end of this age.
Yes, I do believe that being Christian will societies build themselves to be healthy and healthy robust, but this is not a magic switch that gets flicked on by people being Christian (or saying they are Christian). God doesn't act like that, anyone who is Christian should know this. If it was that easy, that we could suddenly all just be baptised as Christians and then everything will be perfect, then there would be nothing for us to do. He requires us to chose, of our own free will, to have faith in Him and follow Him. To continue to struggle against Satan and his empty promises. And have faith that if we do so, we will be rewarded. If not in this life, then the next.
You are partially right, but also partially wrong. European genes have been conditioned for civilizational success in large part due to the reforms wrought by Christianity over 2000 years - the culling of immorality each generation. You get what you promote and you get less of what you reject. American and especially European society is heavily secularized, and yet still functions with more individual liberty and less abuse than other nations.
Christianity has had much less time to work its eugenic effects in the Third World, and a lot of that work has been hindered by materialistic global culture. On top of that, the children of Ham started off behind everyone else, and there is reason to believe the worst parts of the world bear the results.
However, you are correct that supplanting the spiritual causes of our current situation with an atheist evolutionary explanation is not just insufficient, but also plays into the very forces that caused the situation. One can easily argue that the rejection of God in the West is ultimately worse than the misdeeds of the Third World, since, as Uncle Ben paraphrased from the Bible, to whom much is given, much is expected. A wrong decision made with power is much worse than a wrong decision made in weakness. Complacency and spiritual laziness was the doom of the Israelites, and not much has changed.
I'd agree with this. Genetics and selection are clearly factors in the evolution of civilisations. Darwin wasn't completely wrong, but the idea that it is trivial to predict complicated evolutionary outcomes based on 5-minute thought experiments - which is what most people do when they think about evolution and 'natural selection' - is flawed (a classic example is the a "tribe with 1 man and 99 women will survive better than one with 50 men and 50 women" which falls apart even on casual analysis).
The point about Darwinism being wrong is that I meant it. Darwinism cannot be merged with Christianity. Why? Because it is a violation of the first commandment - the creation of false gods and a false idol. It leads to humans thinking it is up to them to play the role of god, and decide the outcome of evolution. That is God's role. It is not up to me or you to decide whether or not people from Africa are 'true Christians' and whether their societies and civilisation should survive or not. Yet, that is what people who are busy promoting 'whiteness' are doing - they think it is their role to decide whether Africans should be allowed to exist, based on their own human set of values. It is not up to me or you to decide whether another man, whatever the color of his skin, is worthy of salvation because he is using his reason to avoid sin. That is God's role. Yet, that is what those promoting 'whiteness' do - they decide based on some arbitrary measure of skin color that a person is 'incapable' of using reason and thus a sinner by default, and not worthy of salvation, or even existing.
My point was to make these people focus on what they should be doing - cleaning their own back yard, their own societies, their own minds, hearts and souls of sinful behavior and promoting virtue, not judging people based on how they look.
We shouldn't be trying to play God. Even if it wasn't a sin (which it is, and a particular severe one in my view), that's God's role. The Father gave us his Living Word to tell us what He wanted from us. All we have to do is follow It. For our own salvation and for the sake of the world to come.
one mistake you keep making is that you think it's about skin color, when in fact these differently colored people are hated by people like me not because they are a different crayon out of the packet, but because they act evilly with such consistency that they can be equated to it. if tomorrow Europe turned into Africa it would be a tragedy not because of the loss of materialistic White beauty (it would have been God's plan for us to all become ugly, i suppose...) but because of the plethora of sins such a transformation would entail. we may have planks in our eyes but many Africans carry lumberyards around with them.
it is not up to me to decide, ultimately, what African rises above his ancestry and finds salvation, and what African doesn't. but it is up to me, and you as well, to protect our people's goodness and salvation. allowing the defilement of all Christ stands for just for a crumb of a chance to maybe inspire one Ungbwebwe from Nigeria to become Christian would do nothing except feed personal pride - damn all these actual current-day Christians, and these people who are right at the edge of accepting Christ, i must be anti-racist and sacrifice them all to dedicate Christianity to the non-Whites, who in large part make a point of not being Christian.
with all that in mind, protection of our race from the others is, again, not worshipping race, or idolizing Darwin. it's simply protecting its goodness, and its inherent Christianity. we stand no chance of spreading any of it if we bring in rot from outside to destroy it first. Christianity is not a suicidal death cult. Jesus Christ did not die so that we, too, could die, and pointlessly to boot.
on the topic of Darwin, i don't find the idea of evolution incompatible with Christianity at all. whether God poofed us into existence, or set up this elaborate material system to create us over many years, it is equally glorious and impressive. with the Bible's penchant for not speaking literally it's likely enough in my opinion that Eve eating the apple was in fact the first human evolving just the right neurons for sapience... knowledge of good and evil, i.e. the ability to ponder good and evil. one could speculate about this forever, though.
