What Jesus understood is that without his word being spread no one would know to listen to his word so it is important to spread the word. Share the good news...
Yes, of course. Why do you think I replied? From my point of view you are heading down the wrong track. Your focus should be on religion, in particular Christianity, not "race and genetics", if you fix society you have to focus first and foremost on building a proper Christian society. You don't try and pick people with the right skin colour first and then try to build Christianity of top of it.
Do you agree or disagree then that a government that itself also shares in sharing the good news is superior in terms of reach and ability to get others to accept Jesus compared to a government that does not?
A just government would flow on from a Christian society, not the other way around. You need to build the just society first, otherwise it will just be an corrupt government of another flavour. The teaching of Jesus is very much bottom up, not top down, as I said, he used his power to teach, to ask his followers to teach person to person, not "start a government and use the governments power make sure everyone in that country becomes Christian".
God's hand does not work through genetics or power alone, but through a mechanism. A mechanism that ensures that societies that manage to arrange themselves according to His plan will prosper and outcompete those who do not.
The Jews in Christ's time were expecting a Messiah who would be an invincible warrior and bring their society, based on a common genetic line, to glory. But Jesus was not such a Messiah. He was powerful yet He did not use His power to rule. He used it to teach. He used it to give the blueprint to His followers to build societies that would prosper. He also opened up the Kingdom of God to all who would follow Him, not just the Jews who descended from their genetic line.The reason He did this was that it was the only way for God's plan to come to fruition, with us men building it ourselves, choosing to do so in our own individual ways, to bring about a whole that works in a just way.
And as we know, those teachings came to rule the world (and still do, in many ways, despite recent setbacks), just as God's mechanism would have it. That, perhaps, is a true manifestation of power.
In the end, a truly homogeneous society would be one where people have the same moral values. This does not arise naturally from race or genetics, but from individuals choosing of their own free will to follow those values, ultimately from teaching people a true morality that they can see and accept as Truth themselves.
Not only that, but a society will not be moral based on rules alone, instead the people must collectively use their minds to determine what is right and wrong based on God's teaching. Otherwise the rules become pointless human rules, much like what was happening in the time of Christ.
Similarly, a top down imposition of rigid rules does not work, because unless the majority in your society chooses of their own free will to be moral, they will find ways around the rules, exploit the rules for their own benefit, or make up their own human rules for material gain.
Okay, fair enough. Hopefully our little exchange here has helped you in some way - my point is simply this, that a just and moral society does not arise naturally from a "homogenise society", but rather requires all the majority to buy into that society and act accordingly based on their own free will. That's easier said than done, but it's be done before, and it will be done again. We already know how.
"Explaining" when you are basically preaching to the choir here (as if anyone here is pro-immigration and needs convincing otherwise) is largely pointless so I stand by my point that is whining.
I'm just an average person like you, but I know I have the power to do something. One part of that is suggesting constructive ways to build new communities. Another is actually contributing to building such a community in real life, using my brain to find individuals I can actually work together with, based on their actual values and beliefs, instead of using ineffective heuristics like skin color. That doesn't mean I think free-for-all immigration is a good thing, but rather, "solving" problems like that are beyond my pay grade, and all I can do is work with the situation I am in.
Do you want to help me or do you want to get in my way?
Okay, so what is your plan then? Because all I've seen is a lot of whining, and not a lot of fixing.
"very fake Christianity"
In addition to the Bible, there are thousands of years of Christian theology and philosophy there for you to peruse, all still available. If you truly think that current Christianity is fake, you can choose to explore that path to find God instead of simply whining about the Pope and Jews. But you haven't. (You probably haven't even read anything the Pope or his recent predecessors has actually written, and instead are basing your opinions on second hand reports from sources that may have their own agendas).
Anyway, you've made your choice. In the end, it's your life, not mine. I'll leave it at that.
Seriously, your understanding of Christianity is very off-base. The very core of Christianity is that choosing to follow Christ must be a personal decision. It cannot be forced. It cannot be stipulated. Unlike other religions, Christians do not condone forced conversions through violence and other such means.
How can a lone Christian then make a difference? By evangelising. By revealing the Truth to others so they to can enjoy God's love. And in doing so, you will create the world that is worth living in. And yes, if you live as a lone Christian you might be hated. You might be persecuted. But you do it because you know it's right.
