If your donator status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with the relevant information.

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Welcome to Freedomain Radio Message Board

If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible spam accounts.

Crusader1986

Where is the European Struggle against Islam headed?

59 posts in this topic

So where's all this headed?  What do you guys think is going to happen over the next few decades?  Is there going to be civil war between the muslims and Europeans?  Or will our politicians finally get it under control by exposing Islam for what it is by making every child at school study Islam, the Islamic Invasions of Europe in the Middle Ages and the life of the Prophet Mohammad, stop benefits for muslims thus stopping them from breeding, kick out the jihadis, close down the mosques, enforce our own laws, stop immigration and kick start the integration/assimilation process? Or maybe they don't want to sort it out and really want a cross culture clash between the two cultures.  All these are possibilities but what do you guys think is around the corner?  I personally think our leaders are weak and incompetent and will make sure that Civil War happens in the end but maybe there's another possibility that I haven't thought of. Let me know what you think.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If nothing catastrophic happens, say a Muslim attack with hundreds of casualties, the US-scenario will be likely. You will then see large ghettos in major cities, where Muslims, Africans and poor Europeans live, while the majority of White People will segregate by moving away to suburban areas, along with the talented tenth of the minorities. Naturally, the low level conflict will go on in the meantime but it won't be discussed in polite society.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Failla!

I am so glad you tossed up this question. Speculating about culture and geopolitics is my favourite passtime.

I would first like to get on the same page as you, so I have a few questions.

1. Your question presupposes that there is a "European" struggle against "Islam". What do you define as Europe and European? What do you define as Islam and Muslim?
2. You also presuppose that we all agree that there is a "struggle" against Islam. As far as I noticed, half of the continent are not only not struggling against Islam, but they are actively inviting them in. So how did you come to the conclusion that there is a struggle? And if there is a struggle, who specifically is struggling?
3. You bring up the term "civil war". When would you consider the civil war to  have begun? Some would think, as I do, that the civil war has already begun in some places. Just take a look at Hamburg, Brussels, Kaukasia, the rhetoric of Turkey and of Poland.
4. What do you mean by "our politicians"? Do you mean those of your country, or that of the EU, or that of broader Europe?
5. Would you entertain the possibility that the continent will splinter and go on their separate various paths, or do you think we are far too interconnected, and that we will all have the same destiny?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. By European I mean ethnic Europeans.  I think "moderate" cultural muslims will side with the extremists and jihadists when it comes down to it. When I talk about Islam I don't just mean the ideology, I also mean Islam as a culture, so you can lump all the gay hating, jew hating, women beating, female genital mutilation, sharia law, anti free speech, anti music, anti art, anti alcohol and anti everything that's enjoyable into the same category as the religion as even the non devout muslims often bring all their anti gay and anti Jew views with them wherever they go, even if they aren't religious.

2. By struggle I mean the loss of peace we had in Europe in the 90s (minus Bosnia and Kosovo). I also mean struggle as the slow islamisation, creeping sharia that we find eating into our societies, and the slow loss of our freedoms. Although yes, most people are blind to what's going on, a lot of people I think are aware of the problems we're facing, hence why UK voted to leave the EU. Remember they did a poll earlier this year or late last year, after which the results showed that most people not only in the UK but also around Europe wanted no more muslim immigration. So yes, people are aware, somewhere between 50/50 and just over half of people. From what I can see it's mostly working class people who are awake, not the middle class, left wing university clowns and their stupid political leaders.  Here's the poll, it should fill you with some hope. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/most-europeans-want-muslim-ban-immigration-control-middle-east-countries-syria-iran-iraq-poll-a7567301.html

3. Good question. Yes there is no black and white answer as civil wars aren't like other wars such as wars between superpowers with millions of infantry pouring into another country's territory armed with mass numbers of artillery and tanks. I dont think the civil war has started yet, it'll become clearer when it does. It'll be a tit for tat conflict with muslims going into the streets and killing non muslims and vice versa, for example a few hundred angry english football fans clashing with Pakistani gangs somewhere in the high streets of some Yorkshire city, with baseball bats and knives.

4. By  politicians I mean European politicians. May, Macron, Merkel and all the other idiots we've had over the last 15 years.

5. I think we'll see the return of the nation states now that Nationalism is coming back. But not before the breakup of the EU which won't happen for a while.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for  the clarifications, Failla86

In my opinion, this will be the repeating of the fall of the Roman Empire. More specifically, the Western Roman Empire. Because the Eastern Europeans have proven much more resistent to Multikultur, Globalism, and Islam. Therefore, they will survive for much longer. Whereas the Western European countries will be embroiled in civil war one by one. There may be a few exceptions, like Portugal, Ireland, Switzerland, but the western part of the continent will not exist in the form it is in today.
At the end of everything however, I think Islam will be sent back to the desert, just as it was during the Reconquista and the Balkan wars. The Pope will convert the newly formed states, and the loop will start over again.

If I were you, I would be much less reliant on the "ethnic europeans". There are many very european nations today that are not so ethnically european. The Portuguese, the Andalusians, the Maltese are all genetically closer to Arabs than to Germans. Then there are the Finnish and the Hungarians whose ethnicity is also debatable, but I doubt you would argue against their european identity. What makes us European is not our ethnicity, but our ideology.

What I want to see is another video on the Fall of the Roman Empire, but this time on the Eastern Roman Empire, and how they handled the barbarian hordes. That should give us an idea of what is going to happen.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion. I think that OFD's suggestion is one of the most likely. But there are so many factors that could change the direction: war and depression among them.

The UK currently has an influx of about 1 million Muslims per decade. If you pan that out, that is 8.5 million by 2100, plus the likely 4 million here and a + replacement fertility rate it's quite feasible that we could see 15-20 million Muslims in the UK by 2100, At the current rate the general population will be about 90 million. So you could be looking at about a 20% Muslim population by 2100; and on the same trajectory that will probably be a Muslim majority by 2200. I suspect the trend in other North European countries is similar.

This will be a drastically changed society in any walk of life, particularly if you happen to live in an area where Muslims have become the majority.

