[AeonKnight]

@Oscar

I just saw the reply, so excuse the timelag.

“You should have a look at Hegel : ” at a certain moment, quanitity becomes a quality by itself””

I didn’t say quantity isn’t useful/a strategy — it’s the reason WHG lost to expanding farmer culture even though at the time they were actual physically sicker due to subpar diet. And also why Yamnaya adopted their ways instead. Man-made eugenics also create the conditions to which quantity over quality is even possible, by the way (agriculture, architecture, clothing). Man-made eugenics can fail because is just a part of the whole in natural selection, but it’s still part of Nature, just to clarify and avoid future counterarguments to points I didn’t make.

“Eugenics are a pseudo-science. Eugenics were practised until the 80’s in Sweden and did it produce a better, stronger, smarter nation ?

No they’re at the forefront of the feminist discourse which is the central element of the current civilizational collapse and they were stupid enough to import the third world without even having the – relative – excuse of links to a colonial past or geographical proximity.”

Eugenics are a man-given name for applied (by humans, I mean) natural selection. An attempt to replicate it. If you’re talking about that, I agree, but when I discuss eugenics I simply discuss result/effect. The best eugenic policy is actually to let consequence play out as much as possible to reduce fragility — our societies today are dysgenic because they artificially remove/prevent consequences for even the most basic actions. In the specific case of Sweden, it was a human’s idea of what’s best for a population: they became victims of their own White, high IQ, altruistic societies and evolved without those basic pressures that would otherwise curtail some of the neoteny (which affects both beauty and IQ); and having that geographical distance only created “birds of paradise”, so to speak, that can only develop in a fantasy world without danger, and thus have no defences against it.

“if a eugenics policy had been applied in Germany in the 1770s, Beethoven’s mother, who suffered from every conceivable physical and social defect, would have been sterilized.”

As in my first point, that’s not what I mean by the term — I’m never referring to a specific country’s policy. That would actually be dysgenic, since you’re imposing a practice through a limited vision of potential: her managing to survive and have kids despite of her condition IS the eugenics: the genetic and epigenetic drive; having the tests of selective pressure and passing them. Without those triggers, even healthy genomes eventually degenerate.

You can never improve what Nature already does (and does for free), but you can definitely get in the way of it (until a boiling point is reached, of course, and all correction comes crashing down all at once).

“and i love the second movement of the seventh symphony.”

So do I, but even if not having Beethoven was the cost of either man-made of natural eugenics, that’s not a problem, since the potential for his genome still lives in the population. And even if it didn’t, it would not be worth the cost of having a sickly society as a result, if it came to that, and for a single individual.

“the concept of cannon fodder here makes no sense. it’s an expression used to refer to people employed against their will and against their interests for third-party interests.”

I meant it genetically, since it’s what the discussion is about; but if you want to delve into grammatical specifics, we can, especially that fact that I mainly have to readdress strawmen all the time, which can only come from 1. Genuine misunderstanding or 2. Deliberate misunderstanding, or, as some might call it, “dishonesty”.

“This is absolutely the opposite of what the Crusades were, which were a voluntary phenomenon that combined religious (to gain eternal salvation) and material interests (those who crusaded were cadets from noble families who would have had no future at home, which is the whole point of the creation of the Frankish States in the Levant).”

Agreed, but the argument was whether it benefitted Europe as a whole, and fighting in the Levant while you have POCs in Europe is a bit of a miss, even if it wasn’t the crucial time and it was later readdressed. Sure, individuals can do what they want.

[Hunter]

@Oscar, in response to your comment, “Eugenics are a pseudo-science.” Dysgenic thought is rare within pro-White circles, so I will respond to this novelty. Eugenics is merely the concept of animal husbandry applied to humans through the lens of science… and it is very effective since humans share a great deal with animals. The most successful human society will be the one that most effectively practices eugenics. In fact, there is no more practical religion. Eugenics is about selecting for ‘Eu’ good genetics through reproduction. As a result of eugenics there should be less illness, ugliness, stupidity, ect within a population and more strength, beauty, and intelligence. As for Sweden, they were helpless after the destruction of the Third Reich and the victory of the (((global central banking cartel))) via their Allied puppets. Has any White nation truly been able, even if willing, to stand against them since WW2? The answer, sadly, has been no.

“If a eugenics policy had been applied in Germany in the 1770s, Beethoven’s mother, who suffered from every conceivable physical and social defect, would have been sterilized, and I love the second movement of the seventh symphony.” The exception does not disprove the rule. Even if Beethoven never existed, many more composers of equal or even greater caliber likely would have.

The Northern Crusades—people often ‘forget’ these since they were extremely successful compared to the Southern Crusades— eradicated Wotanism, and the last remnants of Druidism, from the British Isles… then later eradicated Wotanism from what was Saxony (South of Denmark). Once Constantine converted, Christianity was thereafter primarily spread via coercion and the sword.

[Anonymous]

I think it is crucial to share religious viewpoints in most cases. It can cause serious issues over time, especially if the religious viewpoints clash on things like child rearing, diet, or even holiday celebrations.

However, I say this as a Christian man, who’s wife is an ex-Mormon who now leans pagan. We have been through many changes together, and we have a great marriage, despite our differing views on religion/spiritual practice. We both communicate deeply about these subjects, and work together to find what works for us.

A couple can work with each other having differing religious views, but the complications truly arise when deciding what to teach their children. It is certainly easier if both parents share a worldview/religion.

[Oscar]

“On my eugenics point, it is just that: eugenics, not populaton growth. Quality not quantity.”

You should have a look at Hegel : ” at a certain moment, quanitity becomes a quality by itself”

Eugenics are a pseudo-science. Eugenics were practised until the 80’s in Sweden and did it produce a better, stronger, smarter nation ?

No they’re at the forefront of the feminist discourse which is the central element of the current civilizational collapse and they were stupid enough to import the third world without even having the – relative – excuse of links to a colonial past or geographical proximity.

if a eugenics policy had been applied in Germany in the 1770s, Beethoven’s mother, who suffered from every conceivable physical and social defect, would have been sterilized.

and i love the second movement of the seventh symphony.

State laws must be eugenic in nature, i.e. they must aim to improve the state of society. For individuals (apart from the clinically retarded, who must obviously be sterilized), it’s a different matter.

“I said it ultimately didn’t benefit Europeans to be sent as cannon fodder”

the concept of cannon fodder here makes no sense. it’s an expression used to refer to people employed against their will and against their interests for third-party interests.

This is absolutely the opposite of what the Crusades were, which were a voluntary phenomenon that combined religious (to gain eternal salvation) and material interests (those who crusaded were cadets from noble families who would have had no future at home, which is the whole point of the creation of the Frankish States in the Levant).

[Anonymous]

If you take your religion seriously, then it would be important. Priests in reverent Orthodox and Catholic churches would probably deny a marriage if it’s between a Christian and a non Christian. Idk if Pagans have rites like that but either way it could cause unnecessary conflict on the relationship. When you have children one partner is also probably going to try and dominate the other in influencing the religious beliefs of the family. Personally I will be only looking at women who are Christian or agnostic for these reasons.

[Anonymous]

I’m a pagan, and for me the most important thing is shared values and shared relationship/familial goals. So, I’d be fine with marrying a Christian.

[AeonKnight]

@A_Spartan_Speaks

Are you associated with any movements in Greece like Hellenismos? I’d like to visit them next time I’m there.

Cheers!

[AeonKnight]

@Oscar

A somewhat polite response: I think I can fix this!

