/pnd/ - Politics, News, Debate

>>189575

Pleasure and Pain, Happiness and Sorrow, Desire and Fear, none of these rule the Atheist of /pol/ because he recognizes these as mere symptoms of his true purpose for living, for which they serve as general guides, like a compass, not as a map. He is no hedonist.

He is made up of the genetic material passed to him over thousands of years by his ancestors, he is literally made up of his people, this alone kills individualism in him by showing that he and his tribe are inseparable.

The great purpose of his existence, which has shaped every aspect of his design, and whose fulfillment has led to his very existence, is to pass on a share of the genetic material entrusted to him, and to safeguard those who also carry some share of his genetic makeup, this applies not just to the following generation, but to all generations beyond it, and he is just as obligated to see that his children, and the children of his brothers, shall also fulfill the same purpose demanded of their parents. He is not without a greater purpose, and this purpose is transcendent, because he will live on in his descendants.

His primary loyalty is to his genes, and his moral obligation to those who possess the greater share of them is greater than it is to those with a lesser share.

He is not equally beholden to every living creature, although all life of his planet has some degree of moral value to him, but the degree of his loyalties lies first in genetic similarity, and second in generations removed from himself (younger over older).

His morality s relative to an objective standard far greater to himself, just as the same could be said of a Christian whose moral standard is relative to the objective God, it can not be said that the Atheist man of this sort is a moral relativist.

He sees culture and society in terms of memes, which, like genes, are passed from one generation to the next, as with genes, he sees the most enduring memes as having withstood the pressures of selection, since memetics and genetics have very much in common with one another, he recognizes that he has a obligate loyalty to his race's spirit just as much as he has to his blood, thus he is a protector of tradition and of the way of life that made his people great, standing against the evils of blind progress for it's own sake, and against Jewish subversion of the Aryan ways. He is a Traditionalist.

The Atheist of /pol/ is not blind, he sees the White race as being far beyond the other races of man, for him, the Aryan/Indo-European/Caucasian peoples are the very best of this Earth, and the only hope of escaping this planet to live past it's death lies in them and them alone, in their genes lie the recipe for greatness, but there is an ancient enemy who seeks to kill it off or drown in the the contaminating mud of lesser races. Nationalism, True Nationalism, is his greatest concern.

>>189576

He sees all religions as untrue, but he recognizes the clear fact that some religions are worse than others, Christianity is a neutral and mostly harmless faith, as is the old faiths of the White man, under both can the White man prosper in peace and create his wonders, The Atheist would strongly prefer live in a society of either of them than he would with those who agree with him on matters of God and Heaven, but not on the maters of Man and Earth, whom he would desperately wish to avoid.

But the religions of Talmudism/Marxism and of Islam are beliefs that must be purged from existence, and no peace can exist so long as they exist within this universe, no tolerance can be extended to them, no agreement of co-existence can be offered, for they will only entertain such truces in order to break them.

History is full of great atheists who lacked the sense of nihilism that defines the modern era. such as R.E. Howard, H.P. Lovecraft, both of whom had used their fiction to warn us of the misfortunes that would befall us if we were to pay heed to the siren call of the Jewish utopians, WL Peirce and GL Rockwell, who were among the first to plant the foundations of what is the modern voice of the White man, the Old Romantics and Classical Nihilists, who saw the abuse of Christian thought by malevolent (Jewish) forces to bring the White man to his own ruin through the injection of poisonous thought into the minds of the masses. Even in modern times, much of the population of /pol/, myself included, had come to this position through the values and lessons of the "new atheists", many had been a part of that community before arriving here, the three remaining members of the "four horsemen" have all publicly embraced realism regarding race and sex, for a long time the Christian apologists said that Atheism was the domain of the White man, that it inevitably led to racism, as someone who was within the online Atheist community since it's inception, I have to say that they were right, I myself struggled with evolution and race realism, before realizing that the thing to do, in keeping with the values promoted by that community, would be to accept the truth, without reservation.

On the other side, the history of Christians is full of them acting as the vectors for the downfall of the White man, in America alone, we had the evangelical abolitionists, civil rights leaders, and proponents of circumcision, thee were not people who cared about being marketable, one of the civil rights movement's greatest activists came from the Westboro Baptist Church, aka the most unpopular church in 2000's-2010's America.

In Europe, we had the Catholic and Protestant church in bed with Jewish power, the spread of Jewish presence and influence under the protections afforded to them by the holy kingdoms, even when the Europeans fought back against the Muslim invaders that the Jews had let in (the crusades were brought about by the people's anger, not by the church, who had stood by for hundreds of years as the Muslims devastated the European people), Christian nobility had taken effort to protect the Jews from their people. Jews were loved by the nobles, and hated by the people, the Nobles were closer to God than those they had ruled, they had traced their positions of power to the appointment of God, and the Bible had stated that all who held power did so by God's grace. the rallying song for equality between Black and White in Britian was "Amazing Grace", civil rights was at it's core an Evangelical movement, You may bring up Luther, and how he had laid out the Jewish problem, but he was a man who stood against the Christian establishment, as an alternative, it was not the Bible or God which truly motivated him, but the corrupt manner in which the church had conducted itself.

The Christian view of history is the most damaging aspect of the religion, as it serves as a cover-up of the truth history of this world, that shows the exceptionalism of the Aryan man, it hides away his presence across the ancient planet, and how his influence had shaped the civilizations and cultures of the world, long before the official records of "first contact" narrate.

In many of the places we are accused of invading, we now have evidence that we were in fact the first people there, and that it was the "natives" who stole that land from us.

>OY VEY [even more lies about Christianity that only shills have ever said]

>HA HA YOU HATE YOUR CULTURE NOW

Tip your fedora somewhere else, kike.

>>189575

>The Jews only undermine Christianity and it's variants because it is a competing religion for Talmudic Marxism

jews are children of chaos, they shit on everything, and as long as they are a small minority with no access to power that doesn't harm their host country too much, but if they get power the country turns into a shithole

>>189580

This is obviously a copy/paste job that serves as a low-effort attempt to discredit the post, your hope is that people will not read anything i have written, or else they will see that nothing you said has any relevance to it.

Most of my posts had nothing to say about Christianity, They only talked about atheism from a /pol/ perspective.

Those parts of my post that did mention it had nothing but verifiable facts that even Christians agree with.

I've never once called on Christians to hate their culture, in fact, I had made a point in that argues that even if they abandon Christianity itself, they still have every reason to preserve the traditions that originated under it.

Interesting that you lied about my post in the same reply in which you accused me of lying.

I'll give you a chance, If you aren't a shill, maybe you can point out the "lies" in my post.

>>189586

Jews primary goal is to destroy White communities, religious, secular, political, apolitical, they insert themselves into everything that a community of White people could emerge from, take it over, and destroy it.

Christianity is but one of these things.

Atheist communities were also co-opted and ruined by the kikes, there were some difficulties, for example, "Atheism+" never took off, but they eventually did it.

The overtook the Christian communities long before that, and it went the same, there was resistance from within, but eventually they did it.

This whole pandemic bullshit is intended to kill all sorts of gatherings in their entirety.

Anywhere the White man can go, the Jew or their puppets will follow them, and bring their poison with, they will play a role and pretend to be "different" in order to fit in, but it's all an act that they put up as they take over positions of power, and build strength by bringing in their "friends", this masquerade is why these communities fall to their influence.

As soon as you see a Jew, or a puppet whose mask has slipped to reveal even the most moderate of their positions, you must eliminate them with extreme prejudice, remove them from the community, warn others about them, and destroy their lives so utterly that they cannot fit in anywhere else, anything that is even slightly not fitting with Pro-White, Pro-Male, Pro-Gentile or Pro-Human ideology must be evicted and destroyed, a slight heresy on the surface can betray a great heresy within.

I'm going to be honest with you, I was planning for a political solution, but now I see that these new restrictions, and how the establishment is selectively enforcing them, are making any chance of going into politics much less viable.

We must start considering how to organize for political change by other means, we've already passed the breaking point multiple times without a "happening", it seems that the revolution will never occur unless people like us are willing to step up and make it happen.

For those shills trying to conflate this with acts of violence or other forms of criminality, I will clarify what I mean, I'm talking protests, civil disobedience, blatant violations of unfair laws and restrictions, there is a lot of frustration among he people that we can tap into right now.

Every /pol/ board has done nothing, IRL or offline, and they all seem intent on doing nothing beyond just bitching on an imageboard and ineffectual "self-improvement", I've proposed a lot of things in the past; meetups, campaigns, etc. No one would bite because everyone bought into the shills that shot me down, and now we have even less options than we did in the past.

I mean, what exactly do we have to lose? worst case, lots of us are rounded up and stuffed into prisons, that means cells upon cells full of people like us, and we know each other, we can work with that: overcome, organize, and overtake. Do we have better options? I'd like to hear them.

You keep saying "wait", but as we wait they gain more power over us, they cut off routes for us to take with action, when we finally step up, we will be outclassed by an enemy that we could have easily defeated had we acted sooner. They will then say "well, we were retards for not doing anything", and they would be right.