It's a question of if our politicians will do anything to change that immigration course. At current this seems unlikely. In the UK the biggest issue (polled at around 40% of people) is reducing immigration and it has been like that for some time. Yet no political party will seize the lead by quietly suggesting the roll out of a Japanese or Australian-style immigration program and not even go into all the topics Stef would. This suggests to me that the politicians are either spineless or serving an agenda, probably both. All the fake Conservatives would have had to do to win the election by a good margin was say they are bringing in a points-based immigration system and say they'll provide more money for the NHS. That's all they'd have to do. Polls have also shown that the most solid support for Labour is immigrants and for the Conservatives it's the old, followed by the young. If your the Conservative, you thus grow your base by encouraging citizens to have children, giving care to the old and limiting immigration. But I have no faith that corpse of a political party could shift for the current course.

So if we continue to slowly economically deteriorate over the next few decades I think we will find little changes in terms of immigration and the political approach to Islamisisation. And that we will need a depression, a war or some other catastrophe to shake us from this course. Luckily a depression seems inevitable and I think that the EU political order will break down in the face of unpopular mass immigration and depression.

So as OFD says, I would go with the creation of US-style ghettos, which are varyingly populated by Muslims, other third worlders and poor whitea, while the rich whites and non-white move away from whereever the ghettos encroach into and remain virtue signaling in their residential safe spaces. Following this course, the affects of economically unviable and culturally backwards immigrants will become more apparent: more welfare, more criticism of white privilege etc., more terrorism... This will continue until a major societal breakdown. Given that we have more than 100 years on the current trajectory, the likelihood of societal instability is high.

Personally I am done with the West. I'm leaving in less than 48 hours and have no plans to return. I can no longer bare the pain of clearly seeing the insane, anti-fact, incoherent downwards spiral of Europe. Over the last few years, I've lost 'friends' I've known for half my life for daring to present factual information compiled by Western governments, the UN, academics and polling agencies on to the negative effects of mass immigration. These have all been thrown back in my face with hysterical hissing and spitting. I've been othered. I'm less than human. I'm basically a member of the National Front. That I'm of a non-white immigrant background hasn't granted me anything. So I cut these white-middle-class, virtue signalling cunts out of my life before they had the chance to.

I don't know how this will pan out, but there is also an internal decay of Islam and it's difficult to know how profound it is as Islam has it's own political correctness. Islamic political correctness is the exact inversion of Western political correctness bar one facet they have in common - THOU SHALT NOT INSULT ISLAM. If you are an apostate in Islam, it's likely that you're going to need to shut up or face your life being ruined, being abandoned by friends and family and possibly being killed. But you can see quite considerable, largely anonymous apostate communities online. From studying the act my observation is that apostates tend to be above average intelligence, even by Western standards. If they are in the West it tends to happen when they go to university, which is when they are likely to first have any real considerable contact with non-Mulsims. Obviously low IQ individuals aren't going to get into this position. And another big factor behind them leaving Islam is the amount of violence that is attached to it; in the texts, cultural practices and terror. Since most Muslim countries have low sub-80 IQs, there is little chance of these people slipping out. When you live in a fascist society that presents a very narrow realm to live in and enforces it with considerable violence, ignorance and blind faith, you're not going to be able to understand that if you have an 85 IQ.

Goodbye cruel West.
Enjoy your enrichment.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Aviet. Now I / we understand better why IQ is low(er) in Islamic regions.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah that sounds pretty possible. I'm wondering though what is there the government could do once the doors are completely closed to immigration to stop the muslims from breeding? I'm thinking about limiting benefits to muslims to 2 children. That should stop their incentive to breed. I mean you look at france and though the situation is dire there, in 1991 the muslim population was 5 million and now it's 7 million, which is only an increase in 2 million in 20 years. That's not much considering if they had been breeding like the british muslims who double their population every decade, they would have doubled to 10 million in 2001 and then 20 million in 2011. Surely limiting benefits is the way to go? Also what are the rules in france regarding polygamy? Can muslims claim benefits for their multiple wives or are there rules banning it? Also i'm not aware on what kind of benefits muslims can claim overall in france so could anyone enlighten me on this subject?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Failla86 said:

1. I'm wondering though what is there the government could do once the doors are completely closed to immigration to stop the muslims from breeding?  Surely limiting benefits is the way to go?

2. Also what are the rules in france regarding polygamy? Can muslims claim benefits for their multiple wives or are there rules banning it?

3. Also i'm not aware on what kind of benefits muslims can claim overall in france so could anyone enlighten me on this subject?

1. Why not just abolish government benefits altogether? 

2. https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F930    "Vous ne devez pas être déjà marié, que ce soit au regard de la loi française ou d'une loi étrangère." As you see, no, officially, polygamy is not recognised. Nor are sharia courts by the way. But also, unofficial polygamy is not punishable by law. 

3. http://www.cleiss.fr/docs/regimes/regime_france/an_4.html  The french government only supports families with children, and does not support someone for merely having a wife.

Don't you think you are far too focused on the symptoms, and not the underlying problem?

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I do think we should get rid of benefits. It would be better if we bannished the entire welfare state to the history books, that would be preferable. By the way, what makes you think i'm focused on the symptoms?  The thing i'm worried about Islam and we have to find a way to banish it to the history books and trash can.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2017 at 6:12 PM, Failla86 said:

So where's all this headed?

RACE WAR.

On 7/11/2017 at 6:12 PM, Failla86 said:

What do you guys think is going to happen over the next few decades?

Our fash level will be over 9000.

On 7/11/2017 at 6:12 PM, Failla86 said:

Let me know what you think.

In my ideal world we all get to live. But every race is doing everything to lower our birth rates. Their openly stated goal is the impregnation of Aryan women. Supposedly, we must welcome this and "this is a good thing".

According to the NAP, we get to fight back. First, we go fash, and kick out the non-whites, lesbians, MudSlimes, etc and secure the shit out of our borders, and ensure the existence of our race and a future for our children. Once that is done, we can work towards freedom again. 

I would like to think that when we kick them out, they will leave us alone. But I think we all know that they will attack us, and we will be ready for them. Personally, I don't think they will ever stop until they are fully subjugated. Kinda like when a cop puts a drunk under arrest.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2017‎. ‎07‎. ‎17‎. at 2:31 AM, Failla86 said:

Yes I do think we should get rid of benefits. It would be better if we bannished the entire welfare state to the history books, that would be preferable. By the way, what makes you think i'm focused on the symptoms?  The thing i'm worried about Islam and we have to find a way to banish it to the history books and trash can.

