web analytics

Tag: Christian problem (CP)

Categories
Miscegenation Racial right

My gauntlet

According to my Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, arrogance is ‘a genuine or assumed feeling of superiority that shows itself in an overbearing manner or attitude or in excessive claims of position, dignity or power or that unduly exalts one´s own worth or importance’ (page 121 of the Encyclopaedia Britannica edition).

I confess that, when it comes to American white nationalism (WN), I have been very arrogant in recent years, even in what I have said recently on the comments section. But if you look closely at the definition above, it says ‘genuine or assumed’.

Virtually one hundred per cent of the usage of the word arrogance refers to an assumed stance, not a genuine one. That is, a superiority complex is not to be confused with a certainty of superiority. For example, white nationalists are right to be arrogant when they criticise liberals and conservatives because, compared to them, normies are stubbornly unwilling to see racial realism. One such example appeared in an article just yesterday: an author of Counter-Currents called Tim Pool ‘an idiot’, which, indeed, he is compared to American racialists.

Now, if I am even wiser than my colleagues on the racial right, in that unlike them I have crossed ‘The Wall’ (cf. the featured post), then my arrogance wouldn’t be a negative one (the superiority complex kind), but a positive arrogance. However, for the sake of argument, let’s assume for a moment that mine is negative. That is, let’s assume that Christian ethics is not the primary cause of white decline and, therefore, my sense of superiority is delusional: as delusional as the grandiosity of the narcissists studied by Richard Grannon (whom I mentioned in my midnight post). From this angle, poor narcissistic César, who thinks he is more enlightened than the nationalists when he is not, hasn’t been done a favour by the latter—trying to refute him!

Connoisseurs of chess know that, in general, there are king’s pawn players and queen’s pawn players. I am one of the former. And if we compare the moves with the ‘chess game’ I want to play with the nationalists, after my 1. e4 nobody wants to reply (whether playing an open game, a Sicilian Defence, a Caro-Kann, an Alekhine Defence or any other first move of Black). If poor César is a delusional narcissist suffering from a superiority complex, why not give him a lesson in humility, a real beating in a game of the chess of ideas?

Translated into the world of ideas, my 1. e4 is: If the JQ is the primary cause of white decline, how do you explain the mestizaje in Latin America that was consummated when the Inquisition of New Spain was keeping the Jews at bay? For me, it is very simple. I think the real perp was Christian ethics, which saw Amerindians as souls equal to the souls of Castilians. That’s what motivated the very Catholic Queen Isabella of Spain and the Pope himself to legalise, and even promote, intermarriage. (The Jewish subversion of later centuries is a secondary infection of that ethnosuicidal zeitgeist.)

That is my first move in the chess of ideas. No Judeo-reductionist WNst has picked up the gauntlet and played a game. My move 1.e4 is left hanging over the board and no Christian or neochristian WNst wants to play with me!

A Redenção de Cam by Brazilian Modesto Brocos y Gómez (1895): Black grand-mother, mulatto mother, Iberian ‘white’ husband and infant with mudblood
genes despite her early phenotype.

The alternative is that my arrogance is not the kind of malignant narcissism, but an arrogance like that of Andreas Vesalius: who mocked the scholars of his time who dogmatically followed Galen’s books, instead of opening a corpse to see if his anatomy was accurate. IMHO that’s why they don’t play with me: I’d beat them with that opening. Or will any of the WN pundits dare, in the future, pick up my gauntlet in a solid article on one of their webzines?

Categories
Michael O'Meara Racial right

Eat crow

Let’s expand a little on my post last Thursday, ‘Walsh’, in which I said that mental health matters (it was the subject of my books before I discovered white nationalism). I have already spoken on this site about so-called narcissism; Richard Grannon, who studies it, and yesterday I saw this ‘short’ by Grannon on YouTube.

The short reminds me not only of my parents’ folie à deux when they started scapegoating us because of the unprocessed traumas they carried from childhood, but also of the denial of data that the American racial right suffers from. What are they denying? Let’s compare the US and Canada with Latin America. On Sunday I told Gaedhal in the comments section:

These days I’ve been watching videos of Spanish and Latin American historians (all Iberian whites) trying to refute the Black Legend against Spain. I was very impressed that, despite these noble attempts, they all subscribe to the Christian commandment that we should love all races. They take this for granted even though they are on a crusade against leftists who hate the European conquest of the Americas.