I already write in a very pedantic manner online to minimise misunderstandings, but it stills happens. Ask me to clarify instead of going off in a self-important rant like you’re somebody. No one is impressed. You are a just some guy on the internet, and so am I.

Strawmen aside, why don’t you put your age to good use then and enlighten any mistaken position I have? Do you think I want to be wrong?

On my eugenics point, it is just that: eugenics, not populaton growth. Quality not quantity. I have more than a basic knowledge on medieval history, but you’d never know because no conversation was started and you chose to address a point I never made. Since you seem to know more, educate me — that’s what the forum (and your age/experience) is for.

On the Crusades: another strawman. I said it ultimately didn’t benefit Europeans to be sent as cannon fodder, not that it was a Kosher endeavour. If you know a point I don’t, share it.

If you are not interested in a conversation, please miss me with any immature or ego nonsense.

Be well!

[Oscar]

you cut my sentence, giving the impression I said there was in every general aspect no such thing as “truth”.

And of course age matters : it takes all the naive arrogance of the youth to imagine that the nearly twenty years I spent more than you in thinking, reading, practising counts for nothing.

At least, aside to illusions that you will change the core beliefs of highly prolific hardcore Christians (and more that there are a need for this non-happening change) It prevented me from spouting nonsense about so-called “medieval dysgenic christianity” (had you basic knowledge about the period, you would know that the food production could never have supported any major growth of the population) or that “crusades were made in the interest” of the chosenites (since you ignore it, the first act of the Crusaders when they captured Jerusalem was to slaughter most of the jews in the city)

I don’t think I’ll choose you as the master standard of what is interesting and adds to the quality of the debate.

[AeonKnight]

@Oscar

I tried to be cool and let it go, but being called “dishonest”, I have to respond. What a pain…

“My exact phrase was : ” BECAUSE ON OPINIONS, there is no such thing as “truth”. ”

Truth is unrelated to opinion. It is possible to have an objectively wrong stance on a fact, unless you deconstruct reality to the point of meaninglessness. All biological imperatives are based on Natural Law. Natural Law is the fact. That fact translated into the subjective is their manifestation of the fact. Being pro-yourself is an example , that’s why you have two sides fighting what they (should) believe is the “truth”. That’s NOT what I’m arguing. The Judaic thought is against the regent fact itself, and in that sense it IS incorrect. Also can scroll up and see the replied-to post. At best, you made a distinction without a difference.

“As I’ve learnt by being politically involved when you were still shitting in your nappies.”

All that time and you still haven’t figured out that “age” is not an argument? I don’t know what’s worse: the cringe try-hard attempts at being witty/edgy or the lack of arguments. You started this by claiming my post on religion was a waste of time and added absolutely nothing of value, and an argument about the argument itself on top. Time well-spent. So tiresome — I will ignore this from now on regardless of slander. Good job making this site a productive and interestng place.

Cheers!

[Oscar]

““there is no such thing as “truth” ””

there is a thing far more objective and valuable than any point of view, it’s honesty (intellectual or other).

My exact phrase was : ” BECAUSE ON OPINIONS, there is no such thing as “truth”.

[AeonKnight]

@Oscar

“there is no such thing as “truth” ”

Ok, man.

Be pro-White to the best of your ability. Take care!

[Oscar]

“The side that is correct ”

spoiler alert : there is no “side that is correct” (or more factually there are both the two sides that are, because on opinions, there is no such thing as “truth”, only point of views

“These topics are somewhat important as they shape the future of White movements.”

sure, even”decisive”.. That must be why they happen with as much regularity as a woman’s periods, with as little procreation following them

As I’ve learnt by being politically involved when you were still shitting in your nappies.

[AeonKnight]

@Oscar

Two sides exist that disagree. Oh, noes, what is to be done? The side that is correct and can argue for it wins. The difference in stance is that Paganism is not “tree-hugging” (pro-Nature, yes — no hippies), but Christinity IS Jewish, and you can prove it. This is also not a no-true-Scotsman from me: what you think is Paganism is likely some Wicca or New-Age-type psy-op.

“less than a theology, they are attached to memories, sensations, a conception of the world which they have inherited”

You typed it, but did not realise it: the point is that Christianity has been made as European as possible to be palatable to Whites, while maintaining its subversive core. What Christians positively associate with their religion is either a truth too universal to be claimed by them alone or blood-and-soil tradition. (Healthy) Whites don’t actually accept pure Semitism, and that is what Pagans are trying to convey; I wouldn’t go as far as Varg Vikernes and claim that every Catholic is already Pagan, but the general idea is correct.

“they tried to recreate a transcendence by aiming for the most radical approach possible.”

Modern Pagans that actually follow ancient written-down customs, be it Greek, Roman or Germanic, are not trying to be radical, and almost always find affinity with Neoplatonist ideas (from personal experience). Again, you must be mistaking some Hollywood or New Age magic crystal spirituality for “pagan”.

“Trying to merge them because they objectively have common enemies makes no sense”

Yes, we should not try and bridge the gap of our superficial differences to try and survive the greatest existential threat our race has ever faced. Good idea.

“trying to make each side proselytize against the other doesn’t make any sense either.”

The opposite of what I argued for. I can advise anyone do anything, as I am a free man. You are free to do as you wish — I WANT you to do as you wish since it’s the only way selection can take place and our people can heal from ZOG dysgenics. If you want to be a Christian, or degenerate even, please do, as that is your role in our evolution, for good or ill.

“This kind of eternally repeated discussion about religion reminds me of the movie “Groundhog Day” ”

These topics are somewhat important as they shape the future of White movements. Are we to refrain from discussing things? If you want to bring inaction or nihilism, why partake? Why even join this site? If there is a topic I see as completely pointless, I will ignore it, so you must think either religion is pointless or debating things is.

Regards!

[Oscar]

“I would advise any Christian ”

I doubt any believing and practising Christian would be intenrested in your tree-hugging revival as much as I doubt you’ll be interested in their babylonian-gone-jewish -inspired religion

This kind of eternally repeated discussion about religion reminds me of the movie “Groundhog Day”

The Christians are traditionalists : less than a theology, they are attached to memories, sensations, a conception of the world which they have inherited and it’s the tranmission to the next geneation which is the core of their attitude.

the neo-pagans are people who grew up in an environment which had already broken – at least in the previous generation – with this conception of the world to switch to modernism, then they tried to recreate a transcendence by aiming for the most radical approach possible.

they are two very distinct psychological types, in addition to different social backgrounds.

Trying to merge them because they objectively have common enemies makes no sense, and trying to make each side proselytize against the other doesn’t make any sense either.

[AeonKnight]

@Dillinger

Jesus was a Jew who thought he was God. In that sense, he is the pinnacle of Judaism, their inversion, blasphemy and delusion.

Christians’ main argument against their religion not being Semitic (anymore) is Jesus calling out his tribe on usury and worshipping Lucifer as their real god. That ultimately changes nothing: we will still end up mixed and deracinated and thus physically dysgenic and disconnected from the Divine (that IF we even survive by having slave-morality guide our entire philosophical thought); we at best have a major disadvantage against any other group that wants to conquer us for whatever reason, or fake converts infiltrating, etc. — the points of failure are too many to number. Arguing that money is the only/main factor is still the worship of money above all, like his own criticism. It was the original fake-opposition for Gentiles.

Early Christianity was also a Jewish-only branch of Judaism; no goyim allowed, for those that didn’t know. After they realised the potential, they began fake-converting and guiding doctrine into horribly dysgenic practices (nuns and priests taken from the best stock, as an example, as well as sending White cannon fodder to fight their wars and grant them their holy sites, which continues to this day). No Jew or Jewish organisation is afraid of the world becoming Christian, or becoming Muslim — that to them is insurance, since all “people of the book” will be browbeaten into the “chosen people” narrative.

