The world would be a vicious, ugly place without the influence of Christian Europeans and their descendants. They forced the end of slavery, particularly the massive trade among Muslims and North Africans; established the norm of country self determination; emancipated women; protected the young from sexual exploitation; established the idea of human rights enshrined in law; secularized government; fought against racism in its various forms; and civilized various vicious, barbaric tribes around the world, mostly by spreading Christianity and law.

Can you name a religion or culture that has reformed itself into something more enlightened, that isn't Christian European? As far as I can see, it's never happened. The Chinese and Japanese were barbaric toward their neighbors and their own people (the Chinese still harbor a deep racism and pride that has yet to disappear; the Japanese were only subdued and reeducated by America occupation post WWII), Americans Indians and South Americans were truly brutal to one another, Africa was a hellhole, Hindu India was a hellhole (and still is), and Muslim lands had a widespread culture of slavery and treating women as chattels. Perhaps the Buddhists alone had a civilized culture, and their influence didn't spread far. Perhaps the Jews are another (tiny minority) success story, but they were deeply embedded in Europe. Even worse, in some areas, religion was replaced with the repressive horrors of secular communism.

So no, I don't think these places and cultures will reform from within. The only reason they're somewhat more enlightened than they were is because Europeans have spread civilization and civilized ideas and ideals.

On October 10th in the year 732 was the Battle of Tours. Charles Martel rallied the first knights of Christendom to Poitiers, France. Mohammed’s 100-year-old pedophile cult had massacred its way across the Middle East and North Africa. Obama’s “religion of peace” had conquered Spain, and all they had to do was push through France, and Europe would have been theirs. If they had succeeded, Europe today might be known as Eurabia. There would have been no peaceful Middle Ages, no Reformation, no Western civilization, no colonizing of the New World for Christ, no scientific revolution or artistic treasures. The entire history of the West might have been unrecognizable.

Islam's brutal and barbaric ideology is near universal across the Muslim world.

The Western/Christian world:

- Ended slavery (most of which was done by Muslims)
- Emancipated women
- Protected children from exploitation
- Developed secular laws
- Created self determination
- Voluntarily gave up the power to rule the entire world easily if it wanted.

The West is far from perfect, but it leaves all others in the dust. Especially the Muslim world. If you don't agree with that, you either don't know much history, or your brain is broken.

So, as the United States and Europe are flooded with Arabs and Aficans, eventually the quality of life in these once great lands will become like that of the third world regardless of the social/economic/political system. Nobody is going to help the United States and Europe if our people fall to a third world status.

We've had tact while the world burns. When dealing with barbarians, tact achieves nothing but heads in the sand. Quite a few cities in Europe are hellholes now thanks to Muslim immigration, their centuries-old wonderful culture and enlightenment destroyed by a barbaric religion.

Which hate site have you been reading, oh vile one?

Racial identities that have died, but leave an animated corpse should mark the box "zombie" on the census form.

I agree that trying to bargain with a good portion of Muslims is like trying to bargain with a rabid dog. This is not a new thing; it goes back to founding of Islam and its powerful innate bigotry against non-Muslims.

So I followed your advice and have googled it. It seems there are few if any arguments against white nationalism. All the attempts to argue against it quickly skip over it and pretend that white nationalism = white supremacy/KKK (the beliefs that whites are inherently superior), and to tar it as far as possible with that brush. But they are obviously distinct things.

White nationalism (or more accurately, Western nationalism, as skin color is irrelevant), is the idea that Westerners on average have cultural levels of education, civic-mindedness, personal responsibility, conscientiousness, etc and general Enlightenment type values, as a core cultural trait. And that this is lacking or lessened in many other cultures (East Asians being a prominent exception, who perhaps hold many of these values to an even higher degree than many Westerners).

The idea is that if you import cultures who don't strongly subscribe to these values, or have their own views of the world, tolerant, Enlightenment type culture erodes.

Being so quick to claim "antisemitism" is weird. Jews as a religious group have negative traits, as do Muslims. For example, a good portion of Jews - mostly orthodox - are bigoted and xenophobic and Jew Nationalist to a level that would make the most hardened redneck blush.

