God, Caesar, and The Gospel of Infinity Niggers

[Cosimo de' Mecici Groyper]

I've been reading a lot of eggreports/Randys stuff recently, finding insight and subject matters central to, if not needed, on the modern christian discourse. I can tell he has read Kierkegaard and expresses it in a new form, because as a fellow dane like Randy, Kierkegaard is the penultimate danish philosopher, and I have hence read him too.

The key thing that is expressed is the importance of personal belief in, or connection with, the divine. The online trads lack this. Using Christianity as a form of political memespeak, using Christianity in a Islamic Format and all the niggerlovers, the churchcucks - these people are all disgusting. Why? Because it is impersonal, irreligious and in the Kierkegaardian sense aesthetic. It's about showing off how good you are, revenge against your superiors, Nietzschean slave morality, etc. etc., be it in the form of I'M BASED LOOK AT MY ROSARY, or the christian ressentiment Nietzsche put his finger on.

When I look at a cross, standing in ancient cathedral, listening to the choir from behind urging me forward, I don't feel like being part of the "church community", or my based papal state, or any of these hispanic retardations. No, I feel great judgment, love, awe, fear - reaching out to me, begging me to touch back. I kneel at the altar and close my eyes. Take the bread. Then the wine. Completion. Reaching back. Daring to believe.



Deeply personal. Religious. No posturing. Only an authentic meeting with the divine.

Protestantism, western Christianity of the honest kind, this pessimistic view of man, the belief that man placed before Christ, being given a choice, faced with the paradox of irrational truth, that is what these brown e-caths avoid, and this is what drove the Higher strains of Protestant faith in the West. And it's not like we haven't seen honest attempts at christian discourse online, for one the very eggreport I steal this from is an example, but I also remember Quentin, nobodytm; these people don't present le hecking holy empire bro, but instead something quite different. This is not a question of paganism vs. christianity, but of Christ against the Church.

The honest people have been shying away from leadership positions in the churches, shrugging when faced with anal faggotry being allowed, because it is not in the frame of worship to care about these things. I've seen this first hand. I can relate to it - I don't want to fucking feel disgust at my priest. I don't want to see a small hole of authenticity being closed before my very eyes. And so the bad people got into those positions instead, the schoolmarms, the fat wholesome chungus trads.

It is an issue of lower life and cowardice. Because why tithe when you can buy bread for your poor uncle? Because why donate billions to apefreaka when your nation is in flames? Because why parrot and posture about old dead empires when the real living manifestation of God calls you, and all these acts turns to avoidance, to cowardice? The church suffers from the world being filled with faggots. Priests are the lowest creatures of the modern world. But Christ is eternal. And he still begs you.

Well anyways, read Randy, I think he is a good guy. And fuck the church.

I 100% agree, although I am a confirmed Catholic as opposed to a Protestant(Seeing as you're from Denmark, I presume you're Lutheran. Online trad types don't engage in personal experiences with the Divine, they never attest to the things they have seen, that God has told them, what they have foreseen. I tend to hold the view that personal experience with the divine will show with some people who are open to it as frequently as the rain. As I consume the flesh and blood of my savior, the world feels metaphysically different. As if the air around me has changed. After I partake in the sacrements, I feel like a fundamentally different person, as if I've become 10x the man I was prior. Anything from the intercession of those in heaven in the banal parts of life, to visions of the future, to seeing things that can only come to the divine. Even the feelings of raw passion and power you get, as God makes you a person with fire, integrity and soul and makes you willing to fight for what your believe in.

In regards to the issue of Church Institutions facilitating replacement, the main issue is that since Christianity is still the largest religion in the west, many christians are bound to be libtards. The boomer priest who guided me through RCIA was obviously an ancestral Democrat from a working class Irish background, who didn't really know "What the deal was" so to speak. Its an issue that will get better, at least in Catholicism, over time as younger priests are far more likely to describe themselves as traditionalists or conservatives than older priests. In previous generations, a liberal pro-life Democrat could become a Catholic priest while being a true believer in 1970s party orthodoxy. That is untenable now, due to the social stratification that has occured. One country whose catholic scene is rapidly growing, believe it or not, is France. In France, thanks to an unsung hero who Amarnites ought to learn about(Marcel Lefebvre, founder of the Society of Saint Pius X), the Traditionalist Latin Mass is growing rapidly and has a very high fertility rate, hovering around 4. Its likely even higher when you factor in age. 1/3 of French Parishes are some variant of TLM and that IMO will become a major demographic force in the country in the coming years.