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that Spanish speakers are completely addicted to the blue pill—even Pedro Varela, recently incarcerated in Spain because of WW2 revisionism!

The common denominator between North and South America is religion. The entire continent was conquered by Christianity. Just as the videos of intellectual Spanish speakers I’ve been watching reveal that they are all plugged into the matrix that controls them, we can say the same of the WASPs north of the Rio Grande. Because of their narcissism, they are incapable of seeing, say, the data we have been translating about the criminal history of Christianity. And not only that. Yesterday I reviewed the books that Counter-Currents publishes. I was disturbed that the first one they published, Michael O’Meara’s essays, no longer appears. Unlike the racial right in his country, O’Meara did not suffer from a jingoistic narcissism. He did see the flaws of the US (e.g. that capitalism is very toxic for whites).

Young Michael O’Meara

White nationalism is a new image of Rockwell’s National Socialism and Pierce’s racist avant-garde. Spencer’s Alt-Right was a new image of white nationalism. The America First movement is a new image of the far right. The dissident right, now that the term ‘Christian nationalism’ is fashionable in the US, is a new image of the extreme right. Why does this plant has to be renamed every few years and never bear fruit?

Because, just as Latin American narcissists have been unable to think in racial terms, so, similarly, because of Christian or ‘cultural Christian’ narcissism racialist Americans continue to deny data.

What we seek in The West’s Darkest Hour is that, through eating humble pie (i.e., our civilisation erred since Constantine) we swallow the pride that prevents the Aryan from healing.

Categories
Axiology Might is right (book) Painting

Might is right, 10

by Ragnar Redbeard [1]

The Golden Rule by Norman Rockwell (oil on canvas). Fifteen years after WW2, The Saturday Evening Post relaxed its stance on the depictions of races other than white people. One of the first multiracial images to grace the cover of the Post was Rockwell’s The Golden Rule.

Is the Golden Rule a rational rule? — Is it not rather a menial rule — a coward rule — a best-policy rule? Why is it ‘right’ for one man to do unto others as he would have others do to him and, what is right? If ‘others’ are unable to injure him or ‘do good’ to him, why should he consider them at all? Why should he take any more notice of them than of so many worms? If they are endeavouring to injure him, and able to do it, why should he refrain from returning the compliment? Should he not combat them, does not that give them carte-blanche to injure and destroy him? May it not be ‘doing good’ to others, to war against them, to annihilate them? May it not also be ‘good’ for them to war against others? (Again, what is ‘good’?)

Is it reasonable to ask preying animals, to do unto others as they would be done by? — If they acted accordingly would they, could they survive? If some only accepted the Golden Rule as their guiding moral maxim, would they not become a prey to those who refused to abide thereby?

Upon what reasonable and abiding sanction does this ‘Rule’ rest? — Has it ever been in actual operation among men? — Can it ever be successfully practiced on earth — or anywhere else? — Did Jesus Christ practice it himself upon all occasions? — Did His apostles, his ‘sons of thunder’ practice it? — Did Peter the boaster do so, when he ‘denied Him’ for fear of arrest at the camp-fire? — Did Judas the financier, when he sold him for net cash? Also, how many of his modern lip-servants actually practice it in their daily business intercourse with each other? How Many?

These questions require no formal answering. They answer themselves in the asking. And here it must be remembered that the best test of a witness, is cross-examination. ‘Do unto others as you would have others do to you.’ No baser precept ever fell from the lips of a feeble Jew.

It is from alleged moralisms of this sort, and fabulous ‘principles’ that our mob orators, our communards, revivalists, anarchists, red-republicans, democrats, and other mob-worshippers in general derive the infernal inspiration that they are perpetually hissing forth. Even the subversive pyrotechnic watchwords of their mephisto-millennium, are to be found in the ‘holy gospels.’ Is it not written, ‘and God sendeth angels to destroy the people?’ — Behold! these men are the ‘angels’ that He sends: — politicians and reformers!

‘Love one another’ you say is the supreme law, but what power made it so? — Upon what rational authority does the Gospel of Love rest? — Is it even possible to practice, and what would result from its universal application to active affairs? Why should I not hate mine enemies, and hunt them down like the wild beasts that they are? Again I ask, why? If I ‘love’ them does that not place me at their mercy? Is it natural for enemies to ‘do good’ unto each other and, what is ‘good’? Can the torn and bloody victim ‘love’ the blood-splashed jaws that rend it limb from limb? Are we not all predatory animals by instinct? If humans ceased wholly from preying upon each other, could they continue to exist?