I'm no shill, the length of my post should give that away, shills don't type long posts, they type short ones, like this >>189580.

https://lbry.tv/@ashalogos:92/conspiracy-our-subverted-history-part-3:1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg

>>189604

These two video series show you the history that Christianity hides from you (and which the Jews do not want our specific community to know, as this knowledge is a powerful weapon for us to use against them).

>>189575

We can’t draw any moral claims from biology. If that were the case, then anything from rape to genocide would be permissible. >>189592

This pandemic is not being used as a weapon against us. The Jews are not behind this one. Israel has been hit hard by the pandemic and have enacted a strict lockdown. This alone proves that they aren’t behind it.

>>189718

I’m no Christian, but how the hell can you be supportive of genocide? Would you really want an innocent black or Jew to be killed? The Jewish elites are hurting our race and you want to be just like them.

This is what I’m trying to get at. We will not get anywhere with this worship of biology/genes. Objective/universal morality is completely compatible with nationalism.

>>189816

>>189820

Meant to reply

>>189820

If you don’t base your views off of objective truth and morality, then what are you fighting for? Do you really just want Judaism, but for whites? The ability to kill any non-white, even if they are innocent? If so, then don’t complain about the Jews who are doing the same thing to our race.

>Jews understand this principal at least subconsciously, which is why they engage in heavy nepotism to give fellow kikes positions of power and influence. You need to also understand this fact or you are effectively cuckolding yourself. Every nigger child in your country today is a future nigger family that will take land, jobs, and food that your own family could have had three generation from now.

I am not advocating for diversity or multiculturalism. I don’t want non-whites to exert power or influence over whites. I just believe that it isn’t moral to prevent any racial, ethnic or religious group from exercising self-determination.

Again, if you guys are actually advocating for the harm of innocent people, then no one will take you seriously. On top of that, it is immoral. A better solution would be to enact quotas and/or make racial groups have their own land to live on.

Let me handle some Aquinas faggotry ITT:

- First Cause (Unmoved Mover)

>The Big Bounce.

>Lawrence Krauss "universe from nothing".

>You don't know any more than I do, but you just have confidence and arrogance to say that you know about something you couldn't possibly know anything of (the belief in you heart is not evidence).

- The witness of the Holy Spirit

>Strange that the holy spirit would give you the knowledge that God exists and inspire you to arguments of his existence that would be rendered obsolete by scientific discovery.

- Blind Watchmaker/Greater Perfection (complexity must precede simplicity)

>Bullshit, we see complexity emerge from simplicity over time in many laces of the natural world, often with very simple patterns driving the process, evolution being just one example, back in Aquinas's day, this wasn't seen because we had little ability to make observations of processes that took long durations, but today that doesn't apply.

"perfection" is a human standard, not an objective one, what is perfect for one may be a disadvantage for others.

For example, blacks have low IQ because it was an advantage in their native environment, where abundant resources meant that the winning strategy was to take and maintain control over as much as you could, Intelligence reduces aggression and impulsivity, which spells out death or reproductive failure in such a tournament-style environment. Being smart is a bad thing in such a place. Until a bunch of smart people from the north come down and wreck your shit.

Second example, in an environment like Europe, you need to plan ahead (abstract thought and diligence), work with others (specialization and co-operation), and pair-bond with one partner to teach your kids (monogamy and parental investment), or you would die alone, frozen and hungry. So intelligence became an advantage, but it also means altruism and empathy, which leads to your shit getting wrecked once stupid people from the south move in and your kindness is not reciprocated.

- The moral argument (God says some things are good and bad so if you don't believe in him you don't believe in good or evil)

>Your morality is not Biblical, it conflicts with God's word on multiple levels, and we have other sources for moral philosophy than God, also, you reject Biblical politics as well (if the book was not intended to be a guide on how to make laws or run a country, than why does it include a guide on how to make laws and run a country?).

>also your morals rely on the existence of God being factually true as much as mine relies upon natural facts being true, but mine is better supported from an empirical standpoint.

>your moral argument falls through when I ask where God gets his morality from, if he has no source, than you are getting morals from a being who by your own argument is amoral, if morality is in his nature, why can't it be in ours?

>if your morality is made better not by God, but the promise of heaven, than your criticism of hedonists, materialists, and individualists falls through since you are also ultimately driven by the desire for a personal reward (or the fear of a personal punishment), there is no reason why yours should be considered any better, worse yet you don't even know what heaven or hell is like (you become one with God, except you don't merge with him, you sit in the presence of God, except you don't because he is everywhere to begin with, you go to the garden of Eden, except you don't because Eden is a separate place from Heaven, you experience everlasting rapture, except you don't do that either,, because just being happy all the time is not a fitting description, every time a Christian describes heaven, as soon as I press them on the details they immediately say "yeah, what I just said was actually bullshit", they don't know what heaven is, they just really want to go there).

>>189826

>I am not advocating for diversity or multiculturalism.

You are advocating for that.

>I don’t want non-whites to exert power or influence over whites.

They already do and they aren't going to stop because you ask nicely.

>>189796

Powerless?

It was a Christian Europe that gave the Jews special protections and powers, and also made them aristocracy, all while fighting their wars.

America was a Christian country when the Jews imported niggers, let them run free, and gave them rights.

When either of them went to war with the NSDAP, they were all Christian countries and the strongest advocates for the war were Christian leaders. The two greatest pro-Christianity authors of fiction were CS Lewis and JR Tolkien, both of whom wrote very strongly in favor of taking a hostile position towards the axis.

Christianity has never been an obstacle for the Jews, and all the most controlled opposition are also the most heavily Christianity-centric, It was a strongly Christian country that passed the PATRIOT act.

So what the hell are you talking about?

Alinsky? Bezmenov? aee you asking me to trust anything that a socialist or KGB agent makes public? Eve if they were right about needing to remove religion, they only needed to in order to insert their own even more fucked-up religion in it's place to fill the gap that is left.

An atheist public would not have that gap that their religion fills within them, because they'd be satisfied with having it filled with a Pro-White ideology that the kikes actually do treat as anathema.

As shows in the picture above, the Jews have made many movies positively depicting Christianity, On top of those shown, we have "Prince of Egypt", "Bruce Almighty", "What Dreams may come", "Left Behind", even movies that have bad Christians in them have goood ones inserted to show that the religion itself is mostly positive, in the (((Disney))) version of "Hunchback of Notre Dame", Frollo (the villain) was demoted from priest to judge (religious to secular), and his brother was changed from a lazy drunk to a noble bishop of the cathedral.

Name one hollyjew movie that depicts Pro-White ideology in such a positive light.

Even now, BLM organizes in churches, and Mega-Churches have turned on Whites long ago.

Christianity has never been a threat to the Jew they have a long history of fucking with White people, and we were Christian for the good majority of that time.

>>189826

I do base my views off of objective truth and morality. I've laid that out very clearly, and you simply ignored it.

>Do you really just want Judaism, but for whites?

You mean "ethnocentrism", and yes, I am on /pol/, obviously this is what I want for the greatest people in the world.

>The ability to kill any non-white, even if they are innocent?

We don't have to kill them all, but i question what you mean by "innocent", even if they aren't Anti-white activists and they don't commit crimes, they do compete with us for resources, and jobs, and they nullify our political will with their own, they also contaminate our genes with their own.

>If so, then don’t complain about the Jews who are doing the same thing to our race.

you sound a lot like those conservative shills who say "don't fall in with identity politics because the left does" Ignoring that "identity politics" is a highly effective tool on the cultural battlefield and asking us to give it up is like saying "don't use guns because the enemy does" on the martial equivalent.

We have EVERY right to complain when the Jews practice nepotism towards us, because we have every reason to, no one else will advocate for us, and our race is OUR kin, we have a moral obligation to them by orders of magnitude greater than we do to the Jews.

Do you think the Jews CARE about anything we do? like they say "okay, we will only use the same tactics against them that they use against us"?

This is the way the world should work:

Everyone fights for their team, and the best team wins, the Jews are very well established as competitors with us, and it would be a disservice to ourselves and everyone if we didn't match them in going all out and doing everything single thing we can to win.

I'm not actually advocating for genocide, alright? there are peaceful options out there for protecting our people, and I'd prefer to go with them first, but I'm saying that the act could be seen as justifiable due to how whites have suffered, not in the "eye for an eye" sense, but in the "you have established that you are such a danger to us that we can no longer tolerate the risk your presence poses to our people".

>>189836

"eye for an eye makes the world blind".

>and that's why you take both of them.

Re-read what i said there, I said that the alternative was any retribution was to be for cold calculation of the future, and not the heat of vengeance-lust for the past.

The use of the crimes committed as a justification for the removal of one's enemy not purely because of the satisfaction of seeing them suffer, but also for the reason that their past actions set a precedent that makes them a threat in the future as well, it is that second element that guarantees that this fire does not die down so easily.

So it's basically the same as the fist, but longer lasting and harder to be manipulated/talked out of.

Reminder that "God of War" is pro-Christian propaganda made by Jews, where an obvious nigger kills his way through the gods of the classical (greek/roman) and norse (scandinavian) religions (except the most beautiful ones, like aphrodite, whom he has sex minigames with before they get killed by the aftermath of his destruction), he'll kill his way through the gods of the celts/britons next, and (as revealed by the murals on the halls of fate showing the three wise men and the (((star))) of Bethlehem) he is doing all this to usher in the world of Jesus and Christianity.