No, I am not making such a mistake. You are attributing evil to all people who appear "African" based on the behavior of some such people. Because some African people are sinners and perform horrific acts, by default, you have decided that all (or most) African are "biologically incapable of reason". In other words, as long as your judgement of such people is not based on the individual, but the demographic group they belong to, of which they have no choice is it was simply the accident of their birth, then you in fact making the judgement based on "skin color" (or similar arbitrary measure).
You are not protecting your race from others by denying salvation to others who would be Christian if they receive His message by deciding that these for these people "reason is a biological impossibility". The early missionaries knew that their one of the main roles as Christians was to spread His message to all who would embrace it, and were happy to martyr themselves for this noble aim. The message of Christ is not yours to keep to yourself or your 'race', it is open for all people. You are certainly are not protecting 'goodness' by spreading a false gospel that only white people are capable of being true Christians, you are doing the work of Satan.
Yes it is. It could not be more obvious that your blasphemous comments. You espouse both a corrupt version of evolution and a corrupt version Christianity. For the latter, I've already elaborated why your ideas are a corruption of Christianity - you are following a false god if you make Darwinism part of your value system. Life and societies evolve, yes, but evolution is so complex it is beyond the capability of any human to predict its outcome. To a large extent, all we can do is observe the wonders of the product of evolution - this amazingly complex mechanism that God created to bring about His plan. It cannot be part of a value system. Only His word can be.
As for the former, your understanding of evolution is equally flawed, for you are insisting that based on some arbitrary measure of 'goodness' means that your 'race' is superior than another 'race'. Yet I could come up with many more arbitrary measures that show your 'race' is inferior to others - tell me, what is the birth rate of people of your 'race'? How does it compare to the birth rate of those you deem to be 'biologically incapable of reason'? Oh, I'm sure you can come up with some excuse as to why this is an unfair measure on my part, which is entirely the point - it's not up to me or you to decide what the 'correct' measure is - that is for God to decide. He will decide what 'race' lives or goes extinct. Not you. It doesn't mean there is nothing you can do if you care about your 'race', what it does mean is focusing on your own morality and salvation, not choosing to follow false gods such as Darwinism, which lead you astray.
the way you put words in my mouth and the way you would seemingly commit familial murder-suicide just to see Bungbwa open a Bible he can't understand makes me think you're not being genuine.
if you are, i ask that you read what i have already said again, especially the parts where i clarify that i do not call myself any sort of ultimate arbiter, but that i simply call for common practical sense to be used when deciding how best to spread, and protect, Christianity. people following your way of thinking has resulted in situations like the fire at the Nantes Cathedral. what did that spread except flames all over Christianity?
Yeah, I agree with that. God knows the heart, not us, and there are many African Christians doing good work in Africa. But it's just as easy to observe people that belie their professed beliefs over there as it is over here.
I don't know if I've seen people advocating this. I haven't read any of the equivalent here. A lot of people promoting huwite people just want to ensure that majority white countries stay that way, which is moral and necessary.
The comment I replied to has the following line (my emphasis):
This person has decided African people are "biologically incapable of reason", so yes, there are many people who believe that non-white people are inferior to the extent they are like animals incapable of reason or being Christian.
Fair enough, it looks like he's sticking to that viewpoint. To say that describes "people who are promoting whiteness" generally, though, is wrong. It's unsettling to see radical thoughts of all stripes, but it's a natural reaction to people coming into contact with stark truth.
Are there niggers in heaven?
Dude, white people invented Totalitarianism as a political philosophy. White people invented Political Rationalism and Positivism which all lean towards an autocratic totalitarian government that influences every aspect of society.
This is not to say that whites invented authoritarianism, but explicitly Totalitarianism or Ideological Totalism, specifically without the use of religion to manipulate society. It didn't come from Asia, South America, Africa, or anything else.
The closest comparison you can actually speak on is that Anglo people have a long history of pushing individuated freedom on the rest of the world. But that is only the result of the end of Feudalism and the emergence of Liberalism. Prior to that Anglo populations were more insular and did not push individual freedoms outside of the British Isles. It is not an innate trait of Anglos, but there is a history of Anglo & Anglo-Saxon people being deferential towards individuation.
Worse, we can see that Anglo populations both in western Europe & America are deferential to the political Left. The Anglos are less inclined towards individualism than they were 200 years ago when they founded Liberalism.
As I've said before: what they want is to create a Tower Of Bable civilization, where each ethnic, religious, sexual, or otherwise identitarian group is ruled by a party-boss system; where members of that group are entirely dependent on a single political machine to control any political or civic acts anyone in that group engages in. Then they want to institutionalize it into something like what Lebanon has.
The truth is, they really don't give a shit about whites. There are specific identitarians that do, but most of those are just ideological storm-troopers that are controlled by people who don't give a shit, and most of whom are white anyway. There are Black National Socialists where this is different, but they don't run JP Morgan Chase. Succinctly: to the elites, white lives don't matter. They don't think whites are evil, they just don't give a shit. It's just a means to maintain power and control.
