Author Topic: Whites lack of empathy for other Whites (Read 13569 times)

Belloc · « **Reply #105 on:** August 07, 2012, 03:20:04 PM »

Alaric "It destroys races and civilizations, creates chaos. Nothing more"

I see, so the culture of the Americas was destroyed with Spain and Portugal setteled the lands and the whites, indians and africans often inter-married.....I see, wow, missed that in Catholic histories of the founding.....wish those darned Spainards were more like the Prots, with slavery, brutal punishemnts, wiping out whole indian tribes and strict punishements for whites marrying outside......that way, todays Latin AMerica could have what we have-race riots, anger, bitterness and resentments for generations..........instead of the culture of Catholic Latin America, once a uniting force prior to globalization..

alaric · « **Reply #106 on:** August 07, 2012, 03:28:34 PM »

Quote from: Belloc

Alaric "But if you keep diluting the racial lines eventually you will be but a distant memory three or four generations down the road to your "progeny".

how so? would not the black child remember Grandma Clare? why not? why would a white g-child remember her, but not a black or mixed one......?? My G-mother died in 2001, my cousins daughter was about 4, she does not have too many memories now. We are all white, Western/Central Europeans.....

I know little of most of my grandparents past the great stage.....my dad knows little about his G-fathers father and nothing about the one above him.....

we are all whites.....society might teach her G-children not to like her for her whiteness, your Sharpton types, but the counter is family values and tradition......

Europeans can go back hundreds of years to know their family heritage, many have their own Coat of Arms, diaries, pictures, paintings, etc.

How far back can the average African go in his lineage?

But this isn't the point, the more your descendants lose their "whiteness", the less motivation there will be to remember you by. My cousin has black children, they look nothing, nothing. like my aunt/uncle. They don't talk the same, act the same, carry themselves similar in anyway, it's all about their black culture, that's what they cling to, as a matter of fact, I believe thy despise their "whiteness" if it's evident at all. When they have children, which will probably not be white ,their G-parents and the heritage, history and culture will all be forgotten about. All gone, in one generation. This is the pattern, maybe I'm generalizing, but I see this time and again.

Look at Obama, all he talks about is his black father, never mentions his white mother, only occasionally the white G-ma who raised him, yet he worships his African father who was barley in the picture. So typical.

brotherfrancis75 · « **Reply #107 on:** August 07, 2012, 03:30:29 PM »

Quote from: Belloc

Quote from: Telesphorus
Quote from: clare
I was merely pointing out that not necessarily all of one's genetic descendents will be purely white. They will still be descendents.

The point was to say people can place a legitimate value on the genetic heritage of their progeny without being Darwinians.

Your comment is irrelevant.

Ideally, would love to have married a full-blood Scot, but not how God worked things out....or German, ditto. Wife is part-Anglo, part Welsh......how far to take it, hmm. :confused1:

That said, what I take umbridge with is not ones preferences or cultural heritage, which IS important true, but the allegations that whites are genetically or culturally superior and that race mixing=sin, which Brother noted and has not proven by any authoratative means.....

Good Mr. Belloc,

It's also true that too much consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, so it is well that you and I do not agree about everything. That would seriously be the worst sign concerning the spiritual health of our Catholicism. We MUST agree about the Creed and doctrine, but NOT about everything. One hopes!

This question of which genetics and racial civilization is best certainly is a mine-field of subtleties and frequent vagueness, perhaps especially because pride is always such a subtle and difficult challenge for us. Surely there are types of pride that are healthy and at times even holy, but the existence of sinful pride is unquestionably the easiest thing to prove that there can very well be. The healthy pride of races, nations, families and the two sexes is also pretty clearly an area where our Catholic sense of humor is often required as well. (Hopefully needless to say!)

So the question of "which race is best" isn't any "zero-sum game." Especially when it comes to the races and two sexes, ALL can be "the best" all at the same time and then everyone gets to be right and logic has to give way to the rights of myth and poetry. God is GENEROUS as well as just (and He must have a good sense of humor too).

