Lol at least you are honest. We need more jews like you who are unafraid to admit their position. You think jews are the rightful owners of the world & it’s possessions & the minds of the goyim. Why stop at America? Are you an occultist mason by any chance?
That's the problem, the thing holding us back is our moral cowardice.
It's the objective morality and normative ethics that the mainstresm Christian right loves so dearly that is handicapping them.
They are playing a game against opponents, and doing do while acting as if the game was cooperative. They hurt each other while allowing themselves themselves be hurt, all in the name of living up to a playbook of rules which they expect to be applied consistently by all parties towards others regardless of what team they are on, them act as if it's done sort of victory when the other teams are not consistent except in the capacity of favoring their own over their opponents, its an approach to the game that would be sure sure lose, were it not that the other teams find the conservatives handy to keep around due to how well they work towards handicapping any real opposition from forming or gaining ground against them.
It's a losing game, and the conservatives keep on trying to negotiate some common ground with people who have no interest on offering a fair deal, or settling on the compromises they had previously made, instead more interested in gaining ground for their endgames at the expense of the conservatives, who refuse to learn from their loses, thst they should act as if they were on a team in competition with other teams, abd that good abd bad should not be judged in terms of some universally applied rulebook, but in terms of what benefits their team in teaching their ultimate goals, or harms the other teams in achieving the final objectives of their own (that stand in conflict with that of the conservatives).
Alliances across the aisle should be made, followed, abd broken on the basis of their ability give the conservatives what they want, or deny the others from enacting what the conservatives stand in opposition to.
Pursue what you desire, avoid what you fear, you vs those who you disagree with, nothing else matters, that is what should be common sense to all, basic stuff, if you play a game that you want to win, the only rule should be that you do what it takes to win. Where there are real stakes to winning and losing, where there are real risks involved with how well you do in the game, Good, noble, or honorable conduct is only valuable insofar as it helps you to get a victory in the end, there's no points for good sportsmanship in handicapping yourself unnecessarily, and if there was, whether or not you play fair is dependent upon what benefit there is to doing so.
Real life is more like a game than a movie, you should treat it accordingly as such a difference demands. Play to win real tangible victories, moral victories are phyrric ones that get you nowhere but dead or worse, the only way you could get anything out of them is dopamine that depends upon your own self delusions, it's masturbation of the ego to personality porn of the minds eye theater, you like the feeling of seeing yourself as a good person, but to those who disagree with you, you're like a crazy guy fapping about to his own little private fantasies, or a group of such men circle jerking each other off, as they stroke their own and each other's egos for being unproductive or counterproductive. The actual good of people is of second importance to thr pristine cleanliness of their self images. I find it repulsive.
They need to be tribal, and for that, they must adopt a relativistic morality whose ethics are subjective.
Just lazily applying one rule to everyone is both impractical and dehumanizing, Jew or not, Jesus was retarded and his advisements should be ignored.
It matters who the actor is, who the subject is, and what relation they have to one another, a moral perspective that rejects the idea of a greater moral obligation to one's own child than to the child of a stranger is a moral perspective that marxists seek to make into into the standard.
I propose a new moral perspective one based in evolution and its principles, where all living things, including ourselves, are seen as a collection of genes, and that the purpose of life is propagating our genes as far into the future as we could.
Where the morality of an action is dependent upon how well it fulfills this purpose on the part of the actor.
I found success in taking objectivism and mending its flaws by replacing it's focus on the individual (and their acting out of rational self interest, treating all relationships and interactions as being transactional) with a genocentric focus upon genes, essentially combining it with Richard Dawkin's the selfish gene.
It's a decent enough philosophy that admittedly could use some work in improving it, but it's better than Christianity, which is so flawed that the only way Christians made it work was by ignoring it entirely and doing their own thing, while merely giving credit to the ideology for whatever it was that they had done which produced a good result.