I would advise any Christian who is at least curious about his (actual) culture to learn what Paganism really is, unless they aren’t so confident that their ideas are ironclad and that Paganism won’t make them question anything.

Cheers!

[Anonymous]

@AeonKnight

I basically agree with you. There are a lot of christians who are cool and have a lot of potential. There has to be an understanding that putting race first must always override christian doctrine in order for headway to be made.

Your second point is also valid. It’s not likely to convert christians to European Paganism by pointing out logical disharmony, though it can have some success in making the case for European Paganism.

Ultimately what made me reject christianity was trying to read the bible. I think most christians, as I was, are ignorant of what the bible actually says. Every time I tried to read it I found the bible repulsive on a visceral level.

Sometimes it works decently to cite certain passages of the bible when speaking to christians. Matthew 10:37 is a rather damning verse:

“He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”

Here, jesus is saying that if you love your family more than jesus you are not worthy.

[Anonymous]

@Ted

Good idea, man. I just sent you a message.

[AeonKnight]

@Dillinger

“How can a christian be against judaism if christianity, by your own logic, is equivalent to judaism?”

They can’t, that’s my argument. They can ignore the contradiction as a cope, like I’ve stated, but it remains unresolved, so it must be either ignored forever or dealt with, which can only lead to 1. Prioritizing Christianity at the expense of race and biology towards a half-understood universalism or 2. Abandoning any Abrahamic/Judaic thought and coming towards a Pagan worldview of uniting the physical and the metaphysical as two sides of the same coin.

“Wouldn’t they also have to be against christianity itself?”

Against the philosophy and incoherent mentality of Judaism, yes — not against White Christians, unless they have become spiritual Jews themselves. It’s the same nuance of the “brother wars” question; I am against White-on-White conflict of any kind, but there will be Whites fighting on the side of ZOG, whether they are simply ignorant or straight up traitors, and that must be fought like cancer cells that threaten the organism as a whole. To add: pushing Paganism onto Christians, like forcing anything else, doesn’t work. The process must be rational, for the mind, and civilised, for the emotions/acceptance. If they are beyond reason, let it go; they are beyond being spiritually Jewish and are/have become mentally African. The journey I referred to is if they can be reasoned with and have the intellect, instinct and mental toughness to accept it, as with coming to terms with any other truth like the JQ, race, IQ, etc.

Thank you for your reply.

Regards!

[Ted]

@Dillinger

There’s a bunch of structures in the American North East that suggest a non-native American style, carbon dating to about 4 thousand years ago. There’s arrow head styles that suggest two ice ages ago (~20,000 years back), some paleolithic age French quite possibly came to the American North East. Also, lots of Native American tribes have legends about these tall, pale skinned, red haired giants that were powerful and advanced but went extinct.
ancient-origins.net/myths-legends/ancient-race-white-giants-described-native-legends-many-tribes-005774

I’m no authority on history or Anthropology either. I have no academic credentials but a single college class on ancient architecture. I’m just interested in topics related to what Captain Archibald Ramsay called the nameless war.

My understanding is concurrent; that Jewish history has significant accuracy problems, but it generates a self-propelling narrative. I have a hard time knowingly embracing falsehoods that serve me, but the fact that humans evolved self-serving biases indicates it’s a winning move to have self-aggrandizing delusions.

***

I’ve seen your profile around the forum list, mentioning a World White Congress url being reserved, and mentions of Varg and Marie. I recall not posting because I’d have needed to get chat membership. I’m up to take this elsewhere instead of continuing to clutter up a thread about dating people of different religions.

[Anonymous]

@AeonKnight

You’ve stated that “abrahamism = judaism”… How can a christian be against judaism if christianity, by your own logic, is equivalent to judaism? Wouldn’t they also have to be against christianity itself? Are you just pointing out that it’s a christian’s “journey” to come to terms with this?

European Paganism is about blood and soil, it’s the most Pro White belief system that exists. Much of this discussion has been about what European Paganism means, compared to and contrasted with other religions. European blooded people are not obligated to leave christianity and become European Pagans, however, I believe they should consider it to be a good option and I’ve presented a number of points supporting my position.

I’m speaking as a man who has rejected christianity.

[AeonKnight]

Abrahamism = Judaism, no matter how you rationalize it. The problem with being a Christian is that it will, in the very least, erode some of your biological imperative as mere “materialism”, which is a deliberate half-truth and its original intent as a Noahide goy religion.

That being said: I have no problem with Christians who are 1. Pro-White first and 2. Anti-Jew. It is dissonant and either leads to leaving Christianity or forever ignoring the contradiction, but it is their journey.

Lastly, not being a Christian does not mean you need to, in your view, worship “idols” or Pagan Gods you are unsure about — Abrahamism arose from a Semitic inversion of monistic metaphysics (or Neoplatonism as it is more commonly known) and it is a 100% White philosophy spread by the Indo-Europeans in their migration to Western Europe, India and Asia.

Regards.

[Anonymous]

@Ted

Seems like we’re in agreeance ✅️

***

Varg and his family appear to take a “best of both worlds” / utilitarian approach. It’s along the same lines as what you described.

Just as an aside, when I referenced Leif Erikson that was a bit of an error. Apparently there were Vikings or some other group(s) of Scandinavians who reached North America before that, that’s who I meant. Varg wouldn’t have endorsed anyone who isn’t Pagan.

With respect to Henry Ford, I was mostly talking about his thesis that Columbus was sponsored by jews. “The International Jew” does seem to be limited in scope to jewish influence on The USA. You’re right though, this is an operation that has not been fully stopped for millennia.

I’ll admit I am definitely not the authority when it comes to history and anthropology. In Canadian schools the focus was mostly on the expeditions of Jacques Cartier and the subject was not my forte.

I see a lot of appeal in the jewish way of approaching history. Their proported view of historical events is entirely based on what future objectives they want to achieve. Having said that, there is great value in history that is actually based on reality.

***

Yeah, one of things christians seem to view as unacceptable about European Paganism is the concept of multiple Gods. In actuality even the jewish scriptures support the view that there are multiple Gods, and that a God is connected to a people.

***

This is not on topic, but I’ve decided to take the initiative to start The World White Congress. Right now there are only a few members but if you’re interested we’d be happy for you to join us.

The idea is that democratic decision making can occur in a responsible, efficient and effective manner, as long as the membership is kept pure. All considerations will be made to ensure the safety and well being of members.

Would you be interested in hearing more?

[Ted]

@Anonymous post #19629

I can tell from context that you’re replying to my post #19626 in your post #19629, but it would be helpful to anyone you’re trying to converse with if you addressed them.

I’m assuming that you’re coming up as “anonymous” because you quit Whitedate shortly after posting.

@Anonymous post #19632
When replying to several day old content in a forum where the other person posted a bunch, it would be helpful to give their name and post number, or at least name and a reminder of what they were saying.

An example of regional differences in just Catholism alone is all the weird patron saints they have in Mexico. For example Jesús Malverde, patron saint of bandits, is prayed to by drug traffickers for success in illicit activities. You’re probably not going to get much of that in Canadian Catholics. I maintain this is an example of the religion having to make allowances for the behavioral tendencies of it’s different hosts.

I’m willing to do a little bit of research on specific topics. If you’d like to correct me on a specific aspect of church history, I’m willing to listen. However, I’m not motivated enough to just go study religion generally until I come around to the interpretations of an anonymous poster. I didn’t even pick up what your specific objections were, so after no amount of study would I know the task was done. It’s sort of like a far leftist telling you to go get “educated” when you disagree with them on something they feel emotional about, because in their mind the propaganda they received is the only objectively correct interpretation of things, so surely everyone will come around to their beliefs if they just study more.