‘Love your enemies and do good to them that hate you and despitefully use you,’ is the despicable philosophy of the spaniel that rolls upon its back, when kicked. Obey it, O! reader, and you and all your posterity to the tenth generation shall be irretrievably and literally damned. They shall be hewers of wood, and carriers of water, degenerates, Gibeonites. But hate your enemies with a whole heart, and if a man smite you on one cheek, smash him down; smite him hip and thigh, for self-preservation is the highest law.

He who turns the ‘other cheek’ is a cowardly dog — a Christian dog.

Give blow for blow, scorn for scorn, doom for doom, with compound interest liberally added thereunto. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, aye four-fold, a hundredfold. Make yourself a Terror to your adversary and when he goeth his way, he will possess much additional wisdom to ruminate over. Thus shall you make yourself respected in all the walks of life, and your spirit — your immortal spirit — shall live, not in an intangible paradise, but in the brains and thews of your aggressive and unconquerable sons. After all, the true proof of manhood is a splendid progeny; and it is a scientific axiom that the timid animal transmits timidity to its descendents.

If men lived ‘like brothers’ and had no powerful enemies (neighbors) to contend with and surpass, they would rapidly lose all their best qualities; like certain oceanic birds that lose the use of their wings, because they do not have to fly from pursuing beasts of prey. If all men had treated each other with brotherly love since the beginning, what would have been the result now? If there had been no wars, no rivalry, no competition, no kingship, no slavery, no survival of the Toughest, no racial extermination, truly what a festering ‘hell fenced in’ this old globe would be?

_____________

[1] According to Wikipedia it was Arthur Desmond (1859-1929) who wrote under the pen name ‘Ragnar Redbeard’.

Categories
Racial right Voltaire

NAXALT

I add the translations from Karlheinz Deschner’s books on the criminal history of Christianity or Eduardo Velasco’s essays; or the quotations already written in English from David Irving’s books on Himmler, Brendan Simms’ on Hitler, Savitri Devi’s magnum opus, the mysterious author of Might is Right or Goodrich’s Summer 1945 when the muses don’t come to me. But this morning a muse visited me.

I’d like to comment on the recent contest organised by Counter-Currents on the so-called NAXALT, about which several essays were published.

First of all, that little riddle of liberals against the racial right is only understandable under the skies of Christian ethics. In the video I embedded the day before yesterday, Tom Holland tells the fascinating story of a theologian from the first centuries of Christianity who was already promoting migration to our lands for humanitarian reasons! In other words, if we pull out the root, Christian ethics, NAXALT doesn’t even appear on the horizon. We can already imagine the Chinese or the Israelis agonising over coloured migration arguing ‘Not All Xs Are Like That’. Such malware didn’t exist in the Aryan collective unconscious before the advent of Christianity.

Jared Taylor, brought up very Christianly by his parents, argues exactly that ‘Not All Jews Are Like That’ when confronted with the JQ. That typical stance among normies and even some racialist neo-normies was refuted when anti-Christian William Pierce published ‘Seeing the Forest’ in 1999. If some quarters of the right wing still refuse to see the forest, it is because of the Christian morality that has enslaved the Aryan collective unconscious for centuries.

Mixing metaphors, The West’s Darkest Hour represents a few steps closer to crossing the psychological Rubicon than the mid-stream stagnation in which the American racial right finds itself. That is why, ideally for me, a new breed of racists who have crossed the Rubicon should emerge that differs from today’s racialists. Ideally, young males would understand this site and become intellectual guerrillas, disseminating our ideas in the forums of the stagnant.

I will allow myself a few autobiographical paragraphs.

My bellicose attitude in the secular arena is a legacy of the Catholic bellicosity of my father and the Jesuit who baptised me: my father’s protector before his marriage (the Wikipedia photo of this Jesuit is taken precisely from my First Communion).

Portrait de Voltaire (Musée Carnavalet).

