The first Homo sapiens to arrive into what is now called Central Europe were in fact hunter gatherer tribesman with spears & animal skins as clothing. And they migrated into dense & dark forests with many existential threats, including large animal predators that dominated these forests. No doubt many of these early inhabitants died from these extreme hardships, but you are descended from the ones that survived, prevailed, and reproduced. That is your evolutionary heritage. Squander it at your own risk.

Severian, you’ve stated this before. And as previously, your point is so prescient I must again agree and emphasize. I too see the younger folk—teenagers/20-somethings—wearing the mask of “submission” proudly and openly. Like a badge of honor, worn even in crowds of non-wearers! It is perhaps the most disheartening thing I witness in my daily routine. As they say, the youth are our future, and it’s not looking bright.

They’ve been brainwashed and gaslighted from infancy.. You think the bignoses don’t know how to manipulate the cattle?

Basic detailsMy father negotiated a new lease with a state agency. They were a long term tenant in a building he owned and up for a renewal when their lease expired. So my dad negotiated it directly with them. Which was how it was always done in Tallahassee.But Jeb comes in and had hired Staubach to be the state’s exclusive brokerage for all state leases. This was during his push “to privatize” much of the state’s dealings.So my dad was set to get his broker’s commission for having negotiated the lease by himself, which was a decent chunk of change like $50,000. But Staubach comes and takes it, and meanwhile had done absolutely nothing to earn it. Was never even involved. My dad asked how can you take money when you never did anything? It was laughable. At next meeting there is Staubach with a Jeb flunky who tells my dad if he keeps it up he’d never see another state lease in his life. Blacklisted, basically. This went far up the food chain only because Staubach was directly involved and is not either a good Christian or honorable Navy man. As far as I concerned he stole $50,000 from my dad.These are gangsters. Make no mistake about it. And I hope I didn’t divulge too much lol.

Obviously none of us know with any certainty the background of any of the others of us on an anonymous bulletin board like this. But that poast of yours reads like nothing I’ve ever seen on teh innerT00bz, and I go all the way back to FTP & Gopher for muh gossip. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopher_%28protocol%29 Thanks. PS: Deeply deeply disturbing about Staubach. But I guess that explains why he’s sitting on a billion dollar real estate empire. Because all other things being equal, psychopaths always win, and Nice Guys always finish last. Dead. Last.

Stay away from my mom. She loves Harry Connick jr

Multiculturalism is saying that YOU specifically are not important enough to keep livingIf you say you need protection, safety, and that is best achieved by living among your own who would be willing to die for you, then multiculturalism says too bad. Take your chances with these hired guns, and if that’s not good enough and doesn’t work, oh well. If you want a wife who follows your same cultural traditions and who “gets” you, too bad, your choices are this weird looking thing from that continent or this brown one from this other continent. And if they end up hating you and wanting a divorce, we got an app for that.

The left and neocons would argue that you don’t have a right to have “your people.” I’ve teased out this moral logic With them, and their ultimate answer is that “our people” is the human race. The end game (at least with the leftists I’ve conversed with) is that some day there will be no races or borders. We’ll all be under some United Earth Government. You and I know this is foolish, and that the vastly different cultures of the different races could never allow this, but they see this as their endpoint in their “arc of history.”

Greek, Just ask them about the Jews. Are they anti-Semitic? Their better answer is that it’s okay for other countries to based on race, such as Israel, but that the United States is different. We were never based on race but on ideas. It’s pretty easy to show how that’s wrong, but they don’t care. They have their morality with “All men are created equal.” I simply tell them that I don’t care. I have a people and that every race on earth deserves to survive. They have a tough time with that.