I think even if we wiped out Islam to the last man, our problems would not end. The welfare state is only a symptom, the Islamic invasion is only a symptom, the cultural masochism is also just a symptom. What would you say the root cause is? i

 

21 hours ago, Erwin said:

In my ideal world we all get to live. But every race is doing everything to lower our birth rates. Their openly stated goal is the impregnation of Aryan women. Supposedly, we must welcome this and "this is a good thing".

According to the NAP, we get to fight back. First, we go fash, and kick out the non-whites, lesbians, MudSlimes, etc and secure the shit out of our borders, and ensure the existence of our race and a future for our children. Once that is done, we can work towards freedom again. 

I would like to think that when we kick them out, they will leave us alone. But I think we all know that they will attack us, and we will be ready for them. Personally, I don't think they will ever stop until they are fully subjugated. Kinda like when a cop puts a drunk under arrest.

How "pure", for lack of a better word, does the West have to be to make you feel comfortable? What level IQ would be the minimum in your ideal world? What percentage of the population has to be white? What religions, or lack thereof, does your ideal society adhere to? What are other requirements for building your ideal society of freedom?

When exactly was the NAP first broken by, according to you, the enemies of the West?

What needs to change so that we can be ready the next time they return? Because obviously they have been catching us off-guard lately.

On a bit more personal note... Do halfies get to stay?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

How "pure", for lack of a better word, does the West have to be to make you feel comfortable? What level IQ would be the minimum in your ideal world? What percentage of the population has to be white? What religions, or lack thereof, does your ideal society adhere to? What are other requirements for building your ideal society of freedom?

I don't believe in purity spiraling. In my book, if it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it's a duck. I would want 100% of permanent residents to fit that standard. I don't have a minimum IQ standard, because when left to our own devices Aryans breed eugenically either way. I also wouldn't impose religions, let the free market of ideas take its course (which includes hate speech and exposing the Jews). 

My point is that you can't have a free society if your society is dead. Once our existence is secured, we can privatize and transfer more responsibilities to private citizens. But this idea, that we're going to achieve that by removing government overnight is ludicrous. People openly want us dead. Take the red pill, goyim.

3 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

When exactly was the NAP first broken by, according to you, the enemies of the West?

Well I don't actually see anyone as enemies. I simply see them as acting in accordance with their genes. I simply thing that we get to defend ourselves.

Physical confrontations have occurred among our brothers' just as much as with non-Aryans. That could not take us down. What really hurt us was the information wars waged by the Jews. So many times in history, they offered artistic creations to young children while casually portraying degenerate behavior (faggotry, lesbianism, polyamory, adultery, incest, etc.) as if it had always been the norm.

Oh, you see the reason you don't understand this art is because it's an "acquired taste". This art is "modern". Come along goyim, we will guide you toward the light of "progress".

Oh, but wait! Did you call out this art as an attempt at subversion? You're an -ist or -obe! 

Oh, but wait! Did you name the Jew? Anti-semite!

This is outright fraud. They fraudulently sold us a poison pill, and naive youngsters swallowed. Baby boomers? Hmmm...

You might think that it is just a Jewish ((( coincidence ))) of modern times. But their names ((( echo ))) throughout history. Just look at all the countries that kicked them out. Yes... I'm sure they all just woke up anti-Semitic one morning -_- Reality check: they took their everything straight from the ((( The Frankfurt school ))). Same goes for the mostly Jewish Soviet government.

Due to this information war, young boys - the future protectors and builders of society - have grown to become weak, defenseless, and useless men. 

As the saying goes, "14 is the goal. 88 is the way". Fash the nation. Uncuck the right. Then, you wanna talk freedom when you're not dead? Ok, then we'll listen. Until then, sperging about AnCap is pointless.

3 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

What needs to change so that we can be ready the next time they return? Because obviously they have been catching us off-guard lately.

Name the Jew. Check out How a Jew Became a Nazi by Jews for Hitler.

In fact, there is a theory in our circles that Stefan is more Alt Right than he lets on (aka, "hiding your power-level"). Watch Stefan call out the Jewry of Israel's border policy.

4 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

Do halfies get to stay?

Half what? Do you pass as white?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get what you're saying, but it does seem to me that if we were to deport every muslim back to the middle east tomorrow, things would improve literally overnight.  As for root causes you could say the root cause of these problems could be a number of things. One being governments. We need smaller governments. That way there'd be no welfare state, women would rely on men again for support, which would see the rebirth of the family, an increase in our birth rates, the preservation of our culture and race, and we wouldn't need to import a ton of people from the third world. There'd also be no EU, which is a big problem.

 

Maybe the decline of Christianity as well is the problem. Most people don't have a high enough IQ to be able to come up with a "purpose" of their own to guide their life. They're not smart enough to decide for themselves what they really want out of life and what purpose to dedicate their life to (eg you could aspire to be a musician, artist, entrepreneur, philosoper etc) as these all require a certain level of critical thinking so as a result they live their lives without purpose. Before atheism Christianity and worshipping God was what the vast majority of people gravitated to. Now that's gone, what do most people aspire to do with their lives? They're clueless hence why they rely on society to tell them what to do, and they get brainwashed that they must watch sports, reality tv, get the best grades at high school, go to college, graduate and do some soul crushing job that doesn't motivate them. As a result people go around purpose less. It further destroys men because feminism has taken away men's motivation to grab resources as women now have a husband known as the welfare state to take care of them. And it destroys women as they get brainwashed that they need to go to college until they're 28 and by the time they graduate they can't find a high value man because they're all screwing the young 23 year old models and don't want anything to do with them. So society is screwed without a purpose. Like I said if Christianity was still prominent it would solve a lot of our problems.

 

Then there's socialism that has totally screwed up society.  I'm starting to think it might be the biggest problem because it's down to the borderless, stateless, egalitarian marxist trash ideology of Socialism that Christianity can't coexist in our society because the marxists love to demonise it. As Karl Marx said, religion is "the opium of the masses". Socialism also loves feminism because it completely gets rid of gender roles to the point where we have gender neutrality. Remember the cultural marxists are obsessed with equality. Then you have mass immigration which socialism also loves because it's a way to create divisions in society so that we're all easy to control. Also it loves Islam as it's ruthless and brutal and makes a great friend, one they can use to bully and intimidate the lovers of freedom into silence and submission due to the threat of violence. 