He might even kill the Gods of Asia once he is done with those of Europe.

>>189829

>you are advocating for that.

Read my post again. I even said that racial groups should have their own land to live on.

>they won’t stop just because you ask them nicely.

I am not talking about being “nice.” We can still be tough with our enemies, but we need a moral framework behind the toughness. Obviously we won’t liberate ourselves by being nice guys.

>>189831

>ethnocentrism

Everyone has a healthy amount of ethnocentrism. Nothing wrong with that. However, if your end goal is to become amoral and sociopathic towards non-whites (like how the Jews are towards gentiles) then that is a juvenile way of seeing the world. Look at how Jews on Twitter were defending the movie Cuties just because the producer is a Jew. They wouldn’t even criticize the sexualisation of gentile children because that would be anti-semitism. We should not be ethnocentric to the point where we defend white degenerates and criminals just because they are white.

> you sound a lot like those conservative shills who say "don't fall in with identity politics because the left does"

Read my previous post. I said that it’s not moral to prevent any racial, ethnic or religious group from exercising self-determination. I am supportive of identity politics.

>We have EVERY right to complain when the Jews practice nepotism towards us, because we have every reason to, no one else will advocate for us, and our race is OUR kin, we have a moral obligation to them by orders of magnitude greater than we do to the Jews.

I agree with you that we do have a moral obligation to our people. It’s just that your rhetoric seems empty if you just autistically base your supposed morality off of genes . Also, I even said in my previous post that a good way to get rid of Jewish nepotism would be to implement quotas.

>>189941

>Read my post again. I even said that racial groups should have their own land to live on.

They already have their land – this one, where they can kill White people and take what they want with impunity. There is no incentive for them to abandon this.

>>189941

>We should not be ethnocentric to the point where we defend white degenerates and criminals just because they are white.

That's against White nature anyway. Even Christian Identity where only Whites can go to heaven says unjust Whites go to hell.

>>189957

> Even Christian Identity where only Whites can go to heaven says unjust Whites go to hell.

Christianity is for Africans and spics, why would they make it so that only low-melanin people can go to heaven?

>>189966 (Checked myself before i wrecked myself)

Reply meant for

>>189965

>>189945

I’m talking about true separation of the races by land. Black communities govern themselves and white communities govern themselves. Obviously, those non-whites on white communities hurting white people would bepunished.

>>189965

>it’s against white nature

That’s partially my point. Even if whites are ethnocentric, we should never be ethnocentric to the point where we excuse unjust whites. That is more or less Jewish behaviour, which others in this thread want to emulate.

>>189993

I understand what you're talking about. I don't know why you keep repeating yourself. There's no reason for the others to do that because they are in the position of power and can take at will. You are either very dumb or very naive.

>>189994

It's a non-concern. All normie Whites hate wiggers. Whites will kill evil or run away before ever supporting it. Ethnonationalism seems oddly not as deeply programmed as justice though and Whites can go either way with it, although the Whiter the person the more racist they tend to be.

>>190006

Of course we gotta take power first, anon.

>>190016

>Ethnonationalism seems oddly not as deeply programmed as justice though

For most of human history since whites, blacks, and asians diverged from each other they have lived in geographically isolated environments. If there are no other races, there's no environmental pressure pushing you to be racist against them, so you focus on other aspects of your society like criminal justice and those get ingrained into your DNA instead.

>>190027

Except all the other species of humanity staunchly retain their ethnonationalism, so your theory is quite plainly false. Whites have been specifically and purposely attacked, psychologically and chemically, to divorce us of our self-preservation.

>>190024

Except you’re never actually going to do that. It’s just words. There is no peaceful solution, and there’s not a single one of us–much less all of us, which is what would be needed at the bare minimum–who will physically resist. It’s just worthless posturing.

OP here, lots of retardation here, you sure you haven't taken the vaccine already?

>>189941

>Everyone has a healthy amount of ethnocentrism. Nothing wrong with that.

No, not everyone bas a healthy measure of ethnocentrism, most Whites have been brainwashed into abandoning ethnocentrism altogether, most of those being Christian.

>However, if your end goal is to become amoral and sociopathic towards non-whites (like how the Jews are towards gentiles) then that is a juvenile way of seeing the world.

No shlomo, it's the only successful strategy that has ever existed for any race of man, "oy vey, stop using tactics that win, stick with the old losing strategies that have failed repeatedly out of nothing but principle" Fuck your principles, I've read enough history to know what gets results, and I want results.

>Look at how Jews on Twitter were defending the movie Cuties just because the producer is a Jew. They wouldn’t even criticize the sexualisation of gentile children because that would be anti-semitism.

What the hell man? you have got to be a kike shill to be saying this.

You think Jews OPPOSE the rise of pedophilia in our societies?

Do you think Jews aren't interested in injecting degeneracy into european and american society?

Get your head out of your asshole, the Jews have been molesting kids in our lands for as long as they've been in them, they've used pedophilic decadence like Epstein's child sex slaves to corrupt, blackmail, and control major players in our countries, they've promoted sex to kids and sex with them as well.

Your assertion that if "cuties" was made by a gentile, that Jews would stand opposed to it, is such a ridiculous assertion it can only come from a place of severe ignorance or a place of malice.

>We should not be ethnocentric to the point where we defend white degenerates and criminals just because they are white.

Yes, we should, punishing our people is our responsibility, and right now, racial loyalties overtakes everything else. Due to the nature of the specific circumstances we are in, I'd defend a white pedophile who molested a black kid any day, heck even if it was a white kid they molested I'd defend them, because right now, we need everyone we can get, and his gratitude might be enough to gain us a loyal ally (he's probably innocent, but just to be safe, let's keep him him away from the little whites), no matter the crime, if they are white we acts as if we know they are innocent, if they are non-white we act as if we are certain they are guilty (especially if they are jewish).

Tribalism must come before all else, and we must be utter sociopaths towards all other tribes, the good of the Tribe must be our only concern, we cannot afford to think otherwise, lofty principles can always come after this existential threat has been resolved, but we must not sacrifice ourselves on the altar of our principles.

>Read my previous post. I said that it’s not moral to prevent any racial, ethnic or religious group from exercising self-determination.

Which whites are currently being denied, and absolute extreme ethnocentrism is the only way to change that, you claim to believe in identity politics, so you must understand that the politics of an identity group is shaped by their circumstances. We cannot afford to be "good" when everyone is attacking us, it doesn't impress anyone and only opens us to be hurt even more, it is these high-minded standards that you espouse that have put us in this position to begin with, we must be "selfish", we cannot afford anything else.

>I agree with you that we do have a moral obligation to our people. It’s just that your rhetoric seems empty if you just autistically base your supposed morality off of genes . Also, I even said in my previous post that a good way to get rid of Jewish nepotism would be to implement quotas.

No, its a terrible idea, throughout history, Jews have been able to use any sort of half-measured "reasonable" policy against us, we implement a quota, it become either subverted to the advantage of the Jews, or becomes just another "crime" for the Jews to crucify us with.

You disparage autism, but it is the autistics who are the most inclined to /pol/itics due to their immunity to the herd mentality that warps the minds of the NORPs, it is the autistic who have given us so much ground, autism is not a weakness or something to be shamed of anymore, it is now our greatest weapon, and we need more of it, not less.

Fuck your "quotas" I've seen a tonne of them, and that's a very Jewish form of policy if I've ever seen one.

Continued on from >>190129

>>189952

Matthew 10:34-39

"resist not your enemies, but attack your own family, divide the family against itself"

That is EXACTLY what a coward does, turns on their family members, it's also a central goal of the Jew today, breaking up the family.

>‎1 John‎ 5:‎4 - ‎Revelation‎ 21:‎7

Pro-Whites have seen the folly of colonialism for what it was, the people conquer will ultimately conquer you.

Pro-whites are NOT interested in world conquest, but you know who is?

Jews are, Muslims are, and Marxists are.

Also he is bribing his followers with afterlife goodies for being shabbos, proving that heaven is yet another Jew scam.

Stop digging yourself into a hole, we get it, your book is disgusting.

>>189957

You miss the point, The reason some random Christian represents an argument against you and some random Atheist (or religious zealot deluded into calling himself one) doesn't present an argument against us, is because unlike us, YOU claim to have an OBJECTIVE and ABSOLUTE morality that comes from a personal connection to the creator of the universe.

If that were true, there would be no disagreement on all of these moral and political matters, you would KNOW by the perfect, transcendent nature of your morality, that egalitarianism is wrong, but you don't.

The most common claim made against Atheism on /pol/ is how you are superior by virtue of you morality, but if you morality is being shown to be not be objective, not be absolute, and not be universal, than this just totally fucks that shit up for you, doesn't it?

You can no longer make this claim against us, because it is easily shown to be false.

That is the point in showing how Christianity does not produce Pro-Whites, but instead mostly produces Anti-Whites.

That is the point in showing how so many of the most influential Christians were Anti-White, and even those who were Pro-White (Like Martin Luther) represented the absolute outliers on the fringes of their Christian societies.

>>189965

Catholics and Protestants each thought the other were sinners who were going to hell, but in the end, they united under the skin color when the Muslim hordes were ransacking their continent, and it was this racial unity that saved them by holding the Muslims off until the Mongols could put an end to their dreams of global conquest.