Seriously, all of Jesus's words are rubbish, if Christians actually followed his commandments they would have died out quickly, it was lucky for them for them most people had no clue what was in the Holy Bible, and that the priests were politically savvy enough to selectively present parts of the book so as to give everyone the false impressions they needed to have to live functionally.
Why not focus on building a good philosophy rather than clinging to broken ones and pretending they aren't broken.
I'll say this, normative ethics theories like consequentialism or deontology are useful for defining and quantifying what constitutes doing good or evil towards someone, but it's garbage in that it does not provide a hierarchy of moral duty towards others in relation to oneself, it rejects the existence of tribes and the idea that you owe some people a greater loyalty than others.
Treating all people as if they were indistinguishable, interchangeable, and expendable, mere figures in a calculation is repulsively inhuman, one must have preferences for one over the other, one must have tribes that they belong to, people they will fight for the interests of over the interests of others when the two come into conflict.
A man must draw circles around himself, he must declare that those of the inner circles are of greater concern to him than those in the outer ones, he must draw lines through those circles separating those before him from those behind, and declare that those who stand before him are of greater concern than those who stand behind him.
He must fight for his greater moral purpose, the goal of having his genes live for as long as they can in this world, to exist in organisms as far into the future as it is possible for them to.
His genes exist not only in himself, but in others as well, they create the properties that define everything about him, and so to do they the same for others, when he dies, he should will that they live on in others for as long as they are capable, a man is not one being but a team of many genes, and his ultimate duty is to them, both as they exist in himself, and as they exist in others.
Im mainly of Northern Appalachian descent as far as I know, got blood from the British isles, from Scandinavia, and from the regions between, I also got some amerindian in me from some French ancestor who put his colonization stick into the local brown beavers, aside from that my ancestry is pure White comes from those European ethnic groups who were sent over to the new world as indentured servants, and those who had owned them, though it's mostly the latter, I'm very Anglo-Saxon.
Call me mountain trash, redneck, or hillbilly, I don't care, I love my ancestry and my people, I make more good money with my hands than you'd ever make with your education.
I wish I could just pack up abd leave the city to live on a farm.
I have no wife, but am interested in getting one, I have no children but am even more interested in getting some than I am in having a wife.
Npw, please stop the internet tough guy act, it's a pathetic display of impotency and insecurity, you are better than this, I feeling vicariously embarrassed every time I read your posts again, I can only imagine the kind of person you are from your recent posts, it's not flattering images that I'm getting into my head from them.
Misinterpreted, you always say that, but never say anything to support the claim that we are misinterpreting the quotes we cite.
You sometimes tell us to read the full context, which we do, over multiple translations, and we can't find how we are misinterpreting your lord's words.
Even in the fullest context context it seems he meant to say what we think he had been saying.
It strikes me that you have no clue how we had misinterpreted him, and no idea of what he had actually intended to say with the words he had used.
You only say we misinterpret his words as a way to kill your mind regarding that he had said and done things which you disagree with because you think they are stupid.
You point out that we aren't Christians when we point out the apparent idiocy of his statements, as if that's somehow an argument against us, even if we were Christians, you'd day that our criticism of the words of Christ is evidence that we are not.
None of this involves you convincing us that he had meant something different from what we think he did when he said the words we quote him as having said in the good book.
You just avoid the issues presented by the more difficult words of your king, by refusing to address them with an answer at all.
Like I said, Christians can only function by ignoring the word of their religion's founder, and his will as was revealed by his words.
Instead Christianity is the religion of doing your own thing, and crediting Christ with your ideas (for surely he had endorsed them), abd only holding to the most distant, subtle, and convenient parts of your holy book as it defines the religion.
You can't follow the teaching of Christ as they were given in the text, because doing as the text revealed would be a sure path to the ruination of your earthly life and that of those around you.
Much of what you beleive is in fact starkly contradicted by the written record of what Jesus had wanted from his followers, such as the insistence on a valuing of family, people, life, justice, and other things of this fallen world, all of which Jesus had condemned as false idols to not just be rejected, but hated as well.
