Replying to comment.
I thank the commentator for his input. I must respectfully disagree on Christianity. A minor point: contrasting the Duggar family with Nietzsche is cherry picking at is finest, not a proper argument. I will agree however that Christian believers likely have higher fertility than non-believers. But, have all confounding factors been taken into account? I truly mean no offense, but what if believers are, on average, less educated, more gullible, and with a lower IQ than non-believers? We know that fertility tends to be inversely related to intelligence and educational attainment. Is the higher fertility due to Belief or are both Belief and fertility both correlated to other factors? A similar argument can be made about "happiness." In our current age of degeneration and decline, can we not make the argument that "higher levels of happiness" (physically healthy, no doubt), may be indicative of ignorance? What informed White person should be "happy" in the Winter of the West?
A more important point: Faith and Belief cannot be turned on and off like a faucet. The commentator notes that the Duggars are "true believers." Good for them. IF - as the commentator wants to argue - fertility and all the other "good stuff" is caused by Belief, then the Duggars' fertility is due to their strong Christian faith. But - most educated Whites are not believers. The Faustian Whites are not believers. I am not. I'm sure Forrest is not, nor is Greg Johnson. Most Science/Technics folks are not. What Nietzsche meant by "God is dead," is that modern science and rationalism "killed God" by eliminating belief. If all the good stuff of spiritual fulfillment and fertility depends on Faith and Belief, then we have a problem, because, on average, it is the less educated and intelligent who are using this "power" and reproducing their kind.
I really don't understand the Christian argument here. Do they think that Faith and Belief can be used instrumentally? That non-believers should pretend belief? That fake, pretended, forced "belief" and "faith" (an oxymoron, indeed!) would have the same effects as genuine Faith? Of course it would not. Any person who spent their life pretending like that would waste their mental energies and be filled with self-loathing - hardly conducive to "happiness" or fertility. And, are Christian believers so desperate for more support that they would actually want folks who are fake believers? They really want such folks sitting in church, secretly filled with contempt and loathing for the proceedings? Do Christians hold their own beliefs so cheaply that they would see those beliefs tarnished by having them peddled about like some sort of "self-help" cult of "happiness and fertility?" One can argue - as I did - that Christianity can in theory serve for the masses now, as a stop-gap (albeit at the risk of having genetically hard-wired, less Faustian and intelligent believers demographically swamp elite non-believers - a dysgenic outcome). In the long term, if we want to achieve our goals, that's going to fail. Again, no offense, but a population hard-wired to "believe" religion is also hard-wired to "believe" multiculturalism - as we see today.
On top of all that - as Forrest (and I) argue - Christianity is anti-Faustian, anti-Suprahumanist, opposed to all the aristocratic values of strength folks like us admire and believe (note: Belief!) is necessary for the Future. In the long run, do we really want to promote a hostile creed, even instrumentally? Can we avoid the fact that Christianity - stripped of Faith and Belief - has a secular core of egalitarianism?
Again: it is up to Christians to demonstrate a pro-White Christianity TODAY, not cite the past. And, even if they do, they have to accept that a large fraction of the educated White elites will not be believers.
That the Duggars are reproducing is good for them, and, in a very general sense, good for Whites. If survival is the ultimate good, better more Duggars than less Duggars (or no Duggars). But still, do we really want a society full of Duggars? Full of Christian true believers? Full of evangelicals? Full of folks who think the Earth is 6000 years old and that advanced Science/Technics is some sort of "sin?" Folks who would think that Suprahumanism is some sort of "prideful blasphemy?" I don't.
And given how easily Christianity has been corrupted by the Left, given the egalitarian foundation that underlies the creed, how general is the Duggar case anyway? Christians may have somewhat higher fertility than non-believers, but, among Whites, that's still less than non-White fertility. After all, the Duggar family is an extreme case. I can assure you that the vast majority of Christian families are not having 19 children. If a slighter higher fertility rate is correlated to a belief system that embraces egalitarianism, that has no stronger foundational defense against race replacement, then it is a net negative. After all, even if Christianity says "marry and multiply," it doesn't specify who exactly you should marry and reproduce with. I know some folks get all excited over the Duggars as a large White family of "good racial stock" (as defined by the folks getting excited). But - that's one family. What stops a good Christian White man from marrying a good Christian Korean female? A good Christian White woman from marrying an upstanding, religious, Christian Negro male? Citing practices from the past doesn't tell us what is happening today. Can racialism be somehow fused to the anti-racist, egalitarian, diversity-loving Christianity of the 21st century? Sure, one can argue that atheism is no barrier to miscegenation either. But, if we need to begin to put together a racialist philosophy for the 21st century, I see it as better to start fresh, with an untainted foundation, than to try to push a square peg into a round hole, and convince people to be racialist while all their priests and reverends are telling them the exact opposite - when the bible that forms the basis of their Belief can be cited to promote multiculturalism. When tolerance and meekness are celebrated.
I can't shake the feeling that there are folks associated with the "movement" for whom Christianity, Faith, and Belief are more important than Race and Culture. I'm obviously not one of them.
That the Duggars are reproducing is good for them, and, in a very general sense, good for Whites. If survival is the ultimate good, better more Duggars than less Duggars (or no Duggars). But still, do we really want a society full of Duggars? Full of Christian true believers? Full of evangelicals? Full of folks who think the Earth is 6000 years old and that advanced Science/Technics is some sort of "sin?" Folks who would think that Suprahumanism is some sort of "prideful blasphemy?" I don't.
And given how easily Christianity has been corrupted by the Left, given the egalitarian foundation that underlies the creed, how general is the Duggar case anyway? Christians may have somewhat higher fertility than non-believers, but, among Whites, that's still less than non-White fertility. After all, the Duggar family is an extreme case. I can assure you that the vast majority of Christian families are not having 19 children. If a slighter higher fertility rate is correlated to a belief system that embraces egalitarianism, that has no stronger foundational defense against race replacement, then it is a net negative. After all, even if Christianity says "marry and multiply," it doesn't specify who exactly you should marry and reproduce with. I know some folks get all excited over the Duggars as a large White family of "good racial stock" (as defined by the folks getting excited). But - that's one family. What stops a good Christian White man from marrying a good Christian Korean female? A good Christian White woman from marrying an upstanding, religious, Christian Negro male? Citing practices from the past doesn't tell us what is happening today. Can racialism be somehow fused to the anti-racist, egalitarian, diversity-loving Christianity of the 21st century? Sure, one can argue that atheism is no barrier to miscegenation either. But, if we need to begin to put together a racialist philosophy for the 21st century, I see it as better to start fresh, with an untainted foundation, than to try to push a square peg into a round hole, and convince people to be racialist while all their priests and reverends are telling them the exact opposite - when the bible that forms the basis of their Belief can be cited to promote multiculturalism. When tolerance and meekness are celebrated.
I can't shake the feeling that there are folks associated with the "movement" for whom Christianity, Faith, and Belief are more important than Race and Culture. I'm obviously not one of them.