The point is this, even the worst of White criminals is a lesser concern than the best of the non-White who threatens our people, we cannot afford to fight ourselves while we fight off the enemy.

>>189966

It's not for shitskins, but I cannot deny that they take to it (and Islam) very well, like flies to a turd.

>>189993

Blacks have taken so much land from us already, Haiti and Liberia re good examples of what happens when you give them more land.

They destroy it, and blame whitey for the destruction they had wrought.

>>190016

Ethnonationalism goes far deeper than "justice", it's just that no one is suppressing the sense of justice in Whites (in fact, they are more interested in exploiting it to get us to act against our own interests).

>>190024

THIS. Whites need to take power, this is our most important concern, the highest of all goals, this is the thing that must be achieved at any cost, and all else must be sacrificed if it were necessary to do so in order to achieve this. Our continued presence on this planet depends on our victory in this.

>>190129

>Your assertion that if "cuties" was made by a gentile, that Jews would stand opposed to it

You’re wrong. You misunderstood me. I was trying to imply that Jews have no problem when it comes to degrading gentilles.

Anon, I gotta say this one thing as well. When you claim to want to be sociopathic towards non-whites, you are just buying into the anti-white narrative that whites are inherently genocidal and exploitative.

>>189820

ashkenazi jews are khazars, 80% aryan. They were known for the red hair and blue yes in the ancient world.

https://www.livescience.com/40247-ashkenazi-jews-have-european-genes.html

https://ugetube.com/watch/khazars-history-of-the-jewish-turkic-nomads_H5crklWRvfgongq.html

Let's look at Jesus's (((based))) actions:

>He whips money-changers at the steps of a temple. Based!

- A Jewish temple, dedicated to the Jewish God, whom he calls his father, because money-changing in that place was a violation of Jewish law.

>He told the Pharisees to go fuck themselves, called them the sawn of Satan, and den of vipers. Based!

- After they had told him he was not their messiah, until that point he was sucking their dick and telling the other Jews to these guys were the God's appointed authorities on Earth and should be obeyed without question.

It was sour grapes, a petulant tantrum when someone finds that all his brown-nosing and boot-licking does nothing for him.

Like a contestant on a talent show who finds that they aren't as good at singing as they thought they were, and responds by throwing a tantrum on stage, this was the catalyst for his secession.

>He said "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword" Based!

- To use to divide the Jewish people who made up his followers against their families, between the Jews who accepted hi as messiah, and those who didn't. Dividing the family among ideological lines is typical behavior for a Jew.

>He said "render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, and unto God what is God's". Based!

- After talking shit about the Romans for being "oppressors" and inciting yet more Jewish insurrection against what was at the time the greatest Gentile civilization the planet.

He only changed his tune because while romans were content to let the communities of non-romans govern themselves, they expected their dues to be paid, and Roman tax collectors are not to be fucked with.

this was an example of him being an internet tough guy before the internet, as soon as he is actually confronted, he folds like a little bitch.

>He worked miracles, healing the sick, reviving the dead, driving out demons, multiplying food, making wine from water. Based!

- He only healed Jews, and Canaanites (Greeks) had to beg him for healing by comparing themselves to "dogs of the Jews" before they got their "scraps".

- He resurrected Lazurus in a cave and he died again before Jesus left the cave, it was entirely on the basis of trust that anyone could say he did this, and after doing this brief resurrection, Jesus then claimed that Lazurus agreed with everything he was saying.

- Not much to say about driving out demons except that it allowed Jesus to LARP like he was some ultimate savior and badass without actually having to face any real opposition by claiming he was fighting some powerful invisible enemy, also he drove the demons into pigs, then sent the pigs into water to drown themselves, because pigs are unclean in the eyes of the Jewish law.

- the food he multiplied was loaves of challa and gelte fishes, his miracle was not just to make more food, but to make more KOSHER food. Reminds me of those AntiFa who demanded more Vegan meats when they were starving.

- The wine was a consecrated wine for a marriage, specifically, of a marriage in the Jewish tradition.

Every one of his miracles was kiked in some way.

Furthermore, his miracles were nothing special, the Bible is chock full of magic tricks such as these, many of which are examples of such "miracles" being performed by filthy pagans.

When you take into account that by the very same narrative in which he did these things, that everyone was doing the same kinds of things, the magician's faith seemingly irrelevant, you can see how his miracles failed to impress.

>>190342

>Jesus was without sin. Based!

Jesus sinned constantly, he was a murderer, a liar, a thief, and a traitor to his family.

- Jesus was anti-family, he dishonored his own mother, violating a commandment from God, and thus sinning.

In encouraging his followers to follow his example, he broke up other families also.

Furthermore, he violated the commandment to "be fruitful", he was celibate for life, and his followers were too, at his influence, thus he led them to sin once again.

- He lied, claiming his followers would see the end of the world, and they all died with the endtimes never coming, their vows of celibacy may not have been so strongly held if they had thought that the world would not be coming to an end before their eyes.

- He got angry very often, by his own words, that made him a hypocrite, as he was committing murder "in his heart", he also stole fruit from the trees of others, and where they would not bear him fruit (because they were not in season) he destroyed the trees on another man's land by cursing it to rot (a decidedly unholy "miracle").

- When presented with the woman caught in adultery, this was a test of his suitability as a messiah, he failed the test, he should have demanded that the man be brought forth to share the punishment, instead he wrote the sins of the people present in the sand, and told the woman "go and sin no more".

This seems alright, except that this shows that he fails to see the differences between different types of sin, adultery is not like the sins he had written in the sand, none of those were sins that carried the death penalty, at most they would require mere repentance and asking God for forgiveness. Adultery is not such a sin, its a very serious violation of the law, you can't get out of it with a simple "I'm sorry".

Basically this was like you failing law class by comparing a slight parking violation to a murder and saying "well they are both crimes, so I guess the punishment is the same".

>Jesus was born of a virgin to God by immaculate conception. Based!

-The pharisees were right to reject him, not only did he commit messiah was to be "immaculate" and descended from the "line of david", meaning a direct descendant, at the moment of his birth he failed in both accounts.

-By his own admission, he was born a bastard, his father was God, not the an who raised him, and he was born to a woman who was married to that man, he was born in sin, his brother was more fit than him to inherit the title of "messiah".

-By his own sets of geneologies, his line was of David only through the man who raised him, who was not his biological father, meaning he was not od the line of David, and he was thus ineligible for the title of "king" due to the importance of blood primacy.

-Now, this was Jesus being stupid and prideful and fucking himself up with his own testimony about how great he was, by saying "I was born of God and Mary via immaculate conception" he had declared his own ineligibility, but it was clear he was talking himself up by claiming this, had he humbly said "Joseph is my father", he would have had a shot, instead he shot himself in the foot.

>Jesus championed the downtrodden. Based!

-He talked up the poor and desperate, and incited them to hate the rich and well-off, he equated success to sin, implying that the only way to be successful is to cheat, and that lacking success automatically makes you a good person, this is a predatory pattern of behavior that is manipulative kikery in modern Jews, why do we tolerate it here?

There is a lot about Jesus that does not fly well with me.

>>190343

Also, the Pharisees got the Romans to kill him, why?

The Jews were permitted to govern themselves, so long as they paid their taxes and did not interfere with the Romans, they could do as they wished.

The Pharisee had the authority to kill any gentile among them, because Jewish law did not apply to those who were not ethnically Jewish, and if Jesus was a gentile among the Jews, he would have been able to be offed without any sin being committed.

It was because Jesus was ethnically Jewish that they had to get the Romans to do it, under Jewish law, a murder must have been committed directly, and an indirect murder was not counted.

The Pharisee were only guilty if they acknowledged that they took responsibility for Jesus's death by indirect means, otherwise they were scot free.

Well, according to the Bible, the Pharisee fucked up by doing exactly that that thing, taking responsibility for killing Christ.

Here's the thing, Jesus was a rabbi, if he was not Jewish ethnically, he was at least Jewish culturally, his followers were all of the same community as his persecutors, when Jesus said "I shall divide father against son, brother against brother, etc." he was being literal, he was literally dividing the same community against itself.

If Jesus was not ethically Jewish, then it follows that the Pharisee who persecuted him were not ethnically Jewish either, as they all had come from within the same ethnic tribe.

If Jesus was a gentile adopted into this community, there is the matter that he had the opportunity to preach to gentiles, but explicitly rejected the concept in favor of keeping his following only to those of Jewish descent.

>>190333

The problem with all of these studies on "atheism" is that all people who don't believe in God are lumped together, political and philosophical alignment is completely ignored here.

I am making a distinction between ourselves, and the atheists outside of this place, so If you wanted to draw any viable conclusions, you would have to adjust by political or philosophical orientation.

And so what if we are more likely to be fat? How does that invalidate anything we say?

The point of the pic was that the crusader was a Christian version of the "fedora" stereotype who is often portrayed as being overweight, to show that the same personality can manifest on either side of the aisle, the posts in this very thread shows that to be true, so the essential point remains un-assailed and evident.