 

So yeah socialism could be the main problem here...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2017 at 9:09 PM, Mishi2 said:

I think even if we wiped out Islam to the last man, our problems would not end. The welfare state is only a symptom, the Islamic invasion is only a symptom, the cultural masochism is also just a symptom. What would you say the root cause is? i

I know this wasn't directed at me but...by God, can I resist???? NO! 

Republicanism, statism, and human nature. 

On 7/17/2017 at 9:09 PM, Mishi2 said:

How "pure", for lack of a better word, does the West have to be to make you feel comfortable?

WASP. I don't know what "pure" means, since that's about as subjective as can be. WASP values and WASP genes are certainly what I'm big for. 

On 7/17/2017 at 9:09 PM, Mishi2 said:

What level IQ would be the minimum in your ideal world?

Over 9000. 

However given there aren't many if any people around 9000 or over 200, I'd say about 100 will do since that combined with Free Market = natural eugenics to Godliness. 

On 7/17/2017 at 9:09 PM, Mishi2 said:

What percentage of the population has to be white?

100% + maybe a good-Jewish enclave and good East-Asian enclave here and there as "free samples" of why the West is the Best and why "you all" should copy us. Plus I really like anime and know some great Jews to compensate for the bad ones, so...heavily biased in their favor. 

On 7/17/2017 at 9:09 PM, Mishi2 said:

What religions, or lack thereof, does your ideal society adhere to?

ROMAN CATHOLICISM. And of course a free market of ideas so that the best arguments (like UPB) can win since growth is far preferable to decline, and consent to the Church versus indoctrination always worked best for us. 

On 7/17/2017 at 9:09 PM, Mishi2 said:

What are other requirements for building your ideal society of freedom?

Free Market; no/tiny state. White people 100%. Christian values (even from non-Christians like Stef); NAPy; No child abuse; etc. 

On 7/17/2017 at 9:09 PM, Mishi2 said:

When exactly was the NAP first broken by, according to you, the enemies of the West?

I think Erwin has this answer down pat. Mine is similar but I'd focus less on the bad Jews and more on the State and the Marxist parasite. Therefore, war was declared by the first to raise his hand against his child, and by Karl Marx when he was around. 

On 7/17/2017 at 9:09 PM, Mishi2 said:

What needs to change so that we can be ready the next time they return? Because obviously they have been catching us off-guard lately.

Far stronger values; absolutism; abolition of republicanism; and a big wall on the coasts as well as the north and south, with a Chinese dedication to maintaining them and protecting them. 

On 7/17/2017 at 9:09 PM, Mishi2 said:

On a bit more personal note... Do halfies get to stay?

Brotha if you mean "Half-white half-Asian" or "Half-white half-Jew--if they can be called not White" then youse as good as a brotha of mine so long as we share values and you follow the NAP. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Failla86 said:

I get what you're saying, but it does seem to me that if we were to deport every muslim back to the middle east tomorrow, things would improve literally overnight.  As for root causes you could say the root cause of these problems could be a number of things. One being governments. We need smaller governments. That way there'd be no welfare state, women would rely on men again for support, which would see the rebirth of the family, an increase in our birth rates, the preservation of our culture and race, and we wouldn't need to import a ton of people from the third world. There'd also be no EU, which is a big problem.

 

Maybe the decline of Christianity as well is the problem. Most people don't have a high enough IQ to be able to come up with a "purpose" of their own to guide their life. They're not smart enough to decide for themselves what they really want out of life and what purpose to dedicate their life to (eg you could aspire to be a musician, artist, entrepreneur, philosoper etc) as these all require a certain level of critical thinking so as a result they live their lives without purpose. Before atheism Christianity and worshipping God was what the vast majority of people gravitated to. Now that's gone, what do most people aspire to do with their lives? They're clueless hence why they rely on society to tell them what to do, and they get brainwashed that they must watch sports, reality tv, get the best grades at high school, go to college, graduate and do some soul crushing job that doesn't motivate them. As a result people go around purpose less. It further destroys men because feminism has taken away men's motivation to grab resources as women now have a husband known as the welfare state to take care of them. And it destroys women as they get brainwashed that they need to go to college until they're 28 and by the time they graduate they can't find a high value man because they're all screwing the young 23 year old models and don't want anything to do with them. So society is screwed without a purpose. Like I said if Christianity was still prominent it would solve a lot of our problems.

 

Then there's socialism that has totally screwed up society.  I'm starting to think it might be the biggest problem because it's down to the borderless, stateless, egalitarian marxist trash ideology of Socialism that Christianity can't coexist in our society because the marxists love to demonise it. As Karl Marx said, religion is "the opium of the masses". Socialism also loves feminism because it completely gets rid of gender roles to the point where we have gender neutrality. Remember the cultural marxists are obsessed with equality. Then you have mass immigration which socialism also loves because it's a way to create divisions in society so that we're all easy to control. Also it loves Islam as it's ruthless and brutal and makes a great friend, one they can use to bully and intimidate the lovers of freedom into silence and submission due to the threat of violence. 

 

So yeah socialism could be the main problem here...

As far as modern problems go, I'd agree the three main roots are "Lack of Christendom; Socialism; and Statism" and would add "Republicanism" to that as well. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2017‎. ‎07‎. ‎18‎. at 7:17 AM, Erwin said:

I don't believe in purity spiraling. In my book, if it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it's a duck. I would want 100% of permanent residents to fit that standard. I don't have a minimum IQ standard, because when left to our own devices Aryans breed eugenically either way. 

You haven't really specified those standards. What is your duck like?

Quote

My point is that you can't have a free society if your society is dead. Once our existence is secured, we can privatize and transfer more responsibilities to private citizens. But this idea, that we're going to achieve that by removing government overnight is ludicrous. People openly want us dead. Take the red pill, goyim.

I am also of the opinion that the government is here to stay for a while. Do I understand correctly that the greatest existential threat to the West is Islam? Or is it the Jews?

Quote

Well I don't actually see anyone as enemies. I simply see them as acting in accordance with their genes. I simply thing that we get to defend ourselves.

