Sign into an existing account

Sexual degeneracy seems inevitable, it's reared its ugly head many times in history, not just in modern days, and it ad surfaced in all manner of societies, it was widespread among nobility during the middle ages, back when the church was a higher authority than even the kings.

Every one here is aware of the sexual degeneracy and that it is a symptom. The real issue is whites being brainwashed to not care about race and the antiWhite agenda all around us, just like OP said.

its super sus that this faggot op has so many upvotes. is this guy a jew crying out as he strikes you?

agreed, OP is obvious kike

Christian Nationalism is the way, but for that to appear true to you you must first be somewhat educated in subversion of Christian religion

For example...the 10 commandments, when properly translated, mentions to not "mix seed with seed", so to be a true Christian Nationalist, you can not believe or support Race Mixing.

I love how kikes like OP think "White nationalism" is the answer when we've already got that part covered LMFAO, and more

Flat earth garbage is not censored at all wtf u talking about. Go see on face erg. It's a pushed subverting agenda.

I have noticed a couple of users complain if someone posts an article on child trannies or something along that nature, that you are diverting away from white genocide. A stupid argument (if is organic) as it is all linked - especially given that transitioning of children seems to be targeted at white kids.

First of all I remember when old voat was full of likeminded people to you. It was what drew me in and encouraged positive debate. I will have my disagreements on subjects with people, we aren't all going to see eye to eye and you are right in that I don't have ill intentions.

If people put themselves in my shoes for a second, I am 30 years old. I believed the Earth was a globe and repeated the same responses anybody else did in regards to Flat Earth "theory" I was a nihilistic atheist that believed I was insignificant, living on a tiny dusty ball in a vacuum of space, whirling around the infinity of nothingness until one day I decided to go to the beach and perform a silly test for myself. After repeating the tests a few times with conclusive results of absolutely zero curvature whilst also reading up on Socrates and other Greek philosophers. I had a certain quote stuck in my head.

"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." ~ Socrates

To cut the story short I have since been on a spiritual and gnostic journey, reconnecting with the creator utilizing my own senses instead of appealing to authority on any subject.

Now I honestly believe we are being contained. The holohoax, climate change and covid are insignificant issues to me. I want to know what exactly we are being hidden away from, what else lies beyond the bullshit we have been given. Not only this but if people can break free of the kikes controlling their fundamental "worldview" they have shaped into normies, maybe they wouldn't be so susceptible to other forms of kike propaganda, maybe they would also reconnect with the creator.

So if you look at it from my perspective, I see this as the most pressing issue and an important topic I want to talk about.

If anyone can give me conclusive proof that the earth is a ball, I am a man of natural science and would happily accept the refutation.

Full agreement, here's an upvote.

Evolution isn't actually science, but aesthetics. How would one even falsify it? Most people conflate the existence of natural selection with it being sufficient and necessary to explain all the variation of all life. The former is obvious, but the latter is unprovable without a time machine. Furthermore, it seems to me the scientific evidence is actually against it from how much stuff they have to invent to keep it going: punctuated equilibrium for lack of missing links, horizontal gene transfer to explain mixed up lineages, aliens to explain human intelligence, and all kinds of unlikely scenarios for every other quirk in every other species. However, evolution does reinforce the materialistic/nihilistic mindset where everything is random, might makes right, your place in society is determined at birth, and your competitive suffering is good for the species. In that regard, evolution is of the highest falsehoods because of the power it robs from the individual.

Evolution tells us that all children are genetically compatible with their parents, but are slightly different, they and their parents can bring forth fruit.

However, they are incompatible with the ancestors who've existed enough generations back that their genetics are too different with the descendant for the two of them to produce offspring with one another, this is because the genetic differences have accumulated to the point where their sex cells cannot conceive together.

Now, the other species that exist all originate from the same ancestor, and thus all living things on the planet are related to some degree, this is why you share 99% of your genes with a chimpanzee, and 50% of your genes with a banana tree.

Everything of a different kind that exists today is a very distant relation to you, all life on earth is a part of a large family in that they all share a common origin.

So using interfertility as the basis of determining kinds, two of one kind cannot produce one of a different kind to themselves, but they can produce a child who is of a different kind to their distant ancestor.

Yes. If you weren't a retard you'd now that.


They are only interesting if you believe in unverified, anecdotal evidence or explanations like refraction, and ignore all other evidence that shows a spherical Earth.


No you don't, because you are a retard that wouldn't know science if Newton's apple hit you on the head.

We fucking flew rockets into outer space and have taken countless pictures and videos of the Earth for decades. To ignore all that is not "science". You have to believe in a massive, worldwide conspiracy to fake all that for... reasons.

But you don't even need the pictures or videos. There are things you can verify yourself that show a spherical Earth:

o You can't see the sun from anywhere on the "flat plane" because the Earth is not flat and it sets over the horizon.

o The sun sets from bottom to top as it sinks below the horizon.

o The sun never changes in size.

o In a flat Earth, the stars rotate around a single pole (north). In a spherical Earth, the stars rotate around two pols (north and south). Guess which planet we live on.