I think that’s well said. There’s also a good tie-in, I think, with Zman’s often saying that the best way to ridicule a Progressive is to just laugh at him or otherwise make fun of him and his absurd ideas.I’m White, I think I’m pretty good. I don’t especially feel like a “supremacist:” Socrates would ask “What do you mean by that?” I don’t want to lord it over Blacks nor anyone else. I’ll agree with you, Whites certainly were unkind to them, in the past. What better way to avoid hurting them, going forward, than to minimize all contact? In fact, i don’t want to have to deal with them at all. They offer nothing to Whites, indeed they only take and are a danger to my people.Yeah, something like that should leave a Leftist twitching on the floor, turning blue 😀Was it Kipling who spoke of the “White Man’s Burden?” Let’s revise that to perhaps a new slogan, “White Man, lay down your burden!”

Pete:the enemy always frames immigration as: “If you’re against immigration, it must mean you’re a white supremacist,” as in you must believe whites are superior to all other races.CoaSC:And it presents a ton of dangers to my community. Their presence might lead to more blacks moving in. Their children might mix with our people, thus making us less of who we are.OK:Is that what white supremacy means? That a white person believes whites are superior?Truth be told, none of us believe in White superiority; all of us necessarily “believe in” [i.e. understand all too well the existential horror of] White INFERIORITY.Why?Because in the great mating game of the races,{jew} x {White} produces a jew{chinese/japanese/korean} x {White} produces a chinese/japanese/korean{mexican} x {White} produces a mexican{black} x {White} produces a blacketc etc etcWhite genes – for eye color, hair color, skin color, physiognomy, temperament, morality, spirituality, etc etc etc – are always RECESSIVE when matched up with the genes of any other race.ALWAYS RECESSIVE.NEVER DOMINANT.Ergo any possible “mixing” due to proximity* will necessarily end in the death of at least a certain portion of some White family’s White presence in the Tree of Life.Whereas for the other races, that’s simply false; they live on perfectly fine as mischling mixed-race mud-people.Because a drop of wine in sewer produces sewer, precisely as a drop of sewer in wine produces sewer.*PRO-TIP for any incels reading this: A chick takes the male appendage from whichever male happens to be in her immediate physical presence at any particular point in her life.If you’ve ever worked professionally in a high energy environment, where young men and young women are in one another’s “Proximic” zones all day long, then you will very quickly notice the jarring reality of reasonably intelligent & attractive chicks stooping to taking the appendage from total loser guys, simply because the total loser guys are right there in the chicks’ immediate physical presence, ergo that’s the appendage which nails the chick.There used to be a video of a younger Donald Trump warning men not to allow their wives to have jobs outside the home, but I can’t seem to find that video anymore [it’s likely been memory-holed, precisely because it was such good advice for the average beta].Anyway, the PRO-TIP is that if you wanna score teh p00nt@ng, then you need to get up close & personal with teh p00nt@ng – you can’t imagine getting it from five hundred miles away – you gotta get five feet, four feet, three feet, two feet, one foot close to it.Then you score.

That seems mighty high. And I can say from personal experience that if a Hutu pack moves into the house across the street from you, you may very well find yourself experiencing Ougadougou in an all too direct manner.

Nuggras gone nuggra.

The sister of my ex dated a black man I hope you broke up with your “ex” just as soon as you learned that there was mudsharkery in her family.

I tell normies something similar when I start code-switching on them. It’s not about sitting around hating other groups 24/7/365. It’s about always preferring to be around my people and wanting to see my people succeed. I don’t lose any sleep if my people’s success comes at the expense of other peoples. Not complicated at all.

I don’t discount the validity of your argument that people have a right to their tastes without need for justification (I like mint chocolate chip because I like mint chocolate chip). However, different arguments and reasoning will resonate with different people. I also think there’s value in explaining why The Godfather is a better movie than Justice League or some other comic book drivel.