Physical confrontations have occurred among our brothers' just as much as with non-Aryans. That could not take us down. What really hurt us was the information wars waged by the Jews. So many times in history, they offered artistic creations to young children while casually portraying degenerate behavior (faggotry, lesbianism, polyamory, adultery, incest, etc.) as if it had always been the norm.

Name the Jew. Check out How a Jew Became a Nazi by Jews for Hitler.

In fact, there is a theory in our circles that Stefan is more Alt Right than he lets on (aka, "hiding your power-level"). Watch Stefan call out the Jewry of Israel's border policy.

Genetically, Jews are pretty much Europeans. And the Portuguese and the Maltese are pretty much genetically Arabic. So I see a few problems with your thinking. But now I'm a bit confused. Do you think it is ideology that is the problem, or is it genes? Or is it all correlated? I know that Soros is a Jew, even though his genes are more Hungarian, German and probably Slavic than Jew by now, but is Ben Shapiro in the same camp as he is?

I think that Jews have had a hard time assimilating into Europe because of their absolutist ideology, not because of their genetics. And I also think so about Muslims. Egyptian Copts have become completely arabised by now, yet you don't see their incompatibilty when they move to the west. On the other side, there are the Bosnians and the Albanians who are absolutely European, yet simply cannot go a decade without a good old ethnic cleansing.

Quote

Half what? Do you pass as white?

Depends which side of the bed I wake up on. What are your criteria?

 

18 hours ago, Failla86 said:

1. I get what you're saying, but it does seem to me that if we were to deport every muslim back to the middle east tomorrow, things would improve literally overnight.  

2. As for root causes you could say the root cause of these problems could be a number of things. One being governments. We need smaller governments. That way there'd be no welfare state, women would rely on men again for support, which would see the rebirth of the family, an increase in our birth rates, the preservation of our culture and race, and we wouldn't need to import a ton of people from the third world. There'd also be no EU, which is a big problem.

3. Maybe the decline of Christianity as well is the problem. Most people don't have a high enough IQ to be able to come up with a "purpose" of their own to guide their life. They're not smart enough to decide for themselves what they really want out of life and what purpose to dedicate their life to (eg you could aspire to be a musician, artist, entrepreneur, philosoper etc) as these all require a certain level of critical thinking so as a result they live their lives without purpose. Before atheism Christianity and worshipping God was what the vast majority of people gravitated to. Now that's gone, what do most people aspire to do with their lives? They're clueless hence why they rely on society to tell them what to do, and they get brainwashed that they must watch sports, reality tv, get the best grades at high school, go to college, graduate and do some soul crushing job that doesn't motivate them. As a result people go around purpose less. It further destroys men because feminism has taken away men's motivation to grab resources as women now have a husband known as the welfare state to take care of them. And it destroys women as they get brainwashed that they need to go to college until they're 28 and by the time they graduate they can't find a high value man because they're all screwing the young 23 year old models and don't want anything to do with them. So society is screwed without a purpose. Like I said if Christianity was still prominent it would solve a lot of our problems.

4. Then there's socialism that has totally screwed up society.  I'm starting to think it might be the biggest problem because it's down to the borderless, stateless, egalitarian marxist trash ideology of Socialism that Christianity can't coexist in our society because the marxists love to demonise it. As Karl Marx said, religion is "the opium of the masses". Socialism also loves feminism because it completely gets rid of gender roles to the point where we have gender neutrality. Remember the cultural marxists are obsessed with equality. Then you have mass immigration which socialism also loves because it's a way to create divisions in society so that we're all easy to control. Also it loves Islam as it's ruthless and brutal and makes a great friend, one they can use to bully and intimidate the lovers of freedom into silence and submission due to the threat of violence. So yeah socialism could be the main problem here...

1. I completely agree, but there is a reason they got here in the first place, and that was not weak border security.

2. Governments grow because people surrender their freedoms. A tragedy for sure, yet still not the root cause.

3. Maybe not christianity necessarily, but an absolutist ideology is deffinitely what we are missing. The few times the West could actually give the Muslims a good whooping was under the symbol of the cross. But again, christianity is dwindling for a reason, and I wonder why.

4. Socialism is an idea that every healthy 13 year old dreams of creating. Then of course they grow up and get a job, and they realise that socialism would be the worst thing ever. What was the reason for some of these people not getting to grow up, and not having the idea beaten out of them?

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Christian values (even from non-Christians like Stef); NAPy; No child abuse; etc.

for some reason, I didn't answer that question.

I agree with the values, but Jordan Peterson has also persuaded me that archetypes (an ideal figure / role model to look up to) goes a long way. For Europeans, the wise but strong leader (Odin / Zeus) held the top spot leading up to the heyday of every empire. I think that's the way to go in terms of archetype.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Erwin said:

for some reason, I didn't answer that question.

I agree with the values, but Jordan Peterson has also persuaded me that archetypes (an ideal figure / role model to look up to) goes a long way. For Europeans, the wise but strong leader (Odin / Zeus) held the top spot leading up to the heyday of every empire. I think that's the way to go in terms of archetype.

Err...given how degenerate the pagan gods were, I wouldn't use them as role model examples.

Richard the Lionheart; King Henry V; Kaiser Barbarossa; Gustavus Adolphus; Aristotle; Augustus Caesar; etc. make good role models because they were molded into true Christian heroes.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Siegfried von Walheim degeneracy is present in every religion. There's got to be some way to explain human genesis, after all.

In pretty much every religion I can think of, it is usually explained away as "oh, it was ok because they were divine, but you commoners can't do those things".

The teachings of the top Pagan God was always strength and wisdom. They never promoted degenerate behavior. In fact, Julius Caesar duly noted that the  northern hordes shamed and ostracized promiscuous behavior.

EDIT: Aristotle, Augustus Caesar, and Kaiser Barbarossa were Pagans were they not?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Erwin said:

@Siegfried von Walheim degeneracy is present in every religion. There's got to be some way to explain human genesis, after all.

In pretty much every religion I can think of, it is usually explained away as "oh, it was ok because they were divine, but you commoners can't do those things".

Not in Christianity... Jesus is totally virtuous and God is literally godlike in his character. @Mishi2 can probably explain more for details. 

6 minutes ago, Erwin said:

The teachings of the top Pagan God was always strength and wisdom. They never promoted degenerate behavior. In fact, Julius Caesar duly noted that the  northern hordes shamed and ostracized promiscuous behavior.