But, as you know, our Catholic view of just how strict we should be about maintaining racial differences (or sɛҳuąƖ differences) has always also varied among Catholics from different nations and parts of the world. Probably exactly what "selfish miscegenation" consists of is what we Catholics have often differed considerably about, much more than our lacking a general Catholic consensus that whatever such selfish excess of interracial over-familiarity might specifically be is something that is, at least as a general ethical principle, morally wrong.

This moral principle isn't so different, for example, from the moral principle that "murder is wrong." Depending on exactly what we're calling "murder," obviously. If the sin of "murder" is something that varies greatly according to different times and places, then clearly "selfish miscegenation" must vary very much more than that. Nevertheless it is our historic Catholic moral consensus that SOME sort of moral limits must exist concerning the marital mixing of our fine and admirable races. And such a sense of limits is something similar to our Catholic sense that social familiarity between the sexes also clearly has very definite moral limits, although the exact details for them also differ greatly among Catholics according to time and place.

All of this is not different from simply saying that we Catholics always take the sacrament of holy matrimony VERY SERIOUSLY. In essence we are CAREFUL about the relations between the sexes and between the races because MARRIAGE MATTERS and must be taken only with the GREATEST seriousness.

Surely you should see that there most clearly is a kind of selfish sɛҳuąƖ familiarity between races that is terribly wrong indeed. To be frank but highly relevant to this topic: Practically ALL miscegenous Catholic men are all of them also PROMISCUOUS men. They IN FACT are attracted towards non-white women because they are PROMISCUOUS. Their behavior is anything but a kind and caring moral sensitivity towards non-whites as is so falsely claimed in the usual Marxist propaganda that is echoed by our "sensitive" fellow Catholics who are so offended by the elementary sɛҳuąƖ facts of life of our universal human condition.

If we are to be real about opposing sins against nature, we MUST avoid hypocrisy about the REALITY of inter-racial sɛҳuąƖ relations, especially as they IN REALITY affect marriage. Yet again I must repeat this: WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE GOOD ANGELS HERE! White European men selfishly using non-whites for their sɛҳuąƖ amusements isn't IN REALITY much different from the same white European good-for-nothings using animals or males for the same selfish amusements. And making holy matrimony into a mere excuse and cover for such sins against nature is also surely, at least as any kind of moral norm, nothing other than MORTAL SIN.

PROMISCUOUS white men use inter-racial marriage as a shameless cover for their moral iniquities against nature. It is NOT essentially different from using "same-sex" marriage as a shameless cover for the abuse of male prostitutes or "inter-species" marriage as a cover with which to justify their unnatural sinful abuse against animals. In all of this, we are discussing MEN and not angels. We are discussing REAL-LIFE FLESH AND BLOOD men, not some non-existent awesomely sensitive angels in male human form who just happen to feel awesome love and attraction for other races (or sexes or animal species).

It ought not to be "rocket science" for Catholic men to understand that the sɛҳuąƖ attraction among non-white men for white European women is not significantly any better. When it comes to the attraction for sins against nature, men of every race are truly ALL TOO EQUAL. The sɛҳuąƖ attraction of non-white men towards white European women isn't significantly different from the moral motivations of the white men discussed previously. But the glee felt by Marxists towards the routine rape of white European women by non-white men is also a most blameworthy attitude always covered over with the great "sensitivity" of Marxists for inter-racial marriages.

The REALITY of miscegenation is so ugly and sinful, so similar to other sins against nature, that Holy Mother Church has left it to the Catholic States to forbid and suppress the criminal activities involved. Where does our Church specifically forbid LESBIANISM? Some sins against nature are just too weird and strange for Holy Mother Church to besmirch herself with.

Very high among these sins against nature is the grave sin of miscegenation that so greatly damages our abused and glorious human race. Truly THE GOOD ANGELS have no such problems and are much too good to worry about anything so low as sins against nature. But MEN are not in such elevated company as the angelic choirs, at least not yet on this side of the grave. Short of knowing ourselves worthy of canonisation, we should in humility take care to avoid the grave sin against nature known as miscegenation.

(It is true that some inter-racial marriages are NOT miscegenation, but such exceptions are nowadays most seriously few and far between.)

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #108 on:** August 07, 2012, 03:44:32 PM »

Quote from: alaric

Europeans can go back hundreds of years to know their family heritage, many have their own Coat of Arms, diaries, pictures, paintings, etc.

