all 20 comments

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Why are the two mutually exclusive for you? (Race and good values I mean.)

[–]fschmidt[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I am racially jewish. Unfortunately most members of my race follow a horrible religion, so I can't support them. And anyway, there are so few good people in any race that it would be best for the few good people left of all races to just get together and try to create a decent culture.

Of course within that culture, you can still support your race if you want by marrying another member of your race and having many children.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Thanks for being honest. Interesting that your solution is basically the same as your average liberal Jew namely a world completely mixed up with no racial or ethnic definition.

See even as a self-hating Jew you've still got a ridiculous, radical and utterly destructive form of tikkun olam to impose upon the world.

Just get it over with and join your local Synagogue. You may not think race is important but race sure does think you are.

[–]fschmidt[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Sorry but you are totally wrong here. Unlike liberals (jewish or not), I have no interest in imposing anything on the world. All I want is one decent small community that I can join, but no such community exists because humanity has decayed into pure shit. This community should be defined by values, not race, and these values should clearly set it apart from the rest humanity.

I have been to synagogue and I have nothing in common with these people. My father was part of the Hungarian upper class and these are the values that I was raised with. Jewish values are alien to me.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

but no such community exists because humanity has decayed into pure shit.

You're misanthropic as well which is an ugly Hebrew trait I despise. You say you want a good community but like so many of your brethren you have nothing but misery and criticism of the world to offer.

You're more Jewish than you know.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Do you recognise this guy from reddit? He's been doing these gayops forever on our subs and trying to get them banned. I remember him on debatefascism, he also tried to get my inactive sub /s/fascism here banned. He's probably going to try to do the same to this one too, despicable and rotten jew he is.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

He's really busting apart those stereotypes.

[–]fschmidt[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Obviously I will never get through to you, but if anyone else is interested in trying to find a decent corner of the world, please visit /s/ConservativeExodus.

[–]sylla94 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Jewish culture and indeed Jewish religion is a manifestation of the people that created it i.e Jews. That which created what you claim to disassociate with resides within your being on an immutable level, hence the observations literalotherkin made of you.

[–]antireddit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Not sure why everyone is attacking the OP. He offered his opinion and people are shitting all over him for it. Not everyone who comments here has to agree with us on everything. I could care less if someone is "racially Jewish"(whatever that means) so long as they arent the ones engaging in the mafia like behavior so many of them engage in.

Worry about the ones causing the problems, not someone who just offered an opinion you might not totally agree with.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I could care less if someone is "racially Jewish"(whatever that means) so long as they arent the ones engaging in the mafia like behavior so many of them engage in.

My point was a simple one about racial realism and how people are influenced by their racial make up. It wasn't really an attack just an observation. Also as you can see from Markimus' post this creep has openly called for DR sites he disagrees with to be shut down. I have no idea how anyone could defend that behaviour and obviously it's profoundly Jewish behaviour and unacceptable.

[–]fschmidt[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is such bullshit. I attacked one sub because they violated SaidIt rules by not posting their moderation policy and banning people. I wouldn't have complained if they posted their policy or if SaidIt didn't have this rule.

Look, you are a racist moron, but as far as I am concerned you can continue to spew your stupidity as much as you like. Just don't lie about me.

[–]Ethnosomniator 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

For Pagans, the pursuit of beauty is in itself a spiritual endeavour. While extreme makeup and botox and plastic surgery is a grotesque modern abomination, it's vital for any race to have the drive to chase beauty inwards and outwards. Ancient spiritual leaders often had to be beautiful and scars could make him unpure in regards to his office. The notion that a young prince in a fairy tale is usually beautiful by default is totally nonchristian - it's the sin of vanity. But these are atavistic Pagan instincts deep within us. Muslims, an abrahamestic offshoot have no such instincts and literally see no problem in repeated close cousin marriages, which just visually looks usually like a hatecrime against nature.

Beauty means to be on the right track. Now that's of course not the only metric, but it's an important and universal one. Biologically, this is easy to explain as beautiful partners simply carry less mutations and will provide better offspring. Working on yourself and trying to be the healthiest which almost 100% correlates with beauty is reliably ridiculed. Instead, try to be an emaciated vegan, an "activist whose body is part of his performance", meaning tons of tattoos, piercings, scars, modifications. Why not go for an outright deletion of one's boring binary appeareance - top surgery, fat positivity, metrosexuality?