>>190342

>>190343

>>190348

>paid jewish shill INSTANTLY comes into the thread upon the invocation of the name of the person he hates most in the world

>copies and pastes a pre-written tirade of lies that jews say about Jesus to denounce any association of Jesus with THE RIGHT IDEA, as that anon said

>attempts to poison the well of behaving as Jesus did to achieve our goals

This is what a paid shill looks like. Take note in the future.

I'm an atheist and have been one for most life, but the more I look at the world the more it makes me think that humans are just evolutionarily built with a desire to both believe in and practice a religion. Those that try to avoid it all seem to fall into the trap of religiously worshipping a secular concept like communism, environmentalism etc.

>>190333

But there is, a doctrine behind the refusal to believe in God.

- By doing so, our epistemological standards remain consistent, we can reject God and the afterlife with "insufficient evidence" and we can reject the myriad claims made by leftists on the same grounds. This consistency means we are truly on the side of truth because we have a clear and universally applicable definition of what constitutes "worthiness of belief".

- We make our arguments for things like opposing abortion and homosexuality stronger by removing it from the leftist conception of the crusading Christian, these positions are stronger when argued by an atheist than by a Christian because it gives the leftist less places to hide from our claims behind thought-killing strawmen, and forces them to face the proposition that even without appeal to religion, there are good reasons why abortion is murder, and homosexuality is mental illness..

- I allows white people to forge their own path, with concern for God and Heaven removed, the primary focus of our people is on their own interests and welfare, this is but one of the reasons why Hitler wanted to phase out Christianity and was already taking the steps towards this path when the second war began.

The Bolsheviks were priority, but Christians were very clearly the next in line to get the long knives.

-It unties us from the conservatives who put god before everything, by dropping religion, we truly become our own position, and not just a more extreme variant of an existing acceptable mainstream one ("alt-lite" is also mainstream, they are controlled opposition).

This is important because it stops the "left-right-left-right" cycle in it's tracks, the Jews will not take a step back, nor a step forwards, they will finally fall.

Remember that our countries were still very much anti-white when it was Christian, and those were some of the years where the worst damage had been done, the few pro-white voices who existed then were almost all atheist, or from some fringe form of religion that might as well have been atheism as far as the religious authority (who, according to the Bible, were appointed by God) was concerned.

- we maintain that our traditions have deeper roots than merely "it's what God wants", we start showing the more mundane side of traditionalism when it is being observed by atheists.

Every position we take becomes stronger without the crutches of God or Heaven, we get more freedom to do what it takes to accomplish out goals this way, we make a stronger case that is harder to assault.

Best of all, it removes all irrationality of the dogma of principle that the Jews used to manipulate our ancestors with.

Rationality is a bulwark against Jewish subversion, because it demands that the Jews prove their unreasonable claims are reasonable, which is an impossible task.

their claims are unjustifiable and die under basic scrutiny, an atheist /pol/ is a critical and analytical mind that asks them to justify everything they say, it spots the bullshit because it has the boldness to look for it and ask the questions.

The Jew prefers us to be religious, even though they hate our religion.

It was good for them when they had goy minds who were already adapted to accept things on faith, they just dislodged the existing dogma and filled the resulting gap by submitting the Marxist faith for the Christian one.

The left is the product of the uncritical mind that christianity had produced.

An atheist /pol/, on the other hand, is one who has already had their gaps filled by something that cannot be dislodged, because it relies on reason, and not dogmatic belief to sustain itself.

Our philosophy works just fine without God, everything is justified by observable evidence, and so the task of dislodging this philosophy becomes a lot harder for the Jew to accomplish, in fact, it becomes impossible.

>>190356

- Last, lots of leftists consider their lack of god as a sign of superiority, enough to win any debate on it's own, by taking things to the secular realm with atheist /pol/, we even the ground and beat them there because on every other subject, without appeals to God, we win the debate. Every time.

>>190349

>>190362

>>190363

Shill, Shill, and Shill.

Sagefags are almost always shills.

The shill says nothing, they contribute nothing, they exist only to prevent the contribution of anything meaningful by genuine members of the community.

It's obvious in their conduct, notice how none of them address my arguments? Notice how they talk like leftists are trained to do?

These are all Jewish argument techniques being applied to a new subject:

- fear-mongering via defining the opposition in terms favorable to yourself

("if you accept race realism you are a genocidal monster" and "if you reject God you are an amoral individualist")

- acting as if your reaction to their bullshit claims is an argument against you, and not them

("oh, look how salty this guy is that his race is dying out" and "oh look how upset he is when Jesus is mentioned")

- attacking the format and not the content in order to prevent debate from happening in the first place

("oh there is a typo, guess I don't have to respond to anything you say" and "look at this wall of text being used to convey complex thoughts, better use a meme image instead")

Never do they address my arguments, they instead focus on shutting down the consideration of the subject matter, this is pure pilpul, it is a rhetorical practice designed to sell lies to you by limiting your ability to examine them.

It is exactly what the Mein Kampf talked about at length about talking to Jews and their puppets, and the reason that Hitler grew to hate the Jews.

The closest thing to an argument here is that they appeal to dogma using dogma, has the track record not shown that religion has been a weakness of ours, not a strength?

The "Atheist vs Christian" conflicts that occurred online were decidedly in favor the the atheists, it was a victory that could be likened to a curb-stomping. and the conflicts weren't on the grounds of morality, or politics, they were mainly focused on whether or not belief in God was justified.

It's not, and the Jew's main tactic in partisan politics is to put bits of truth and bits of poison in both sides of allowable discourse, that way they have inserted a blatant weakness they can target or manipulate if one side gets out of control.

In our case, it's the Jewish-instilled insistence on religion has done more to limit and discredit us than any other part of our position.

When we refuse the accept the null hypothesis in the special case of religion, we lose much credibility when it comes to talking on other matters.

It also uses dogma to fill a gap where a foundation of more reasonable and justifiable knowledge and philosophy should be.

Since this dogma is based on unjustifiable beliefs, all they need to do to create an opening for a dogma of their own, is to dislodge what is there by pointing out the unjustifiability of these foundations.

Since the individual is already accustomed to believing in things on grounds of faith ad oral righteousness, they take very readily to the marxist drivel that gets poured into them.

An atheist on /pol/ is lacking in dogma, and therefore gaps, he has justifications for his beliefs that exist in the here and now, observable, verifiable facts of nature and reality are used as the foundation of these ideas.

His positions are based on what is, and not what may be, this the Jew is frustrated when he cannot simply say "well, the basis for your belief is not justifiable", because the basis for the atheist to be a nationalist, traditionalist, and a pro-white is justifiable, it is, in fact, observable, and undeniable truth.

To pit the Jew against the obvious, is to remove from him the illusion of reasonability, to expose him as a liar.

>>190334

>>190340

This isn't an option, not for us, even before the lockdown this was a recipe for getting your ass beat and jailed. So you want /pol/ anons to go to prison? Shill.

>>190349

Arguing that your opponent getting angry or frustrated is a sign of your victory is a well-established Jewish tactic. This is clearly a shill.

>>190362

I write walls of text because I have something to contribute, you contribute nothing but instead focus on shutting down certain ideas from being expressed without addressing them directly.

The rioters in your pic hate conservatives too, I also see a fag flag in the background, and I've made it clear that fags are mentally ill perverts.

Shill.

>>190363

Nothing in your picture describes me, I oppose marxism and communism, I stand against the media and the pedophiles they protect, I call out the JQ and racial differences, Basically this guy represents everything I despise.

But that is the point of you posting it, yeah? to provoke me by equivocating me with that to which I stand most opposed and hold in the greatest degree of disgust?

However, this exposes you as a shill.

<Time and again, make a thread with a new idea or new content, and the point is proven, sagefags are shills>

>>190369

Correct. You say nothing and contribute nothing. Eat shit and die, jew puppet.

>>190371

>strawman

>YOU’RE THE SHILL NOT MEEEEEEE

>OY VEY JEWS ARE GREAT

>EVERYTHING JEWS WANT IS GREAT

>EVERYTHING THAT STANDS AGAINST JEWS IS BAD

>DO WHAT JEWS WANT

Pathetic.

>>190386

>>190387

Emotional hysteria, the cuckrage is strong with you.

I want to be fair, so I'll tell you what, you tell me what good things Christianity brings to us and our cause, make your sales campaign here, and I will give my criticism.

It will be interesting to see how well you sell us on keeping the same strategy that we have lost us so much ground on already.

Also, do you have any suggestions on why the pro-white movement has accomplished so little, and how to improve things down the line?

>>190392

Can you do anything except project, commie? Do you think there’s a soul who found this place that hasn’t read Rules for Radicals? Holy fucking shit.

>>190393

It's very clear that you have read that book, since you employ the tactics within ITT.

- You say nothing of substance

- You delight in being obnoxious, you behave like bratty child.

- Your posts are short and only exist to disrupt the conversation topic.

- When invited to contribute, you do nothing but continue to break down dialog and shut down contribution.

- You try to exert peer pressure to stop people from reading what other have written, you are censorious.

- Then you try to take control over how others behave on here, again to stop them from listening to others and encapsulate them in ideological bubbles (>>190349) thus disrupting the flow of information.

I've posted a secular rationale for why race, tradition, and nation are important and worth preserving, how these are morally justified by the study of nature itself, how this shows that you and the tribe are one.

You, on the other hand, are the opposite, there is nothing you have said or posted that indicates you are not a shill, and everything you've done here has been textbook shill behavior.