Sure, he had said things about the pharisees who condemned him as a false messiah, but does that in any way make the rest of what he said alright?
You don't have to agree with him on everything unless you are a Christian, which obligates your obedience to his every word, but as a non-Christian you can still agree with parts of what he had said, without having to buy into the whole thing.
Also, I know jews abd marxists hate Christianity and Christians, but they hate a lot of things youd not support, and only a fool would take on an idea only because their enemy dislikes it, you still have to evaluate the ideas on their own merits as the primary standard of whether or not to adopt them, in full or in part.
Your only arguments are nonarguments, ways to avoid the duty of addressing the claims being presented to you, and to just try and shut the claimants up.
That's not the kind of action a champion of the truth would take, that's the path of one who is uncertain of the veracity of hid ideas, or of a liar trying to protect their precious falsehoods.
It took some work to be a Christian and find meaning in being one, you can do it again to find meaning outside of Christianity, it's not a fear of losing your way, but fear of the work that needs to be put in to find it again, but in someplace else.
Christianity isn't the only answer, it's just the most accessible and convenient one, however, that doesn't mean that the answers on offer from it are correct or even good for you to accept, what may be sweet in the short term could end up turning out to be a deadly poison as time goes on.
Bad ideas are often like that, they start out seemingly well, but their true dangers and damages only show up later, and only fir those observant enough to see the effects for what they are.
Christianity had only been with our people for a short time in our history, its not traditional and it's only been present in our greatest ages because it's what had been with us in our most recent ages, if we abandoned it in the future, then it's likely that as the future eras bear witness to even greater heights of achievement, we could credit those feats to whatever acts as the successor to the Christian religion.
Both Whites and blacks have a history of being strongly Christian, if the religion was granting some supernatural aid to success, but should be successful in the time and place of strong faith among both peoples, but we know for a fact that is not true, Whites were always successful even when they weren't Christians, abd blacks were always failures even when they were devoutly Christian.
The only thing that Christians can really cling to is two claims.
That Jesus condemned a specific few of jews who rejected him as messiah (and had him executed as heretic), and even those he forgave if they accepted him (in those cases, he made them into some of the most important figures of his earliest religious organization).
And the second is that jewd gate the guy for leading jews away in a schism, and becoming adopted as the uniting faith of the gentiles later on (a source of community and tribal loyalties among the gentile volk).
Other ideologies could match these things, and even exceed them.
I adopt ideas based on how well they work towards achieving my goals in a way that lasts, not based on how well they appeal to me.
I've had to discard a lot of beloved ideas because I cane yo the revelation that they just don't work for the purposes I intend to pursue. It's tough and painful to change the bekeifs and opinions that make up a part of your identity, but you get better at it as time goes on and your positions evolve.
You shed parts of your identity, and adopt others in their place, that's just how it works, if you are wise enough to seek self betterment on the path to making better of the world.
Of all the pagan religions, norse-germanic is the worst, it's a liberal reddit tier meme religion found everywhere in pop culture, its origins and nature place its authenticity in doubt, and it's adherents are not only irritating but seem like they are overwhelmingly composed of cringy edgelord poseurs that think larping as a viking makes them kvlt af.
National socialist black metal was only good because it was natsoc, but like most nazi bands, I was full of the inauthentic, the "repentant", and the glowing ones.
Other pagan religions are superior by far.
Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Persian, Greek/Roman, Celtic/Briton, Indian, Mongolian, Chinese, Japanese, etc. All full of badasses who built badass civilizations and glorious empires that shaped the world and it's history, forever.
In fact, I know at least a significant amount of you are shills sowing division and trying to damage our reputations.
You don't know what your are talking about. You talk about "Odinism" (By the way we aren't "Odinists", German Ethno-Nationalists are Heathens) But you act as if Thor is a character in a Marvel movie.