The choice is yours. Continue complaining about race and genetics if you like. Distance yourself from God if you like. But remember that is the choice you have made. No one else is to blame. Not the "leaders". Not "society". Not black or brown people. Not Jews. You.
? My comment stands on it's own. I don't give a shit about some lame Reddit thread that you linked to; my comment was a general statement based on obvious observations that any fool could make by themselves (yes, I am a fool, no doubt).
Although, the fact that you care shows how easily you are manipulated "OMG! Some wanker on Reddit said something stupid! I must adopt the opposite position because my idea of right and and wrong is: Leftist on reddit = wrong; opposite of leftist on reddit = right."
In contrast to you, I will stand by my positions when I am basing them on my morality regardless of whether some idiot on Reddit happens to have the same opinion or not.
The point I'm making is there are far bigger things to worry about that "uglification of women" in media. Yet that is what many men care about enough to make a big fuss over. Why? Because they are so brainwashed to think that sex is the most important thing in life, that they will fight tooth and nail to access sex in some form. Men need to devote their time to actual standing up for what actually matters in society - actual morality - not a quick fix like a junkie.
Christianity works because it works. As I said, Christ's teachings provide a blueprint for building successful societies. You don't need "leaders" to impose anything. You just need to build proper Christian communities wherever you live. God gave you a brain so you don't need to wait for others to do things so that it happens, but you can go out and do it by yourself.
Edit: In Christianity, good and evil is defined as being with God or being with Satan. That choice is with every man. Which side have you chosen?
The people who run our society are naturally predispositioned toward having values and beliefs and promoting these values and beliefs in our culture because of the nature of the people who run our society.
And this is why it has nothing to do with "race and genetics". Like many white people, your obsession with "whiteness" is because your incorrectly perceive that the successes of your ancestors came down to their genetics, as identified by their skin colour. No, it wasn't because of their genetics. It wasn't because they were white. It was because of their values and beliefs. In short, it was because they were Christian. And in the true teachings of Christ is the core of how to build a successful society.
Your societies are crumbling because you have chosen to accept the values of those who reject Christ. You aren't going to be saved by other people with the same skin colour as you (that's actually the funniest part of your beliefs - most of the idiots in the world pushing this crap are everyday white people, with pronouns in their signatures, pushing the current thing with zeal). The ones that are going to save you are the actual Christians, perhaps the black or brown descendants of those originally evangelised by white people in former white colonies, and now the champions of the values and beliefs that once made your societies great.
Your focus on race and genetics is part of the trap laid by your enemies to keep you down.
Unfortunately, most men are led around by their dicks, and thus we are eternally doomed by simps to repeat this cycle of suffering.
It's worse than that. Most men are not only led around by their dicks, but they actively advocate for being led around by their dicks even more. How many posts in this forum are about:
-
"Oh no, they made this female character less attractive" (i.e. I can't wank to my fantasies about a video game character any more, the horror!)
-
"Oh no, someone is making pornography less accessible" (i.e. It will be harder to find material that overstimulates my sex drive and makes me more of a slave to sex, the horror!)
Until men learn to stop being slaves to their passions, and reject media that helps enslave them, women and feminists (i.e. most women) will continue leading men around by their dicks.
What's the point? If you can have VR porn and dolls, why not have it at home than go to a facility to get rocks off?
I don't know the statistics to be sure, but many men who visit brothels are likely married. Using sex dolls and VR porn to get your rocks off when you are in a dead-bedroom situation is safer and less sinful than visiting a real whore. Of course, that is still a worse solution than simply rubbing one out. And that in turn is a worse solution than improving rational self-control.
Maybe try a Catholic church if there are any around? It'll still be full of Swedes, but should not be actually "culty" (bearing in mind I don't know what you mean by this term - a lack of familiarity with how the church operates may make it look "culty" to an outsider). And the parish priest should be able to help you in some way, even if it is simply to speak to him in confidence.
I have no idea what exact situation you're in, but from what you've revealed - that you're in a cult in a Sweden - an option you might want to consider is finding a mainstream church and asking for help.
