(09-27-2015 05:32 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  I'd argue that the majority of the Culture Erosion we talk about in the Everything Else forum is the fault of Atheism.

It's interesting to me how this forum has become so anti-atheist in just a few short years. Talk about generalizations and pigeonholing. What we really need is more objectivity here.

In any event, over the past quarter century we've all had front row seats to some of the most international, volatile, and path-carving events in human history. Before the technological age it never would have been possible to witness all that we've seen unfolding in real time on television and the internet. Pretty incredible when you think about it. And entirely predictable that the "powers that be" would use that to their advantage.

This type of world-spread propaganda would have been unheard of even half a century ago. As history repeats itself with these modern "invasions", no doubt future generations (especially those in the softer EU nations) will be forced to learn and accept a very hard lesson in human behavior and societal conflict. You can't go enforcing your beliefs and will on other nations or peoples and expect them to just fall in line. You can't be so naive to assume people from "far away lands" will willingly assimilate into your own culture and forego their own history, beliefs, tendencies, and past practices. Fortunately the human race is extremely resilient. Times will change, people will adapt, leaders will be deposed and overthrown, and civilizations will crumble and be rebuilt again. The world goes on.

(09-27-2015 10:21 AM)NovaVirtu Wrote:  

Friend just sent me this in an email, haha...someone needs to translate this and other memes in this thread into German and other European languages, then distribute it far and wide. I don't trust google translate to do it correctly.

Their narrative is collapsing. The peoples' is getting stronger.

Here you go.



G

Actually that's a good one to spread.

The Germans as we know are extremely neurotic about not being compared to Nazis, more than anyone else for obvious reasons. The EU is well-known as Germany's sphere of influence, if not a contemporary German Empire outright. Making the EU=Nazi meme go viral is almost a perfect antibody and snatches the frame.

The left has used the Nazi frame against nationalists for a long time. Time to return the favor.

........

Leave it to Finland. That article really illuminates how ungrateful the immigrants are. And stupid. I spent nearly half a year in Finland (it was incredible) but they literally are arriving at the worst possible time. I can imagine that the immigrants won't stay long, because soon it'll be November.

November in Finland is literal hell. No snow yet, but it's around 3-4 degrees every day, rainy and darker than the bowels of hell. Most Finns travel during this month because it is even too depressing for them.

If the Finns themselves don't keep the immigrants out, the climate will.

Just ask the Russians in 1939.

Interview with Jean Raspail, Prophetic Author of The Camp of the Saints

Quote:Jean Raspail published The Camp of the Saints in 1973. In the novel he describes how mass third world immigration to France leads to the destruction of Europe.

The current issue of the French magazine Valeurs Actuelles features an interview with Jean Raspail.

What do you feel about the current situation?

You know, I’ve no wish to join the big group of intellectuals who spend their time debating immigration… I have the impression that these talks serve no purpose. The people already know it all, intuitively: that France, as our ancestors fashioned it centuries ago, is disappearing. And that we keep the gallery amused by talking ceaselessly of immigration without ever saying the final truth. A truth that is moreover unsayable, as my friend Jean Cau noted, because whoever says it is immediately hounded, condemned then rejected. Richard Millet came close to it, look what happened to him! [See here for more on this].

Is the seriousness of the problem being kept from the French people?

Yes. Starting with the politicians in charge first of all! Publicly “everything’s going well, Madame Marquessa”. But behind closed doors, they acknowledge that “yes, you’re right: there is a real problem”. I have several edifying letters on this subject from prominent leftist politicians, from those on the right too, to whom I sent the Camp of the Saints. “But you understand: we can’t say it …” These people have a double language, a double conscience. I don’t know how they do it! I think the distress comes from there: the people know that things are being hidden from them. Today, tens of millions of people don’t buy into the official discourse on immigration. Not one of them believes that it is an opportunity for France “une chance pour la France”. Because reality imposes itself on them, every day. All of these ideas boil in their heads and don’t come out.

You don’t believe it’s possible to assimilate the foreigners welcomed into France?