Voltaire’s bellicose attitude was instilled by his early teachers: Jesuits. Ironically, the names Ignatius of Loyola and François-Marie Arouet go together! Speaking a little immodestly, my style is like that of Voltaire. It has two main qualities: clarity and brevity. Unlike the pundits of the racialist webzines, I avoid circumlocutions and don’t get bogged down in long arguments. I just show the absurd in a couple of strokes. And if there is one thing that should be preached with Jesuit zeal and crystal clarity, it is that the scale of values of both ‘atheists’ (in fact, secular Christians) and Christians is the factor that prevents us from seeing the forest.

‘If you could write lucidly, simply, euphoniously and yet with liveness you would write like Voltaire’. —Somerset Maugham

Categories
Axiology Christendom Deranged altruism Tom Holland

Secular Christianity

On Friday I posted a 13-minute segment of a video under the title ‘Transvaluing Cross’ about a recent interview with Tom Holland. Now I’d like to embed the full interview, which lasts more than an hour:

At minute 11 Holland says something that explains secular Christianity:

‘If you are hostile to Christianity in the West, almost certainly you will be hostile to Christianity because of deeply Christian reasons’ (my emphasis).

Now that I’ve watched the full interview, I’ve noticed something that Holland fails to notice. When he talks about Roman sexuality during the Roman Empire he says that it was ruthless compared to our morality. But like any normie, Holland doesn’t know he’s talking about the decadent Roman Empire, not Republican Rome. Anyone who wants to learn about Aryan customs and habits when it comes to marriage should read what Tacitus said about the ancient Germans, or what Eduardo Velasco wrote about Spartan marriage.

Quite apart from that flaw, the interview is excellent for understanding the POV of this site, The West’s Darkest Hour. Holland explains admirably how Christian ethics transmuted into the civil rights preached by Martin Luther King, and the sexual ‘liberation’ that reigns today including the ‘rights’ of transgender people.

Nevertheless, ‘although progressives are deeply Christian’ says Holland, ‘for the first time in American history they are not acknowledging that’.

Categories
Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (books) Tree

Clarifications

I must clarify something about the hatnote I have been putting on the most recent instalments of Karlheinz Deschner’s books, Christianity’s Criminal History.

As I say in the hatnote, entries 1-183, which can be read in two PDFs (here and here), are a couple of abridged books in English. From entry 184 onwards, on the other hand, I am and will be posting the rest of Christianity’s Criminal History unabridged, except for the substantial endnotes to the books that can only be read in German.

I decided to do so because our first translations, which appear in the linked PDFs, are more than enough to understand that the official history of Christianity, written by Christians, conceals the crimes that religion committed against the white race. Everyone has heard of the witch burnings or the Inquisition of the second millennium c.e. But hardly anyone knows the Christian criminal history of the first millennium. An abridged translation was necessary to make the common reader aware of that reality.

But now that we are approaching the second millennium, the abridgement, which was purely for literary reasons (who will want to read the whole first 5 volumes?) is no longer necessary. With the readable basis of how Christianity destroyed the Aryan society from Constantine to Charlemagne, a basis which had to be summarised if I want my visitors to know about it, it is enough.

After Charlemagne’s successors, we can go into details that will be boring. But I will try to give them some life with my interpolated notes in my new series of entries, that I already started with instalment 184. I confess that I haven’t read the rest of Christianity’s Criminal History. But now that we are translating volumes 5-10, I am sure I will learn many facts about our parents’ religion that I was unaware of.

Those familiar with the POV of this site know that I am convinced that reclaiming History will cure the white man from the guilt that is killing him (guilt evident in the film Am I Racist? which is now being released in the US and Canada). The best way to do this is to realise that the stories we have been told about Christianity and the Second World War are astronomical lies.

As far as WW2 is concerned, the astronomical lie is noted in that the Allies perpetrated a real holocaust of Germans and blamed the Germans for what they did! That’s why I will be quoting the contents of Tom Goodrich’s book, Summer 1945, once a week (I told Goodrich I would).

Without reclaiming our history we will perish! That’s why, as my old visitors know, the symbol I like is that of Bran the Broken touching the Weirwood Tree to see the past as it happened.

Categories
Deranged altruism Might is right (book)

Might is right, 9

All ye are brethren

Are all men really brethren?—Negro and Indian, Blackfellow, Kalmuck, and Coolie—the well-born, and the base-bred, beer-soaked loafer, and hero-hearted patriot, belted chieftain and ignoble mechanic-slave—pot of iron and pot of clay?