[Ted]

@Dillinger

A belief system around realizing the individual’s full potential is very appealing, especially to someone who feels like they squandered most of their potential. Probably many such cases in an era of abundant entertainment.

***

The hunter gatherer model is what we’re evolutionarily optimized for. One small example being how most people need to get wisdom teeth removed these days because we’re genetically optimized for eating foods that cause much more tooth wear. A lot of being healthy is simply recreating conditions more like our ancestor’s evolution. However, I’m a fan of reading, writing, math, guns, vehicles, and the higher thought that can be obtained from unmoderated forums.

The Eskimos lived in a very challenging environment as hunter gatherers, and only ended up IQ 90. That’s a lot better than many equatorial peoples, but suggests the Neanderthals may have only been about as smart as the north-ish Native Americans. That’s because they had similar lifestyles in similar climates.

Back when America was founded, Jews needed Freemason front gentiles much more. Francis Bacon, a very important mason and author of “New Atlantas” (1626), conceived that a super state in the new world could tip the scales of power in Europe and dethrone the monarchies. Just that would happen during WW1, with much help by an anti-monarchist, continent-wide, new-world republic founded largely by Freemasons. The International Jew is a great introductory/intermediate work, but the well gets a lot deeper. I don’t think Henry had anything about Christianity being spread by Jews to undermine the Roman empire, and get all these Europeans accepting their 5 books of Moses. We are in the same boat as the Native Americans with regard to having Christianity forced on us, I strongly suspect for eventual mass Noahidism conversion.

***

Those are good points that other gods are talked about as if a valid alternative, and the fearmongering. Don’t leave Yahweh, or he might mess you up.

[Anonymous]

@Ted

The Scientology creation myth does often invoke incredulity. As you said though, a lot of creation myths are kind of farfetched. I haven’t read any of L Ron Hubbard’s works but his creative output was definitely prodigious, which I respect. Personally my interpretation of the whole Xenu thing is that it has to do with “WWII”. After all, Hubbard was in the US Navy during the early 40’s on The Pacific Front.

I watched a video where a former Scientologist explained what they actually believe at the core. He basically said Scientologists believe humans are godlike beings that just rarely if ever realize even a fraction of their full potential. The goal of Scientology is to reach that state as much as possible, in essence become a godlike being with enhanced abilities. It was in a video from the youtube channel “Growing Up In Scientology” but the dude posts a lot of cringe so I didn’t feel like sifting through his content to find it.

I remember Varg mentioning some concepts in European Paganism that seemed very similar. L Ron Hubbard apparently traveled around the world throughout his formative years and Scientology is supposedly a synthesis of a lot of the ideas he picked up. It’s possible he got some of those ideas from European Paganism…

***

Varg and Marie favor the hunter-gatherer model as the ideal way of life for humans and also as a way of maximizing the consideration of dignity for animals. They’re realistic about the practicality of reimplementing this model in its purest form. They see industrial scale agriculture as a net negative from an evolutionary standpoint.

I believe Varg and Marie empathize more with the Native Americans because they see it as a case of christians repeating in a new arena what they did to European Pagans. According to Henry Ford’s “The International Jew” there is strong evidence that the jews have been the puppetmasters of The American Colonies since day one. I’m assuming you have some familiarity with this literature already, however, I can provide some citations if needed. I believe this topic is covered at the very beginning. Varg supports his view by contrasting the behavior of Columbus with that of Leif Erikson.

All the topics we’ve discussed where I’ve referred to Varg and Marie, it would be fair to say are connected to European Paganism.

***

I think the point of yahweh being jealous is merely a fear tactic… Just speculating though.

In “the ten commandments” it doesn’t actually claim there aren’t other gods, it more literally says “thou shalt have no other gods before me”. Kind of lends credence to there being multiple gods if anything. I’m going by the christian kjv version mind you. In the Tanakh it says “you shall not have the gods of others in my presence” which I think is even more of a acknowledgement that there are multiple gods.

Exodus 20:3
KJV
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020&version=KJV
Tanakh
chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9881/jewish/Chapter-20.htm

[Anonymous]

I wouldn’t go to say that far with german host and christianity
I highly suggest reading church history and doing a bit kf theology, your whole get up for Christianity isnt exactly well accurate.
Mexico is Catholic and Canada is Anglican minus Quebec they should be Catholic still.
I myself am a Catholic and did study this kinda stuff.
I would say your example of egypt and Indonesia is eh. Egypt has always been more strict than Indonesia interpretation.
Different ideas and beliefs and to heresies can come to be that need to be addressed.

Im not trying to put you down or anything but it will suit you well to take some time and do some theology and church history.

[Anonymous]

Universalist? Isnt that a hersey, that thinks all religions are correct or something. Or a different Universalist.

[Anonymous]

I cannot blame you for being cautious, but remember this. Be civil and respectful about it. Thats the only way you can really get the truth, because this can be very dear and near to sensitive topic to folk.
Hell you can study abit about there theology if your that interested in doing. But do not push the envelope to far. Nor mockery
Obviously there are redflags, dont be to rash and be rational

[Anonymous]

I know what your talking about a bit
With the Talmund, its really only the Orthodox folk who goes to such lengths in there beliefs.

I mean turning on lights is work so they have like automatic lights or something to get around
Its interesting and odd
They took the keep sabbath holy and dont work to a extreme like basic stuff is work

[Anonymous]

I will say religion is very important at times, iron sharpens iron. So if you are religious go and try to find someone who is. But if you dont care to much, be my guest.

For major red flags would probably be new age gnostic or agnostic some cult like satanism. Obviously no doudt you could try to changw that person for the better. But thats the role of the dice.

For me, Christianity and a Christian woman is important. I myself a Traditional Catholic, through out the millennia, the church has brought up much of moral guidelines.
Faith can bring out modesty morals and virtues. If you find a woman good of heart and of faith, go for it.

But to answer the question depends but preferably someone of my faith, interdenominational relationships and faith can be werid at times I experience it a bit, it can cause alot of strain.

[Ted]

It’s been a while since I looked at it, but I had the impression Scientology has some compelling design aspects for a modern religion. It certainly has some design flaws though, the fact that it throws morality out the window for it’s enemies, while sensible for survival, really tarnishes the group image overall in a way that threatens it’s survival. It’s creation myth however, while no less plausible than many popular ones, does stretch credulity. When I was thinking about European Paganism vs Cosmotheism, the low age and outer-space invoking of Cosmotheism reminded me of the low public credibility of Scientology.

***

My sense is that if the forests of Europe were inferior to the middle east in terms of generating food, very intelligent humanoids would seek to control the more productive land. Perhaps this very dynamic lead to the fertile crescent being a place of conflict and advancement. If Neanderthals had low numbers, low population density, and survived in lands nobody else wanted (for a long time), that would lead to low conflict and low advancement pressure. The conflict pressures of the fertile crescent would support both fighting genes, and develop larger group sizes with specialized war fighting departments.

While surviving in periodic deadly winters develops the ability to think about that which doesn’t presently exist, maybe it’s a lower pressure for non-farmers. You can hunt year-round. Maybe Europe as an engine of higher thought really takes off if you have humans trying to survival farm there. Archeology says humans didn’t start agriculture until around 12,000 years ago. I’d be very interested to see what could be learned from cloning 12,000 year ago Europeans.