Brotha; ever heard of Venus and Mars? Two most widely worshiped gods of Rome before Christ and one was a whore who cheated on her husband with a man young enough to be her son.

6 minutes ago, Erwin said:

EDIT: Aristotle, Augustus Caesar, and Kaiser Barbarossa were Pagans were they not?

Aristotle was (probably) an atheist; Augustus might also have been an atheist or at least "different" as he wasn't big on his own pantheon and deified his adoptive father/uncle. Kaiser Barbarossa was a Christian King and Emperor. Literally "Holy Roman Kaiser". 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

4. Socialism is an idea that every healthy 13 year old dreams of creating. Then of course they grow up and get a job, and they realise that socialism would be the worst thing ever. What was the reason for some of these people not getting to grow up, and not having the idea beaten out of them?

 

You got that backwards. The idea is beaten into them and reasoned out of them. Abuse victims are naturally communists and fascists because both are projections of bad parents "disciplining" onto a bad society. 

Capitalism comes from friendship and learning to love competition and the cooperation inherent to it. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

You haven't really specified those standards. What is your duck like?

European. Aryan to be genetically specific.

5 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

I am also of the opinion that the government is here to stay for a while. Do I understand correctly that the greatest existential threat to the West is Islam? Or is it the Jews?

I think Islam is the greatest threat in the short term. Jews in the longer term.

5 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

Genetically, Jews are pretty much Europeans. And the Portuguese and the Maltese are pretty much genetically Arabic. So I see a few problems with your thinking. But now I'm a bit confused. Do you think it is ideology that is the problem, or is it genes?

The Ashkenazi are a cross between Slav and Sephardi. They have artificially created an ethnicity for themselves, as every Ashkenazi can trace their heritage to only 4 Slavic women (due to cousin-f***ing). This is why we associate the typical Jew-look with Jews. Big nose, ears, wide lips, dark hair, curly hair, etc. Matter of fact, they openly consider themselves as a separate ethnicity (the Talmud was written about 200 years after Christ), which is where the term "atheist Jew"  comes from.

They are not pure Europeans and it matters a lot because Jews do not breed the same way Aryans breed:

- The most re-productively successful Jews have been the rabbi, which required high verbal ability (which is why they score highly in IQ tests, despite their mediocre reasoning skills).

- The most re-productively successful Jewish tribes were those who successfully subverted the local culture and males.

Combine those 2 facts with many generations of selecting for those exact traits and you end up with an ethnicity that is genetically predisposed to engage in those behaviors.

6 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

Depends which side of the bed I wake up on. What are your criteria?

1) look Aryan

2) act Aryan

3) identify with Aryans

4) be a net positive to Aryans

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Not in Christianity... Jesus is totally virtuous and God is literally godlike in his character.

Lots of degeneracy in the Old Testament. The degeneracy was explained away via God's re-testifying in the New Testament.

Wouldn't you say that the whole "degeneracy is not for commoners" argument achieves the same purpose?

30 minutes ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Brotha; ever heard of Venus and Mars? Two most widely worshiped gods of Rome before Christ and one was a whore who cheated on her husband with a man young enough to be her son.

See my first argument above. Venus and Mars are divine.

31 minutes ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Aristotle was (probably) an atheist; Augustus might also have been an atheist or at least "different" as he wasn't big on his own pantheon and deified his adoptive father/uncle. Kaiser Barbarossa was a Christian King and Emperor. Literally "Holy Roman Kaiser". 

Thank you for the knowledge bomb, I stand corrected :thumbsup:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Erwin said:

Lots of degeneracy in the Old Testament. The degeneracy was explained away via God's re-testifying in the New Testament.

Wouldn't you say that the whole "degeneracy is not for commoners" argument achieves the same purpose?

See my first argument above. Venus and Mars are divine.

Not really. They're basically humans with magic powers. 

Hypocritical religions don't affect much in the way of character; they can secure compliance in the here and now, but rarely true faith.

Christianity (which is all New Testament) is highly consistent and while it varies per sect, very much against hypocrisy and is all-in-all a very White religion.

I mean, the atheist Stefan-senpai is so Christian the only thing not making him one is his atheism. U.P.B. is basically a secular bible in terms of lessons and meaning. 

1 minute ago, Erwin said:

Thank you for the knowledge bomb, I stand corrected :thumbsup:

:Welcome:

Look up "Hidden Christians" to learn just how powerful the religion is and how true the Japanese Christians remained without any White/Christian influence in 400 years. It's a very powerful testament to the strength of the Christ. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Not really. They're basically humans with magic powers. 

Hypocritical religions don't affect much in the way of character; they can secure compliance in the here and now, but rarely true faith.

why is it not hypocritical for Christians to re-testify away degeneracy? 

Does it not make sense for pagans to have different behavioral standards when there are clearly the divine and the commoner?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Erwin said:

why is it not hypocritical for Christians to re-testify away degeneracy? 

The creation of  new testament implies there is/was fault with the first, and therefore it is by the New Testament that Christians base themselves. 

If I were a hypothetical former smoker saying "don't smoke", I wouldn't be a hypocrite because I'm no longer smoking. Also, technically speaking, Christians are entirely the New Testament because before Christ there was no Christianity. 

6 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Does it not make sense for pagans to have different behavioral standards when there are clearly the divine and the commoner?

Yeah because it gives the ruling class license to be self-indulgent and corrupt with "muh Odin" and "muh Venus" as an excuse. 

Paganism is degeneracy made into a religion. Christianity is virtue made into a religion because God is synonymous with virtue. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

The creation of  new testament implies there is/was fault with the first, and therefore it is by the New Testament that Christians base themselves. 

Same can be said of having 2 behavioral standards depending on divinity status. It inherently implies that there is fault with a commoner engaging in hedonism, and therefore it is by the commoner standard that Aryans have comported themselves.

22 minutes ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Yeah because it gives the ruling class license to be self-indulgent and corrupt with "muh Odin" and "muh Venus" as an excuse. 

Paganism is degeneracy made into a religion. Christianity is virtue made into a religion because God is synonymous with virtue. 

Then how do you explain the fact that the Northern Aryans who were even more radically Pagan were more anti-promiscuous and K-selected than the Southerners?