No. The model of integration isn’t working. Even if a few more illegals are escorted to the border and we succeed in integrating foreigners a bit more than today, their numbers will not stop growing and that will change nothing in the fundamental problem: the progressive invasion of France and Europe by a numberless third-world. I’m not a prophet, but you see clearly the fragility of these countries, where an unbearable poverty is established and grows ceaselessly alongside indecent wealth. Those people don’t turn to their governments to protest. They expect nothing of them.

They turn to us and arrive in Europe in boats, ever more numerous, today in Lampedusa, tomorrow elsewhere. Nothing discourages them. And thanks to the demography game, by the 2050s, there will be as many young indigenous French as there are young foreigners in France.

Many will be naturalised.

Which doesn’t mean they’ll have become French. I don’t say these are bad people, but “naturalisations on paper” aren’t naturalisations of the heart. I cannot consider them my compatriots. We need to drastically toughen the law, as a matter of urgency.

How can Europe deal with these migrations?

There are only two solutions. Either we accommodate them and France – its culture, its civilisation — will be erased without even a funeral. In my view, that’s what’s going to happen. Or we don’t accommodate them at all – that means stop sacralising the Other and rediscover your neighbour, that means those next to you. Which means that we stop giving a damn sometime about these “Christian ideas gone mad”, as Chesterton said, or these depraved human rights, and that we take the indispensable measures to distance ourselves, without appeal, to avoid the dissolution of our country into a general métissage [literally race-mixing but used as a sort of equivalent of the English diversity]. I don’t see any other solution. I travelled a lot in my youth. All peoples are fascinating but when you mix them too much, it is much more animosity that develops than sympathy. Métissage is never peaceful. It is a dangerous utopia. Look at South Africa!

At the point where we are now, the measures we would have to take would necessarily be very coercive. I don’t believe it will happen and I don’t see anyone who has the courage to do it. They would need to put their soul in the balance, but who is ready for that? That said, I don’t believe for an instant that the supporters of immigration are more charitable than me: there probably isn’t a single one of them who intends to welcome one of these unfortunates into his home… all of that’s just an emotional pretence, an irresponsible maelstrom that will engulf us.

Is there therefore no solution other than submission or coercion?

There could perhaps be one, but it will only have one chance: isolates where a population that is ethnically and culturally threatened by other communitarianisms could find refuge. Besides, it’s already happening: we can see already that the French “de souche” [indigenous] are fleeing the so-called “sensitive” districts. The demonstrations against homosexual marriage are also a form of communitarianism: they testify to the rejection by millions of French people to the “change of civilisations” promised by the Left and by Christiane Taubira. Today, everyone condemns communitarianism, but it could be a solution, at least temporarily. These opposed communitarianisms will reinforce themselves mutually by the animosity they will convey and that will end, finally, in extremely severe confrontations. Even if we don’t need to wish that adversity occurs.

You don’t believe in a sudden new beginning, as has occurred many times in the history of France?

No. It would require an epic spirit, an appreciation of an elevated destiny for a sudden new beginning to be possible in France. It would require people to still believe in their country. I don’t see many of them left. At least reforming from top to bottom the national education system and the audio-visual media, taking away the platform from the teachers and the journalists who are participating in the disinformation… We have desacralised the idea of the nation, the exercise of power, the past of the country. We have put cracks in the statue of France, we have disfigured it (expecially the Left!) to the point where nothing inspires respect any more. The power of the false ideas disseminated by the national education system and the media is boundless. But as for me, I have lived in France for 1500 years, I’m OK with what is mine, and I’ve no desire for it to change…

(09-27-2015 11:24 AM)Felix 5000 Wrote:  Does anyone have an opinion poll from various countries on the attitudes towards taking these people in?

I don't really follow this invasion in the news much but have heard statements from friends such as "most Germans support taking these people", which I find very hard to believe.

Is the media refusing to report on how people really feel or are Germans really this gullible?

This poll that I posted showed that Croatians were strongly against illegal immigration.

Note that it was before the crisis escalated and our PM alienated practically everyone, so the attitude can only be more anti-migrant now

Handsome Creepy Eel,

Have you thought about running for office?

You had those popular comments that were censored, perhaps you can parlay that into being a mayor or something?