Which great lambskin for wolves because it's one set of supremacy conditions and it only takes changing a few words and it is cultural instead of racial.

But you really want to question stuff like "on average" if someone really sticks to their 'western nationalism' superiority narrative. I mean what's so supreme about on average?

Then we have a fundamental problem of a clash of cultures. One is oriented to progress and work and order, the other oriented to family and enjoying life and not being boxed in/not taking things too seriously.

The trouble of course, is that under a socialist government, this is like Greece in the EU. One constantly bails out the other with money from the economically successful culture, while the economically less successful culture resents the money-makers and calls them racist.

Is that a viable permanent state of affairs? Should whitey be a slave for the black man, so he can enjoy his life of less work and less painful personal responsibility? And should well tell blacks that they're less economically successful because of racism, and not their culture?

The only person posting racist stuff in this thread is you. Is you making up quotes an attempt to get me banned, for a casual mod who didn't realize you made it up? The fact that you'd even type out something so disgusting should get you banned.

I think they can reform from within (and we can continue to as well), but we can help by spreading better ideas.

The internet can be a great tool for that purpose, assuming we learn to talk to each other in ways that don't simply drive people away, or worse, we literally drive people away through censorship, pushing them into dark corners, bubbles of like-minded individuals who will never think to challenge their core premises.

Back in the real world, we're discussing whether things that cause crime as defined in this age (i.e. actual rapes, murders, assaults) can be partly caused by the genetics of perpetrators (they can - male DNA being one example), and how those genetics tend to cluster within certain populations, and if those differences are meaningful enough to produce more crime in populations with those clusters. That's what being discussed. You've built a nice little "social construct" fire and smoke screen there, but it's kind of sad you can't discuss this honestly.

Meh, our DNA hasn't changed much in 10,000 years, yet civilization has come pretty far since then, yes? I think there must be more important factors in play.

I love that that's the best spin these inbreeding rednecks can put on their inbreeding...

It's "demonizing Muslims" to point out that they're practicing unhealthy and sick inbreeding. Thanks, leftists, you're really making the world a better place.

Yeah, this is even a bigger problem IRL. Like I go to Bar A... and some noob wanders in, and starts explaining how black folk's culture is what's holding them back. Some reg calls the noob a r-word-er. Is that noob going to come back in? I think not.

Instead, we should strive to be more like Bar B. At Bar B, when some noob comes in explaining the defects of black culture, he isn't 'name called'. Instead his ideas are welcomed as reasonable debate in an open manner. He's made to feel welcome. Not only is that noob proly coming back to Bar B, he's quite likely to bring some of his like minded friends along with him.

That's the trick here... we need to learn to talk to each other in ways that don't simply drive people away.

We need to make it so that folks who wanna have reasoned debate, about such things like the defects in black culture, are welcomed everywhere... we need to strongly discourage the Bar As of the world, and strive to make the world more like the Bar Bs. Instead of literally driving people away through censorship, pushing them into dark corners, bubbles of like-minded individuals who will never think to challenge their core premises... we need to welcome these peeps with open arms into our bars, communities, workplaces, churches, public events, and even into our own families and homes !!!1!

I suspect there's probably a genetic element to the German people's low level of empathy. They're very different to the French for example.

Meta thread is meta

Well, I don't think there is any shortage of such bars, churches, etc, where people with terrible beliefs collect. The bigger problem is they often tend to be very unwelcoming to us and our beliefs, actually.

Go to a redneck bar in the deep south as a black guy or city slicker and see how comfortable you are. Go to an evangelical church and start asking uncomfortable questions about the universe and the nature of sin, and see how much shame is heaped upon you.

I guess emulating that model of behavior is one way to act.

If any of what was initially written is from any other site it would be beneficial to state your sources. If it was you who wrote the introitus then carry on. I'm confused .

I don't understand what is going on itt

Going to need General Pinochez to rule on whether sources remain protected in the interests of good journalism.

Exactly. It's like trying to put your Halloween costume on somebody else who is not even in the room. Why somebody else gonna fit in your costume?