WatchTheCollapse

Tucker Carlson’s brother explains how their father was, kind of, but not really, but still a little “CIA adjacent.” Buy it?

Look what finally arrived… Very grateful to be featured in this special issue of Red America.

Is Christianity a White Nationalist force multiplier, or a neutralizer? This is the problem when discussing this topic. The majority don't actually engage in good faith. The chart below is being generous when it comes to assessing what qualifies as a counterargument. This is a question that needs answering so let's address some of the pushback from those on the force multiplier side: 1. White atheists have below replacement fertility. I never disputed this, this misses the point entirely. Christian fertility (which includes non-Whites) is higher on average, but it selects more strongly for religiosity, conformity, and universalist attitudes than for traits that reliably produce White nationalists. Many of those Christian children are non-White, mixed, become normies, civic nationalists, left-leaning Christians, and yes-even atheists. Most pro-Whites openly admit many of these people are more of danger to Whites than their more explicit enemies. 2. “Scripture allows ethnic priority / 1 Timothy 5:8.” Your personal interpretations of Christianity do not reflect the mainstream reality. Judge a tree by its fruit. The vast majority of the members of all the dominant denominations emphasize Galatians 3:28-style universalism. Non-white missionary outreach is the norm. The priority is the race-blind concept of "souls." The vast majority of Western Christians ignore or even oppose White interests in favor of "humanitarian" efforts. Historical examples of what majority Christian White countries did centuries ago in an entirely different demographic and historical context is like saying because black powder muskets helped Whites conquer the world centuries ago that it is evidence that we should still use them in battle today. 3. “White population peaks happened under Christianity” Once again pointing out historic results without the broader historical context is meaningless. Christianity’s historic fertility rates failed to stop the historic demographic changes we have already experienced. The universalist and charitable aspects of Christianity repeatedly facilitated demographic change once the political and demographic winds began to shift along side this higher Christian fertility. Historically it produced people who prioritized non-White conversion and “saving souls” over preserving Whites and this is by far still the mainstream, and therefore most relevant, interpretation of Christianity. 4. “Prove your side can hit replacement fertility or go extinct.” My "side" is White people. Religious people tend to loose sight of this when you bring up religion precisely because they don't prioritize their race first. Even if my "side" was White atheists (it's not), why would same standard not apply in reverse? Decades of higher Christian fertility in the West has not produced a White nationalist resurgence or even a useful defense of White majorities. The opposite is true. Higher Christian fertility is not a new development and yet here we are. 5. “Christians who agree with you politically are allies" Agreed. And if they prioritize race over religion they are a welcomed ally. Nobody is saying otherwise. We are simply trying assess the broader consequences of Christianity when it comes to the survival of the White race. Does Christianity itself raise the chances of survival for the White race, or does Christianity's universalist theology, jewish origins, and interracial institutional realities act as an unnecessary impediment? What is the evidence that higher Christian fertility rates, that have existed as the White share of the population has plummeted world-wide, offer any benefit?

Toby be good nigga for Massa

SSG M1,.338ML