I know its a stretch, and I don't know how the process works over there, but in the US its pretty easy to run for something local. You might not win, but the process isn't overwhelming.

(09-27-2015 11:16 AM)Geomann180 Wrote:  Here you go.



G

Actually they are worse than the Nazis who at least supported their people and assimilated others who they seemed close (aside from their lunatic mass-murdering policies of course).

But the EU is more akin to communists - their mass murder will probably come silently soon enough:

(09-27-2015 11:16 AM)Gmac Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 05:32 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  I'd argue that the majority of the Culture Erosion we talk about in the Everything Else forum is the fault of Atheism.

It's interesting to me how this forum has become so anti-atheist in just a few short years. Talk about generalizations and pigeonholing. What we really need is more objectivity here.

Two major false dichotomies (and consequent pigeonholing) I see creeping on this forum:

1. Atheism vs. religionism. The short story goes something like: Religion used to constrain the worse female behaviors, but with the abandonment of the blind adherence to it all hell has broken loose in the dating market, therefore it's atheism's fault and we must return to the religious wisdom of the ancients.
2. Democratic vs. Republican party: Most of the leftists and SJW lunatics tend to be democratic, therefore the Republican party must be a GOOD party and Donald Trump would be a great president.
   

How about just use some common sense and stop worshiping the enemy of your enemy, cause he has shown countless times that he ain't your friend either.

(09-27-2015 01:40 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  Handsome Creepy Eel,

Have you thought about running for office?

You had those popular comments that were censored, perhaps you can parlay that into being a mayor or something?

I know its a stretch, and I don't know how the process works over there, but in the US its pretty easy to run for something local. You might not win, but the process isn't overwhelming.

I'm a member of that Living Wall party but they (rightfully) require anyone holding an official function/government post in their party to first have participated in their eviction blockades (which usually end with the police violently dragging them off and then arresting them for "disturbance of public order" and "obstruction of justice").
Since I can't afford to get a police file, that's simply off the cards for me.

As an individual independently running for something local, though, I don't think I could parlay my internet fame into that successfully. My readers and fans are spread all over Croatia, the Balkans and even around the world (Croatian Diaspora). No single place has enough of a concentration of my fans to do that.

Contributing from the sidelines is working fine for me for now.

(09-27-2015 11:51 AM)Aer Wrote:  Leave it to Finland. That article really illuminates how ungrateful the immigrants are. And stupid. I spent nearly half a year in Finland (it was incredible) but they literally are arriving at the worst possible time. I can imagine that the immigrants won't stay long, because soon it'll be November.

November in Finland is literal hell. No snow yet, but it's around 3-4 degrees every day, rainy and darker than the bowels of hell. Most Finns travel during this month because it is even too depressing for them.

If the Finns themselves don't keep the immigrants out, the climate will.

Just ask the Russians in 1939.

That's interesting. I'd heard the climate could be bad but this sounds awful. I couldn't even survive it for a few days.

A quick illustration of how propaganda works:

This week the Bulgarian Orthodox Church came out with an address in which it essentially stated that Bulgaria should not accept more migrants because we are too poor and it is 'unjust' (the exact word) to poor Bulgarians to feed and shelter them with scarce government money.

The most mainstream Bulgarian media group came up with the following title:
For the anti-christian position of the Bulgarian orthodox church - and do we need it at all (the church)

Meanwhile, they are promoting an 'art' project called 'The unknown other' which posts pictures of refugees and pictures of Bulgarians who have opposed building refugee camps near their towns (the opposition was in the end of 2013 and the beginning of 2014).
The pictures of the refugees? 1 man, 3 women and 2 children. Exactly the proportion we are seeing in the videos of the invaders.

What's the 'kicker' here? The kicker here is that the same media group has received a 3 million leva (1.5 million euro) grant from 'America for Bulgaria' foundation this year. That's in addition to the 3.2 million leva (1.6 million euro) they received from the same foundation back in 2012.
What is the grant for? 'Editorial independence'

Well, they are 'independent' all right.
The hand of the interest groups behing the US govenrment may not be directing the 'refugee' crysis but they sure are steering it towards the wanted goal.