[Kasarix]

Frankly, from the accounts I've read, both in support of and against, it seems the degree of a Christian's "authenticity" (verified piety) correlates with their degree of unnatural philanthropy; and that throughout history said people are the ones trying to interrupt the natural course of human affairs: being too merciful toward criminals, too generous to the poor, too disapproving of war, etc. While you can reasonably argue that the modern manifestation of liberalism is extrinsic, accidental, and anomalous to the true character of Christianity; and that the good track record of Christianity's effect on Europe is evidence of this, there will always be some degree of contradiction between Christianity and the worldviews commonly held here, at least while the virtue of charity remains a grave matter in the hearts of these Christians.
This is no surprise: a feature of the gospel is to fundamentally transform human nature, and that sanctification entails overcoming certain proclivities that seem intrinsic to man...  It is said the human soul has an eschatological end, and this means the disposition of the saint will be purified of certain things considered "natural" to us, among which are the desires for violence, vengeance, malice, etc. So as long as Christian life is programmed to be contrary to those things that humans are observably prone to (such as genocide), then Christians will inevitably crop up throughout history to wag their fingers as you try to enact TND.
Does this mean the virtuous saints of history would've supported today's deluge of nogs? Or that the "good track record" of Christianity is a mere fluke, since if they had the resources to feed and babysit countless nogs they would have? Or that a successful Christian civilization in this world necessitates the existence of cynical, evil, and impious men to execute acts of cruelty seemingly contrary to Christianity, and thus no ideal Christian world can exist? Perhaps not: Remember, Christianity is centered around absolute realities and objective truths. Christians today are only so liberal because they happen to believe it is morally imperative; Christians of the past may well see today's expression of "charity" as erroneous, and the nog onslaught as an offensive evil, even according to their principles... however their principles would still forbid TND, likely. It is certain that Christianity is concerned foremost on the afterlife, and so it will be neutral at best concerning the affairs of history. Nowhere in the bible does it mention an imperative to create a material, eugenic paradise. The new testament does not care about conquest against the stupid, the ugly, and the unhealthy.

And so Christians find themselves in a conundrum where the nogfestation poses not only a flood of moral evil and sin, but an existential threat to both secular civilization and Christian civilization - it does not need to be restated how browns are poor custodians of true religion - yet they cannot take meaningful action against it, neither from a principled Christian standpoint nor a secular standpoint (since Christianity informs your secular behavior).
Attempts to construct some kind of justification for TND through theologizing or manipulating Christian mythology to paint it as being this ULTRA-BASED religion which enables racial conquest will inevitably fail, 1) because of the herculean effort it would take to properly uproot 2000 years of common Christian conception of virtue and having to seed an almost entirely alien Christian zeitgeist when there are practically zero assets that would facilitate its growth; and 2) because this at its core is a cynical action. Remember, objective truths. What you're trying to do here is turn Christian doctrine into a tool for ends that are seldom mentioned in Christianity. You'll be trying to convince men who base their entire weltanschauung around genuine belief and conviction to do things for secret purposes not conducive to what Christianity is actually intended for.
Without any actual moral imperative to enact it, Christians will inevitably revert back to their default inclinations... and fine, let's be optimistic. Let's say you manage to convince Christians en masse that blacks are actually not human, this would undermine Christian mythos regarding creation. So you decide to rewrite that as well. And then you rewrite Christian ethics to permit and even encourage violence against some concept of inherently evil "inferiors". At this point you've undone and reworked so much of established Christian framework just for a single, ulterior, and worldly purpose that you may as well just start from the ground up and create some syncretic religion that peacefully salvages and retires Christianity. Why even try to persist in Christianity when you're willing to destroy so much of what it is? And people wonder why the Author of TC does what he does.

Even in a scenario where Christians tried working together to solve the problem out of a pragmatic sense of saving Christianity since nogs will destroy it (there is some profundity had in how blacks seem so entrenched in vice that they ought to be discontinued), you will run into problems with morally removing them and hitting the breakpoint where nonwhites are no longer a threat, which results in PND at best - something which many of you are philosophically opposed to (remember how a-space-for-every-race was declared insufficient?).
Most of these attempts, due to how impractical they seem (at least in the moment), and how they (seem) to contradict Christianity in its absolute form make said attempts come off as ingenuine and unsatisfying answers to an existential problem, and frankly a pathetic display of pressure-induced placation at that.

The only way I can see it working is by using the existing groundwork to create some half-baked solution to at least stop the bleeding. Criminal execution is a thing. Depopulation is a thing - Catholics have no qualms telling people not to reproduce (although getting them to do that for eugenic reasons is another issue), objecting immigration from both economic (secular) and moral (self-preservation) reasons is a thing. The issue is getting all of these actions to be done out of a natural and organic Christian-inclined impulse, rather than a hidden desire to do something Christianity has no business with. Christianity cannot be moved to do something it was not designed for, so Christians can only be convinced to act based off of their senses of justice toward others, of duty toward God, and of personal acts of virtue and rational behavior. 