How far back can the average African go in his lineage?

But this isn't the point, the more your descendants lose their "whiteness", the less motivation there will be to remember you by. My cousin has black children, they look nothing, nothing. like my aunt/uncle. They don't talk the same, act the same, carry themselves similar in anyway, it's all about their black culture, that's what they cling to, as a matter of fact, I believe thy despise their "whiteness" if it's evident at all. When they have children, which will probably not be white ,their G-parents and the heritage, history and culture will all be forgotten about. All gone, in one generation. This is the pattern, maybe I'm generalizing, but I see this time and again.

Look at Obama, all he talks about is his black father, never mentions his white mother, only occasionally the white G-ma who raised him, yet he worships his African father who was barley in the picture. So typical.

That is kinda the thing. While whites may believe that race doesn't matter minorities surely do not believe in that at all, for they think their race is superior.

Blacks always stick together because of tribal politics, such as nearly all blacks in America voting for Obama in '08. Hispanics always stick together when it comes to the retaking of the American Southwest for Mexico. Hell even Obama considers himself 'black' which is shown by his little speech during the Reverend Wright controversy by how the white community must continue "to lift blacks out of their oppression." That is a typicallly black attitude.

alaric · « **Reply #109 on:** August 07, 2012, 03:54:57 PM »

Quote from: Belloc

Alaric "It destroys races and civilizations, creates chaos. Nothing more"

I see, so the culture of the Americas was destroyed with Spain and Portugal setteled the lands and the whites, indians and africans often inter-married.....I see, wow, missed that in Catholic histories of the founding.....wish those darned Spainards were more like the Prots, with slavery, brutal punishemnts, wiping out whole indian tribes and strict punishements for whites marrying outside......that way, todays Latin AMerica could have what we have-race riots, anger, bitterness and resentments for generations..........instead of the culture of Catholic Latin America, once a uniting force prior to globalization..

What are talking about? You can't compare to what a few greedy, gold-gloming Spanish venturists did to a primitive child-sacrificing culture in the Southern Hemisphere to the massive multiculturalism going on today.......or maybe you can as far as the natives are concerned. But whatever you do, please, don't hold up the Hispanics above the Anglo-prots anymore than necessary, they were just as brutal and corrupt as the Englishman, perhaps even more on occasion. Cortez and his henchman wiped out their share of "savages" themselves and there's a lot more resentment form the Latins today than any of the natives left on the Northern prot dominated realms.

And you're wrong as far as the Spanish whites go, the Mestizos now are the dominate ethnic in Latin America and blacks are gaining ground while the European Spanish/ Portuguese and Indigenous natives are on their way out.

Multiculturalism and diversity are destroying both their races and civilizations.

Case closed Belloc.

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #110 on:** August 07, 2012, 04:03:23 PM »

I really don't understand this Hispanic worship we have on here. It seems most Catholics would support liberals in bringing them in, though the majority of Hispanics are of another race, either being fully American Indian or a Mestizo. Also many Hispanics bear a deep grudge against America taking the Southwest so it does beg to question whether they can be good citizens or not. Finally the crime rates of Hispanics are second only to blacks, which is shown by the rape and murder of some of our own by some Hispanics in our inner cities. Ah yes but since they are "Catholic" I guess that is all that really matters. Oh and by the way I don't feel bad for what the Spanish did to those primitive tribes. They brought civilization to a savage continent.

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #111 on:** August 07, 2012, 04:06:03 PM »

Central and South America do not suffer from "globalization." Quite the opposite actually, they suffer from socialism and ethnic tribalism where some of the indiginous people have started to unite against the whites there.

clare · « **Reply #112 on:** August 07, 2012, 04:37:36 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: clare
What a ridiculous comment!

Ridiculous? Do you know Clare the vast majority of children of black men in this country are born illegitimate.

I daresay, but that doesn't make miscegenation per se immoral.

Quote

Quote
What of the grandfathers of illegitimate white children?

Clare I thought you said children are a blessing, whether they are illegitimate or not?