P.S.
Here is a video entitled 'Citizenship arrest of afghans in Strandzha' (Strandzha is the mountain on the Bulgarian-Turkish border):




27 people. All from afghanistan. All male, all look younger than 25.
This is what is invading Europe. This is what politicians are importing for the purpose of propaganda-cucking the resistence of European man.

Aren't Finns kind of...aggressive and good at fighting?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/26/world/...sylum.html

(09-27-2015 05:57 AM)Dusty Wrote:  I was thinking about how much friction/turmoil/violence there was in Northern Ireland as a result of migrants from England. The English and Irish speak the same language and the people are the same race, yet the English moving into Ireland led to war and violence. I remember during "the troubles" seeing Irish slogans such as "get the English out of Ireland!"

Imagine how much worse it will be with these vastly different people invading European countries.

I'm a Protestant from Belfast, Northern Ireland so I get your point... I certainly don't see myself as an "Invader" I was born here and this is my country whatever happened many years ago I don't really care to be fair so I can see something similar happening with the muslims which it already is in many parts of England but with these numbers coming into Europe now who knows what will be the outcome.

(09-27-2015 02:03 PM)Caveman Wrote:  Two major false dichotomies (and consequent pigeonholing) I see creeping on this forum:

1. Atheism vs. religionism. The short story goes something like: Religion used to constrain the worse female behaviors, but with the abandonment of the blind adherence to it all hell has broken loose in the dating market, therefore it's atheism's fault and we must return to the religious wisdom of the ancients.
2. Democratic vs. Republican party: Most of the leftists and SJW lunatics tend to be democratic, therefore the Republican party must be a GOOD party and Donald Trump would be a great president.
   

How about just use some common sense and stop worshiping the enemy of your enemy, cause he has shown countless times that he ain't your friend either.

Thank you. Living outside the US has made me realize how partisan people are. 90%+ of the population makes decisions based on tribes. If their tribe is against abortion, so are they. If their tribe is for immigration, so are they. What happened to thinking an issue through and deciding on your own?

For example, Christianity for me is as beta/blue pill as you can get. Jesus basically advocated masochism as a lifestyle: turn the other cheek, give all your shit to strangers, etc. But because most secularists today are radical leftist pro-feminists, religion is making a comeback on red pill sites. Give me a break.

I'm against Islamic migration precisely because I'm a secularist. Europe has gone through the dark ages, and we don't need another one.

(09-27-2015 02:29 PM)johnfortunebg Wrote:  27 people. All from afghanistan. All male, all look younger than 25.
This is what is invading Europe. This is what politicians are importing for the purpose of propaganda-cucking the resistence of European man.

Who is coordinating the invasion? The battlefront runs from the Canary Islands off the coast of the Sahara to the Black Sea. This isn't happening by accident.

(09-27-2015 03:01 PM)N°6 Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 02:29 PM)johnfortunebg Wrote:  27 people. All from afghanistan. All male, all look younger than 25.
This is what is invading Europe. This is what politicians are importing for the purpose of propaganda-cucking the resistence of European man.

Who is coordinating the invasion? The battlefront runs from the Canary Islands off the coast of the Sahara to the Black Sea. This isn't happening by accident.

I don't think a deliberate conspiracy started it. But sure as hell interest groups are currently sustaining it. I am not certain it is coordinated (except in a very crude sense, like behavior on financial markets is coordinated). It is just that a lot of interest groups are in favor of it because it serves their goals and are sustaining it.

Quote:I'm against Islamic migration precisely because I'm a secularist. Europe has gone through the dark ages, and we don't need another one.

Unfortunately, unless we kill liberalism soon, that's what we will get.

I am anti-Christian morality (though I recognize and appreciate the positive role the religion has played in Europe's history) but if I have to choose between demographically healthy European Europe (tautology deliberate) that is hardcore Christian and some sort of European Brazil on the whole continent (even if it is secular and open), I would chose the former every single time.

(09-27-2015 03:00 PM)AFS Wrote:  For example, Christianity for me is as beta/blue pill as you can get. Jesus basically advocated masochism as a lifestyle: turn the other cheek, give all your shit to strangers, etc. But because most secularists today are radical leftist pro-feminists, religion is making a comeback on red pill sites. Give me a break.