I assume you're referring to the French Revolutionary regime, which as far as I know is the first explicitly God-rejecting government in recorded history. This is a good point, but I have to add that the next atheist regimes were the Soviets and the Chinese. Obviously the Soviets were heavily Jewish-influenced.
The fact that white people have favored autocracy in the past is not remarkable. Everyone has. The fact that Protestant white people are the first to agitate for individual rights, however, is remarkable. American Catholics have followed suit for the most part, and this is why I assume the elites marshal their troops to siege and attack everything white and Christian.
One can take the slavery abolition movement as a proxy for a people's inclination towards liberty. The first abolitionist nation was the UK.
The French revolution is one of them. Totalitarian movements across Europe had significant support among whites during the 20th century.
Autocracy is not Totalitarianism, and so isn't really relevant to the conversation except to point out that they are different concepts. Autocracy is the norm through history, with a few exceptions (notably the Anglo kingdoms)
This is my point, specifically. It's not French, it's not German, it's not Scandinavian, it's not Spanish, it's not Portuguese, it's not Polish, it's not Italian. It's explicitly Anglo. It's an extension of the English culture. Individualism has never been a 'white' trait.
I'm not convinced of the utility of that distinction. Wikipedia's basic definition of totalitarianism says, "Totalitarian regimes are often characterized by extreme political repression and human rights violations to a greater extent than those of authoritarian regimes, an absolute lack of democratic ideals, widespread personality cultism around the person or the group which is in power, absolute control over the economy, large-scale censorship and mass surveillance systems, limited or non-existent freedom of movement (notably the freedom to leave the country), and the widespread usage of state terrorism."
It seems that the main difference from ancient autocracy is the deemphasis of religion. State terrorism would be business as usual in many kingdoms, and the idea of ancient censorship is laughable because no one would think of speaking against the king in the first place. Ecclesiastes 8:20: Do not revile the king even in your thoughts, or curse the rich in your bedroom, because a bird in the sky may carry your words, and a bird on the wing may report what you say.
Ecclesiastes 8:2-4: Obey the king’s command, I say, because you took an oath before God. Do not be in a hurry to leave the king’s presence. Do not stand up for a bad cause, for he will do whatever he pleases. Since a king’s word is supreme, who can say to him, “What are you doing?”
The Anglos led the way, but they are descendants of Germanic and French peoples. Europeans adopted abolitionism much faster than anyone else.
There are real differences between European peoples, but individualism is clearly a greater force in European cultures than elsewhere. Sailing expeditions are strong examples of individual risk-taking. The Chinese were capable of sailing expeditions, but they were so conformist and inward-looking that they never advanced with it.
Unsurprisingly, Wikipedia's definition is garbage. Autocracy is simply the absolute rule of a specific authority. "Rendering obedience to orders" if you will. But that's the end of it. Orders are not perpetually given in all places at all times for all things.
Totalitarianism is a much more extreme issue. There is no aspect of any part of your life that is not wholly devoted to the political power. Reality itself is demanded to be subservient to ideology. Effectively, politics is even more powerful than God. That is a totalitarian framework. Religion is de-emphasized, because politics is more than God.
Totalitarianism is even more than this.
"Reviling the king does not exist. Anything that claims that a king can be reviled is to be immediately executed, report to re-education, or both. Birds do not exist. Birds did exist, but it was discovered that nature was a Counter-Revolutionary enemy, and so all birds were killed (See: Mao v. The Sparrows). If you see a bird, kill it. But also kill yourself because there are no birds."
Totalitarianism, or 'the political institutionalization of ideological totalism' is fucking hysterical madness. Only the most extreme and criminally insane autocrats in history get close to totalitarianism, and they normally don't. The ones that do, tend to be Socialists of one variety or another; because no tyrant or absolute monarch was that insane.
The Anglos may have previously descended from Germanic, Celtic, and French populations, but they were slower to adopt than the Anglos that invented in. Frankly, all 3 seem to be struggling in one way or another with the concept of individuation. Particularly ze Germans.
Individualism is not an inherent part of European cultures, it was (effectively) a confluence of several 'perfect storm' factors. The deaths from the Black Plague allowing for upward social mobility and the collapse of Feudalism, (as you say) the use of sailing vessels for expanded trade options due to the Ottoman Empire's embargo on Europe, the Anglo culture having already had a long history of anti-Autocracy and emerging from the English Civil War period, recognizing the failure of both Absolute Monarchs & Revolutionary Protectorates. The Anglos were a right people, at the right place, at the right time, with the right opportunities. And that culture thrived in a mostly depopulated North America that was rich in natural abundance, and low in predators and opposing civilizations.
Other Europeans, and frankly the world, only adopted it as a result of cultural dominance. The problem is that liberalism and individualism has basically been a skin suit for Socialists everywhere else.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Approved: This isn't alleging any sort of inferiority anywhere, nor conspiracy.