You need to get extract yourself from the situation first, then you can worry anything else (such as "exposing people" or whatever). To get help, you'll need to find people who are reliable and aren't going to cheat you or harm you, and I suspect the best way to find such people in a country you don't have ties with is by turning to genuine Christians.
f you're half as attractive and personable as you've led on (and they love the ozzy accent), you should be able to convince one of the Swedish girls you meet to let you stay at her house. Maybe gain her sympathy with talk about the cult and she'll even help you find ways to make money. Once you're back on your feet you can ditch her if you want
Great idea. Piss off a woman in a foreign country so that he becomes a target for her, her simps, or the law ("He abused me!").
Nah, what you're witnessing is the lack of distinction between ChatGPT and many people who love posting on the Internet- there usually isn't that much to say, so anyone who post a lot is going to sound like ChatGPT as 99% of their "ideas" will be worthless drivel.
So you believe Israel convinced Hamas to attack them because of Musk visiting the border of a country halfway around the world?
This is a standard "conspiracy theories at all ludicrous"-style response. Instead of it being a mundane plausible conspiracy, such as, "the media focused relentless on a new story that happened to pop up that they knew would distract people", it has to be an elaborate ridiculous conspiracy like "so you're saying the media conspired to make this thing happen so that they could report it and distract people?!". It's either bad faith, or shows how much people have been trained to immediately misrepresent anything involving a "conspiracy" by turning it into a strawman.
Oh no, you're back with your pseudo-intellectual babbling and strange desire to need external validation from a bunch of nutters on an internet forum (of which I am one, after all, I'm here).
Let's be real, porn isn't helping the situation, but even if you abolish all pornography tomorrow you still have to address the root problem which is that getting involved with a woman is legally a catastrophic proposition.
It's way more complicated that that. The effect of porn on relationships isn't one way. While use of porn can help men to obtain sexual satisfaction without being in a relationship, it also feeds the male sex drive which makes more men likely to want to get in a relationship.
This is the reason why feminists have such a inconsistent and unpredictable attitude towards porn. On the one hand it reduces the reliance of men on women, reducing their power, but on the other hand it can increase female sexual power. So their are all sorts of different feminist factions in relation to porn, which generally relates to what benefits they are getting out of the effect of porn on men.
The gynocentric nature of Western society is partly caused by the effect of constant exposure of males to a very softcore form of porn - the highly revealing clothing worn by many females, and sexualised female bodies displayed all over the media. This feeds the male sex drive, making men and boys more dependent on women and more gynocentric due to the halo effect from sexual attraction.
I'm surprised how few men seem to understand this. Most men should be able to see it in themselves if they were properly able to use stoic or mindfulness techniques to assess their feelings about women.
Any right thinking man, if he truly wanted to be free of women and relationships, would do well to stay away from both women and porn for his own good.
Lamenting a "demographic" not being credited for "99% of modern technology and society" is just lame. Just being part of the same demographic is meaningless. The achievements are down to those individuals that actually did the work. Feeling warm and fuzzy because some other person who also has a penis and has a similar skin tone to you achieved something is completely pointless and counterproductive.
I didn't listen to the interview, but based on the report above, he was wrong for personally attacking her based on her sexual attractiveness. Whatever he said might be true, but it is completely pointless. The main problem with the feminist isn't that she is annoying and unattractive. The problem is she is sexist against men, like all feminists. That's what he should have focused on. Not whether or not any man wanted to date or shag her. Who cares? It's the same attitude as the "incel" insult, where someone's sexual attractiveness to the opposite sex is being used as an indicator of their value - that always leads to gynocentrism and is a losing game for anyone opposed to feminists.
I think males displaying sexuality is more oppressed today than it was 100 years ago.
No doubt. But even 100 years ago feminists were already gaining power and were influencing society in a big way.
Men are only allowed to express sexuality when women say so which is no freedom of expression at all.
Exactly, in the past, there were restrictions on male (and female) sexuality, but were based on stronger logic and principles than "what women want men to do" which is the norm these days.
As I pointed out, modern tradcucks are feminists, not "traditionalists" as traditionalists obtained their sexual morality from God, not women. Apparently these so-called "traditionalists" don't believe the warning in Genesis 2 about deferring to women applies any longer.
Plus a lifetime criminal record, which no doubt is something Singaporeans don't look lightly upon.