No sir you are wrong. Christianity is not blue pill in any sense of the word. I am not in the mood or desire to start this debate in this thread.

This ROK article will say what I need to say succinctly:
http://www.returnofkings.com/33060/the-g...rule-works

(09-27-2015 02:03 PM)Caveman Wrote:  Two major false dichotomies (and consequent pigeonholing) I see creeping on this forum:

1. Atheism vs. religionism. The short story goes something like: Religion used to constrain the worse female behaviors, but with the abandonment of the blind adherence to it all hell has broken loose in the dating market, therefore it's atheism's fault and we must return to the religious wisdom of the ancients.
2. Democratic vs. Republican party: Most of the leftists and SJW lunatics tend to be democratic, therefore the Republican party must be a GOOD party and Donald Trump would be a great president.
   

How about just use some common sense and stop worshiping the enemy of your enemy, cause he has shown countless times that he ain't your friend either.

Gee, I wonder why many are starting to think this way.

Let's use a recent example from even this illuminated forum.

Here we have typical stylings of "enlightened" atheist conversation on religion. This one is pronouncedly aimed at the Christian God though only alluded to. It's ironic that the thread starter obviously lacks first hand knowledge on facts of the religious texts he made bold conclusions about. It seems as if he's new or read only few books on Christianity and Indo-European religions, hell, possibly even one. It's more amusing to note the unawareness of "natural order/law" being a Christian concept. Yet, we have a sense of the writer intellectually positioning himself above those that follow theism of any/most brands.

Quote:It seems to me the idea of god that monotheistic religions have is somewhat flawed and I wanted to open a discussion on it. Along with pre-Christian Indo-European religions I believe the idea of Natural Order (or even something like 'Fate') supersedes the idea of a God.

For example, if God made some law or ruling, he will then be obliged to stand by that law and apply it fairly and consistently to all humans. This means that God himself is constrained by certain laws. I dont think even God can overcome Karma. I mean he is just a powerful 'being' right?

The early Indo-Europeans had something akin to Natural Order or Fate that was more powerful than any god. The early concept of God was quite different to what people think of today. Originally I think a god was a type of 'Divine Force' something that poets sang about. This could be the Sky (Zeus Pater), Earth (Prthvi, Gaia) or Thunder ( Thor, Indra) and more abstract concepts such as Mitra and Aryaman and Dionysus.

It seems that as these small Indo-Europeans groups spread out their Gods became more human-like and prominent, while the backdrop of Fate or Natural Order faded out. Hence we have Zeus more a King of Gods than a deification of the Sky.

Sometime in Central Asia, Zoroaster, a priest, reformed his local Indo-European pagan religion and created a Monotheistic faith centred on one Ahura Mazda, "Lord Wisdom". To cut a long story short, I believe this, combined with some rather semitic influencs resulted in the Abrahamic faiths. Due to the pervasiveness of these faiths, there seems to be an assumption on most peoples part that this concept of God is somehow natural. Hence, most people here are either Atheist or Christian. Either belief in God or not.

However, Atheism seems to be a position defined by it's opposition or negation of what seems to be a largely Abrahamic assertion of 'God'. But what is this Abrahamic God exactly, I know what he has apparently done, but what exactly is he? or It? or She? I know they dont have an answer to this. God we are told, is a being who exists and who created the Universe. For me this is too vague an idea to talk about meaningfully, hence I consider the idea of God null and void. Atheism, being in opposition to something undefined, is unecessary.

So from being well-defined actors in early indo-european religious poetry, secondary to the ideas of Truth or Natural Order, these, now abstract and vague divinities have become the centre of many major religions, the definition of truth and independent of any system (Karma, Fate, Cause-Consequence etc).

I think for any discussion or understanding of religion to be worthwhile, we really need to re-visit the idea of 'God', where it came from, and whether it can remain such a central concept.

One of our resident Christianity and western traditionalism contrarians who shall remain unnamed. Bolding added to quoted piece.

Quote:I was raised without religion, to me it seems like a strange relic from before science.

I think atheism is a term defined in terms of religion from when belief is gods was more common, I feel more like I'm simply "not religious," sort outside an irrelevant debate.