We did, it was called positive christianity, and it was awesome!

You're allowed to question it, you are doing it right now.

But I think it would be best if you understood what it is before criticizing it, much of your criticisms show that you don't know what it is you are criticizing.

It's like someone who condemns "capitalism" without knowing what it is, there's only a vague impression of what they criticize, and it seems to be the same for you, as well.

You seem to think there's a sense of something being "chosen" in the evolutionary process based on how "good" of an idea it is to adopt some trait.

All natural selection means is that those genes that can best increase the number of organisms carrying them will be more likely to do so. It's tautological in it's simplicity.

Also, we didn't randomly ditch a chromosome, two of the chromosomes that our ancestors had possessed merged together.

Species are more or less an arbitrary category, they aren't actually real things, they are like colors in a rainbow, but with DNA instead of changes in hue.

Species are traditionally defined by being so genetically dissimilar that the opposite sex cells of their members are incompatible for conceiving children, they are so different on the DNA level that they cannot initiate the conception process, or that the process of development into an offspring cannot complete properly once initiated.

But this is more of less an arbitrary categorization, as all organisms on the earth have one common ancestor, and almost all have different DNA with different sets of genes, the offspring vary slightly from each of their parents while inheriting most of their DNA from them, and at some point two organisms are so distantly related, so different from one another on the genetic level, that they get lumped into different taxonomic categories from one another.

You can argue that therefore these categories have no realness to them, but you'd be wrong, because in a practical sense, the traits expressed have importance to them.

For example, race is real in the sense that it describes a set of traits that differentiate members of one race from another, and these traits have the effect of producing different levels of compatibility with other humans.

Humans of the same race will not be able to form attitudes of hostility towards each other on suspicion that the differences in their appearance is used as a basis to give unequal treatment to the members of one group who looks different vs those of another group who look similar, and this is just taking into account the differences in traits which affect appearance.

Different races are also defined by having different traits in terms of their psychology as well, with different political preferences producing different societies with different levels of potential for producing achievements, different levels of ability, be it physical (such as attractiveness or fitness) or mental (such as intelligence or personality), which results in some races being more successful and earning a higher status (in terms of wealth, influence, mating, notability, or reputation) and some races being more likely to fail in some way (such as in terms of criminality and social rejection).

Mistaking this disparity as coming from a conspiracy of discrimination rather than from a gap in merit between the groups results in hostility and eventual conflict, furthermore, if one group is more prone to criminality, especially in the capacity of being more likely to engage in violence or violations of property ownership, then it goes without saying that these two groupings are incompatible, and their very presence is a threat to other groups, it's no surprise that they are less trusted because they are less trustworthy, and as pattern recognizing creatures, we will learn that their physical appearance is a good predictor for them being a potential treat to ourselves and our property, if they put this down to a conspiracy of discrimination rater than people learning patterns and using them to defend themselves, then this could produce hostility and conflict between the groups differentiated by these traits.

Race, like all taxonomies, are based on utility, they are useful at describing the relationships that those who fall into different groupings will be most likely to develop to one another, the kinds of interactions that will be most common, or universal, and the kind that will be least common, or nonexistent.

Two organisms having children together is merely one such example.

When you say you don't like someone, you are saying you don't like some traits they possess, be it what they are like physically or mentally, such as the kind of behavior they exhibit, or have a history of exhibiting, if a group of people have these things in common, it's not much of a stretch to say that this attitude is just as justified, if your experience of everyone who looks a certain way has been correlated with a certain behavior to the point where its expected, or if your experience of a certain behavior as been correlated with with a certain appearance to the point of it being expected, then there's little shame to be had in holding your expectations and operating upon them, even with the acknowledgement that not everyone who looks a certain way acts the same, and not everyone who acts a certain way looks the same, you can make a case that operating under statistical likelihoods to reduce the chances of unpleasant experiences and increase the chances of pleasant ones is not only a justified move, but also wise.

Not every bear will maul you, but bears are likely enough to maul you that it would be wise to avoid them if you don't want to be mauled, not al blacks will steal from your store, but enough of them will do so that banning blacks from your store is a wise move if you don't want your store to be stolen from.

Ultimately it's your life and your store, so you should have the ultimate overruling say in what you do with what you own, you are making your decisions based upon your judgment of your past experiences and the information available to you, other people should realize that they aren't qualified to judge you for your actions without any consideration for your reasons for making the choices you had.

I think making moral judgments about the behavior of others based on some abstract principles, without concern for the specifics of the situation in which these actions were taken, shows the kind of mentality that produces so many of the problems in our world.

We need to realize that we are generally unqualified to make the decisions of others for them, and that is why there should only be consideration for things like ownership, consent, and aggression, especially when it comes to making or enforcing laws.

But it is though. Laura Loomer (a jew) was running on a Christian nationalism platform in Florida just the other day. It’s being used as controlled opposition to stunt any White nationalism growth. Watch any PragerU videos or Jordan Peterson (Daily Wire) videos. Both are endorsing Christian nationalism and both are jewish organizations.