What proof is there that the brotherhood-of-man hypothesis is in accordance with nature? On what trustworthy biologic, historic or other evidence does it rest? If it is natural, then rivalry, competition, and strife are unnatural. And it is proposed to prove in this book that strife, competition, rivalry, and the wholesale destruction of feeble types of men, is not only natural, but highly necessary. [Emphasis by Editor!] Has ‘brotherhood’ ever been tried upon earth? Where, when and with what final result? Is not self-assertion nobler, grander and more truly heroic than self-denial? Is not self-abasement but another term for voluntary vassalage; voluntary burden-bearing?

Christ might well and truthfully have said unto his followers ‘Come unto me all ye that are weary and heavy laden and I will bind you in unbreakable bonds, and load you down like an ass between two burdens.’

The ‘poor and ignorant’ were his first followers—the vagrants, the disinherited shiftless classes: and to this very day, the poorer and more ignorant men and women are, the more eager are they to follow his religious ideals, or the political millennialisms that are distilled out of his delusions.

‘If we only lived as Christ lived, what a beautiful world this would be,’ saith all thoughtless ones. If we lived as Christ lived, there would be none of us left to live. He begat no children; he laboured not for his bread; he possessed neither house nor home.[1] He merely talked.

Primitive Christianity cunningly appealed to the imagination of a world of superstitious slaves (eager for some mode of escape that meant not the giving and receiving of battle-strokes.) It organized them for the overthrow of Heroic Principles; and substituted, for a genuine nobility based on battle-selection, a crafty theocracy founded upon priest-craft, hell-craft, alms-giving, politicalisms, and all that is impure and subterranean. It is a doctrine at once disgraceful in its antecedents, its teachers, and in itself. Truly has it been called ‘the fatal dower of Constantine,’ for it has suffocated, or is suffocating the seeds of Heroism.

Both ancient and modern Christianism and all that has its root therein, is the negation of everything grand, noble, generous, heroic, and the glorification of everything feeble, atrocious, dishonourable, dastardly [e.g., the trans people that neochristians presently adore! —Editor]. The cross is now, and ever has been, an escutcheon of shame. It represents a gallows, and a Semite slave swinging thereon. For two thousand years it has absolutely overturned human reason, overthrown common sense, infected the world with madness, submissiveness, degeneracy.

Truly, there is a way which seemeth right unto a people, but the ends thereof are the ways of death.

Sound the loud timbrel, O’er lands and o’er waves; The Israelite triumphs! The nations are—graves!

_____________

[1] These terms are used in the strict Darwinian sense.

Categories
Christendom Videos

Bob vs Jews

You might get a headache after watching this video but the Christian proves our point!

Bob’s main argument was that throughout the Middle Ages Christians didn’t try to expel the Jews from their kingdoms permanently (e.g., Edward I / Oliver Cromwell). It’s fascinating that the red-headed Jew, after the 16th minute, tried to give an example to try to refute Bob the Christian. The Jew said that they were expelled from Jerusalem after the wars against Rome. But that was before Constantine! Those who prohibited the Jews from entering Jerusalem were the so-called ‘pagan’ emperors after the Rome vs Judea wars!

The Christian is right: the medieval kingdoms, before the Enlightenment, were comparatively tolerant of the Jews because they always expected that they would convert. In other words: without Constantine and the subsequent Christian emperors, intolerance against the Jews would have taken its natural course.

Let’s imagine the opposite case: that the Church had eradicated Judaism and, conversely, had tolerated what they called ‘paganism’. What would the world be like today? There would certainly be no Jewish problem! The way this Christian preacher, Bob, proves our point is impressive.

Even more fascinating is that after the 22-minute mark, Bob admits that the whole argument started (earlier) when he was arguing with a white nationalist. Unlike him, Bob sees nothing wrong with black people in the West cohabiting with us. The preacher yelled to the multitudes: ‘The Christian worldview has always been multi-racial, multi-ethnic and multi-national’ (exact moment: here).

Wow! What a way to expose Christianity!

Do you understand my claim now as to why the Christian Problem encompasses the Jewish Problem? Later Bob, when discussing with the other Jew said, ‘Do you know that the first Christians were all Jews?’ And then he says that the first edict of tolerance for the Jews was issued by Constantine in the year 315 (those who worshipped the true Gods wouldn’t have done such a thing)! But a few seconds later he says something that is not true: that there was always a place for pagans in Christianity. (Like the racial right folk, Bob ignores what Constantine, his successors—except Julian—and the bishops with Semitic blood did with those who worshipped Aryan Gods.)