Of course they are. And illegitimate half-caste children are too.

guitarplucker · « **Reply #113 on:** August 07, 2012, 08:21:59 PM »

This thread has turned into a debate about miscegenation. Miscegenation isn't a big danger to whites and it's not immoral. Most whites prefer their own, and the Jews can try to brainwash whites all they want but at the end of the day most whites stick to their own. I don't see that ever changing.

The danger to whites is that they do not have political representation as a people. Every other race does. Whites are only permitted political representation as individuals (libertarianism is the best example) or as ethnics (Italian, Irish, Polish).

This huge third world invasion of white-majority nations is the problem. It wouldn't be so bad if it was only occurring in diaspora lands like the U.S., but it's happening in Europe, the indigenous land of whites. We'll be minorities in our own ancestral lands soon enough. It's perverse! Can you imagine what the Chinese or Japanese would do if huge waves of third-worlders came into their nations uninvited? They'd either slaughter them or send them packing. It's interesting how no one ever accuses the Japanese of being racists for wanting to keep Japan Japanese.

We must remember whites did not agree to this invasion. Neither white Catholics nor white Protestants (or any other kind of whites for that matter) agreed to this. It's an achievement of the Jews and their gentile lackeys undermining the desires of whites.

Again, the problem in the West is that whites have no political representation as a racial unit. Kevin Macdonald says this will probably change in the near future. As whites become increasingly small in number and surrounded on all sides by antagonistic nonwhites they will start to align with each other and lose their inhibitions about pursuing a racial agenda in the open. I think he's right. I would happily align politically with a white protestant (on this issue) to stop this invasion.

Catholic and Protestant Hispanics and Catholic and Protestant blacks may be heretics in each others' eyes, but they sure do unite when their race is concerned. You can be sure of that. I don't see why white Catholics and white Protestants shouldn't be aligned on this issue.

brotherfrancis75 · « **Reply #114 on:** August 07, 2012, 11:22:06 PM »

Quote from: guitarplucker

This thread has turned into a debate about miscegenation. Miscegenation isn't a big danger to whites and it's not immoral. Most whites prefer their own, and the Jews can try to brainwash whites all they want but at the end of the day most whites stick to their own. I don't see that ever changing.

The danger to whites is that they do not have political representation as a people. Every other race does. Whites are only permitted political representation as individuals (libertarianism is the best example) or as ethnics (Italian, Irish, Polish).

This huge third world invasion of white-majority nations is the problem. It wouldn't be so bad if it was only occurring in diaspora lands like the U.S., but it's happening in Europe, the indigenous land of whites. We'll be minorities in our own ancestral lands soon enough. It's perverse! Can you imagine what the Chinese or Japanese would do if huge waves of third-worlders came into their nations uninvited? They'd either slaughter them or send them packing. It's interesting how no one ever accuses the Japanese of being racists for wanting to keep Japan Japanese.

We must remember whites did not agree to this invasion. Neither white Catholics nor white Protestants (or any other kind of whites for that matter) agreed to this. It's an achievement of the Jews and their gentile lackeys undermining the desires of whites.

Again, the problem in the West is that whites have no political representation as a racial unit. Kevin Macdonald says this will probably change in the near future. As whites become increasingly small in number and surrounded on all sides by antagonistic nonwhites they will start to align with each other and lose their inhibitions about pursuing a racial agenda in the open. I think he's right. I would happily align politically with a white protestant (on this issue) to stop this invasion.

Catholic and Protestant Hispanics and Catholic and Protestant blacks may be heretics in each others' eyes, but they sure do unite when their race is concerned. You can be sure of that. I don't see why white Catholics and white Protestants shouldn't be aligned on this issue.

guitarplucker,

We will never defeat evil by using the weapons of evil The only way we will defeat evil is by keeping our swords sharp and when the time comes slashing straight through the Gordian Knot that stands in our way. We can only defeat Judaism by opposing Judaism.

Dr. Kevin McDonald is a clever academic but he is not our friend. He's a Darwinian materialist whose admiration and envy for the success of the Zionists is boundless. Those who merely envy the Jews are already defeated, and perhaps worse than defeated. For those of us who are not military heroes on the front lines the main way we can show our love for our race is mostly through family and marriage and not by aligning with an anonymous white collective that can do no better than imitate the Jews and follow the cruel teachings of their тαℓмυd.