Victories over the native Americans were real victories with an excellent payoff. What went terribly was trying to “civilize the savages”. Such colonialism lost money, didn’t win us many friends, generally didn’t work, and to the extent it did work we only empowered potential enemies. If instead of being all paternalistic and trying to help, 19th century Europeans just wholesale slaughtered Africa, it would be like a second North America for us now. Instead of gratitude, to gen-Z “colonizer” is a verbal cudgel they’ve been conditioned to cower before.

***

I’ve heard that the Talmud is 25% rules and 75% litigious techniques to get around those rules. There’s a whole industry for hacking the Sabbath so they can turn on lights and heat food and such. I’d guess Judaism is by net weight mostly about outsmarting Yahweh.

Is it weird for the all-powerful creator deity to get super jealous about people worshiping fake gods? Maybe Yahweh was tricked into thinking there’s other gods and he has to compete with them for followers?

[Anonymous]

@Ted

I’m glad we agree on those policies. It gets back to striving for harmony with natural selection because only heterosexuality is validated by the resultant procreation (among a multitude of additional reasons) and any organism that does not engage in self defense is not likely to survive very long.

Scientology reminds me of christianity in many ways and it repels me for that and other reasons, but I find L Ron Hubbard to be a fascinating character. One of the things he believed was that at the basic level humans are driven by one thing: Survive!

***

Getting back to the question of “If Neanderthals are the definitive ancestors of European blooded people why wasn’t there are congruency in the outcome of conflicts with homo sapiens?”…

Firstly, The Neanderthals were probably outnumbered. Historically the outcome of most battles is simply a factor of which side had the greater numbers.

Examples of things that can help an army overcome superior numbers: superior technology, skill, strategy, intelligence (in the military sense of the term). A people being more creative and clear headed and better problem solvers can certainly help, but it’s not indispensable. What really pushes the envelope is rigorous “red teaming” and “blue teaming”. A species that lives harmoniously is at a disadvantage here, unfortunately. The way you connected battle and hunting acumen is a strong counterpoint though. Neanderthals had the advantage of physical prowess too, I believe.

The example of the famous Rhodesian battle… that took place much more recently. It was a decisive victory, but ultimately a case of “winning the battle not the war”. Demonstrates the importance of superior numbers because even though the enemy had enormous casualties it still was insufficient.

Many of the other European “victories” I think we can agree were not real victories at all. My theoretical understanding of Neanderthals is congruent with my estimation of modern European blooded people: We still need to up our “red team” and “blue team” game to overpower and defeat the enemy.

***

😅 The chicken thing that the jews do… Good point about “wouldn’t their god be confused”. It’s an instance of how they portray their own god in a derogatory manner. Apparently yahweh is rather easy to outsmart. There is also characterizion of yahweh being a jealous god: “For thou shalt worship no other god: for the lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous god”.

Exodus 34:14
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2034%3A14&version=KJV

[Ted]

@Dillinger

Homosexuality is a spreadable reproductive disorder. ~7% of the population is gay, many researchers find that 30% to 50% of identical twins are gay when the other one’s gay, so there’s a very big non-genetic component to it. Informally, about half of gay people will say they were molested as kids when asked. Any group that wishes to increase it’s numbers should oppose homosexuality. Any group seeking to lower it’s population should support homosexuality socially, and molest it’s kids.

To shun self-defense is a very bad survival and political strategy. It’s so bad, that groups that not only espouse it but actually put their bodies on the line for pacifism, are a rare and fleeting thing, only lasting long enough to be seen when conducted in exceedingly safe and prosperous empires.

—-

Living beings probably have a natural will to power as a result of the struggle for survival. It’s true that excessive abstract thinking, empowered by greater intelligence, can cause the very intelligent to do really counter productive things. However, if the Neanderthals were these hyper intelligent beings that just liked to spend 90% of their time looking for food, how did the African immigrants utterly wipe them out nearly as soon as they arrived?

Modern White people, in organized war, beat brown/black people with amazingly lopsided numbers. In one fight between 84 White Rhodesians and about 5000 soviet trained and equipped Black Africans, the Rhodesians took 3 casualties and the Africans took about 1000. Now imagine beings vastly smarter than Whites, vs Africans. Why would they get rolled so easily? The anatomically modern humans had better bodies for running and spear throwing, but shouldn’t the Neanderthals have won anyways with superior skill and tactics?

I’m feeling like something’s not adding up here. If the humans that went to the middle east ~70,000 years ago did a bunch of war with each other before some of them tried going north ~40,000 years ago, why didn’t this already happen in the up to 2 million years of pre-humans leaving Africa? There were pre-neanderthals leaving too, none of them encountered the same conditions that lead to modern humans developing technology?

***

The one that really gets me is the Yom Kippur chicken swingers. They ritualistically transfer their sins from the last year into the chicken, torture the chicken to death, and all-knowing Yahweh gets tricked into thinking the chicken committed the sins. So, isn’t god puzzled why all these chickens are cheating on their human wives and committing securities fraud? What’s worse is the mentality “I commit evil, but it’s okay because I made an innocent party take the fall for me”.

[Anonymous]

@Ted

It sounds like we’re on the same page as far as religion goes.

Here are some other points about European Paganism according to Varg and Marie:
• Only heterosexuality is allowed
• Self-defense is virtuous

***

Our perspectives differ on evolutionary theory so I like how the conversation has shifted to discussing Neanderthals.

Why didn’t Neanderthals, possessing greater cranial capacity, develop more advanced technology and engage in more ambitious conquest?

Maybe the Neanderthal conception of “advanced” was “being able to survive well in nature”. Through that lens, modern humans are devolved because we are not as well suited to survival in nature. They certainly possessed superior hunting and natural survival traits, perhaps they had other abilities too.

To use the phrase “necessity is the mother of invention” I would suggest that war is a significant factor if not the most significant factor that drives the devolopment of technology. The Neanderthals were relatively peaceful so there was less impetus to develop technology.

Along those same lines, I would speculate that the Neanderthals were just happy with the abundance of nature. A lot of war is simply motivated by a need for more resources due to the aggressor’s supply having dwindled.

***

Yeah, jewish mythology is… something else… 😅

[Ted]

@ Dillinger

I’m equal parts fascinated and incensed to hear Christianity prevented noble breeding. I suspect it comes from the religious administration breaking up their competitors for social influence.

It sounds like we’re talking about European Paganism as a White survival strategy. It makes me think of “The Culture of Critique” a scholarly work on Judaism as a group survival strategy. Northern Europeans and Jews are behaviorally different, so it doesn’t makes sense to just copy their homework, but there might be some lessons there.

In America, we have a federal law enforcement agency that’s fighting against white racial awareness, but they can’t be that explicit about it yet. The greatest utility of European Paganism might be that it’s a religion related to a race. In exactly the way Judaism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries took cover for it’s racial interest jockeying under the cover of being a religion, European Paganism can do it too and point at Judaism if anyone complains. Strong first amendment protections for religion can perhaps afford safety against mass arrests on trumped up charges. Then it could be a safe meeting place for white advocacy, to pool funds, decide on leaders, and ultimately attract the wrath of the powerful.

The competing method is Cosmotheism, the religious offshoot of the National Alliance. It’s ultimately based in nature, but more about genetic improvement, about up breeding to make smarter conscious beings, and thus “help the universe better understand itself”, as we’re the part of the universe that thinks. I like that both European Paganism and Cosmothiesm wouldn’t require me to believe in magic. Cosmoetheism wins points with me for the focus on genetic improvement, but European Paganism wins points with me for being ancient. The legitimacy of a religion to the public seems proportional to it’s age. If I want cover for doing White advocacy, the ancient one is the more robust shield.