How so? Us non-Christians are only pointing out the blatant jewish elements.

I care more about people not knowing the theories they reject.
If you understand what evolution is and reject it, I'm okay with that, but so far you demonstrate that you think it means two chimpanzees could give birth to a human baby, and that's not how it's supposed to work.

Morality matters by definition, it is what matters to you, what you like or dislike, or find to be desirable and undesirable, what you find to be preferable to other things, and what you find hateable compared to other things, even as matter of personal reactions and valuation, it's important, important enough that it could be imposed on others. That's something you miss, you can make moral judgments based on what it is that you think is right or wrong, you don't need some ultimate force to agree with you in order to make your words hold weight, the fact that you don't like something is enough on its own to give you the authority to try and stop it, and punish those who violated your personal standards. We need more people to feel confident in their moral judgments, without that society falls apart, let's be petty and vindictive, the enemy certainly is.

I have no victim mentality because I'm not a victim, I talked about the downvotes because it's something suspicious, votes or downvotes don't matter to me, but the presence of organized shills trying to artificially direct the culture on here matters because that's something what kills forums such as these.

We were christian when the muslims came pouring in during the dark ages, we were christians when we forced them back out.

We weren't christians when we pushed back the nubians from egypt, were weren't christians when they came pouring in.

Commonality was that we were both infested with the jewish influence.

Christianity may have jewish origins, but that doesn't mean its jewish, it's been gentile property for a long time now, and it's changed in gentile hands to suit gentiles and their society, we made it our own, the jews hate it, but aren't above subverting it and using their influence over it to subvert us as well, this is the same modus operandi for everything, even "antisemitic" things like "nazism" has been targeted for jewish subversion and once controlled had been used against us.

Nothing is jewish except the jews themselves and those things which are particular to them, christianity is not one of those things, even if it had its origins in them.

a) suggested information represents the contradiction of perceivable inspiration.

b) reasoning (want vs not want; true vs false; agreement vs disagreement; believing vs not believing etc.) represents the cycle (ouroboros).

c) if the many consent to the suggestions of the few; then only the few can define (idolatry); redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) the meaning of everything the many are reasoning over.

TBH with you, I really don't care...

Is not like people do not see them nor read them.

The validity of a post or poster does not depend on the upvotes/downvotes ratio they have. That is relative to the perception of the individuals who read/watch them.

A poster should not be crying about not receiving enough attention from the community to make his or her posts... that is just faggotry 101...

Evolution is change over time, neither "positive" nor "negative", there is no sense of "improvement" or "worsening". Thus there is no such thing as "devolution" in the biological sense. Becoming smaller and dumber is still evolution.

Evolution as a theory doesn't guarantee improvement. It is just change over time. Survival of The Fittest was a poor choice of words which get misapplied.

deleted

Yes, pedophiles who need to be rid of.

Does he explain how equatorial mounts do not work on the flat earth model?

An equatorial mount can track any object in the sky, from any location on the earth, using a single axis of rotation. This is impossible to do on a flat plane. The fact that equatorial mounts work, disproves flat earth without question. It's that simple. So you can take your videos and shove them. Flat earth is pure utter garbage, and you are a complete moron for falling for it.

Your video is retarded.

The big bang wasn't an explosion, but an expansion of space and time.

Destruction and Creation aren't real distinct things, they are subjective valuations of the same thing: change. Things change from one form to another, does an explosion in a grain silo destroy the silo, or create many shards of shrapnel? does it destroy the grain, or create ashdust?

If it's ridiculous to say that something came from nothing, then belief in God is doubly ridiculous, we suppose that a universe came from nothing, you suppose that not only did a universe come from nothing, but that your God did too, the universe coming from God who came from nothing is just the universe coming from nothing with an unnecessarily added complication, and an arbitrary, self-serving one at that.

That, or you assume that a God had always existed, in which case we can say that the universe had always existed, before the big bang there was a singularity, and before the singularity there was another universe that was collapsing into a singularity.

- and what do you know about nothing? you've never experienced noting, not even vicariously has any human experienced pure nothingness, there is always something filling every space we see around us, even out in space, even in the most pure void we could create, there are at the very least virtual particles and all manner of subatomic particles, perhaps waves and photons, etc.

So we know nothing about the properties of nothing, for all we know, nothing is very unstable and prone to spontaneously producing things out of itself.

Not even 30 seconds into your video and it already sucks, it demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding the concept it criticizes, a lack of awareness about the true meaning of the words it uses, and a sense of a smug "you cant tell me anything" kind of hubris that is intrinsically intolerable for me.

Bless you.

Navigate the sea by the stars at night on a flat plane.

I’d love to hear you explain how we’ve been navigating incorrectly on the sea for thousands of years.

Not a single flat earther will even touch celestial mechanics.


And ships don’t magically fucking appear out of nowhere when you are sailing. First you see the top mast then slowly the rest of the ship. Explain that on a flat plane.

Lulz. Holy shit, "mikenigger". I didn't know you were a flattard!