Greek,I get your point, and some of the other arguments may resonate better with some people. But they don’t have a moral underpinning and that matters because it always leaves you vulnerable.Arguing that blacks have a lower IQ and higher crime on average and therefore the nice black family’s kid or relatives will regress to the mean or that the nice black family will cause more blacks to move into the neighborhood are true.But that’s not a moral argument.What about Asians? What about Indians?You have accepted the other side’s morality and therefore will lose eventually.If you don’t have a moral underpinning, your argument can always be challenged. You’ll always be on the defensive because you’ve not given a moral reason for your belief.“They are not my people” is a moral argument. It does not accept the other side’s morality.Sooner or later, you have to discard the other side’s morality and present your own. Otherwise, you will always lose.

So Greeks get to survive as a people, but not European Americans? How is that moral? Doesn’t sound so great to this European American.Regardless, your making the Steve Sailer commentators’ argument or as I disparagingly call it, the “Faculty Lounge” argument.Instead of being colorblind CivNats, they’re HBD-aware CivNats. They recognize racial differences but also understand that certain races are more similar to other either genetically or in terms of IQ/temperament. They also get that even amongst blacks, you’ll find smart, thoughtful people such as their beloved Thomas Sowell, or Saint Thomas as I like to call him.In their minds, there’s nothing wrong with mixing high-IQ, non-violent people. After all, they have more in common with the Indian doctor or Chinese engineer than the white truck driver. (You’ll notice that this argument is incredibly snobby.)Basically, if liberals are willing to sell out their fellow whites for ethnic restaurants, Sailer commentators are willing to sell out their fellow whites for witty banter in the faculty lounge.Again, not sure of the morality in that. But putting morality aside for the moment, their argument simply doesn’t work on the ground, just as Libertarianism doesn’t work in the real world.First, as Ed Dutton would tell you, other groups are much more ethnocentric than whites, even their smart members. Therefore, all those smart Indians, Chinese, etc., aren’t going to just forget who they are. They will think and act as a group once they get numbers.Hell, all you have to do is look at Jews. Did they just blend in with smart whites and disband their ethnic political and community organizations. Um, no. They ran circles around individualistic whites and now run the country – for the benefit of Jews.The same would (actually, is) happen with other groups. Non-white smart people aren’t as cold-hearted as smart whites. They don’t their their people under the bus so easily.Hell, look at Canada. You think the Indians and Chinese there are just blending in. Absolutely not.Second, good luck containing immigration to only smart people who act like, well, you. Once you accept immigration as a moral right, it’s tough to limit it to only smart people.Your vision of the world is less realistic than a Libertarian – and that’s saying something.You want to quietly genocide my people and not feel bad about it. You want to import smart people because you’re smart enough to hold your own intellectually and from a career standpoint with anyone in the world. And all those smart people will make for such fun at dinner parties.The fact that you throw poor and even middle class whites under the bus doesn’t bother you at all – because you don’t think about them. Well, I do. I grew up with them. I won’t throw them under the bus so I can talk about interesting vacation spots with my world-traveler Indian neighbor.Again, I have a people. You, apparently, don’t. You have acquaintances.

I’ve long held the borderlands, the edges: all is good, nothing is just as good – it’s the herniated middle that’s no mans land.But I apply that edge hone to the prerogatives, those inherent inalienables that apply to persons irrespective of geography as defined by lines on maps & other model-makers Frankensteins that are monstrous, but that aren’t the territory.And all the satellite stuff orbiting around the star/chamber is good, or spacejunk, based on its emergence/property of the prerogatives, or not.How is what matters. How it “turns out” doesn’t matter at all. That’s the maximalism of persons. All the rest is the mulcting, always with lots of mewling, too, of gangs/ters.“In the meantime America suffers greatly from the handicap of electing a large part of the nonfederal officialdom by the people; even policemen & judges are often elected by hobos, little businessmen, & migratory soda jerkers. (See the sheriff in Erskine Caldwell’s masterful description of a lynching in his short novel Trouble in July, New York, 1940.) Under these conditions it is obvious that courts can often not afford to be independent. A few miles behind Richmond or Chattanooga the most ochlocratic of all judiciary systems – lynching – is still in force. In a strictly ochlocratic world the only logical judiciary procedure based on general disapproval is lynching, & the democratic Athenians cooled their anger on unpopular fellow citizens in a bloodless lynching without photo cameras & blowtorches – through ostracism. Yet not less immoral than lynching is the passing of a verdict while listening with one ear to the Vox Populi. The judge who did not want to risk his popularity & his job has been immortalized by the Book of Books – this man, who rather obeyed the Jewish mob than his own conscience & who tried in vain to wash his hands in innocence, is Pontius Pilate.” ~ The Menace of the Herd, Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddinn

Well what is it? If they’re Christian but also come from mud huts they’re okay? They’re kin? Or not?

@Falcone, the hierarchy goes like this: On top is Greek Christians, then other Greeks, then other Christians of a different ethnos, then there is the dirt, the worms inside the dirt, my stool, then you and yours. Does that answer your question?

So your loyalty is to Greeks, but other peoples should slowly genocide themselves by allowing in other groups? Or are you in favor of allowing 50,000 to 100,000 smart Africans who want to assimilate into Greek life into Greece each year? You know, to avoid innervation.

@Citizenship of a Silly Country, isn’t that what being a nationalist is about? Determining you and yours own destiny free of manipulations from outside the nation? You white nationalists are reminding me more and more of woke imperialists who believe that they and only they know best how to run our society. You and yours are not Greek, nor any other ethne other then your own. You don’t have the right nor the authority to tell us what we must do. You haven’t shared in our triumphs, nor in our failures.As for your second “question”, the fallacy of false alternatives doesn’t make it any less of a fallacy if a white nationalist says asks it. We Greeks allow in who we want, when we want, period. If we feel the need to open up immigration to those willing to assimilate to the Hellenic society, then we have the right to. If we believe that such numbers will overwhelm us, or that the ones immigrating have no intention of assimilation, then we shut down immigration. We do not occupy a maximalist position of only either open borders or a closed society. The open borders is a position of the EU, a closed society is a position of white nationalists who believe that Greeks and English and French, etc. are one and the same, Whites.

You seem to have a massive and fundamental misunderstanding of what I and others around here want and believe.First, I’m not a white nationalist. I’m an ethno-nationalist. They are not the same thing, not even close.Europeans and European Americans are an incredibly varied people. To say that a Dane is the same as a Greek is insane. (Believe me, commentator Felix Krull would be very insulted by that comparison.) The same is true European Americans. The Yankee from New England has a very different ancestry, culture and history than the Scots-Irish of Appalachia.And while I’m an ethno-nationalist, i.e. I believe that people generally best served by living among and being ruled by their own, I full accept that some ethnicities may disagree. If the Germans choose to bring in a million Muslims in a year, that’s their choice. (I think that it’s stupid, but it’s their choice.)If Greeks decide Africans promising that they want to assimilate into Greek culture should be allowed in, have at it. I wouldn’t stop you. It’s your society.I don’t get where you think that we want to impose our ideas on you. Indeed, we want the exact opposite. We simply want to be left alone, to be allowed to have our community based on our beliefs, which in our case is ethno-nationalism. No different from Israel, or Japan or China.Admittedly, we use the term “white” a bit loosely. What we mean is various white ethnic groups, but that’s a bit long to write. But, sure, if other whites races/ethnicities want to blend into some hybrid group with non-whites, more power to them. No one is stopping them.But people are stopping us. Our lives could be destroyed if we spoke out publicly.I have no idea why you think that we want 1) some pan-European ethno-state and 2) to impose our ideas on anyone else. We simply want the right for European Americans of the various flavors who want to survive as a people (and that likely would mean a number of different peoples) to allowed to do so.We don’t care a whit what Greeks do. Why would we.