The enemy has worked tirelessely to discredit western ideals of beauty so you almost never see masculine nordic men on Talmud Vision. Or dignified, beautiful mothers with lots of healthy, beautiful children. Instead, the last two decades saw an explosion of people with "an interesting face" just like our cities now have an "interesting character". Above all, artists who want to paint beautiful things will experience great difficulties in paying their rent - "why not paint something new and exciting"?

Stay angry and beautiful.

[–]PeddaKondappa 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

The notion that a young prince in a fairy tale is usually beautiful by default is totally nonchristian - it's the sin of vanity. But these are atavistic Pagan instincts deep within us. Muslims, an abrahamestic offshoot have no such instincts and literally see no problem in repeated close cousin marriages, which just visually looks usually like a hatecrime against nature.

Cousin marriage only became taboo in the West after the advent of Christianity. More specifically, it was the Emperor Theodosius (who made Christianity the official state religion of Rome) who banned cousin marriage in 381, and the Catholic Church ardently enforced this ban during the subsequent centuries. Pagan Romans had no problem with cousin marriage, and practiced it freely. Mark Antony married Antonia Hybrida Minor, the daughter of his uncle Gaius Antonius Hybrida. Octavian's daughter, Julia the Elder, married Octavian's nephew Marcus Claudius Marcellus. And Marcus Aurelius, one of the most famous and virtuous of Roman emperors, married his first cousin Faustina, with whom he had 13 children. Likewise, the ancient Greeks also practiced cousin marriage, and in addition also allowed marriages between uncles and nieces. The most famous example would probably be King Leonidas of Sparta marrying Gorgo, who was the daughter of Leonidas' half-brother Cleomenes.

It's always amusing to me when I see modern Westerners (usually northern Europeans) LARPing as the descendants of people with whom they have no cultural connection whatsoever, and about whom they know very little. I can't wait to see your reaction when you find out that the Greek and Roman aristocracy also practiced veiling of their women, just like Muslims do. Islamic culture has far more in common with ancient Greek and Roman culture than modern Western culture, and it's not even close.

[–]Ethnosomniator 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

This is a typical uninformed christian cope, a sad display of spiritual Stockholm-syndrome.

The whole perspective on what actually happened and how culture and society transformed during the first grand jewish takeover is deliberately warped; a careful analysis on what has been taken from us is nipped in the bud.

Cousin marriage has been seen as potentially problematic for a long time before christianity. But most people were aware of the consequences so exogamy was preferred. The people who were relatively fond of it- semites, arabs and to a degree, Meds, were the most aware since problems were acute and tangible. This is why jews codified laws regarding consanguinity. In contrast to that, European Pagans even had to force young people to have a little fun with the other gender- an adaptation to a vastly different environment where higher IQ, secluded homesteads and less hot temperament made sanctified merriness, e.g. Beltane a necessity.

The church had only a mild interest in health and frequently allowed royal cousin marriages, which was always an affront to the Aryan disposition of leading by example. E.g. Franz II, "Holy" Emperor & his (double!) first cousin Maria Theresa. Here is a fairly impartial (dare I say christian-friendly?) analysis:

Moreover, christianity fundamentally changed the way of life in favour of hard-coded rule from above. Cousin marriage as a means to strengthen inter clan relations was dangerous, as was non-church marriage, eugenics and pretty much everything related personal relations to the genetic stock. It's telling christians will swoon over unimportant legal details like this, which would have no impact whatsoever (one could argue that a modicum of cousin marriage would be beneficial) and omit the arguably biggest genetic policy: celibacy, or the exclusion of decent intellectual genes from the genetic stock. Another "argument" is the ban on infanticide, which was, of course, simply a Pagan requirement of the times. Oh, the christian joy of forcing iron age parents to raise mentally disabled children! Such policies, in combination, and with the caloric restrictions (which is actually common across the world with atrocious rulership, especially in Asia) were effective in keeping Whites down.

I'm not an expert on Greeks and Romans, as I'm from northern stock. It's not helpful to conflate all Pagan traditions, especially European with non-european. However, the idea that

Islamic culture has far more in common with ancient Greek and Roman culture than modern Western culture

is just wild.

[–]PeddaKondappa 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

This is a typical uninformed christian cope, a sad display of spiritual Stockholm-syndrome.