Christians suppose that the seeming bottomless abyss of stupidity that is niggers is accidental to their nature, and that perhaps through 5000 years of training (of both the spiritual and eugenic kind) they could be improved. This comes from the fact that they (some) believe humans are actually prone to devolution (original sin) and pass on their faulty traits (sinful dispositions) to their offspring, and that some races are more devolved than others... how black people got this far is beyond me, but were original sin to be true then it would technically imply that most if not all of niggers' negative being could be transformed through some act of grace... how that would be practically done however is a whole other issue, which is why again it would just be rational for Christians en masse to decide that the race ought to be peacefully depopulated into nonexistence - after all, it's not like each race HAS to keep living, that's only the case on an individual scale (as is so with most charity-based virtues, by the way!), I'm sure after the veil of libtardism is lifted it wouldn't be hard to see how it might actually even be an act of justice and in congruity with the common good for the sinful nature of black people to be ended (after all, wouldn't it be best to ensure that all souls are born with virtuous dispositions rather than sinful ones?).

Not sure if anything I just wrote is valuable (new or insightful) or if the degree of verbosity was even necessary, but I wanted to be thorough.

tl;dr: Christianity inevitably has a minimum degree of liberalism due to it being a non-worldly, 'supernatural' religion and trying to reconcile it with today's racial issues is arduous due to its rigid absoluteness and supernatural moral principles.

[august]

In regards to the issue of Church Institutions facilitating replacement, the main issue is that since Christianity is still the largest religion in the west, many christians are bound to be libtards. The boomer priest who guided me through RCIA was obviously an ancestral Democrat from a working class Irish background, who didn't really know "What the deal was" so to speak. Its an issue that will get better, at least in Catholicism, over time as younger priests are far more likely to describe themselves as traditionalists or conservatives than older priests. In previous generations, a liberal pro-life Democrat could become a Catholic priest while being a true believer in 1970s party orthodoxy. That is untenable now, due to the social stratification that has occured. One country whose catholic scene is rapidly growing, believe it or not, is France. In France, thanks to an unsung hero who Amarnites ought to learn about Marcel Lefebvre, founder of the Society of Saint Pius X, the Traditionalist Latin Mass is growing rapidly and has a very high fertility rate, hovering around 4. Its likely even higher when you factor in age. 1/3 of French Parishes are some variant of TLM and that IMO will become a major demographic force in the country in the coming years.

Your whole post is delusional, but I'm not surprised as this behaviour is par for the course for the average American Catholic convert. Thanks for recommending Lefebvre and SSPX to the "Amarnites" ... you're telling me now for the first time. This was the entire point of my earlier post in this thread that must've gone unread: American "Catholics" have no idea what they're talking about. The "catholic scene" is growing in France. The "scene" bro, it's trendy and all the rage ... I think you may be better suited to talking about electoral politics and using the names of various internet spheres to grift for engagement on X than trying to convince anyone here that Latin Mass & Trad Wives are going to solve the current problem. Those fertility rate stats are great... how is that going to stop Catholic NGOs from financing and shipping infinity groids and wetbacks into White countries?

Here's one real question for you, Mr. "Cosimo de' Mecici Groyper": Since SSPX is so trad and committed to getting the Church back on track, why would they kick out someone like Bishop Richard Williamson?

[Cosimo de' Mecici Groyper]

In regards to the issue of Church Institutions facilitating replacement, the main issue is that since Christianity is still the largest religion in the west, many christians are bound to be libtards. The boomer priest who guided me through RCIA was obviously an ancestral Democrat from a working class Irish background, who didn't really know "What the deal was" so to speak. Its an issue that will get better, at least in Catholicism, over time as younger priests are far more likely to describe themselves as traditionalists or conservatives than older priests. In previous generations, a liberal pro-life Democrat could become a Catholic priest while being a true believer in 1970s party orthodoxy. That is untenable now, due to the social stratification that has occured. One country whose catholic scene is rapidly growing, believe it or not, is France. In France, thanks to an unsung hero who Amarnites ought to learn about Marcel Lefebvre, founder of the Society of Saint Pius X, the Traditionalist Latin Mass is growing rapidly and has a very high fertility rate, hovering around 4. Its likely even higher when you factor in age. 1/3 of French Parishes are some variant of TLM and that IMO will become a major demographic force in the country in the coming years.

Your whole post is delusional, but I'm not surprised as this behaviour is par for the course for the average American Catholic convert. Thanks for recommending Lefebvre and SSPX to the "Amarnites" ... you're telling me now for the first time. This was the entire point of my earlier post in this thread that must've gone unread: American "Catholics" have no idea what they're talking about. The "catholic scene" is growing in France. The "scene" bro, it's trendy and all the rage ... I think you may be better suited to talking about electoral politics and using the names of various internet spheres to grift for engagement on X than trying to convince anyone here that Latin Mass & Trad Wives are going to solve the current problem. Those fertility rate stats are great... how is that going to stop Catholic NGOs from financing and shipping infinity groids and wetbacks into White countries?

Here's one real question for you, Mr. "Cosimo de' Mecici Groyper": Since SSPX is so trad and committed to getting the Church back on track, why would they kick out someone like Bishop Richard Williamson?