Race realism being argued vis a vis nation/al unrealism, or maybe surrealism, is funny. No “this nation is (or was)” declaratives in this thread are correct, accurate, or true. These battles of the narratives neverending are…bear chow…”you want to die out here, ha?” “If the doors of perception were Windex’d everything would appear to man as it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro’ narrow chinks (eurowhites, blacks, hispanics, etc) of his cavern.” ~ William Blake https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPCIsIJ7nhY

Another thing that made the lockdowns perhaps even a net benefit for many was the rapid adoption of remote work. I have a remote job now. It’s crap and pays crap but… most of the people I “work with” are abominations. Purple hairs, tatt-sluts, qwerty-sexuals. The thought of actually spending a day around them in person makes me feel like throwing up.A lot of guys like me also enjoy having an excuse not to spend money on stupid chick stuff like eating out at “ethnic” places. I think the Coof may have actually taught my wife that it’s better to keep the money in your pocket than hand it to Juan, Chung Li, or Ibrahim.The only reason this stuff was tolerable was that many people were already pretty much self-isolating simply because almost everything good about the wider culture turned to multicultural, gibberish-speaking shit years ago anyway.

His preference is pithy snark. Not sure what that means but it seems to fit. I could live a whole life without seeing “black girl magic” again or reading about black women’s obsession with their hair. He is still obsessed with sports also which is a major turn off. I agree that he doesn’t really care about anything besides having material to write about.

Holy Spirit is how God connects with us Simply stated, God is Good, but he’s also not of this material world. The goodness in our hearts, the goodness in our souls, the goodness we find in others, the spirit of goodness all around us, is God sending and infusing us with his goodness through the Holy Spirit