—–

The 2009 Chinese article defines multi-regional evolution as the same thing now called OoA1. It says archaic human ancestors left Africa long ago, like in the ball park of 0.5 to 2.1 million years back. Then humans with modern limb proportions came out of Africa less than 200,000 years ago, completely displaced the archaic pre-humans, but picked up a roughly 2% genetic admixture from interbreeding with them.

2% isn’t much, so I’d attribute our differences with sub Saharan Africans almost entirely to (1) having the right stuff to successfully leave Africa and (2) evolving in more challenging environments.

This does leave me with a question though, if 40,000 years evolving in Europe was enough to turn 98% Africans into Europeans, And the Neanderthals were roughly similar creatures that had closer to 300,000 years to evolve in Europe, why didn’t they develop modern technology and conquer the world? Neanderthals had bigger cranial capacities than modern humans, like 1,500 cm^3, vs 1267cm^3 Black, 1347cm^3 White, 1364 cm^3 north east Asian. There’s a 0.4 R-correlation between brain size and IQ. So, why are cave paintings and sharpened rocks their only apparent legacy?

The Jewish explanation for different races comes from the story of Noah and his 3 sons. Shem was the progenitor of Asians, Japheth was the progenitor of Europeans, and Ham was the progenitor of Africans. Ham saw his dad naked and either butt raped him, castrated him, or both (wording is unclear), and as a result, received the “curse of ham” (being black). This story was used by Jews to partially justify slave trade in Blacks for many centuries, which is odd for a group that ostensibly considers itself the only “true human beings”.

These are long posts as is, I appreciate the discretion.

[Anonymous]

@Ted

I remember Varg talking about some of the ideas you went over. The context was how christians would historically keep a census and would not allow some couples to get married because they didn’t want the nobles to continue their bloodlines. I can’t seem to find the post where he mentioned it though.

I think it would be sufficient to screen the membership of European Paganism then have a policy that only marriage between male and female members would be blessed. There could be other stipulations as well.

If a couple didn’t want to adhere to the guidelines then they could become secular or there could be denominations that are more lax but lower status for them to join instead. There would just have to be a policy that the lower denominations pay respect to the upper ones.

Once we have our own institutions that are a hundred percent European blooded people only, we can refine everything pragmatically.

***

I get what you’re saying about “out of africa”.

To approach the subject from a different angle… “Certain people” would be delighted if Europe didn’t have actual White Europeans at all. If you were in an area where there aren’t many White Europeans, doesn’t it seem like you’d be less likely to be skeptical of “out of africa”? After all it would seem that qualitative observations run less counter to the notion.

Also “certain people” don’t think that anyone but they are human. Maybe “out of africa” is true for “certain people” but false for Europeans and others. It’s worth noting that Multiregional Evolution has gained a foothold amongst Chinese scientists, though I don’t know how widespread.

“Chinese Challenge To ‘Out Of Africa'”
newscientist.com/article/dn18093-chinese-challenge-to-out-of-africa-theory/

The last thing I’ll point out is that one thing about subsaharan africans is that they are prone to “socialness” by which I mean they tend to seek out social engagment. I’ve heard this is a prominent trait of homo sapiens. In contrast, European blooded people seem to prioritize familial bonds, which I’ve heard is a trait of Neanderthals.

One explanation is “different species” and the other is “environmental adaptation”. It could be a factor of both or these might be mutually instrinsic.

There are some other things I wanted to mention but I’ll leave it at that for now.

[Ted]

@Dillinger

That one wrong character did it. I don’t have an X account, so I was trying to put”/search?q=from%253ABornLik23266%20Paganism” in front of “https://nitter.net”. (minus the &#8221, I’m not putting that there) It didn’t work with the first one, so I assumed there was a problem with that method, but the problem revealed, I’ve checked out the links.

I do appreciate the poetry in the idea of being reincarnated through your descendants, and it’s the closest thing we have to an afterlife besides raising your clone (champion race horses get cloned, cloning businesses get requests for humans frequently, means and motive alone suggest it happens). The beautifully put quote about Hannibal points towards wanting mates that are similar to you, but not so similar that junk DNA copies get activated (incest). So, you’d want to cultivate not only your race, but even finer levels of genetic granularity to get more faithful reincarnations.

That gives me an idea. Small Island populations weed out their junk DNA through generations of incest combined with survival of the fittest. Suppose a small breeding group that included a lot of cousin marriages, would have couples with large numbers of kids and large numbers of culls. Like they’d have 10 kids, but cull down to 2.2 by getting rid of the least genetically healthy (if they’re not too bad, maybe just send them out for adoption). They could iron out their junk DNA pretty quickly. Once that was achieved, close relatives could mate without excessive gene problems. That group could routinely have successions like Hamiclar to Hannibal.

It would be the work of generations, and it would all get screwed up if they mated with someone that had normal levels of junk DNA, so that could raise the pressure level on them to not out-breed. It would be fascinating to see the civilization that arises from a group that’s essentially the same person, except for male/female versions.

These days the weekly gathering may also serve the benefit of discussing the current propaganda. When one individual starts to get doubts about racial differences or the character of police brutality or whatever messaging is going on, as long as they feel comfortable bringing it forward, maybe anonymously, then they can have their doubts put to rest. That’s something best done with a group, the atomized individual is probably easier to sway with emotional manipulation and subtle media tricks.

—-

I know people use OoA that way, but I think OoA offers great clarity on Africans. It basically says “The Africans never evolved with deadly winters, so they never needed the abstract thinking to imagine things that don’t exist like the future, so they never developed much prefrontal cortex, and now they’re bad at everything that needs abstract thinking – punctuality, empathy, education, and delayed gratification”. That’s it. That’s everything anyone needs to know about Africans in less than a paragraph, backed up by the widely accepted theory of evolution. It succinctly explains why they’ll never achieve self-supporting equal outcomes no matter how much support they’re given, why they have really high incarceration rates across all time and geography, and why it’s even folly to have the same criminal code apply to them. OoA shows us why it’s actually justice to cease all affirmative action, only allow special exceptions to immigrate, curtail their gun rights, and offer them limited education for manual skills as standard (the top 1 in 6 American Blacks and top 1 in 36 native Africans can succeed in normal schools). As an ex-liberal, I find this evolutionary biology explanation extremely satisfying. No hate required, no guilt incurred, knowing the nature of the animal, good policy decisions just fall into place.

[Anonymous]

I was quoting the wikipedia article about Hannibal and now that I look at the source it’s slightly different:

“The veterans thought they saw Hamilcar restored to them as he was in his youth; they saw the same determined expression the same piercing eyes, the same cast of features.”

It goes on to say it was Hannibal’s meritorious behavior that sealed the deal but I still think the point is valid that Hannibal’s resemblance to his father created a much greater continuity.

[Anonymous]

@Ted

Huh… The links all work for me except I had an incorrect escape character in the first one.

twitter.com/search?q=from%3ABornLik23266%20Paganism

I didn’t actually read Paganism Explained because it seemed more like myth interpretation than a straightforward doctrine.

I gathered my impressions mostly from following Varg and Marie over the years… For example procreating only within one’s own race is a step toward achieving immortality because one’s descendants will resemble their ancestors. Hannibal’s resemblance to his father demonstrates this notion: “No sooner had he arrived…the old soldiers fancied they saw Hamilcar in his youth given back to them; the same bright look; the same fire in his eye, the same trick of countenance and features. Never was one and the same spirit more skilful to meet opposition, to obey, or to command.”