If you really think that I believe the Catholic Church is the main or even a major vehicle to fix the problems of modern western polity and its demographic woes, that is a mischaracterization of what I said. I'm not even particularly favorable towards most online catholics and their sentiments. America after all is a Protestant nation, and I really do not like the likes of Pax Tube. Also I'm fully aware that Catholic Charities and much of the Church Leadership have been responsible for facilitating mass migration. If you're trying to lump me in with the likes of Pax Tube, thats just a mistake. I was responding specifically to a post describing about the problem alot of Trad-Types have with spirituality, in which I believe a personal relationship with God is far more important than anything else. Personally, it would be far more prudent, if you were looking for a political solution to what is, after all, a political problem, to criminalize NGOS that facilitate demographic replacement, which would include several catholic charities, alongside using underhanded tactics such as what is being done in a few european countries(IE using disparate impact theory to come up with loyalty tests that disproportionately criminalize migrants), as well as trying to come up with legal manuvers to get Arizona V United States overturned and thats only for border crossers, not even counting the various waves of Pajeets, Chinks, Africans and other migrants who would have to be dealt with the same level of prudence but in different ways. I don't attribute our problems to some hedgemonic jewish conspiracy and in regards to France, the proportion of Traditionalist Catholic Parishes is about 7%, in an increasingly secularizing country. The thing is, to deal with demographic change, everything is on the margins. You wouldn't want to willingly turn down a vector to help white demographics in France, even if its not the primary means to facilitate that cause. Having a contigent making up 3-5% of the young adult population with a high retention rate that has a TFR of 4 would be one of probably a dozen different tools to be applied in parallel, alongside doing things such as cutting off aid to the third world. I know that might be a contradiction to the religious principles I claim to espouse but I think aiding populations that cannot sustain themselves naturally is probably an immoral act. If they all stave, thats the natural order of things.

[Cosimo de' Mecici Groyper]

You can talk until you're blue in the face. People still won't ever understand.





"She should just do porn. What's the point of this? That would be more honest."

Guy whose likely an Ellis-Islander thinks of all things, the Vatican under  Pope Francis, is the last bastion defending the west, and that BAP and his minions of all people are running a subversive campaign to promote degeneracy and zionism, as well as promoting the absolute EVIL of Ethno-Centrism and Racism, which Christian mystics up until the 19th century universally espoused. Where do these people come from? Pax is considered one of the most intelligent people in Fuente's circle too.

[Cosimo de' Mecici Groyper]

Frankly, from the accounts I've read, both in support of and against, it seems the degree of a Christian's "authenticity" (verified piety) correlates with their degree of unnatural philanthropy; and that throughout history said people are the ones trying to interrupt the natural course of human affairs: being too merciful toward criminals, too generous to the poor, too disapproving of war, etc. While you can reasonably argue that the modern manifestation of liberalism is extrinsic, accidental, and anomalous to the true character of Christianity; and that the good track record of Christianity's effect on Europe is evidence of this, there will always be some degree of contradiction between Christianity and the worldviews commonly held here, at least while the virtue of charity remains a grave matter in the hearts of these Christians.
This is no surprise: a feature of the gospel is to fundamentally transform human nature, and that sanctification entails overcoming certain proclivities that seem intrinsic to man...  It is said the human soul has an eschatological end, and this means the disposition of the saint will be purified of certain things considered "natural" to us, among which are the desires for violence, vengeance, malice, etc. So as long as Christian life is programmed to be contrary to those things that humans are observably prone to (such as genocide), then Christians will inevitably crop up throughout history to wag their fingers as you try to enact TND.
Does this mean the virtuous saints of history would've supported today's deluge of nogs? Or that the "good track record" of Christianity is a mere fluke, since if they had the resources to feed and babysit countless nogs they would have? Or that a successful Christian civilization in this world necessitates the existence of cynical, evil, and impious men to execute acts of cruelty seemingly contrary to Christianity, and thus no ideal Christian world can exist? Perhaps not: Remember, Christianity is centered around absolute realities and objective truths. Christians today are only so liberal because they happen to believe it is morally imperative; Christians of the past may well see today's expression of "charity" as erroneous, and the nog onslaught as an offensive evil, even according to their principles... however their principles would still forbid TND, likely. It is certain that Christianity is concerned foremost on the afterlife, and so it will be neutral at best concerning the affairs of history. Nowhere in the bible does it mention an imperative to create a material, eugenic paradise. The new testament does not care about conquest against the stupid, the ugly, and the unhealthy.