Tell me what benefits Christianity has for us, tell me what you think about anything at all, can you say something that a shill would not be able to?

Just say anything instead of just sabotaging the discussion so that it cannot occur.

Tell me anything I've ever said in this thread that falls in line with Communism, I challenge you to find it, It is a degenerate Jewish ideology.

Communism is an ideology that promises a global dystopia without government, property, or hierarchy, this by itself is a hell on Earth.

But the reality is that this will never come to be, there will only be an endless global totalitarian socialist hellhole in an endless state of "progress".

Where all relationships and communities among common people are forbidden, everyone is a stranger that hates and fears one another, constantly betrays each other for personal benefit.

Where all property is owned by the state which strictly regulates its allowable usage by the common people who are entrusted to anything with harsh and brutal punishments.

Where all freedom and privacy is lost, all common people are reduced to interchangeable and expendable worker units with no regard given to their quality of life.

Where all the races except the Jews are mixed into a "homo universalis" (think Sandniggers, but far worse) with an IQ just high enough to serve their Jewish masters but nowhere high enough to challenge them, and these are the "common people" I speak of.

Where the Jews enjoy everything they deny to the common people, living like kings, satisfied that the world their Talmud has instructed them to build has finally been realized, and they have fully subjugated all the goyim, who they regard as no more than chattel livestock.

With the white man gone, the only race that has the potential to reach the stars bred and culled into extinction due to his inability to realize the importance of not showing undue kindness to the enemies of his race, the life of this planet will never be able to escape the death of the planet, and so when the Earth dies, nothing of the miracle of it's once vibrant capacity for life remains.

The ultimate answer to the fermi paradox revealed, that the best of all races will allow themselves to be destroyed by the worst of all races before they achieve anything, and the inferior who exploit the best qualities of the superior to destroy them, and in so doing,, will doom every lifeform to extinction.

The violent and manipulative cult that supports it are those who use their perversions of concepts such as "love" to abuse the world into being complacent with it's own destruction, purely due to the problems that exist in their own fucked-up heads, communists convert by abuse and indoctrination, whenever they succeed, all of the revolutionaries and minorities will be given the reward they deserve once their masters turn on them, death.

Every communist society is incapable of sustaining itself, but the new hopes are that the use of mind-control technology like neurolink could make communism work somehow.

Most communists think that the reason communist societies fail is because of the existence of societies that are not communist, the ideology requires world conquest to function, and the whole world must be plunged into it's darkness before it can move on from the totalitarian dystopia of socialism, to the promised dystopia it promises to usher in (but never will).

That is everything I think about communism, it's an ideology that seeks to plunge the whole of the world into a nightmare.

Every time an /atheistpol/ thread is started, you crash it, more than /christianpol/ more than /paganpol/, what is it about politically correct atheism that threatens you?

I think it's because you see it (atheism) as your turf, you recognize that it gives you some level of credibility among people, and that you cannot argue in favor of ripping babies from wombs or fags being left to groom children into sexual abuse without relying on calling the other side some rabid christian zealot.

A secular argument on ANY matter scares you because you cannot win it, you need you opposition to be religious, and I've noticed that you have repeatedly used religion to undermine and destroy what was otherwise sensible opposition.

You promote religion to the right, because yon know it weakens them, it gives you a strategy that you can use time and again to defeat them, if they got rid of it, you'd have to come up with a new approach, and then you are fucked.

Because the left doesn't create, it imitates, co-opts, merges, and acquires, but it cannot make anything new by it's own. Your side is creatively bankrupt, and can only destroy.

>>190393

basically, I know you are antifa and you fuck boys up the ass.

>>190402

>>190416

>you are everything I am, even though you literally called me out on doing this mere seconds ago

This isn’t chutzpah. It’s just mental retardation. It’s just fucking subhuman stupidity.

>>189718

>fourth image

That's totally disingenuous. "Son of God" was produced to be a "antidote" to Mel Gibson's The Passion, and Abe Foxman was an advisor on it.

They'll cash in on kosher, fully judaized Christian films, but they don't like it, nor are they marketed to jews.

>>190418

All you've done is baselessly made accusations at me. Then reiterated those accusations, over and over.

This is the communist tactic, you associate people you want to destroy with names that already have a bad smell in their community, then repeat the accusation over and over until the accusation and the target become synonymous within that community.

You've never said anything except "he's a commie, he's a commie boys! he's a commie! he's a commie!"

Over and over again, nothing to substantiate it or back it up, just a broken record looping the same message on repeat.

You then say that the accusation is the evidence, you called me a communist first, ergo, when I counter accuse you of being a shill, you claim I am projecting.

But I'm not, the behavior I've accused you of has been the exact conduct you've engaged in ITT, it's all shill behavior, I've given you the chance to say anything to show us where you stand ideologically, and you refuse to give it, most likely, you have no conception of politically incorrect thought or are afraid you'd fuck it up if you tried to say anything of substance.

Until you say anything that isn't just you repeating the same accusation over and over, It should be assumed that you are a paid shill who sucks off nigger dicks and collects Sorosbucks.

>>190484

It's not just these movies, these are just those movies that are explicitly biblical, media production agencies owned by Jews have made hundreds if not thousands of pieces of media that show Christianity in a good light, even in movies where some Christians are shown to be bad, the movie goes out of it's way to show that for he most part, most Christians are good and that Christianity has a positive effect on our society.

I'm not saying Jews like Christianity or Jesus, on the contrary, I know for a fact that they hate both of these things, but they see them as useful for controlling the goyim and any opposition that may come of them, it lets them win even after they lose, it maintains a cycle that continually works to the benefit of the Jew and to the detriment of the goyim.

It means any society we take from them, they can easily use the vulnerabilities created by our Christianity to take it right back, and every time the cycle repeats, the whole thing just keeps getting worse for the whites and the Jews become able to do so much more damage than before. It is only because our people are phenomenally strong that we can withstand what has come before.

They prefer that their enemy be beholden to Christianity, because they can use the vulnerabilities that come with that religion to subvert and undermine anything the goyim does, and any society the goyim builds.

It programs the goyim to accept the idea of accepting things dogmatically, and uncritically, as a matter of principle, rather than reason, such a mind is not vigilant enough to see the Jewish trick when it is upon them.

When morality is based on something unverifiable being assumed to be true, when that unverified assumption comes into doubt, morality goes with it.

By tethering morality and purposefulness to the assumed reality of God and Heaven, and leaving no backup for when those assumed impossibilities are pointed out as being most likely untrue, Christianity sets morality up for it's own destruction, When belief in God wavers, belief in morality wavers with it.

It's also immoral in itself to force people to make a special exception in the case of Christianity when rejecting the primacy of the null hypothesis, no matter what form it takes, any trace of a pseudo-reality ultimately favors the parasitic and psychopathic. Better to accept things as they are, even if we wish it were something else, the subversive preys upon the lies of the society they infiltrate.

We don't need Christianity for anything, science and philosophy have already provided us with all the benefits, and these cannot be subverted by making us doubt the facts that our moral beliefs are built upon, because then they would be built upon a readily observable, and therefore absolutely certain reality.

The Jews hate God, and they hate Christ, and that is why they want us gentiles to have them. the things I've said will be like a weaker version of the things the kikes will say to future generations, who we will not be around to educate and protect from their influence, we have to think about what the world will be like when we aren't around to protect it.

Look, I know that there is no way God or any sort of Afterlife exists, I know that there is no way anything magical or supernatural exists.

No mind can exist without a physical brain, no voice without a physical means to affect air, no appearance can exist without a physical means to affect light, there is no evidence of a soul and all reasons for the proposal of the concept are now explained by other (physical) means, the realm of the afterlife cannot be found anywhere, the mechanics of magic and miracles are not possible and violate countless scientifically established principles (which I believe to be good science), It's just not possibly true that God or the Afterlife exists, I can't find a way to make it possible, there is nothing to base these beliefs upon.

I also love my race, and see in it alone all the potential of the world, and I see the world attack my people denying them the right to be left alone and to govern themselves.

The Jews and Muslims and Communists want us gone so they can rule the world, they tell the rest of the world we are a threat and are believed, thus the black and the latino and amerindian and aboriginee are moved against us, and also wish for our destruction.

White people lack unification, some join in and work towards the destruction of their race, some refuse to do anything but deny the slanderous accusations made against their race, but also refuse to explain the phenomena upon which these accusations are built, only a few of us are wiling to actually face the truth and fight for our survival.

I can see in the fact that I love my people and see this injustice they face as being wrong, is all the evidence I need to prove that I've got a sense of morality, and purpose, and meaningfulness, and a hopeful vision for the future that I am willing to work towards and sacrifice for.

I've thought about where this morality comes from, and found my answers in science and nature, so I have an objective foundation for reasoning them out. Thought to be honest, it's just instinct for me.

My nightmare is that the potential that exists in the white race is snuffed out, and the life of this planet is doomed to die with it, this I find to be the most depressing thought imaginable and it haunts me that this is actually a possible future, one which I will do anything to avert.