Whatever the morality of miscegenation may be, for most of us the way forward for our race is marriage and Roman Catholicism. We usually show our love for our fellow white Europeans by marrying well and practicing our one true religion as best we can. That's why your thread has revolved around the topic of marriage and any racial obligations thereof. To the extent those duties may or may not exist, that's how most of us show our racial loyalties.

Not mostly through politics and a new political activism of a new white collective. Your call for "whites" to collectively align together for goals that sound like, more or less, materialist hedonism vaguely remind me of the late Soviet Union. But the white Europeans have already been there and done that. So after that any pursuit of a new and better White Unity needs to focus on the individual virtues of Roman Catholic aristocracy and nobility, not on the General Will of the (White) People. That loveless ideal can only be the French and Russian Revolutions rapidly receding away from us in our rear-view mirrors.

Professor McDonald's Darwinist collectivism is seductive and he writes well, but his goal is only something that has already been tried and failed by men much greater than we, by men with names like Robspierre and Lenin.

If instead of chasing after Strange Gods like Dr. McDonald and Darwin you could return home and study great Catholic teachers like Dante, Shakespeare, Mozart and Richard Wagner, then one day when the time comes you will come to Mass, look up and, as is said, recognise the place for the first time.

Our white European race already has a White (Counter-) Revolution. It's true name is Roman Catholicism. Brother guitarplucker, seek and you shall find!

Columba · « **Reply #115 on:** August 08, 2012, 01:21:50 AM »

Is it wrong for Catholic, Protestant, and non-Christian whites to cooperate against non-white immigration?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #116 on:** August 08, 2012, 01:33:42 AM »

Quote from: Columba

Is it wrong for Catholic, Protestant, and non-Christian whites to cooperate against non-white immigration?

White Americans must open the borders to mass migration of non-whites, otherwise they will be called racists.

This is just a recipe for national ѕυιcιdє, and there is no limit to the cheek of those racial minorities with their self-righteous moral condemnation of those who resist the displacement of the white American ethnic group. Nor is there any limit to the arrogance and malice of the liberals and women who love to promote the advancement of minorities at the expense of their own nationality.

After all, we're dealing with people who make apology for scandalous civil marriages and who defend the impudent blasphemy of presuming to say that Christ wouldn't call a murderess a murderess.

Belloc · « **Reply #117 on:** August 08, 2012, 07:13:57 AM »

Quote from: Traditional Guy 20

Central and South America do not suffer from "globalization." Quite the opposite actually, they suffer from socialism and ethnic tribalism where some of the indiginous people have started to unite against the whites there.

really? you mean the fact that Columbia has not bee na client state of Big USA GOvt/Biz or that we have a base there now? you mean USA led NGOs and companies, on their own and via UN, are not pushing the contrceptive/abortion mentality on them? really? or that we are not pushing hte materialistic/hedonistic lifestyle on them? really?

Ecuador and CR constantly ranked top 3-4 places to retire, USA? Not even close....most often, France is ranked up there.......USA< nope......blue zone in USA? nope, is in CR.

Belloc · « **Reply #118 on:** August 08, 2012, 07:15:56 AM »

Quote from: Traditional Guy 20

I really don't understand this Hispanic worship we have on here. I don't feel bad for what the Spanish did to those primitive tribes. They brought civilization to a savage continent.

who is worshipping Hispanics? I am not, just relating the fact that USA schools have indoctrinated us with an anti-Catholic, pro-English/Prot history.....

WHo is saying the Spanish were wrong in their colonizing? not me, the Latin natiosn were better off under the Spanish crown, then under USA inspired freemasonic "democracy" they got, with never ending strife.......

Belloc · « **Reply #119 on:** August 08, 2012, 07:17:22 AM »

Quote from: Traditional Guy 20

some of the indiginous people have started to unite against the whites there.

wher is this at? you mean revitalized pagan religions, no surprise here in post-V2 "spring"...........again, Latin nations were better under Royal Spain or Royal Portugal.........but both ways, better then the materialisitc protestant/masonic USA.......founded, at its start, on false and Christ-less principles.....