And so Christians find themselves in a conundrum where the nogfestation poses not only a flood of moral evil and sin, but an existential threat to both secular civilization and Christian civilization - it does not need to be restated how browns are poor custodians of true religion - yet they cannot take meaningful action against it, neither from a principled Christian standpoint nor a secular standpoint (since Christianity informs your secular behavior).
Attempts to construct some kind of justification for TND through theologizing or manipulating Christian mythology to paint it as being this ULTRA-BASED religion which enables racial conquest will inevitably fail, 1) because of the herculean effort it would take to properly uproot 2000 years of common Christian conception of virtue and having to seed an almost entirely alien Christian zeitgeist when there are practically zero assets that would facilitate its growth; and 2) because this at its core is a cynical action. Remember, objective truths. What you're trying to do here is turn Christian doctrine into a tool for ends that are seldom mentioned in Christianity. You'll be trying to convince men who base their entire weltanschauung around genuine belief and conviction to do things for secret purposes not conducive to what Christianity is actually intended for.
Without any actual moral imperative to enact it, Christians will inevitably revert back to their default inclinations... and fine, let's be optimistic. Let's say you manage to convince Christians en masse that blacks are actually not human, this would undermine Christian mythos regarding creation. So you decide to rewrite that as well. And then you rewrite Christian ethics to permit and even encourage violence against some concept of inherently evil "inferiors". At this point you've undone and reworked so much of established Christian framework just for a single, ulterior, and worldly purpose that you may as well just start from the ground up and create some syncretic religion that peacefully salvages and retires Christianity. Why even try to persist in Christianity when you're willing to destroy so much of what it is? And people wonder why the Author of TC does what he does.

Even in a scenario where Christians tried working together to solve the problem out of a pragmatic sense of saving Christianity since nogs will destroy it (there is some profundity had in how blacks seem so entrenched in vice that they ought to be discontinued), you will run into problems with morally removing them and hitting the breakpoint where nonwhites are no longer a threat, which results in PND at best - something which many of you are philosophically opposed to (remember how a-space-for-every-race was declared insufficient?).
Most of these attempts, due to how impractical they seem (at least in the moment), and how they (seem) to contradict Christianity in its absolute form make said attempts come off as ingenuine and unsatisfying answers to an existential problem, and frankly a pathetic display of pressure-induced placation at that.

The only way I can see it working is by using the existing groundwork to create some half-baked solution to at least stop the bleeding. Criminal execution is a thing. Depopulation is a thing - Catholics have no qualms telling people not to reproduce (although getting them to do that for eugenic reasons is another issue), objecting immigration from both economic (secular) and moral (self-preservation) reasons is a thing. The issue is getting all of these actions to be done out of a natural and organic Christian-inclined impulse, rather than a hidden desire to do something Christianity has no business with. Christianity cannot be moved to do something it was not designed for, so Christians can only be convinced to act based off of their senses of justice toward others, of duty toward God, and of personal acts of virtue and rational behavior. 

Christians suppose that the seeming bottomless abyss of stupidity that is niggers is accidental to their nature, and that perhaps through 5000 years of training (of both the spiritual and eugenic kind) they could be improved. This comes from the fact that they (some) believe humans are actually prone to devolution (original sin) and pass on their faulty traits (sinful dispositions) to their offspring, and that some races are more devolved than others... how black people got this far is beyond me, but were original sin to be true then it would technically imply that most if not all of niggers' negative being could be transformed through some act of grace... how that would be practically done however is a whole other issue, which is why again it would just be rational for Christians en masse to decide that the race ought to be peacefully depopulated into nonexistence - after all, it's not like each race HAS to keep living, that's only the case on an individual scale (as is so with most charity-based virtues, by the way!), I'm sure after the veil of libtardism is lifted it wouldn't be hard to see how it might actually even be an act of justice and in congruity with the common good for the sinful nature of black people to be ended (after all, wouldn't it be best to ensure that all souls are born with virtuous dispositions rather than sinful ones?).

Not sure if anything I just wrote is valuable (new or insightful) or if the degree of verbosity was even necessary, but I wanted to be thorough.

tl;dr: Christianity inevitably has a minimum degree of liberalism due to it being a non-worldly, 'supernatural' religion and trying to reconcile it with today's racial issues is arduous due to its rigid absoluteness and supernatural moral principles.

I don't disagree. The fact that Christianity is non-wordly naturally makes it harder to condition its followers into being prudent political operatives capable of doing what needs to be done. However, tbh, as someone who is christian, you could make the argument that countries that are facilitating mass migration into europe, IE most of sub-saharan Africa and the Middle East, are in part collectively responsible for any sort of suffering that is ongoing as a consequence of said migration and as part of just war doctrine, engaging in warfare with those countries would be justified. I know it sounds childish but blockading African ports in Zanzibar, the Cape of Good Hope and Sierea Leon from food shipments is probably sufficient enough to deal with the problem. With enough political will, you could also deal with domestic minority populations in our countries by the same token and remove them too.

[Aizen]

>Where do you stand?
I think if anyone is using TRS.biz WN2.0 style language like "Zioshill" in Year 8 AT they should be hung by their balls and beat to death by starving chimpanzees

[JohnnyRomero]

No shit that libtards will inhabit the skin-suit of Christianity in a majority Christian country in order to accomplish their insidious ends, just as they do with all other major institutions, secular or religious. The fact that Christian groups in libtarded areas, staffed by libtards, promote a libtarded agenda in no way proves (((Moldbug)))'s stupid genealogical thesis that the real insidious force behind white genocide is... the Puritans! The Calvinists! The Anglo-Saxons! It's like saying that because this or that US government official promotes white genocide it means that the US Constitution is inherently anti-white. Get real. The diversionary game is painfully obvious.