My beliefs in the classification of LGBT as a collection of mental disorders/illnesses (that should be treated, not entertained), gender differences, race realism, the Jewish problem, the honest and uncensored/unabridged history of the world, the practical and moral failures of communism and marxist theory (as well as the falsehoods that they were built upon), the existence of an anti-white force that has come to dominate every aspect of my society and seeks to plunge it into an earthly hell, all of these are just facts to me, they are very evidently supported by all the science and there is no rational argument against these conclusions.

I am as certain of them as I am of the impossibility of God's existence, and for the same reasons, to doubt one is to doubt the means by which I had arrived at the other.

I see no conflict between atheism and the pro-white position, but it seems that you all just insist over and over that there is, with nothing behind it but the accusation itself, I don't understand.

When I look back upon history, I see dozens of examples of pro-white atheists and anti-white Christians. I've seen them all my life, Fox News is very pro-Christian, and also very anti-white, it's owned and operated by Jews, it had ruled my childhood under president George Bush the second, people forget that we had a very Christian nation just recently, but it was also more anti-white than it is today (where now people are waking up to the anti-white's bullshit).

I felt good to see so many pro-white atheists throughout history, I counted it as a source of pride, and I count Hitler himself among that number.

>>190632

I grew up watching the "atheist vs christian" wars online, and saw that the atheists made the best case, and had these values of science and logic and critical thinking behind them as the keys to their success. It was this that made me leave Christianity and become an atheist.

But by the same values, the pro-white, pro-male, pro-gentile position also came out on top, and in the same manner, it was then that I left libertarianism for white nationalism.

I noticed that the left used all the same arguments and techniques that the Christians did, It was clear from the way they did apologetics for their beliefs that they were wrong.

I am on the side of knowledge (defined as "justified true beliefs"), first and foremost, and it is this that has led me to both atheism and the only real form of political incorrectness.

I see those old "new atheist" videos as useful to /pol/ because the modern left and those old Christian apologetics have so much in common, and since the atheists did an easy clean up on the religious apologists, those same techniques and strategies that the atheists used might be able to have similar results for this political community as well.

Since the two behave the same, we can say the same things about either of them, use the same arguments and analysis, I do realize it's going to be a harder fight with more opposition, but for a lot of people, especially among my generation, who remember the "god wars" of the 2000's and 2010's, the approaches we will be taking and the responses we will be getting will seem very familiar, and this alone I expect will gather us a lot of support. We use one victory in the past to increase our chances of securing another history in the future.

My side, my allegiance, is with the foundation that lies behind both atheism and white nationalism, both were on the side of truth and goodness, science and morality, and that is one reason that I see no conflict between my lack of supernatural beliefs and in my beliefs in the importance of reserving the unique qualities that exist within the white people of the world (that enables them alone to achieve the greatness needed to ensure a good future for our descendants, that us today can look forward to with pride in our hearts).

Please understand that this is who I am, and this is why I had made this thread.

Now that I've poured out my heart, can you still challenge my convictions?

Yes, for the sake of the future and to protect the exceptionalism of the white race, I would be willing to go to any lengths to preserve it, removing the races who threaten our people would guarantee that the world could heal and that the white race would survive, and through that, it would ensure that Earth-borne life would escape the planet that it had arose from before it is too late.

The worst of the race-loyal whites is still worth more than the best of any other kind of human being, and they are worth any sacrifice or labor to preserve and to see the prosperity of them.

Fuck the kikes, fuck the niggers, fuck the spics, and fuck the race-traitors and cucks who enable them.

Fuck communism, that Jewish poison and those who seek it's cancerous spread across out homelands, fuck anyone who stands against nationalism, fascism, and any political system that does not care for the well-being and prosperity of their founding stock of people.

Fuck the egalitarians, the individualists, the progressivists, the feminists, the corporatists, and the capitalists without borders.

I am nationalist, traditionalist, and fascist, I am proud of these things, and will do anything for them.

>>190635

>I am nationalist, traditionalist, and fascist, I am proud of these things, and will do anything for them.

What are you actually going to do then? Apart from blather about it online.

>>190638

I'm feeling pretty powerless right now TBH, I've got no friends, all I can do it write, so I write a lot.

I've written a manifesto, not all that happy with it, but its a work in progress, it's a blueprint for a whole country and it's something I've done 100% solo up until now.

https://bin.privacytools.io/?b421be02655afd43#/PEezlsjRlBHUaFziw17ibEUQHKTexunRG2rrBaTRhA=

This is what I got so far, I need some other people to work on it with me to improve it.

My plan is to use this to gather signatures to start a political party in my country.

but it needs a lot of work, things need to be rephrased, rewritten, removed, replaced, reframed, reinterpreted etc.

I know it's shit, don't expect much from it at this point in development, but it's a work in progress. If I can get some other heads together, maybe we can work it out into something better.

Its hard, I can't just put down what I want because I need public support for getting it into any sort of power, the plan is not to win an election, but to stir up debate and disrupt the current stagnant order.

things can evolve from there.

>>190825

I want to kill the apathy, incuriousity, cowardice, and self-absorption that is killing our countries, make people start to talk, make people start to write, make people start to yell at each other.

Awaken the NPCs into awareness and make them openly engage with politics, before it's too late.

>>190635

>I am a traditionalist

Is it possible to be a traditionalist and an atheist?

>>190832

It's even possible to tell internet strangers you're a duck with a machine gun.

>>190832

Why not?

Think about it in evolutionary terms, memes, like genes, are subjected to selective pressures.

The best of of doing things get selected for a codified over time, they become traditions, those ways that had less fortunate outcomes found themselves dropped and replaced with those that worked better, .

We developed monogamy because it was the ideal arrangement for a pair-bonding family, the men and women have their best roles decided first by nature (for example, due to pregnancy and long gestation/development periods) then by memetics, the mother stays at home and cares for the children, the father goes out and protects/provides for his family, this was simply the arrangement that outlasted those alternatives, it became the norm, and that led to it becoming imprinted into our genes as we evolved to better suit ourselves to it.

We developed laws regarding persons and property, the oldest and most common laws we have (do not kill, do not steal, etc.) because these were the best ways of running society, they not only were good for the welfare of citizens, but also encouraged voluntary interactions among the people, leading to specialization (jobs) and negotiation/reciprocation (trade), people sought to benefit others in order to benefit themselves, and this established a strong sense of community, it was also a matter of enforcing respect for others, and cultivated the morals he have by punishing those who broke these rules.

Laws and their enforcement also affected gene distribution, it raised the IQ of the population because those whose genetic predispositions were more compatible with these laws were those who were more intelligent (G-Factor is linked to self-control, empathy, etc.), and removed the less compatible from the population, (and they took their genes with them).

Societies that shunned perversions like homosexuality were more successful than those that did not, because homosexuals have a great many issues with them, not the lest being their tendency to spread disease throughout a population. Things like necrophilia, bestiality, and cannibalism also went the same way.

Hospitality was developed and enforced because it meant that anyone could count on their neighbors to host them if they were in need, thus improving the survival of everyone, this was also backed by reciprocity and enforced at times, which affected genetic distribution of genes that carried those genetic predispositions.

Even Holidays have very good ties to how to best run our communities:

We have winter celebrations to best deal with the winter as they are times of hunkering down they are devoted to family and helping one another.

We have autumn celebrations to celebrate bringing in the harvest and the coming of the darkest, coldest days, these are dedicated to appreciating what we have, and celebrations of fear to prepare ourselves for the worst times of the year (winter).

Religion also plays a good role, a common mythology and common associated practices that gather people together, it's another good thing, assuming subversive elements are not present. In the absence of the parasite people, a religious society, pagan or christian, is a more successful one than an atheist one.

If the Jews do ever die out, I wouldn't mind living in a white nation that is religious, if it became atheist, it'd likely maintain the associated culture and mythology, and that would also be amazing, because it would mean that even an atheist society could produce the Norte Dame, the Sistine Chapel, the Pyramids of Giza, the Stonehedge of Britain, and the like.

All the competing ideas died out, and there are good reasons for all the traditions we have developed since the dawn of our species, the longer they've been around, the more vetted and important they are, any new alternatives need to be looked at very carefully and critically.

I have some flexibility, there are some traditions I would like to get rid of, like circumcision, but for the most part, traditions are all equipped with their own very good justifications that put them over the alternatives that are being suggested.

>>190848

But wait! there is more!

Traditions also have a role to play in our identity as a people, it makes us feel closer to each other, we know each other through them, it allows us to see that our neighbors really are of our people.

They also allow us to spot our enemies or sources of potential threats: when you see a Muslim say "I don't celebrate Christmas", that is him saying "I have no loyalty to you and will betray you if it suits me".

That's a clear sign that this person should not be permitted to live among you, and he will inevitably cause trouble for you down the line if you allow it. We fear the foreign and unfamiliar for good reason, those who did not have this fear quickly died out.

Where I live, we have this celebration called "folklarama", and in it various different groups of immigrants put up "pavilions" in their cultural centers, well, the unspoken truth is that this is not the friendly exchange of cultural values it appears tom be, it's a big dick-measuring contest, and also there is the fact that different races tend to visit pavilions of those of the same race as them, the most popular pavillion among irish-descended people is the irish pavilion, and they feel most comfortable there.

Everywhere you look, people prefer o be with their own, there is this sense of discomfort in being around other races of people or people with distinctly foreign cultures as well, other races means they likely think differently than you do on a fundamental level, other cultures means that they may follow different rules tan you do, and either of these scenarios is cause for what could potentially be a dangerous situation.