Then, you rattle off a dozen non-White civilizations as if you believe Whites are incapable of building civilization.
Look around you. Almost everything is invented by a German if not European. If you can't recognize that, then you can't possibly respect the concept of having an Ethno-Religion for an Ethno-State.
[ - ] Khash1488 1 point 3.5 yearsDec 30, 2021 09:59:24 ago (+1/-0)
No shit anything less is cope and impotent to our jewish freemason enemies. We need white nationalist armies and we need them now. Who will rise to be our Hitler, our Franco, our codreanu etc… we need leadership, organization, code of conduct, militarization and mobilization etc…
Whatever faggot I could care less it isn’t bait it is just stating the facts. How the fuck can you live in this jew world and not come to this conclusion? The only way to defeat enemies is through superior force. Anything less brings your defeat and subjugation. We have alot of work to do anyways. At this point a nationalist army like the axis had seems like a far-fetched hope. I consider calls for lone wolf action or joining fed controlled groups to be signs of glowing. How the fuck can this be bait if there is not even a semblance of a group to join? I’m just saying that we need history to repeat itself (likely will) and that we need to win this time, fair and square through national warfare. Not rebel militia action. Raising and prepping an army is only half the battle, we need to build up a heathy European society at first to be the base & future, just as Hitler & many great leaders before him have done. At this point in time there is not even a beginning to this long process, so stop being a faggot & speak your damn mind. Just don’t be dumb. Saying we need a nationalist moral society & a force to oppose world jewry and their puppet armies is not illegal at all.
[ + ] 3starAgent
[ - ] 3starAgent -2 points 3.5 yearsDec 30, 2021 05:14:24 ago (+1/-3)
Jews are the rightful owners of america
and someday racist white people are going to get kicked out
[ + ] PeckerwoodPerry
[ - ] PeckerwoodPerry 4 points 3.5 yearsDec 30, 2021 08:58:32 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] 3starAgent
[ - ] 3starAgent -1 points 3.5 yearsDec 30, 2021 09:17:53 ago (+1/-2)
[ + ] PeckerwoodPerry
[ - ] PeckerwoodPerry 3 points 3.5 yearsDec 30, 2021 09:26:33 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] Khash1488
[ - ] Khash1488 3 points 3.5 yearsDec 30, 2021 10:08:52 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] maroni
[ - ] maroni 1 point 3.5 yearsDec 30, 2021 10:35:07 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Paradoxical003
[ - ] Paradoxical003 1 point 3.5 yearsDec 30, 2021 11:33:14 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] natehiggers
[ - ] natehiggers 3 points 3.5 yearsDec 30, 2021 07:31:29 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] Paradoxical003
[ - ] Paradoxical003 2 points 3.5 yearsDec 30, 2021 08:15:26 ago (+3/-1)*
It's the objective morality and normative ethics that the mainstresm Christian right loves so dearly that is handicapping them.
They are playing a game against opponents, and doing do while acting as if the game was cooperative. They hurt each other while allowing themselves themselves be hurt, all in the name of living up to a playbook of rules which they expect to be applied consistently by all parties towards others regardless of what team they are on, them act as if it's done sort of victory when the other teams are not consistent except in the capacity of favoring their own over their opponents, its an approach to the game that would be sure sure lose, were it not that the other teams find the conservatives handy to keep around due to how well they work towards handicapping any real opposition from forming or gaining ground against them.
It's a losing game, and the conservatives keep on trying to negotiate some common ground with people who have no interest on offering a fair deal, or settling on the compromises they had previously made, instead more interested in gaining ground for their endgames at the expense of the conservatives, who refuse to learn from their loses, thst they should act as if they were on a team in competition with other teams, abd that good abd bad should not be judged in terms of some universally applied rulebook, but in terms of what benefits their team in teaching their ultimate goals, or harms the other teams in achieving the final objectives of their own (that stand in conflict with that of the conservatives).