IIRC russiancosmist is an open Jewish Zionist, which explains a lot. Never forget that TKD is a prerequisite to everything we desire; TND is more of an after-the-fact cleanup operation for WWWW.

[Selim]

No shit that libtards will inhabit the skin-suit of Christianity in a majority Christian country in order to accomplish their insidious ends, just as they do with all other major institutions, secular or religious. The fact that Christian groups in libtarded areas, staffed by libtards, promote a libtarded agenda in no way proves (((Moldbug)))'s stupid genealogical thesis that the real insidious force behind white genocide is... the Puritans! The Calvinists! The Anglo-Saxons! It's like saying that because this or that US government official promotes white genocide it means that the US Constitution is inherently anti-white. Get real. The diversionary game is painfully obvious.

IIRC russiancosmist is an open Jewish Zionist, which explains a lot. Never forget that TKD is a prerequisite to everything we desire; TND is more of an after-the-fact cleanup operation for WWWW.

He has denied being Jewish, even though once or twice he said/implied otherwise for the purpose of triggering Fuentes fans.

[BillyONare]

Libtards would still be an existential threat to The West even if Jews didn't exist. The point is to point that out, and point out that lots of so-called Christians, whether you want to call them real Christians or Satanists wearing Christian skinsuits because Christianity is inherently based, are just vile libtards without the influence of Jewry.

The fact that Christian groups in libtarded areas, staffed by libtards, promote a libtarded agenda in no way proves (((Moldbug)))'s stupid genealogical thesis that the real insidious force behind white genocide is... the Puritans! The Calvinists! The Anglo-Saxons! It's like saying that because this or that US government official promotes white genocide it means that the US Constitution is inherently anti-white. Get real. The diversionary game is painfully obvious.

It's ironic that you say this (which I wholeheartedly agree with) and then immediately say that kikes are the problem which is like a less embarrassing way of doing the same thing as Moldbug.

[synesth]

@Kasarix A true christian argument against current trends would always be the less radical version, because the only way to properly frame counterattacks against floods of niggers, so that a christian would support it, would be self-defense. Hence the radicalisation will be much slower - "why TND when you can have Total Deportation?", but given the circumstances, I think something like defence of the family, nation, etc. could be used against GNC and its ilk.

As for Cosimo de' Mecici Groyper: I don't care what the rise of Catholic Mass implications are. What you are claiming is a stretch - and for one, I don't care about one church faction winning over the other. You called me "Lutheran", well yes I suppose, because that is the name of the physical church, but had you capability of thinking outside the frame of "muh based church", you wouldn't ask that at all. I believe in the individual meeting with the divine. I was and still am convinced by the truth that presents itself to you. And the shit you do on twitter, yeah you are either a fed, brown or stupid - or manipulated by people who are so. You act like I used to when realizing this stuff even existed. Lurk more.

[ourokouros]

@Kasarix A true christian argument against current trends would always be the less radical version, because the only way to properly frame counterattacks against floods of niggers, so that a christian would support it, would be self-defense. Hence the radicalisation will be much slower - "why TND when you can have Total Deportation?", but given the circumstances, I think something like defence of the family, nation, etc. could be used against GNC and its ilk.

That will pose a problem when dealing with the christian sects predisposed to total pacifism, regardless of whether their pacifism is genuine or done to obfuscate their true ends - see the long history of conscientious objectors on one side, and the catholic church underground railroading their precious kikes to safety during World War II.

[Guest]

@Kasarix A true christian argument against current trends would always be the less radical version, because the only way to properly frame counterattacks against floods of niggers, so that a christian would support it, would be self-defense. Hence the radicalisation will be much slower - "why TND when you can have Total Deportation?", but given the circumstances, I think something like defence of the family, nation, etc. could be used against GNC and its ilk.

That will pose a problem when dealing with the christian sects predisposed to total pacifism, regardless of whether their pacifism is genuine or done to obfuscate their true ends - see the long history of conscientious objectors on one side, and the catholic church underground railroading their precious kikes to safety during World War II.

Railroading them to safety from what? The Holocaust isn't real

[ourokouros]

@Kasarix A true christian argument against current trends would always be the less radical version, because the only way to properly frame counterattacks against floods of niggers, so that a christian would support it, would be self-defense. Hence the radicalisation will be much slower - "why TND when you can have Total Deportation?", but given the circumstances, I think something like defence of the family, nation, etc. could be used against GNC and its ilk.