Do you finally understand the concept of the transvaluation of Christian values (what Heydrich attempted)? When we think like him and not like Xtian nationalists, the Jewish problem will be solved—and the black problem, and the Hispanic problem, etc.

Categories
Axiology

Sieg Heil!

by Gaedhal

Remember what the opposite of this is, white man. It was “academic literature” such as this that was burnt by the Hitlerjugund. Karl Andersson studies in England. England would be free of such pests had they not defeated themselves at World War 2.

Both the American Civil War and World War 2—both of which were the biggest, deadliest, most technologically sophisticated wars of their day—were really just the White man going to war to defeat himself. Only the negro won the American Civil War, and, as Alex Linder puts it: only the Jew won World War 2.

However, Christian axiology has convinced us that we win when we lose. The New Testament is full of enigmas like the last being first, the meek conquering the earth through their meekness; whores and tax-collectors (i.e. traitors and collaborators) being more heavenward than scribes and Pharisees; I am weak when I am strong.

That one wins when he loses is very much in this vein.

This is why I love: ‘Sieg Heil’. Christ tells us that we win when we lose. Hitler tells us that we win when we win. There are no oriental paradoxes, or enigmas or headscratchers from Herr Hitler. Nope: Hitler gives us the “straight dope” as a negro might phrase it in his ebonics.

Categories
Racial right

Commentators

by Benjamin

Having briefly read ‘The Yoke of Woke’ I see Tobias Lang inadvertently echoes Orwell’s Notes on Nationalism. Much as he’s correct to notice postwar Jewish subversion, he’s still promoting these Jews to an all-powerful force, much as with the ‘transposition of colour’ where non-whites are innately superior in that they are dominant and thus somehow to blame for everything. I see, as you always write, and as Wagner said, that these commentators simply cannot turn their gaze onto themselves and process that it’s their neochristian morality that allows the Jews to do this [emphasis by Ed.], and which keeps them otherwise weak and focussed on loving their enemy out-group, and their capitalist system that facilitates this individualistic, atomised ‘soul-saving’. He puts out his counterargument, but I don’t see at any point him dwelling on Christianity and honestly critiquing it the same way, thus sidestepping addressing Cofnas adequately. I take it it’s simply beyond them, much as with dealing with their ancestors’ catastrophic failures in turning on Germany, and indeed their own anti-Nordic miscegenation. To be honest, I grow tired of reading the entire white nationalist right continually preach on and on about Jews (especially the ‘every single time…’ line) whilst gaslighting the other, more fundamental aspects of their long dissolution. To fight back, they must first be honest enough to recognise what they are, not just what they are subjected to. They might as well be whimpering leftists otherwise, made saintly in the role of the oppressed, these conservative reactionaries. They dig their own graves.

I should add that Tobias seems to suggest somehow that without criticising hostile Jews (as would be natural for them) like he is prepossessed to do, all his opponents/oppressors are Marxists. I’d say cultural Marxists, though they do exist, are rare outside of academia and student life. What about the vast group of normies, the white everyday people, the 90%+ of society? They’re not tied to cultural Marxism. Normies would be the clearest point for expressing that our society’s values are shaped by generations of Christianity. The everyday people aren’t schooled in any of these progressive theories, and they’re not activists regardless. Still, preternaturally, they radiate egalitarianism. And it’s the same with the right. It seems like conservatives have backed themselves into a corner over this and created yet another oppressor myth to make themselves feel better (although I do not deny Jewish subversion, obviously). I don’t understand why they have such reticence to examine their own side, and their own people (as a race, and not as a political faction). I certainly don’t think whites are, on the whole, innocent victims, passively absorbing outside abuses, much as their suffering is prominent to us. Surely there is something rather narcissistic about their mantra of dogged self-defence also, as they continue to gloss over the problem. Losing the warped metaphysics and suicidal doctrines of a ridiculous long-entrenched foreign religion does nothing to physically diminish our potential as a race. I simply don’t understand why they hang onto it (when I think to myself on it, it’s beyond me totally), were it not for cowardice and false pride narcissism. It makes no sense.