On white sins

It is true that this site focuses on the Christian problem. But that does not mean that I believe that Christian ethics is the sole sin in white decline. Our focus is due to the fact that no Alt-Right site is exposing such sin as a factor to be studied.

There are other cardinal sins. Recently for example Tom Sunic said: ‘Both the early liberals C. Montesquieu and later A. Smith wrote that “merchant ignores all borders.” This is how the West was designed by the world improvers in the wake of WWII’.
In other words, in addition to Christian ethics being a pig is a major factor in the downfall of whites!

3 Replies on “On white sins

  1. ‘Both the early liberals C. Montesquieu and later A. Smith wrote that “merchant ignores all borders.” This is how the West was designed by the world improvers in the wake of WWII’.
    A curious way to phrase it, as Montesquieu and Smith had nothing to do with the wake of WWII. I’d say the fault lies more with trade itself. Nation states needing to trade with other nations will inevitably suffer some degree of population mixture. This is why race-blind Christianity is such an excellent ideology for a technological state in a multi-racial world. It’s to be expected that such a state will need vast amounts of resources from all over the planet. Christian ethics can justify all sorts of interventions and race mixings.
    It seems clear that it’s a question of what is to be the highest value: money or race. If money is valued over race, then race will always eventually be sold out for money. There’s a catch though. If you don’t value money over race, you’ll lose out in the competition for money. States that are relatively poor will likely be conquered, and be unable to preserve race. It’s quite a conundrum.
    In other words, in addition to Christian ethics being a pig is a major factor in the downfall of whites!
    The two factors are interrelated in that the Calvinist theology of the Puritan founders of America regarded prosperity as proof of moral goodness. Then too, always in the subtext of Christianity is the split of man from Nature. According to the Bible Nature is given to him by God for him to exploit and use as he pleases, with no consequences whatsoever. The supposed specialness of man exempts him from considering himself just another animal, subject to the same laws of race and hybridization he can plainly observe in Nature. This Christian belief has entered the culture on a deep level. Along with the equally absurd and equally Christian belief in free will, this leads whites, Christian or not, to think that race in humans isn’t important.

    1. “Along with the equally absurd and equally Christian belief in free will”.
      Do you believe in Fate? Do you believe that everything that has ever happened and ever will happen is pre decided by some obscure and supernatural force?
      Also, what does beliefs in free will have to do with viewing Race as unimportant?

      1. No, I just mean determinism, which is the basis of science; i.e., certain effects must follow certain causes. If human will is free, then any science of human behavior becomes impossible. It would mean that any input to a human being could lead to any output, and that means placing psychology outside the bounds of science. A corollary is that if human behavior is outside of science, then there can be no science of race. For example, if we assume the human will is free, then jews or negroes can start acting like whites any time they want to. Freedom of the will reduces the genetic basis of behavior to nothing.
        Belief in free will as a philosophical idea actually preceded Christianity, but Christianity is what has given it its moral force and ramifications our society.