That will pose a problem when dealing with the christian sects predisposed to total pacifism, regardless of whether their pacifism is genuine or done to obfuscate their true ends - see the long history of conscientious objectors on one side, and the catholic church underground railroading their precious kikes to safety during World War II.

Railroading them to safety from what? The Holocaust isn't real

Personally, I'm off the "it happened (although in far smaller numbers than claimed) and they deserved it" persuasion. 
Regardless of what you believe, Pope Pius XII and at a lower level local priests around Europe allegedly saved a bunch of jews by hiding them in monasteries, churches or shipping them across borders. 

In my country, I can confirm the Iaşi pogrom was real, although it wasn't exactly a pogrom - they tell you in school that it was just a genocide, but what actually happened is that the kikes were using lights to signal to the soviets across the border, in Morse code, the artillery positions of the German and Romanian armies, so the army called in the Iron Guard to play military tribunal, jury and executioner.

[august]

Regardless of what you believe, Pope Pius XII and at a lower level local priests around Europe allegedly saved a bunch of jews by hiding them in monasteries, churches or shipping them across borders. 

What else were they supposed to do?

[ssa]

What else were they supposed to do?

Picture, if you will, an oomer wojak coldly smiling as he reads this rhetorical question.

[august]

"You stupid fucking bitch."



To my competent friends here, I'm sorry. I really am. I never wanted to make a post that includes such coal like the above, but the presence of retards and understanding "The Gospel of Infinity Niggers" demands it. 

As for Cosimo de' Mecici Groyper: I don't care what the rise of Catholic Mass implications are. What you are claiming is a stretch - and for one, I don't care about one church faction winning over the other. You called me "Lutheran", well yes I suppose, because that is the name of the physical church, but had you capability of thinking outside the frame of "muh based church", you wouldn't ask that at all. I believe in the individual meeting with the divine. I was and still am convinced by the truth that presents itself to you. And the shit you do on twitter, yeah you are either a fed, brown or stupid - or manipulated by people who are so. You act like I used to when realizing this stuff even existed. Lurk more.

It's good that this was said. No. Actually, it had to be said. "And the shit you do on twitter, yeah you are either a fed, brown or stupid - or manipulated by people who are so." Yes. You are correct about Dark Age Consultant, oops, no, I mean "Cosimo de' Mecici Groyper". Cosimo, you are a convert to Catholicism, yes? I know this because you tweet about it a lot.



Now, I don't mean to attack you Cosimo; for all I know, you could be a genuine guy. Unfortunately, because my position in this thread has been that American Catholics (convert or not) generally don't have much to offer when it comes to these types of questions, referencing @synesth's response to you is imperative. 

"Hole" aka @RetardedFOID says that she doesn't understand ("or like*") why the "online right" is so "mean*" to converts "of all sorts" [*Notice the feminine appeal to emotion]. What was that one Kissinger quote? Something like "We are conducting [media and social analysis] ... this isn't a synagogue." Yeah, something like that. Anyway, there's a big problem. The poster boy of American Catholic converts, regardless of whether anyone likes it or not, is a certain Mr. Cornelius Adrian Comstock ("Adrian") Vermeule, son of Cornelius Clarkson Vermeule III and a man of rich American Academia pedigree. When did he convert to Catholicism, 2016? 2016... Wait. 2016?? 



Okay. Maybe you're thinking, "hmm, he's just some stuffy conservatard." That might be forgivable, but only if you didn't know what he was doing before he converted to Catholicism (... in 2016). Which was what exactly?



Oh... this is what he was doing in 2008 (the year that Obomna was elected on the promise of finalising the implementation of GNC), eight years before he converted to Catholicism and became a Catholic World Government Integralist in 2016 (the year that President Donald John Trump was elected on the promise of deporting millions of browns back to the "Catholic" countries that they came from).  



But this thread has to do with flooding the first world with non-Whites. Surely Cornelius Adrian Comstock Vermeule is cognisant of that problem, being the ""reactionary"" that he is, right?



... Fuck.

[Cosimo de' Mecici Groyper]

"You stupid fucking bitch."



To my competent friends here, I'm sorry. I really am. I never wanted to make a post that includes such coal like the above, but the presence of retards and understanding "The Gospel of Infinity Niggers" demands it. 

As for Cosimo de' Mecici Groyper: I don't care what the rise of Catholic Mass implications are. What you are claiming is a stretch - and for one, I don't care about one church faction winning over the other. You called me "Lutheran", well yes I suppose, because that is the name of the physical church, but had you capability of thinking outside the frame of "muh based church", you wouldn't ask that at all. I believe in the individual meeting with the divine. I was and still am convinced by the truth that presents itself to you. And the shit you do on twitter, yeah you are either a fed, brown or stupid - or manipulated by people who are so. You act like I used to when realizing this stuff even existed. Lurk more.

It's good that this was said. No. Actually, it had to be said. "And the shit you do on twitter, yeah you are either a fed, brown or stupid - or manipulated by people who are so." Yes. You are correct about Dark Age Consultant, oops, no, I mean "Cosimo de' Mecici Groyper". Cosimo, you are a convert to Catholicism, yes? I know this because you tweet about it a lot.