I am neither a Christian nor a Westerner, and I don't really care what religion Westerners follow. The purpose of my post was not to "defend" Christianity, which is anyway a dead religion in the West. The purpose of my post was to simply describe historical facts. You seem to believe that European pagans had some hatred or taboo against cousin marriage, which is simply false. Many prominent Greek and Roman pagans engaged in cousin marriages (I gave multiple examples), and none of them were condemned for it by their contemporaries. It was only after the advent of Christianity that we see condemnation of cousin marriage. The Church's opposition to endogamy facilitated the breakdown of the traditional tribal/clan structure of pagan Europe, which was organized around the gens and its equivalents. That's why tribal or clan-based societies still exist in the Middle East today but had vanished from most of Europe by the Late Middle Ages, except among some isolated populations.

Such policies, in combination, and with the caloric restrictions (which is actually common across the world with atrocious rulership, especially in Asia) were effective in keeping Whites down.

What do you mean "keeping Whites down"? It was only under the Christian regime that "Whites", particularly northern and eastern Europeans, became civilized and had relevance on the global stage. Before Christianity, most European groups (with the exception of Meds) did not even have written literature or organized states. For example, one of the oldest books written in a Germanic language is the Gothic Bible, which was written in the 4th century by a missionary of Middle Eastern origin. It was also under the Christian regime that the greatest architectural wonders of Western history were made (the Gothic cathedrals of medieval Europe), which have no parallel in pagan Europe. The Christian regime preserved Classical literature and promoted education, while the savage pagan Scandinavians were basically white niggers who attacked and looted monasteries.

However, the idea that Islamic culture has far more in common with ancient Greek and Roman culture than modern Western culture is just wild.

It is a fact. All you have to do is look at what the Greeks and Romans actually believed on such essential topics as slavery, patriarchy, gender relations and masculine/feminine roles, etc., and compare their beliefs with modern Western beliefs and Islamic beliefs on the same topics. The Romans believed in a strictly patriarchal family organization headed by the pater familias, who held power (potestas) over his dependent family members as well as any slaves that he owned. The Emperor Augustus decreed that a father had the authority to kill his own daughter and her lover if they were caught fornicating, what we would now call an "honor killing." And as I mentioned earlier, it was customary for all respectable Roman women to veil themselves in public, especially after marriage. Women who did not veil were considered to be low-class, vulgar women or prostitutes. In fact, in 166 BC the Roman Consul Sulpicius Gallus promptly divorced his wife because she went out without a veil.

I'm sure 99.9% of modern Westerners would consider these customs to be "barbaric" and Roman men to be "evil misogynists." There is only one civilization on earth which still has similar customs as these Romans, and it definitely isn't the modern West. But since Americans are superficial morons, they will probably think they are the "successors of Rome" because their upper legislature is called a "Senate" and their government buildings are built in a derivative Neoclassical style, even though their essential social and cultural values (which actually matter when defining civilizations) are diametrically opposed to those of the ancient Romans.

[–]Ethnosomniator 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Your views are throughly uninformed, lacking historical and technical perspective.

Concerning cousin marriages:I did not say cousin marriage was condemned, it simply posed no problem (reread my post). Semites and mid easterners with their extreme in-group preference made it a problem, just as kings did for similar reasons (again, reread my post). The church obviously did not care too much since they gave royal pairs literally their blessing. So your primary mistake is conflating Whites and nonwhite sensibilites. We are the most liberal of the (big) races. Tribalism was never as strong as in the south. By your own account genetic defects through cousin marriage should not be a problem with jews, since their texts condemn it- yet it is very much so. We could have done without the "service" the church did to our stock and culture. There was no "cousin marriage problem". But then the argument changes and it becomes a instrument of civilising barbarians.

Your second mistake is conflating Pagan beliefs and customs. Rome and Greece had a different society by necessity. But more importantly, they were obviously far from perfect and no Pagan believes these particular ancient societies should be emulated with every facet and custom. This is quite outlandish a belief!

We have no reason to belief that central European tribalism was in any way a hindrance. There were upstart dynasties popping up everywhere in Europe, using christianity to help them form new powerstructures. This was in a cynical way very effective, as the new "religion" have you pretty much a bureaucracy and a new hierarchical ideology gratis, as well as a reliable network of allies and information. Curiously enough, those newly created, unified kingdoms proved to be inferior in many ways to their (northern)Pagan cousins who displayed more agency, vigour and success than newly the baptised. Wether it's discoveries, trade routes, inventions, literacy, the viking age showed much of Europe was caught in a stupor causing it to walk backwars in may regards. Wheras ancient Pagan Rome was a superpower, christian Europe became a little league player.