Titus Livius, The History of Rome: Volume III, Book 21: From Saguntum To The Trebia
brainfly.net/html/books/brn0131c.htm

Varg and Marie’s core tenets are “mate with your own race and have lots of kids then your ancestors will be reborn as your descendants” and “humans should be highly integrated with nature so that evolution promotes natural survival traits”.

What I was trying to suggest about persisting a religion’s ideas is that the most successful ones have weekly social gatherings at temples or churches where basically they just repeat the doctrine amongst themselves. For the most dedicated it’s daily. Varg and Marie seem to favor a more decentralized approach.

***

To me, the whole “out of africa” thing is a fancy way of saying “one race the human race”. Apparently subsaharan africans are the only group which has zero Neanderthal DNA. There are a lot of memes to the effect that “races” of humans are more different than one another than many species of animals.

[Ted]

@Dillinger

I’ve found that posts containing more than one hyperlink get flagged for review, but not when I cut off the “https://www”.

I am interested to see what Varg and Marie have to say say about European Paganism. I’m unable use the provided links, but I did get to Varg’s Twitter page through the alternative front end “Nitter”. A small sample of his posts and retweets looks sensible. I did find and read their booklet on Internet Archive though, “Paganism Explained: Part I: Thrymskvida (2017)” archive.org/details/paganismexplainedpartithrymskvida2017/mode/2up

I could study this topic much more before commenting, but I’m not right away seeing a belief system for creating a new human race on a short timescale. I don’t yet know what European Paganism would do to curate it’s gene pool, but if it’s just to let a little natural selection back in, I don’t think that’s going to get you a new race. The aristocrat and the village idiot are usually thought of as being the same race, although the former’s family is consistently smarter on a genetic level.

Through what means can orthodoxy be persisted? The more of life that’s presented through the orthodox lens, the more extreme it can be. If not only the parents and the family, but the local school, after school programs, the regional news, the entertainment, weekly community gatherings, the books published, etc, all came from an orthodox lens, then being orthodox would be the default social expectation. In Edward Bernays’ seminal book on social engineering “Propaganda” (1928), he describes how people’s reality can be shaped if a message is encountered in many venues.

What about in a modern context where it’s practically impossible to avoid social engineering designed around enslavement and slow-motion genocide? You can lie to a man 1000 times, but if he’s seen the truth once, it’s all for nothing. If the social engineering vectors are recognized for what they are at least once, and European Paganism is able to position itself as the best opposition, then it might be possible to turn enemy messaging into fuel for the faith.

——-

Anthropology was one of the first things those “certain people” corrupted after getting off the boat. Franz Boas, a professor from 1896 to 1942, did more than anyone else I know of to create our modern cultural zeitgeist where perfect racial equality is zealously taken for granted. They’ve monkeyed with similar topics over the decades, like down playing evidence of Europeans in America before the “Native Americans”. Occasionally “Black Nationalists”, picking up a line they were fed, brag about being the first humans, and illogically act like elders due respect or as our purposeful creators. I think you have a solid basis to be suspicious.

I gathered the following:
Non sub-saharan Africans typically have about 2% Neanderthal DNA.
The oldest potential Neanderthal bones suggest they were in Europe up to 430,000 years ago.
Neanderthals went extinct around 40,000 years ago.
To me that sounds like anatomically modern humans came along and largely displaced these earlier hominids, but did breed with them to some extent.

Apparently there’s now Out of Africa I (pre-humans leaving Africa 2.1 to 0.2 million years ago) and Out of Africa II (Anatomically modern humans leaving Africa up to 0.2 million years ago). OoA1 accounts for what the Research Gate Article calls multiregional evolution.

[Anonymous]

@Ted

I believe the answer to your question as to whether European Paganism could be capable of guiding mating selection in an effective way is answered by the case study you provided on jewish mating patterns.

From the chart it may be surmised that when mating within one’s own race is doctrine, mating integrity is directly proportional to religious orthodoxy. This leads to your second line of inquiry: Would the mating selection pressure be too extreme, causing members to be repelled by the religion? As demonstrated, judaism’s solution has been to implement denominations which I assume are the result of pragmatism. If the pressure of adhering to a more stringent level of orthodoxy exceeds a member’s tolerance threshold they are inclined to move to a more lax denomination at the expense of status. An appropriate metaphor may be an electron moving from a stronger to a weaker atomic orbital.

The question then becomes: Through what means can orthodoxy be persisted? Are self- and familial- administered reiteration enough? Are communal and social institutions required?

My understanding of European Paganism is primarily influenced by Varg Vikernes and his wife Marie Cachet who I believe to be authorities on the subject. I would summarized the doctrine as striving to achieve harmony with natural selection. I can elaborate on some of the more interesting concepts they’ve postulated if you’re interested.

https://twitter.com/search?q=from%253ABornLik23266%20Paganism
https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3ABornLik23266%20Animism
https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3ACachetMarie%20Paganism
https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3ACachetMarie%20Animism

As far as Multiregional Evolution… Anthropology is not exactly my wheelhouse so some of my evidence may be considered anecdotal.

Let’s preface this by acknowledging that there has been a longstanding concerted effort by “certain people” to propagate inaccurate versions of European history in a manner that seeks to dispossess actual Europeans of their own ancestry and heritage. Can we agree that it is likely that these kind of activities likely extend beyond the scope of literature and film and television, into anthropology?

Multiregional Evolution has been proposed as the hypothesis that although homo sapiens appear to have originated from the African continent and subsequently a sizable portion became a diaspora which migrated to other regions of Earth, the other species of humans they met and mated with to some degree maintained dominance to a varying extent. In other words some “races” of human are more like other species of human than homo sapiens. This is inferred by the strong presence of Neanderthal DNA in modern Europeans, for instance. To paraphrase Varg Vikernes, Europeans may be thought of as Neanderthals and that Neanderthals have been misrepresented, particular in their appearance. Without going into the details, the physical, intellectual, behavioral, familial, social traits attributable to Neanderthals have been passed down to their European blooded descendants, particularly to the most pure among us.

Again, I don’t claim to be an authority in this field, it’s more of a gut feeling for me than anything. Here are some sources:

https://www.mpg.de/13894984/neandertal-genome-project
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Milford-Wolpoff/publication/328115481_Multiregional_evolution/links/5eff86aa45851550508845c0/Multiregional-evolution.pdf
https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3ABornLik23266%20Neanderthal

[Anonymous]

@WelshmanNorman

He rejects the “out of africa theory”. Cool. What does he believe happened instead?

(My response to @Ted is awaiting moderation.)

[Anonymous]

@dillinger are you familiar with Robert sepehr?

[Ted]

@Dillinger

Would European Paganism take control over mating selection or provide such extreme selection pressures? Elephants in just 2 generations evolved much smaller tusks from hunters going after large tusks. You can get changes fast even with a blind selection pressure, but it has to be a pretty extreme pressure, of the magnitude that would probably cause humans to relocate away from it.

If the religion is a good fit for the natural behaviors of it’s flock, there’s no reason it can’t maintain and refine for millennia. If one of the first objectives of the eugenics religion is to breed people to favor the eugenics religion, that could go a long ways towards preventing the host from corrupting or abandoning it.