Alliances across the aisle should be made, followed, abd broken on the basis of their ability give the conservatives what they want, or deny the others from enacting what the conservatives stand in opposition to.
Pursue what you desire, avoid what you fear, you vs those who you disagree with, nothing else matters, that is what should be common sense to all, basic stuff, if you play a game that you want to win, the only rule should be that you do what it takes to win. Where there are real stakes to winning and losing, where there are real risks involved with how well you do in the game, Good, noble, or honorable conduct is only valuable insofar as it helps you to get a victory in the end, there's no points for good sportsmanship in handicapping yourself unnecessarily, and if there was, whether or not you play fair is dependent upon what benefit there is to doing so.
Real life is more like a game than a movie, you should treat it accordingly as such a difference demands. Play to win real tangible victories, moral victories are phyrric ones that get you nowhere but dead or worse, the only way you could get anything out of them is dopamine that depends upon your own self delusions, it's masturbation of the ego to personality porn of the minds eye theater, you like the feeling of seeing yourself as a good person, but to those who disagree with you, you're like a crazy guy fapping about to his own little private fantasies, or a group of such men circle jerking each other off, as they stroke their own and each other's egos for being unproductive or counterproductive. The actual good of people is of second importance to thr pristine cleanliness of their self images. I find it repulsive.
They need to be tribal, and for that, they must adopt a relativistic morality whose ethics are subjective.
Just lazily applying one rule to everyone is both impractical and dehumanizing, Jew or not, Jesus was retarded and his advisements should be ignored.
It matters who the actor is, who the subject is, and what relation they have to one another, a moral perspective that rejects the idea of a greater moral obligation to one's own child than to the child of a stranger is a moral perspective that marxists seek to make into into the standard.
I propose a new moral perspective one based in evolution and its principles, where all living things, including ourselves, are seen as a collection of genes, and that the purpose of life is propagating our genes as far into the future as we could.
Where the morality of an action is dependent upon how well it fulfills this purpose on the part of the actor.
I found success in taking objectivism and mending its flaws by replacing it's focus on the individual (and their acting out of rational self interest, treating all relationships and interactions as being transactional) with a genocentric focus upon genes, essentially combining it with Richard Dawkin's the selfish gene.
It's a decent enough philosophy that admittedly could use some work in improving it, but it's better than Christianity, which is so flawed that the only way Christians made it work was by ignoring it entirely and doing their own thing, while merely giving credit to the ideology for whatever it was that they had done which produced a good result.
Seriously, all of Jesus's words are rubbish, if Christians actually followed his commandments they would have died out quickly, it was lucky for them for them most people had no clue what was in the Holy Bible, and that the priests were politically savvy enough to selectively present parts of the book so as to give everyone the false impressions they needed to have to live functionally.
Why not focus on building a good philosophy rather than clinging to broken ones and pretending they aren't broken.
I'll say this, normative ethics theories like consequentialism or deontology are useful for defining and quantifying what constitutes doing good or evil towards someone, but it's garbage in that it does not provide a hierarchy of moral duty towards others in relation to oneself, it rejects the existence of tribes and the idea that you owe some people a greater loyalty than others.
Treating all people as if they were indistinguishable, interchangeable, and expendable, mere figures in a calculation is repulsively inhuman, one must have preferences for one over the other, one must have tribes that they belong to, people they will fight for the interests of over the interests of others when the two come into conflict.
A man must draw circles around himself, he must declare that those of the inner circles are of greater concern to him than those in the outer ones, he must draw lines through those circles separating those before him from those behind, and declare that those who stand before him are of greater concern than those who stand behind him.
He must fight for his greater moral purpose, the goal of having his genes live for as long as they can in this world, to exist in organisms as far into the future as it is possible for them to.
His genes exist not only in himself, but in others as well, they create the properties that define everything about him, and so to do they the same for others, when he dies, he should will that they live on in others for as long as they are capable, a man is not one being but a team of many genes, and his ultimate duty is to them, both as they exist in himself, and as they exist in others.