It's best if people love their culture and traditions, because it means they love their people, and that in turn means that they love themselves, ad most importantly, it means that they recognize that they and their people are one and the same, and so the good of their people is the good of themselves. You see a higher loyalty there.

Multiculturalism doesn't work, forcing together different cultures in the same country inevitably leads to conflict, cultures should stay separate and focus on improving themselves, they may look at one another and take some inspiration from them for the course of their own development, but that is a judgment made from the standpoint of the existing and largely homogenous culture.

>>190632

>Look, I know that there is no way God or any sort of Afterlife exists, I know that there is no way anything magical or supernatural exists.

Wrong kek

https://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-the-holofractal-universe

>>189575

Why not agnostic, seems more accurate?

>>190948

"Agnostic" was a term that was made up by Steven J Gould, a kike, a plagiarist, and a liar.

The guy is known for three things:

- Taking existing knowledge in the field of evolutionary biology and giving it his own name, then claiming it was a new discovery he had made ("punctuated equilibrium", which was a new word for a concept that had been well-known, well-established, and well-documented in science for decades before he pulled this fame-seeking hoax). It was an act of plagiarism so bold and Jewish that he was permitted to get away with it due to all the kikes working in scientific publication.

- Taking atheism and redefining it, then making his own meaningless distinction that described atheists already and claiming it was a brand new thing, his thing. Agnosticism is atheism, its just a different word for it, and we should not adopt his terminology that serves only to obfuscate, divide, and manipulate.

It's a typical Jew trick, pretending to believe that others are more unreasonable than they actually are, criticizing a more unreasonable position than they actually hold, and thus portraying them to the public as being more unreasonable than they actually are.

There was no need to divide the concept of atheism up by degrees of certainty, most of us already accepted that we could be wrong and in fact would cite the things that would convince us otherwise.

- Writing "the mismeasure of man", which was a load of bullshit race denial and had made one testable prediction, that the measurements of Morton's skull collection were different than what race realists claimed they were, unknown to him, the collection was still in storage at the museum, and when they were measured, it showed that Gould was a lying fraudulent sack of shit. There's another reason we shouldn't use the term "agnosticism" not only is it useless, unnecessary, damaging, and confusing, it also gives this Jew the pleasure of having some part of his legacy honored.

>>190960

>Steven J Gould

What is island dwarfism.

>>190960

I mean should that be disproved with relative ease? I have no idea about genes but in a genom cant you see if something is just repeating garbage and then something meaningful?

>>190960

Specialization creates insecurity.

what exactly is the point here?

>>191664

To spam pro-jewish content to get whites to stop looking into the only ideology which has fought jews for thousands of years.

>>191694

>the only ideology which has fought jews for thousands of years

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Atheists are degenerate creatures without a moral compass.

>>189575

> He has a basis for meaning and morality and transcendence rooted in evolutionary theory

So, the universe created itself, did it ?

What precisely, is he trying to transcend, and what realm does he expect to enter ?

Imbecile.

The atheist isn't ever sure that he exists, because he denies his existential reality. So he makes it up, as you have demonstrated.

>>189828

>Let me handle some Aquinas faggotry

I love it. An imbecile "handles" precise logic without logic, relying on pseudo-science and zombie science.

An IQ of 80 can't even handle the logic that an IQ of 100 can, but he is sure he has bowled over an IQ of 140.

The Krauss & Hawking slave. They agree that

< in the beginning, there was nothing

but then they insist that

< there was a Big Bang

Er, what precisely went "bang" (you said there was nothing, and nothing cannot go "bang", especially not a big "bang).

Freaks like Dawkings; Hawking; and Harris have seduced you, precisely because you are stupid, into thinking that that is "logic". It isn't. It is pig shit, and you are eating it.

Fuck off, you imbecile.

Now regarding the confidence that the stupid have, read

<Unskilled & Unaware, aka the Dunning & Krüger Effect.

>>190135

>Catholics and Protestants each thought the other were sinners who were going to hell, but in the end, they united under the skin color when the Muslim hordes were ransacking their continent, and it was this racial unity that saved them by holding the Muslims off until the Mongols could put an end to their dreams of global conquest.

That's not what happened at all. The Orthodox Byzantines pillaged and genocides Italy to remove the Arian Goths (and later Catholic goths from power, which paved the way for later Moorish conquest. Then a few centuries later, the Catholic crusaders pillaged Orthodox Byzantium on their way to Jerusalem. Then when Constantinople was about to fall while the (((usual suspects))) opened the gates, their fellow Christians did nothing… Well, not exactly nothing. The most powerful and unified Christian state (France) became allies with the raping Turkroaches to spite their neighbor, the Habsburgs. Just like Charlemagne had once made alliances with Moors, but unlike then, the Turks had no natural barriers other than Austrians and Hungarians standing in the way. And for that matter, when the Hungarians didn't have a strong king, the nobles couldn't even unify for one fucking campaign to avoid letting their sons get castrated and sold to a harem, just as later the Polish nobles couldn't unify to protect their country from Russia (then blamed all their troubles on Germany, rather than themselves and their jewish slumlord deputies). And don't forget England, who would ally with any foreign nation and betray their old alliances at the drop of a hat, all so that they could be top dog rather than having long term peaceful partners.

Christianity did nothing to unify Europe, it would be just as fractious without it. At best it provided a convenient excuse to go to war, when an honest "I want to conquer" would've served everyone better in the long run. Strip the hypocrisy out of it and maybe then there's a basis for actual cooperation down the road. Most of the resistance to foreigners came from good old fashioned instinctual racism, which even then the clergy was trying to subvert with talk of converting (rather than annihilating) the heathen… Unless they were heretical Europeans, in which case "Kill them all, God will know his own."

> There are good reasons

Ok, let's try using the human faculty of reason.

> for the Atheist to have everything the Christian claims monopoly over.

Well, if it is a mere claim, not real, then you can't have it either.

But if it is true, not a mere claim, then the Christian has it.

But the Christian has it due to his Christian doctrine … if humans had it by nature alone, then everyone would have it, you would have it, and you wouldn't need to try and get it.

Which mean the faculties the Christian has, he has by doctrine, and therefore they are for Christians only. It is rudely, a "monopoly." Thanks for proving that.

But you try. Which means, you accept that claim is not a mere claim but true, and that the Christian doctrine does produce its fruits in a human. That the Christian doctrine is true, and you are gunna get some of it.

So your particular (if not the general) atheistic doctrine (dogma?) is about getting something real, from those who have it. Excellent. Patently feasible.

But you deny all Christian doctrine.

That is called a self-defeating contradiction, the kind common to asylum dwellers, and those whose criminal urges are pacified 24x7 by psychotropic drugs.

Devoid of reason.

> evolutionary theory

That is a religion, not science, because it demands blind faith. There is nothing in science that supports evolution theory. We have had massive advances in science, we know a lot more about living creatures than Darwin could in his day. Evolution theory has also advanced, such that it can put up a shadow defence against science. Darwin's speculations have been split into three clearer speculations; two have been utterly debunked; and the third has zero evidence, but is still heavily marketed by the faithful.

Evolutionists commonly challenge science to disprove the theory. No, in Western Civilisation, for over 2,500 years, we had had science and justice articulated. The burden of proof is on the prosecution; the proposition, it is not for the defence to disprove the charge. A negative cannot be disproved, and it is not asked. But modern atheists are so uneducated, they ask for their religion [absent proofs] to be disproved. This includes imbeciles who are “professors” at “Oxford”.

And of course, their adorable proposition cannot be proved because proof requires evidence and there has been no evidence since Aristotle.

That leaves them high and dry, insecure as fuck. So they attack the sane, and demand that they prove the atheist is sane, which is impossible because they are not.

Evolutionists also keep the three recent, precise speculations confused, so that the whole subject remains an argument, that never gets resolved. For the sane, we have the Four Laws of Thought, the defined method of reason; sanity. It demands resolution, and thus eliminates debate; consensus; and other idiocies.

Separate to that, one of the wonderful things about evolutionism is, it keeps changing. Nothing is permanent, the dotted lines between the icons of fossils keep changing, every time a new fossil is found, or an old fossil was debunked. So exciting. Broadcast on every media channel, same as mockumentaries about evolutionism. So real.

Try this. Define atheism in one sentence, without referencing God (or any concept of a divine being).

Nothing.

It can’t be done.

Let’s see … atheism is the belief that God does not exist, which is founded on the denial of the evidence in nature. The ancient Greeks (pre-Christian pagans) proved the existence of God using science, the study of creatures, nature. It is everywhere, in every butterfly, in every human birth. It takes substantial mental effort to block all that out.

In any case, to prove that God does not exist, the atheist must hold the concept of God. Which means, he believes in God. But blocks Him out. Then screeches, //look ma, no God//. Adorable in a small child. Hysterical in a woman. But in a full-grown man … the secured asylum.

Atheism is suppression of nature, and blind faith in pseudo-science passed off as science, with no proof whatsoever, none in 200 years. Dotted lines that keep changing.

Devoid of reason. Don’t even think about suggesting it, stay safe in the religion. The high priest at Oxford is a perfect example.