EDIT: The Roman Empire adopted Mithraism before Christianity, which pretty much preaches the New Testament. Mithraism is a spinoff of Zoroastrianism. Don't you think it is more likely that Jesus created his ideology based on Pagan values?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Same can be said of having 2 behavioral standards depending on divinity status. It inherently implies that there is fault with a commoner engaging in hedonism, and therefore it is by the commoner standard that Aryans have comported themselves.

I'm confused. However I also have a bit of  headache. How does paganism imply that there is fault in hedonism when there is a race of beings that can be hedonistic as it pleases without consequence? Hypocrisy smells, you know. People don't take hypocrites seriously.

5 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Then how do you explain the fact that the Northern Aryans who were even more radically Pagan were the more anti-promiscuous and K-selected than the Southerners? 

You mean the vikings? Compared to what? The early Roman Empire/Republic which were about as k-selected and efficient as can be? Or their later halves which were becoming r-selected thanks to a welfare-warfare state? And then there is the Holy Roman Empire, Poland, France, etc. that came after. 

Islam is very anti-degeneracy, yet many Muslims live like degenerates either secretly or publicly  in the West. A strong stance against degeneracy does not necessarily get rid of it. However I'm confused as to the point intended to be made. Are you saying you're ambivalent about religion? Or advocating for Norse paganism? Or...? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

How does paganism imply that there is fault in hedonism when there is a race of beings that can be hedonistic as it pleases without consequence? Hypocrisy smells, you know. People don't take hypocrites seriously.

For the same reason that Africans get to behave like monkeys without consequence, but Aryans don't. 2 races, 2 standards.

Also for the same reason that men get to behave like men, but women cannot. 2 genitalia, 2 standards.

Gods get to live hedonically, not humans. If a human were to do so, they would be ostracized by their fellow tribesmen.

If 2 standards were applied to people of the same group, then a case for hypocrisy can be made. But humans are not gods. Human standards for humans, god standards for gods. I fail to see any hypocrisy here.

20 minutes ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

You mean the vikings? Compared to what? The early Roman Empire/Republic which were about as k-selected and efficient as can be?

Yup. If the anti-degenerate behavior of the Nordsmen was so notable to the highly K-selected Romans, that it was noteworthy enough to pen (and ink was very expensive back then), you can bet that the Nordsmen were quite K-selected indeed. Otherwise, the reaction would have been "meh... not impressed. We can do better."

EDIT: Not just Vikings (Nords), but also the Saxons who worshipped Wotan / Wodan which is basically Odin in old Germanic.

20 minutes ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I'm confused as to the point intended to be made. Are you saying you're ambivalent about religion? Or advocating for Norse paganism? Or...? 

I am pro-Odin or pro-Zeus as a wise and strong archetype to look up to. But context is important, they were gods. We humans cannot see ourselves as their equals, as we cannot engage in hedonic behaviors without consequence.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Erwin said:

For the same reason that Africans get to behave like monkeys without consequence, but Aryans don't. 2 races, 2 standards.

Also for the same reason that men get to behave like men, but women cannot. 2 genitalia, 2 standards.

Gods get to live hedonically, not humans. If a human were to do so, they would be ostracized by their fellow tribesmen.

If 2 standards were applied to people of the same group, then a case for hypocrisy can be made. But humans are not gods. Human standards for humans, god standards for gods. I fail to see any hypocrisy here.

Because gods are the champions of their races/religions. If the Champion is a hypocrite, then what foundation does the morality have? While a double standard makes sense when talking about humans and animals, I wouldn't treat women like children but rather the same I do men. That being said I'm not expecting women (using gender) to be soldiers, laborers, etc. but I do hold them to the same moral standard as men. Likewise I hold Africans to the same moral standards I hold Aryans. Hence why I consider them mostly "savages".  If I thought they were merely evolved monkeys, I wouldn't call them savage because...well, the same reason we don't call wolves barbarians. They would be simply incapable of being any different. Theoretically races can be reconstructed through the elimination of the unfavorable and the promotion of the favorable. 

But that's a whole other conversation. Point is; gods=champions of religion, champions=must be held to the standard otherwise they're less than animals. 

1 minute ago, Erwin said:

Yup. If the anti-degenerate behavior of the Nordsmen was so notable to the highly K-selected Romans, that it was noteworthy enough to pen (and ink was very expensive back then), you can bet that the Nordsmen were quite K-selected indeed. Otherwise, the reaction would have been "meh... not impressed. We can do better."

Well I didn't know that. I can't say it was enough to make them a true civilization given they most just attacked my southern neighbors and often drafted my ancestors into their hirds rather than build a free market-based empire of their own.

1 minute ago, Erwin said:

I am pro-Odin or pro-Zeus as a wise and strong archetype to look up to. But context is important, they were gods. We humans cannot see ourselves as their equals, as we cannot engage in hedonic behaviors without consequence.

Calling them gods is degrading the word "god" to effectively mean "retarded animal without agency". After all we don't try to retrain rabbits out of r-selection because it is instinctual to them. They're rabbits. gods being degenerate and hypocritical makes them ungodly and in fact quite savage and lowly. God is synonymous with virtue, and the all-consistent Jesus is a true Champion of his own ideals. 

False gods are false in part for their hypocrisy. After all if X is so great why couldn't he hold himself to his own standards? Clearly he's just an entitled brat with a myth keeping his name alive.

As fairy tales used for fun, I don't care. But as actually worshiped and taken seriously religions, Norcism and Greek paganism are disgusting and...well, counter-productive.

Jesus and the Saints make far better heroes because they're all morally consistent and pillars of strength both in body and in character. 

To be clear; my position is that pagan religions are counter-productive and hypocritical and therefore destructive to Western Civilizations. I am thinking your argument is that they're not, but rather can be used as heroes to promote certain things and that it doesn't really matter if they're hypocrites because their title somehow excludes them from responsibility. Less than an infant to whom even the smallest agency is given. 

I put that P.S. mainly for clarification as I am not in the best of minds for the while.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Point is; gods=champions of religion, champions=must be held to the standard otherwise they're less than animals. 

Which brings to the fundamental assumption of your argument: "gods=champions of religion". Why does this christian view of deity apply to Pagan gods?

8 minutes ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Well I didn't know that. I can't say it was enough to make them a true civilization given they most just attacked my southern neighbors and often drafted my ancestors into their hirds rather than build a free market-based empire of their own.