Next comes the usual borish account of christian advancements. This has been done to death. Short version: For the most time, christianity made 95% of Whites live a rather nasty and unfree life. Most of the nicer things like cathedrals come late into the game, sometimes after over a thousand years of spiritual opression! True, there was no literature- because there was no need, just like with many cultures across the world. Oral testimony is held in high esteem and besides the population was simply too small, too liberal and hierarchies too flat for a high culture to form. What's worse, production of the early bibles were made possible by a culture that systematically and dilligently destroyed, defaced and deleted other religions, mythology and customs, be it as palimpsests, as forced conversions or with an old fahsioned burning.

preserved Classical literature and promoted education

This is pure stupidity. I can't believe someone who's not a christian believes such Hollwood level nonsense. Ancient Pagan societies in Europe enjoyed a comparatively high literacy. Wether this was a Danish child learning the rune script in the first century or a Syrian White getting tought by his Greek slave (Greeks obviously topped the ranks with literacy in the realm of 90%). Europeans unlearnt this through christianity, like so many other things. In most places only the clergy could read and write - a catastrophic form of academic degeneration and anti-amancipation. Then come the accusations of "White niggers" which takes the cake. Karl the Great aka Charlemagne systematically genocided tribes, broke his word and executed the Saxon nobility (thousands in one day!), burned temples, only to let in the jews to enrich his dynasty. Now THIS was a traitor niggerfying his stupid subjects who now were unable to read and write - just like him.

At this point I'm done with you. You basically regurgitate globohomo history and are unwilling to critically examine past paradigms. Have fun with a worldview provided you by Weinstein & Spielberg.

[–]PeddaKondappa 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's amusing that you accuse me of "regurgitating globohomo history" when you believe in the "Christian Dark Ages", which is literally the founding myth of liberalism. Can you name me even a single Jewish intellectual who praises the policies of the pre-modern Church, including the Inquisitions, and considers the medieval Christian West to be superior to modern liberal West? Even "right-wing" Jews like Ben Shapiro only praise so-called "Judeo-Christian values" (a stupid term made up by Americans in the 1940s) to the extent that those values facilitated the rise of Classical Liberalism and the Enlightenment. They don't praise the medieval Christian West as an end in itself, and certainly don't believe medieval Christendom to be superior to liberal modernity.

In fact, the very term "medieval" has acquired a negative connotation in the popular consciousness, due to the endless propaganda promoted by Jews, liberals, and leftists against the Middle Ages (which you also parrot). If I were to describe a certain practice as an "ancient custom", for example, that description would have a neutral or even positive connotation. However, if I were to describe the same practice as a "medieval custom," then all of a sudden the practice would be assumed to be barbaric, superstitious, tyrannical, etc. Thankfully, to save the Middle Ages from such debasement, all one has to do is look at the art and architecture produced by medieval Christians, which are works of beauty unparalleled in Western history before or since. Look at Christian illuminated manuscripts and Christian architecture like the Notre Dame Cathedral in France or Lincoln Cathedral in England, which was the tallest building on earth at the time (surpassing the Great Pyramids of Egypt and anything from Classical Antiquity). There was absolutely nothing produced by pagans of northern and eastern Europe that could match such great works.

Before I leave this discussion, I would like to point out one more thing: the very concept of "Europe" is itself a product of the Christian era. You casually used terms like "European pagans", but no pagan people in what is now Europe ever identified as such. There was no common collective identity whatsoever among "European pagans." On the contrary, different pagan peoples of Europe proudly boasted of slaughtering and enslaving other pagan peoples of Europe. For example, Julius Caesar in his Bellum Gallicum proudly claims that he slaughtered a million Gauls, and enslaved a million more. That was probably an exaggeration, but it reflects the fact that that there was no common identity whatsoever between them. It was during the Christian era that the term "Europeans" was first used to describe a people with a common identity, and that common identity was shaped by Christianity. Here is a post I wrote three years ago on the topic of the emergence of Western civilization as a discrete entity:

What we now call "Western civilization" emerged during the Early Middle Ages, when Western Europe came to define itself as a uniquely Christian civilization that was distinct from other areas of the known world, including other areas that were once part of the Roman Empire. It was during this period that we see the essential building blocks of a distinctly "Western" identity come into being. For instance, we see the emergence of pilgrimage sites at places like Tours in France (home of the relics of St. Martin) and Santiago de Compostela in Spain (where the remains of St. James are reportedly buried). Pilgrims from all over Western Europe would travel to such sites, contributing to a sense of a shared Christian identity that was also distinctly Western (since such sites didn't receive pilgrims from Byzantium or Armenia or Ethiopia). We also see the establishment of monasteries throughout Western Europe that tied together formerly disparate regions into a single cultural/intellectual complex. For example, St. Columbanus of Ireland founded monasteries at Luxeil in France and Bobbio in Italy, while his disciple St. Gall founded a monastery with the same name in modern-day Switzerland. If you were a Christian in the Middle Ages, your "mental map" of the "Western world" would have included all of these different places, and a Christian monk from Denmark could travel to Ireland or to Italy without feeling that he was crossing the boundary to an "alien" civilization, since he would be greeted by fellow Latin-speaking monks in familiar abbeys and churches in those distant countries.

Accompanying these developments was the emergence of the terms "Europe" and "European" as cultural descriptors (often used synonymously with "Western" or "Occidental"), which prior to the Middle Ages were not used as meaningful cultural terms. One of the earliest uses of the term "Europe" in such a context can be seen in the 7th century Vita Sanctae Geretrudis, which is a hagiography of St. Gertrude of Nivelles (in modern-day Belgium). This hagiography describes St. Gertrude as being "well-known throughout the Christian land of Europe" on account of her piety. The notion of "Europe" being a Christian land was further defined by the Islamic conquest of Spain in the 8th century, and the failed invasion of France. Indeed, the first usage of the plural noun "Europeans" (in Latin, europenses) was in the Continuatio Hispana of AD 754, which describes the Frankish victory at the Battle of Poitiers in 732 as a "victory for the Europeans", demonstrating the growing self-consciousness of the emerging "European" or "Western" civilization.

[–]Ethnosomniator 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You are squarely in the kosher sandwich. There never was a White "christian" flavour of civilisation. Your takes are not original, they are the conservative elite's narratives who, like most elites most of the time, were simply in the way of their brethren, stealing and lying. Whites are biologically unique, like all races and are very capable, in contrast to other races, at creating new nice, productive spaces. Christianity was a part, but never a positive, deciding factor.

Concerning the "christian dark ages", it is telling that you, instead of answering my arguments, default to a strawman meme. I did not write "dark age" because I don't think we had a thousand years of pure ignorance without any advancements in technology, culture and so on. This is a typical hyperbolic strawman argument and it is easily debunked. A spiritually unified Europe did in fact suffer greatly in terms of innovation, agency, literacy and much more. There is no way you can weasle out of this.

Secondly, scholars usually point outwards out of Europe to show that universities were flourishing, some early sciences made progress etc. Again, this does not defend the European church's terrible record one bit. Another popular "defense" here would be to namedrop a list of church philosophers, who all did not manage to produce anything comparable to the Greeks and Romans.

Third, there's a (as usual) complicated array of events, like the transitioning to manoralism and feudalism from slave driven field work. Again, the church seems at least powerless here. It's an academic smoke bomb.

In the end, the facts speak for themselves. People were less free. Europe became militarily weaker for some reason. Art production plummeted and church art was usually horrible garbage if Pagan elements were taken out. Literacy went near zero.

You show that you don't even understand the arguments because you produce talmudic spin when you should be able to calmly refute this. Notre Dame was finished in the 13th century! (And it didn't look like it does today, like most old cathedrals but whatever) That's eight centuries after the country turned christian! In other words, you almost cede ground to the meme of "thousand years of darkness". The Lincoln cathedral is even older. Illuminted bibles is another terrible example. Where Pagans shared art, such bibles were the private posession of the rich, lazy elite. Almost nobody could read and appreciate them meaningfully and the most beautiful illuminations are full of Pagan ornaments (eg Book of Kells)!

I don't think it's productive to engage you anymore. Just be warned that your soul will slowly die when your grinning (only?)child will miscegenate his genes away like a good christian cuck. You will just stand there, unable to say anything. You brown LGBT churchhead will be elated. And this will be it, the suicide of a semitic cult.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I know one of the portraits. The first one is Ivan the Terrible cradling the son he murdered. The second one is Anne Boyelyn? The next one I don't know. The last one could be Lucrezia of Rome but I also don't know for sure.