Now, I don't mean to attack you Cosimo; for all I know, you could be a genuine guy. Unfortunately, because my position in this thread has been that American Catholics (convert or not) generally don't have much to offer when it comes to these types of questions, referencing @synesth's response to you is imperative. 

"Hole" aka @RetardedFOID says that she doesn't understand ("or like*") why the "online right" is so "mean*" to converts "of all sorts" [*Notice the feminine appeal to emotion]. What was that one Kissinger quote? Something like "We are conducting [media and social analysis] ... this isn't a synagogue." Yeah, something like that. Anyway, there's a big problem. The poster boy of American Catholic converts, regardless of whether anyone likes it or not, is a certain Mr. Cornelius Adrian Comstock ("Adrian") Vermeule, son of Cornelius Clarkson Vermeule III and a man of rich American Academia pedigree. When did he convert to Catholicism, 2016? 2016... Wait. 2016?? 



Okay. Maybe you're thinking, "hmm, he's just some stuffy conservatard." That might be forgivable, but only if you didn't know what he was doing before he converted to Catholicism (... in 2016). Which was what exactly?



Oh... this is what he was doing in 2008 (the year that Obomna was elected on the promise of finalising the implementation of GNC), eight years before he converted to Catholicism and became a Catholic World Government Integralist in 2016 (the year that President Donald John Trump was elected on the promise of deporting millions of browns back to the "Catholic" countries that they came from).  



But this thread has to do with flooding the first world with non-Whites. Surely Cornelius Adrian Comstock Vermeule is cognisant of that problem, being the ""reactionary"" that he is, right?



... Fuck.

I don't disagree with your thoughts on Vermuele and the other retards like Amari and Denen. Attempting to make Catholicism a political project in America essentially always becomes either some unserious Ellis Islander Multi-Ethnic Civic Nationalism with Crusade Aesthetics, the dumpster fire that is Nicholas J Fuentes and America First(An IVF 3rd Generation Mexican Immigrant who wants Catholic Integralism in America should never be a prominent voice for American Nationalism) or it becomes essentially 2008 Obama but more socialily conservative on things like abortion and gay marriage. Barack Obama is literally one of Patrick Deneen's biggest fans, according to his own words.  Sohrab Amari is basically defined by 1960s Postwar Liberalism and is a fan of FDR, whose arguably one of the biggest reasons the US is in such a shit state right now. Catholic charities are also responsisble for facilitating replacement migration into the United States. Also, anyone whose expressed purpose is to make Catholicism a political project in AMERICA, you know, a country founded by Anglican, Presbyterian and Congregationalist Anglos, is just a flat out subversive. It would be like trying to run a French Nationalist movement but for Lutherans or a Portuguese Nationalist movement but for Dutch Reformed. As someone from a WASP background, whose family were Presbyterians Mainliners,  I merely view the church as a divinely ordained but heavily flawed institution that gives me a path to immortality. Anything beyond that is just stupid and I'm very suspicious of the people who don't view religion as a personal pathway to God. Especially if they're of a swarthy complexion.

Another thing I've noticed is that alot of Christians online tend to promote the politics of anti-politics. Instead of recognizing that life is defined by conflict, over power, prestige and resources, they tend to view politics, which is an essential aspect of life, as an inherently bad thing. Theres a very common view among many Christians online of the absolute futility of politics and alot of them just reject it entirely. Many christians believe the Republican Party is set to remove opposition to abortion from its platform, believing that any sort of political realism on the issue of abortion is an evil thing. This isn't even true and in fact, because of the religious right's influence and unwilligness to compromise, the GOP has lost many special elections and downballot races, such as this one right here. Its ironic that many traditionalist catholics will stan people like Franco or Salazar, who killed and disappeared thousands of people but think any sort of realism or pragmatism in politics is fundamentally un-Christian. I think that if you have no prudence or cunning, you can't ever realize any sort of truth in the temporal world. 



 

---

[Guest]

No shit that libtards will inhabit the skin-suit of Christianity in a majority Christian country in order to accomplish their insidious ends, just as they do with all other major institutions, secular or religious. The fact that Christian groups in libtarded areas, staffed by libtards, promote a libtarded agenda in no way proves (((Moldbug)))'s stupid genealogical thesis that the real insidious force behind white genocide is... the Puritans! The Calvinists! The Anglo-Saxons! It's like saying that because this or that US government official promotes white genocide it means that the US Constitution is inherently anti-white. Get real. The diversionary game is painfully obvious.

IIRC russiancosmist is an open Jewish Zionist, which explains a lot. Never forget that TKD is a prerequisite to everything we desire; TND is more of an after-the-fact cleanup operation for WWWW.

Martin is protestant

[BillyONare]

Is there any proof that conservatives get more votes when they are moderate on abortion? It sounds made up.