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 3.5 yearsDec 30, 2021 11:17:18 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Paradoxical003
[ - ] Paradoxical003 1 point 3.5 yearsDec 30, 2021 11:32:27 ago (+1/-0)
A good example of how the only way Christians could achieve anything was through violating the commands of their own lord and savior.
You act like him, you end up like him, but unlike him, you will not return to life.
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 3.5 yearsDec 30, 2021 11:38:22 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] Paradoxical003
[ - ] Paradoxical003 0 points 3.5 yearsDec 30, 2021 13:30:35 ago (+0/-0)*
Call me mountain trash, redneck, or hillbilly, I don't care, I love my ancestry and my people, I make more good money with my hands than you'd ever make with your education.
I wish I could just pack up abd leave the city to live on a farm.
I have no wife, but am interested in getting one, I have no children but am even more interested in getting some than I am in having a wife.
Npw, please stop the internet tough guy act, it's a pathetic display of impotency and insecurity, you are better than this, I feeling vicariously embarrassed every time I read your posts again, I can only imagine the kind of person you are from your recent posts, it's not flattering images that I'm getting into my head from them.
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 1 point 3.5 yearsDec 30, 2021 17:31:33 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Paradoxical003
[ - ] Paradoxical003 0 points 3.5 yearsDec 30, 2021 16:08:16 ago (+0/-0)*
You sometimes tell us to read the full context, which we do, over multiple translations, and we can't find how we are misinterpreting your lord's words.
Even in the fullest context context it seems he meant to say what we think he had been saying.
It strikes me that you have no clue how we had misinterpreted him, and no idea of what he had actually intended to say with the words he had used.
You only say we misinterpret his words as a way to kill your mind regarding that he had said and done things which you disagree with because you think they are stupid.
You point out that we aren't Christians when we point out the apparent idiocy of his statements, as if that's somehow an argument against us, even if we were Christians, you'd day that our criticism of the words of Christ is evidence that we are not.
None of this involves you convincing us that he had meant something different from what we think he did when he said the words we quote him as having said in the good book.
You just avoid the issues presented by the more difficult words of your king, by refusing to address them with an answer at all.
Like I said, Christians can only function by ignoring the word of their religion's founder, and his will as was revealed by his words.
Instead Christianity is the religion of doing your own thing, and crediting Christ with your ideas (for surely he had endorsed them), abd only holding to the most distant, subtle, and convenient parts of your holy book as it defines the religion.
You can't follow the teaching of Christ as they were given in the text, because doing as the text revealed would be a sure path to the ruination of your earthly life and that of those around you.
Much of what you beleive is in fact starkly contradicted by the written record of what Jesus had wanted from his followers, such as the insistence on a valuing of family, people, life, justice, and other things of this fallen world, all of which Jesus had condemned as false idols to not just be rejected, but hated as well.
Sure, he had said things about the pharisees who condemned him as a false messiah, but does that in any way make the rest of what he said alright?
You don't have to agree with him on everything unless you are a Christian, which obligates your obedience to his every word, but as a non-Christian you can still agree with parts of what he had said, without having to buy into the whole thing.
Also, I know jews abd marxists hate Christianity and Christians, but they hate a lot of things youd not support, and only a fool would take on an idea only because their enemy dislikes it, you still have to evaluate the ideas on their own merits as the primary standard of whether or not to adopt them, in full or in part.
Your only arguments are nonarguments, ways to avoid the duty of addressing the claims being presented to you, and to just try and shut the claimants up.
That's not the kind of action a champion of the truth would take, that's the path of one who is uncertain of the veracity of hid ideas, or of a liar trying to protect their precious falsehoods.
It took some work to be a Christian and find meaning in being one, you can do it again to find meaning outside of Christianity, it's not a fear of losing your way, but fear of the work that needs to be put in to find it again, but in someplace else.