Maybe earlier in history when animal sacrifices were common there was a term for those who did not sacrifice.

Such a term is so irrelevant now no one uses it. Among the highly educated discussions or religion are increasingly rare, and thus the term "atheism" is too falling out of use except for those who engage in an increasingly irrelevant debate.

Now, unfortunately the people who talk the most publicly about religion are nuts like ISIS.

Another reputable member who makes a presentation of what I consider the real, primary, false-dichotomy in religious discussions. The idea to be considered is bolded by me.

Quote:I think it probably just comes down to two things: people clutch at straws when they don't have answers (hence the saying "where science ends religion begins"), and people attempt to dominate each other with words and ideas. Religion is an intersection of those two aspects of human nature.

We shouldn't participate in debates about "whether god is real", because participating in that debate is actually itself submission to these people. Since they are demanding we accept the existence of something for which there is no evidence, the debate should end there, and a new debate should be opened about what the nature of people who use religion is.

I suspect it is merely a pure form of intellectual domination, and one of the ways by which the human species selects for intelligence. It is kind of like a pure debate (i.e. a debate without a topic), where the winners rise socially by dominating each other in these debates, and thereby have more successful reproduction etc (lifelong celebacy is more of a quirk of Christianity specifically, and it's disallowed in Islam).

It can be interesting to have debates with the more skillful religious, as long as you pay attention to how they are debating versus naively framing the debate as being about a real thing. It seems to be about escalating levels of abstraction, something that is mentally taxing. Men with bigger brains are able to defeat men with smaller brains in these intellectual jousts, because of the difficulty of rapidly responding to these increasing layers of abstraction, and coherently responding with equal or higher layers, without getting confused or jamming up.

TL;DR; Religion is likely about sexual selection, indirectly, through increasing social status via verbal domination. It isn't about a real thing, it is merely a phenomenon resulting from how the large-brained human species works.

Again, an example of fundamental misunderstanding and equalizing of all Abrahamic religions (possibly all religions since it's not clearly mentioned) yet wide, bold claims are made. Also; the scientific study, teleology is relevant.

Quote:It's not very helpful to think in terms of "fate". It's more a question of destiny. The difference, at least to me, is that one (destiny) is responsive to our actions, while the other is not. In my view people who believe in fate too strongly don't really grasp the concept of feedback. They think that cause and effect run in an infinitely long straight line and that the initial conditions determine everything else about the system. But processes aren't linear. They are cyclical. And they aren't linear because of the existence of feedback. So the line isn't an infinitely long straight line, but more like a circle. Or more accurately multiple related, and never ending, cycles.

Anyway, all that just to point out that it isn't a question of God vs Determinism. That is a straw man argument by some religious people use against atheism. But the natural order isn't anywhere close to deterministic/fatalistic. You can only imagine it is if you study a very narrow phenomena and, for the sake of your study, assume all other things are equal (Cetirus Paribus). But in actual life the Cetiruses are never Paribus...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my own words;

religion of any sort that contains a master design premise cannot be rule wrong or lacking in evidence without knowing the unequivocal end point or origin of the universe and how it retains itself as continuous system.

The universe itself is both a good argument for intelligent design and non-theistic phenomenal odds as well.

I started as a skeptic, but since reading Christian texts, I find it's arguments and perception convincing. I also find it different than how it was popularly regarded to me by others. Growing as a man, gaining experience, gaining wisdom and applying doctrinal techniques in my life, I foundd myself unknowingly conforming to Christian ethics when I chose paths that ended bad results or allowed for better gain and discipline. This is anecdotal and doesn't account for anything, but I'm far from the only former agnostic/atheist that came to the conclusion that we are threading old ground when trying to assert a reasonable moral philosophy in our lives. As Sonsowey said, even if you don't believe it, you can acknowledge the important religion plays for the benefit of society.

But back to the quotations of atheists conversing about Christianity, even on RVF we find atheists condoning and participating in condescending and moral posturing discussions regarding theists.