There’s another racial/religious group that tries for a non-geographical based genetic isolation, the chosenites. Based on the following graphic, it looks like an ethnocult has to be at least as fervent as the centrist orthodox, or it will assimilate out over time. So, it can be done, but it’s hard to make compatible with a modern lifestyle.
nojesus4jews.weebly.com/uploads/5/4/6/5/54658875/will-your-grandchildren-be-jewish-revisited_orig.jpg

I’ve seen several graphs indicating the Africans are more genetically different from other races, than the other races are from each other, which come on a smooth gradient. Example: humanbiologicaldiversity.com/Photos/GeneticsOfRace.jpg
That would be consistent with every other race coming from the first group that had the right stuff to make it out of Africa, and to survive outside the veritable garden of Eden. Are you saying there’s evidence of pre-human to human transition going on in multiple regions?

[Anonymous]

@Ted

“a religion centered around Eugenics might make a new race in 6 generations”

Exactly, I agree that it is plausible that such a religion would result in the formation of a new race, furthermore I believe that European Paganism is a realisation of this concept.

Upon reaching stability such a religion would reach a maintenance and refinement stage, would you agree?

In addition, wouldn’t it be fair to characterize a religion which succeeds in this objective as possessing a kind of isolationism that is more robust than simply geographical isolation?

Regarding the “out of africa” theory it’s an example of false science in my opinion. While it probably applies to some races I’ve seen evidence that it is a much more regional phenomenon than it is portrayed to be.

[Ted]

@Dillinger

That sounds like more of a question for an anthropologist or evolutionary biologist.

I usually think of it as working the other way around, a race develops a native religion that suits it’s psychological particulars. When a virulent conquering religion, like Islam or Christianity, forces itself on a people that would more naturally follow a different religion, the conquering religion has to make regional allowances for the genetic behavioral tendencies of it’s new hosts. You’ll get funny pigeon religions as seen in the Carribean and Africa. You’ll notice differences in Christianity as practiced in Mexico vs Canada; differences in Islam in Egypt vs Indonesia.

However, I suspect it is a two-way street. The conquering religion has to adapt to live in a host with different ways of thinking, but it probably does pull the host’s thinking somewhat in it’s direction too. If the conquering religion is able to survive somewhat intact over the course of centuries, without getting it’s fundamentals too altered by the congenital values of it’s hosts, then it might slightly alter the terms of reproductive success for the host.

Suppose you cloned some Germans from 200 AD, raised the baby clones in modern society, and then did a battery of tests on them as adults. How might they differ from other Germans? How might 1700 years of Christianity have affected reproductive selection during that time? I’m guessing not much. Maybe it would wash out social renegades more than wodenism? Maybe the clones would be slightly more willing to disobey authority? Part of the problem is Christianity had to change a bunch from it’s origins to survive in a German host. The host even outright changed the nature of it’s mind occupier by creating Protestantism, a far cry from it’s slave morality roots.

For religion to be the mechanism that leads to the emergence of a new race, it needs to provide a selection pressure long enough, strong enough, consistently enough, on a gene pool isolated enough from foreign influx. Maybe some 200 AD German clones would be practically a different people from some 10,000 AD Germans that practiced Christianity for the long haul of their history. The weaker the selection pressure, the longer the time required for evolution to be apparent. Conversely, a religion centered around Eugenics might make a new race in 6 generations, that’s about how long it takes selective breeding to make a new type of dog.

Given that Humans have been out of Africa and divergently evolving for about 70,000 years, it is an interesting idea that maybe some religion lost to time had a hand in shaping the precursors to some known race in the modern world. However, I suspect most religions are indigenous, and don’t really change mating selection because they’re made tailored for that people.

stimulating prompt

[Alumnus]

Very.

[Anonymous]

I’m solidly agnostic on the subject. I’m also going to go into the relationship as someone who desires starting a family. While I am open to the beliefs of a potential partner, I could see how it may be a massive issue when it comes to raising children. If you’re deeply religious and I’m just not, what does that mean for the children? It’s one thing if It’s just you and your partner, but now we’re going to have to decide what beliefs we raise our children to have. (or not have)

Just something to think about.

[Anonymous]

@Ted

Since you’re an engineer perhaps you can appreciate this notion…

What if religion is the mechanism which leads to the emergence of a race?

🤔

[Anonymous]

@ted traditional is a vague word. People use the word with their own personal meaning. If we found 5 traditionalists we would have 6 definitions.

[Ted]

@WelshmanNorman
If you’re still undecided, here’s a cheeky video making the case it was Rome’s wokeism: youtube.com/watch?v=NjVXNm7ByMQ

While I share Hunter’s concerns about the devout, and worry it’s an infection point for Noahidism, some forms of more serious Christianity appear to offer good protection against modern degeneracy. If you want to find a partner that embraces traditional gender roles, it’s going to be tough to find that outside of Christian circles.

[Anonymous]

Hunter you make valid points. I am a Christian however there are times that I wonder if Christianity was Rome’s wokeism. I don’t generally get alone with most Christians. Honestly, I would say marrying someone outside of my faith would generally make for a better marriage. I could easily have a marriage with a white Muslim or even a pagan as long as they did not worship Satan or engage in witchcraft.

[Hunter]

How important is religion? Extremely important, nothing is more important. Devout Christians are actually some of the most hostile Whites to eugenic realism. Self-professed White Communists are easier to covert to our pro-White subspecies position. Furthermore, the devout Christian’s understanding of what love is… is dramatically warped. For them, love is obeying the rules of the ‘bible’ or their ‘pope.’ They will even severely harm their own children to do so. Nominal Christians are entirely different, and if you can dominate them, they will follow your lead so long as you don’t attempt to force them to give up Jesus.

[Aster]

Exactly. Put your best foot forward first, then put what she/he might think is your worst foot, forward :-). Hopefully there aren’t too many limps!

[Anonymous]

@aster agreed, there are redlines that I have no matter the religion. While I like to put my best foot forward I think it prudent to lay out the non-negotiable issues out front.

[Aster]

If it was someone I really liked, and he had differing religious beliefs, I would still give it a try, but I would try to suss out any potential issues I would have with it early on, and issues he would have with me not sharing in it.

[Anonymous]

From my understanding it is a case of religious corruption. Just like how most Christian’s ignore race that is not because of “Christianity” but because of modern social beliefs. In the same way there are various pagan groups which take on specific racial characteristics, but the racial aspects of the religion can be ignored by some people.

[Anonymous]

I think religion can be a big deal. There are sects of Christianity that I could not marry, but I could marry a woman of another religion as long as they did not worship Satan or engage in witch craft.
I would however propose the question, is paganism race aware? I’ve studied only a little about pagan religions, and was told that pagan religions were not racist. That Christianity introduced those ideas. Thanks

[Anonymous]

I think religion is very important as it can be a point of division. Even if only passive, only one parent going to church for example. These things can leave a big impression on children. A couple needs to be United on all fronts. That being said, I don’t think you should avoid people of other religious choices. In my experience many women are only nominally religious, or more often, “spiritual but not religious.” These are signs of a lack of good masculine leadership.

[Ted]

I don’t care at all what religion an otherwise good candidate has, it can’t be any crazier than the left wing pseudo religion that rules the large businesses and institutions around me. A Christian lady from WhiteDate cut things off after 3 dates because she felt that a man should lead the family, and didn’t want to be lead by a non-christian. I imagine that generally religion is more important to women when selecting a mate.

[A_Spartan_Speaks]

I’m a sincere, devout pagan but a woman’s religious affiliation is inconsequential to me. I will say, though, that I tend to avoid women who are extreme, devout christians, as their de-racinated, universalist, christian beliefs tend to overcome there innate healthy racial instincts. Also, extreme, devout christian women also tend to be imbued with a prudish, puritanical mindset that I find annoying.

[Anonymous]

How important is religion in a marriage for the people on this site. Would the ladies and gentleman on here marry someone who was not their religion? Do pagans marry nonpagans?

[Author]

Posts