Christianity isn't the only answer, it's just the most accessible and convenient one, however, that doesn't mean that the answers on offer from it are correct or even good for you to accept, what may be sweet in the short term could end up turning out to be a deadly poison as time goes on.
Bad ideas are often like that, they start out seemingly well, but their true dangers and damages only show up later, and only fir those observant enough to see the effects for what they are.
Christianity had only been with our people for a short time in our history, its not traditional and it's only been present in our greatest ages because it's what had been with us in our most recent ages, if we abandoned it in the future, then it's likely that as the future eras bear witness to even greater heights of achievement, we could credit those feats to whatever acts as the successor to the Christian religion.
Both Whites and blacks have a history of being strongly Christian, if the religion was granting some supernatural aid to success, but should be successful in the time and place of strong faith among both peoples, but we know for a fact that is not true, Whites were always successful even when they weren't Christians, abd blacks were always failures even when they were devoutly Christian.
The only thing that Christians can really cling to is two claims.
That Jesus condemned a specific few of jews who rejected him as messiah (and had him executed as heretic), and even those he forgave if they accepted him (in those cases, he made them into some of the most important figures of his earliest religious organization).
And the second is that jewd gate the guy for leading jews away in a schism, and becoming adopted as the uniting faith of the gentiles later on (a source of community and tribal loyalties among the gentile volk).
Other ideologies could match these things, and even exceed them.
I adopt ideas based on how well they work towards achieving my goals in a way that lasts, not based on how well they appeal to me.
I've had to discard a lot of beloved ideas because I cane yo the revelation that they just don't work for the purposes I intend to pursue. It's tough and painful to change the bekeifs and opinions that make up a part of your identity, but you get better at it as time goes on and your positions evolve.
You shed parts of your identity, and adopt others in their place, that's just how it works, if you are wise enough to seek self betterment on the path to making better of the world.
[ + ] Rob3122
[ - ] Rob3122 0 points 3.5 yearsDec 30, 2021 15:25:10 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo -1 points 3.5 yearsDec 30, 2021 08:51:30 ago (+0/-1)
o/
[ + ] Paradoxical003
[ - ] Paradoxical003 1 point 3.5 yearsDec 30, 2021 09:16:14 ago (+2/-1)*
Of all the pagan religions, norse-germanic is the worst, it's a liberal reddit tier meme religion found everywhere in pop culture, its origins and nature place its authenticity in doubt, and it's adherents are not only irritating but seem like they are overwhelmingly composed of cringy edgelord poseurs that think larping as a viking makes them kvlt af.
National socialist black metal was only good because it was natsoc, but like most nazi bands, I was full of the inauthentic, the "repentant", and the glowing ones.
Other pagan religions are superior by far.
Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Persian, Greek/Roman, Celtic/Briton, Indian, Mongolian, Chinese, Japanese, etc. All full of badasses who built badass civilizations and glorious empires that shaped the world and it's history, forever.
In fact, I know at least a significant amount of you are shills sowing division and trying to damage our reputations.
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 0 points 3.5 yearsDec 30, 2021 17:46:58 ago (+0/-0)
Then, you rattle off a dozen non-White civilizations as if you believe Whites are incapable of building civilization.
Look around you. Almost everything is invented by a German if not European. If you can't recognize that, then you can't possibly respect the concept of having an Ethno-Religion for an Ethno-State.
[ + ] Khash1488
[ - ] Khash1488 1 point 3.5 yearsDec 30, 2021 09:59:24 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo -1 points 3.5 yearsDec 30, 2021 08:50:20 ago (+1/-2)
Heil Odin! o/
[ + ] 1Icemonkey
[ - ] 1Icemonkey 0 points 3.5 yearsDec 30, 2021 11:12:12 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] scoopadoop
[ - ] scoopadoop -1 points 3.5 yearsDec 30, 2021 11:21:13 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Khash1488
[ - ] Khash1488 0 points 3.5 yearsDec 30, 2021 12:03:26 ago (+0/-0)