This is the problem I've developed with atheism. It seems that no matter what, they can't stop themselves from participating in the moral posturing, which ultimately transforms into actively working to tear down the popular theology. They are unaware of how dogmatic these actions are unto themselves, but fine to oblige in condescending group critique of theological philosophies. Just as AnonymousBosch had mentioned, this is the conception point where it snowballs into more aggressive anti-theism and often develops more definitive morality structure to self-affirm their philosophy to themselves or outsiders(unknowingly becoming more dogmatic again).

Atheism has been continuously antagonistic in the modern west and plays a huge role in if we'll be able to overcome this Islamic cultural force or not.

(09-26-2015 10:06 PM)uncledick Wrote:  It's a tough choice for sure.

But if it's between a "Brave New World" progressive future or a moderate/conservative Islamic society, i'll go with the Muslims.

I'm a traditional Social conservative so i'll have more in common with them, than the deviants currently in control of the west.

No, never ever say that.

I don't get these conservative types that think Islam is some kind of return to the good old days (that never existed). If you're an European or at least descendant of Europeans you must never ever accept Islam.

(09-27-2015 05:32 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  Atheists always have hilarious Narcissistic Self-Constructs. They think they're cool, intelligent Bill Hicks types, whilst, in reality, the

(09-27-2015 08:04 AM)Samseau Wrote:  You're all mistaken about Christ. Basically the West returns to Christianity or it dies. It is the inescapable conclusion.

BS. As if the events in Europe aren't depressing enough now we have a bunch of guys on here trying to peddle their religion as if that is what would solve the problem.

I've noticed more and more that there are a few guys on here trying to equate this whole "red pill", "neo masculinity", "saving western civilization" stuff with being religious when I could bet at least 50%, if not more, of the people involved with these movements are atheists or not religious.

This discussion really needs to be moved to another thread. I've always been very curious why exactly active atheism (people who make being a atheist a big part of their identity) and SJWism seems to constant manifest together so it's a topic of interest to me but it's currently derailing this thread.

It's clear that the German and EU elite will continue facilitating the migrant tide into the next year, especially into Germany, so I think we need to start thinking about producing materials to help German citizens protect themselves and/or escape to a safer place.

If there's any Germans who are interested, we can start with a series of ROK articles along the theme of "What To Do When Your City Becomes Overrun With Islamic Migrants," to be published in both German and English.

Possible outline:

-Overview of the situation that shows how the elite will not stop the invasion (things will continue to worsen)
-Defending yourself and your family (basic self defense including pepper spray, batons, gun laws, etc); what to do if attacked by a mob of Islamists
-Personality profile of young Islamists and what may trigger an attack
-Transferring or selling assets out of Germany (banking and housing)
-Possible locations to re-locate to for the medium and long term

It's clear that the invasion won't stop. The best option remaining is to help those that are essentially victims in their own country.

I just get reminded by the Galt approach in Atlas Shrugged, if the State is imposing whatever you bankrupt them. Now the real chase here would be to find prominent company owners who are willing to utilize the adequate pressure in the political elites. Good luck with that.

I'm sure this has been mentioned before but Germany now has the worlds lowest birthrates. They're even below Japan, which has been suffering with chronic financial problems due to increased ratio of elderly to young and deflation due to reduced demand.

If you're only having 8.2 children per 1000 people while Nigeria is having 50 per 1000, how would a matriarchy/feminist country solve the problem? The rest of Europe isn't doing much better with other countries having 9.3 - 12.7 per 1000. So importing people from other countries that are also depopulating (just slower) isn't a solution. You can't ask/convince/encourage women to have more children as it would go against your core feminist beliefs. Doing nothing would guarantee financial collapse as capitalism works properly with a growing population (and a small positive inflation rate). Given these constraints, what option do the European leaders/elite have other than to import anyone willing to relocate? While this will destroy the culture that has existed in Europe, it will also prolong the wealth of the leaders/elite of Europe. They will be mostly safe inside their gated communities. All countries in the West are experiencing falling birthrates and most of those countries are importing people to keep the party going a while longer.

There was an offshoot sect of the Quakers called the Shakers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers

Women had the leadership roles in the sect and they were all celibate. You can imagine what the result was.

Whichever group has more children that are successful (i.e. they also have successful children) wins. And they get to write history.