Same goes for the expansionist Romans. They were warmongers. Does that mean they were not a true civilization? 

Also, the Nords were actually the first international tradesmen. I know that they even used the Silk Road, but if memory serves me right, I think they were the first ones to use it (but don't quote me on that one). I got that from a David Friedman interview, and according to him, the Vikings - 100 years after they became a thing - were the closest thing to a ruler-less society as we've ever had. Although he is a ((( Friedman ))) so admittedly I may have been Jewed into believing this, I need to revisit this and come back to you.

13 minutes ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Calling them gods is degrading the word "god" to effectively mean "retarded animal without agency". After all we don't try to retrain rabbits out of r-selection because it is instinctual to them. They're rabbits. gods being degenerate and hypocritical makes them ungodly and in fact quite savage and lowly. God is synonymous with virtue, and the all-consistent Jesus is a true Champion of his own ideals. 

How do you justify applying a Christian standard to Pagan gods?

19 minutes ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

False gods are false in part for their hypocrisy. After all if X is so great why couldn't he hold himself to his own standards? Clearly he's just an entitled brat with a myth keeping his name alive.

Why would a god subjugate himself to human standards? One could argue that if Jehovah's standards apply to Jehovah then why call himself a god?

20 minutes ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

as actually worshiped and taken seriously religions, Norcism and Greek paganism are disgusting and...well, counter-productive.

Jesus and the Saints make far better heroes because they're all morally consistent and pillars of strength both in body and in character. 

To be clear; my position is that pagan religions are counter-productive and hypocritical and therefore destructive to Western Civilizations. I am thinking your argument is that they're not, but rather can be used as heroes to promote certain things and that it doesn't really matter if they're hypocrites because their title somehow excludes them from responsibility. Less than an infant to whom even the smallest agency is given. 

The Pagan genesis is a (now discredited) account of history. The Pagan values that humans must abide by are pretty much the good 'ole christian ones.

I think the problem here is that you fail to take into account that Christians have a completely different conception of God. Pagan gods were neither omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent; they certainly were not creators. They were more like imperfect super-humans, and Giants were their larger superiors. Titans were actually more god-like than the gods by those standards, as they actually created stuff (e.g. Kronos created time)

The Pagan genesis is the claim that the physically weaker Gods, overpowered the Titans and Giants through sheer wits and gained control.

Strength and wisdom as a role model was the point, as opposed to a set of rules to follow. That's what I'm on board with. I'm not on board with behaving like hedonic gods.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Which brings to the fundamental assumption of your argument: "gods=champions of religion". Why does this christian view of deity apply to Pagan gods?

Because I am a Christian with a universal standard for everything.

8 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Same goes for the expansionist Romans. They were warmongers. Does that mean they were not a true civilization? 

Modern American government is warmongering. Has been since WWI. Are we not a civilization? I'd argue we're becoming less of one. Likewise when the Roman Empire/Early Republic started to stray from its principles of freedom (which unfortunately meant war, but fortunately that war actually did something good for both the conqueror and the conquered when usually no one benefits) alongside a welfare-warfare state suicide fest, it signed its own death warrant. 

8 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Also, the Nords were actually the first international tradesmen. I know that they even used the Silk Road, but if memory serves me right, I think they were the first ones to use it (but don't quote me on that one). I got that from a David Friedman interview, and according to him, the Vikings - 100 years after they became a thing - were the closest thing to a ruler-less society as we've ever had. Although he is a ((( Friedman ))) so admittedly I may have been Jewed into believing this, I need to revisit this and come back to you.

If that's true I'll have to concede that to you. I didn't realize that. 

Of course Milton Friedmon was responsible for converting Pinochet into a NatCap, so clearly there are good Jews, to take a jive. After all subversion isn't in the best interests of them all. I mean, the smarter ones realize it's self-defeating.

8 minutes ago, Erwin said:

How do you justify applying a Christian standard to Pagan gods?

Because I am a Christian who believes in universal ethics and therefore hold everyone who can reason to a same standard.

8 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Why would a god subjugate himself to human standards? One could argue that if Jehovah's standards apply to Jehovah then why call himself a god?

Because otherwise he's just a fat and useless piece of shit spinning tall tales. A God is either the creator of the universe or a champion of some aspect of a religion (if not it's entirety). 

Technically speaking, depending on how the pagans defined things like love or whatever, their gods could be inherently consistent. However that just makes them degenerate. Either because they worship a hypocrite or they worship degeneracy itself knowingly. 

8 minutes ago, Erwin said:

The Pagan genesis is a (now discredited) account of history. The Pagan values that humans must abide by are pretty much the good 'ole christian ones.

Eh...I don't know so I can't say either way. Assuming you mean Christian values originated from pagans.

8 minutes ago, Erwin said:

I think the problem here is that you fail to take into account that Christians have a completely different conception of God. Pagan gods were neither omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent; they certainly were not creators. They were more like imperfect super-humans, and Giants were their larger superiors. Titans were actually more god-like than the gods by those standards, as they actually created stuff (e.g. Kronos created time)

True, depending on the definiton used. I'm using "champion of a belief or aspect of a religion" as a definition, and using the same standard I'd hold anyone to with it. Since gods are supposed to be superior to humans, they require higher standards. I don't blame someone who is tone deaf for being unable to play good music, while I expert Mozart's incarnation or whatever to be super great at it. 

8 minutes ago, Erwin said:

The Pagan genesis is the claim that the physically weaker Gods, overpowered the Titans and Giants through sheer wits and gained control.

Strength and wisdom as a role model was the point, as opposed to a set of rules to follow. That's what I'm on board with. I'm not on board with behaving like hedonic gods.

I see what you mean now. I'm weary about using false idols are role models since, as the saying goes, "honesty is the best policy except when murderers are involved". For example, I'd rather use Jesus as an example of resisting temptation, Sima Yi as an example of deferring gratification (in his dream of seizing ultimate power and pacifying WWII-level war torn China), Richard the Lionheart or Gustavus Adolphus for bravery, Zhuge Liang for wisdom, Aristotle for reason, etc. etc. Real people make better idols because they're harder to corrupt and are...well, from a human perspective, more inspiring because if a "mere mortal" could do it then "I" could too. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now