Peabody:explain to me what the Holy Spirit isI guess we could start with the three synoptic gospelists, who are united in agreement as to the greatest sin [that being the only sin which is unforgivable]:Matthew 12:31Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.Mark 3:28 – 3:30Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.Luke 12:10 – 12:12And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say:for the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.Now the fourth gospelist – the gnostic gospelist – was just a boy at the time of the Last Supper, no more than maybe 10 or 12 years old, whereas Jesus & the older apostles were probably in their thirties & forties [and some possibly even in their fifties], so the gnostic gospelist was a good 20 or 30 years younger than anyone else present that evening [apparently he was small enough to sit in Jesus’s lap, and he may very well have fallen asleep while the grownups continued talking all night].The accepted thinking on the gnostic gospelist holds that he probably wrote his gospel upwards of a century after Jesus’s birth, which would have given him an entire lifetime within which to reflect upon what he had witnessed as a boy.My guess is that somewhere along the way, the gnostic gospelist decided that if he were going to evangelize the entire world, then he would need to master the language of the literate, which was of course the Greek language, and so a fair portion of his life would have been devoted to the study of Greek literature & Greek philosophy.It’s also fascinating that the gnostic gospelist adopted a strangely second- or third-party tone of voice, fashioned after the style of Jesus, wherein positions are not declared nor asserted so much as they are implied [to be inferred by the listener or reader].For instance, Jesus was very careful never to declare himself to be the King of the Jews: When accosted on this question, Jesus would merely reply, “Thou sayest it.”And the gnostic gospelist adopts precisely the same tone of voice in his writing.For instance, his gospel begins with the words:1:1IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE LOGOS, AND THE LOGOS WAS WITH GOD, AND THE LOGOS WAS GOD.But the gnostic gospelist never asserts that Jesus is the Logos; the gnostic gospelist merely allows the reader to decided for himself whether the inference should be made that Jesus is in fact [the physical incarnation of] the Logos.Here we should note that there was likely no extant word in ancient Hebrew [or “Aramaic”] which could have been invoked to describe a phenomenon such as the Logos, which is why one has to assume that the gnostic gospelist needed [and/or stumbled upon] a vocabulary which would allow him to attempt to describe those aspects of Jesus’s nature which the gnostic gospelist wished to convey to the readers of his gospel.If you’ve made it this far, then we can get back to the question of the nature of the Holy Ghost; here the gnostic gospelist quotes Jesus as again having spoken by implication [requiring an inference by the reader]:14:15If ye love me, keep my commandments.And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another COMFORTER, that he may abide with you for ever;even THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.16:7Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, THE COMFORTER will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:of sin, because they believe not on me;of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.Howbeit when he, THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.Again, as quoted by the gnostic gospelist, the reader [or, at that time, the listener] is required to make [for himself] the inference that the Holy Ghost is precisely the Spirit of Truth; it’s never declared as such, and can only be inferred.There is one exception to this tone of voice however, and it comes when the gnostic gospelist, in his first epistle general, makes a very bold declaration and assertion about the nature of God Himself:4:7Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for GOD IS LOVE.4:16And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. GOD IS LOVE; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.So, the gnostic gospelist leaves us with the following pieces of information:1) An implication that Jesus is the Logos [which we must infer for ourselves].2) An implication that the Holy Ghost is Truth Itself [which we must infer for ourselves], and3) An outright declaration that God is Love Itself.It’s a fascinating narratival approach, which requires the reader, of his own free will, to make the inferences that Jesus is the Logos and that the Holy Ghost is Truth.In the case of both Jesus & the Holy Ghost, there is no declaration nor law nor principle nor any kind of legalistic line drawn in the theological sand; instead, the assertions are simply presented as an opportunity to exercise the will [in making the inferences], which opportunity can be accepted [or refused] by the reader.FINALLY, getting back to the greatest sin, as alluded to way up above here, we have one last quote as relayed by the gnostic gospelist:8:31Then said Jesus to those Jews…8:44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do: he was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in THE TRUTH, because there is no TRUTH in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.So the conclusion we draw is that the very first sin committed by any of God’s children was in Lucifer’s inventing Lies as an assault upon Truth Itself, which is to say, as an assault upon the Holy Ghost.And as all three synoptic gospelists documented, this was the greatest sin – the one sin which cannot be forgiven – which is to attack Truth Itself.PS – Fast forward two millennia, and you see e.g. the Frankfurt School sanheder, (((Jacques Derrida))), the self-styled “deconstructionist”, continuing the never-ending hebrew assault on the very idea of Truth:As writing, communication, if one insists upon maintaining the word, is not the means of transport of sense, the exchange of intentions and meanings, the discourse and “communication of consciousnesses.” We are not witnessing an end of writing which, to follow McLuhan’s ideological representation, would restore a transparency or immediacy of social relations; but indeed a more and more powerful historical unfolding of a general writing of which the system of speech, consciousness, meaning, presence, truth, etc., would only be an effect, to be analyzed as such. It is this questioned effect that I have elsewhere called logocentrism.PPS – If we accept the gnostic gospelist’s assertion that the Holy Ghost is Truth Itself, and Jesus’s declaration of the Holy Ghost as THE COMFORTER, then we conclude that happiness [COMFORT] can only be experienced by those living a Truthful life, whereas a life lived in lies is necessarily a miserable life [absent any possible spiritual COMFORT].PPPS – Towards the end of his run at the Chateau, Heartiste was adamant about an intellectual position which held that to get to the Truth of the matter involving intimate relations between male & female hominids, one would have to dispense with “All the Pretty Little Lies” and start being completely honest with oneself about the nature of the female of the species.And of course the experienced Playahz would warn the neophytes that you can either know women, or love them, but not both.

‘Modern Christianity’ if defined as Moralistic Thereputic Deism, and/or whatever it is J Osteen purveys, is not Christianity.

To Not My Usual Pen Name – first of all Arghhhh! I accidentally pushed the disapprove button. What a brilliant and interesting response to my comment! Thank you for taking the time to share such your thoughts and understanding. Since we’re now on to a new post I’m going to reference this for anyone interested (hopefully I can find an appropriate opening) in digging through Friday’s post to find it. Well worth the effort.