That's white guilt for you.  It's only going to get worse.  

I really do not want to involve myself in a long drawn out conversation about this.  I simply do not have the time.  But, gollee-gee, it's still Black History Month.  And, what with Beyonce's latest homage to black power, and the recent energy coming out of Black Lives Matter, I could not help but feel compelled to contribute something new to the "conversation about race" that Al Sharpton keeps complaining that we need to have.  

So here goes.  

The snobbish despiser of Americans, Immaculata001 last month, said something very interesting that I thought could turn into an interesting conversation.  Unfortunately, most of her responses were dull narcissistic troll attempts to virtue signal.  Her endless one-person parade about everyone being a white supremacist who doesn't talk about race the way she does--yes, that 30+ page of comedy--it really made me realize that it is impossible to talk to her.  There is no exchange.  Just her pontifications, and my attempt to provide content for the conversation.  

However, a broken watch is right twice a day, and I want to jump off of something she said early in the fiasco:

Quote from: Immaculata001

Oh heck, just for the sake of it, I want to contribute to the inevitable degeneration of this thread (by its fruits)...

Since many here very clearly feel comfortable denigrating whole races of people (so far, I've read that Africans are stupid demonic cannibals who don't baptize their children), I think it's an extremely valuable intellectual exercise to explore all the possibilities of seemingly benign discussions on the "differences" of the races (we all know that's now what this conversation is about -- we know what peoples' intent is). I'm going to give common non-White perceptions of White people, and what the culmination of the claims and evidence might mean about how Whites are "different". After all, the OP supports free speech and doesn't understand why these kinds of conversations are detrimental on a Catholic forum.

Very well. Let's begin.

Whites are, demonstrably, moral degenerates. I once read the argument of a "Black Nationalist" that stated that if human races could be classified as different categories of the DSMV, the White race would be the sociopaths and psychopaths.

The best evidence of this, from the Catholic perspective, would be the V2 catastrophe -- and notice, it is usually described as a "crisis" to minimize its impact on the destruction of every traditional structure from the inception of human society, from economics, to the family, to human sɛҳuąƖity, faith and worship, and perceptions of good and evil. The fact that one would compartmentalize a human catastrophe on an epic scale as a simple "crisis" shows an innate inability to perceive good and evil. This inability demonstrates that "Whites" possess a psychological or mental reflex that no other races possess. Collectively, people who are capable of doing this individually and collectively on an international scale are wholly abnormal and represent a psychic and moral cancer. Look at a globe. There is no where on the planet where crimes against humanity and epic catastrophes have not happened as a result of the arrival of Europeans -- it's universal and provable, and not paralleled by any other race.

But back to the catastrophe. If we could classify human "races" according to DSMV categories, Africans would be diagnosed as mental retards, according to White Supremacists.

But retards don't have the capacity to hijack and warp God-given institutions and sacraments. Retards don't mobilize rings of devil-worshiping pedophiles to  celebrate a Satanic enthronement of Lucifer in a Vatican holy site, while offering up a Satanic sacrifice at alternates locations, all with the hope of murdering, effectively, the Catholic Church in a conspiratorial plot that spanned decades, if not centuries, of covert and but dedicated effort. Retards can't create a catastrophe so mind-warping and soul-crushing that honest and god-fearing people have no institutions that can be reliably expected to offer spiritual guidance and support without the taint of sin, confusion, or modernism -- there is truly nowhere to run and nowhere to hide for a sincere Catholic of any race. Every vestige of traditional Catholic culture has been destroyed(the arts, media, fraternal organization, business associations and systems, child-rearing, gender roles, family, national ties and characteristics, discourse and rhetoric, the corruption of history as a tool for propaganda...). Even monasteries and convents are places that endanger the souls of their inhabitants.

The rub -- and the proof of an innate moral degeneracy -- is that this catastrophic revolution was entirely willing and voluntary. It seems that "Whites," if one traces the evolution and spread of Christianity throughout the world, were to be the custodians of God's faith and saving all of humanity from perdition. But instead of carrying out their charge, "Whites" unconsciously proclaimed themselves Gods. After even miraculous events, like Fatima, "Whites" sowed doubt in the truth of a philosophy their forefather's bled for, and died for. A philosophy that was the foundation of all of European civilization -- essentially, Europeans voluntarily committed cultural, social, moral, and spiritual ѕυιcιdє, knowingly destroying every vestige of the world as they knew, all because they had an all consuming desire to create the world we now have: a cesspool of sin, degeneracy, hate, and evil. The role of "Whites" in world history can be paralleled to the rebellion of Lucifer and his angels in Heaven: no, they would not serve.

No retarded Africans have created a human calamity unlike anything the world has ever seen. Which is the greater sin or deficit: complete amorality and a kind of psychopathic urge for self-deification that no other race possesses, or belonging to a "primitive" culture like most of the progenitors of Non-Whites?

While this may have upset some folks in that thread, I cannot help but sort of agree in a certain way.  I even stated, after clarifying myself due to a punctuation error:

Quote

I considered your post engaging and enjoyable, and I'm not just saying that because you are the black person.

Isn't it wonderful how I am able to talk with people, in spite of the fact that they talk at me?  That's how great I am.  

Anyway.  


I think it is perhaps arguable that, yes, whites have a real problem.  They do tend to be degenerates in a certain effeminate and cowardly manner.  Now, now, now, caucasians.  Before you get upset at me for speaking, just hear me out.  I know that there are exceptions to the rule, and that perhaps you are such an exception.  Perhaps your family is an exception.  But let us not forget who we are, here at Cathinfo.  We are a tiny minority in the Catholic culture.  And even then, not everyone is a practicing Catholic.  We are a minority of a minority.  If there's going to be exceptions to the rule, they will be located here, most definitely, on a forum like this.  

However, the majority of white people in this country...have you seen these people?  These nasty, narcissistic, hedonistic, disgusting people?  I'm not judging them for what they are, but for who they are.

I work in a medical setting.  Tens of thousands of people, most of them white, pass by me every day.  These people are, for the most part, not exceptionally noble.  Let me put it to you this way, go to Google, type in "Meth Capital of the World," and it'll pull up my town.  Who does meth?  Whites.

But screw that for a minute.  Let's get a little academic here.  Let's consider White Flight.  In America, whites are always on the run from bad neighborhoods.  They run and flee to their white enclaves.  They have no courage to stay in a shitty neighborhood to maintain their presence.  They are afraid of conflict.  Generally speaking (and again, I'm not targeting the exceptional white people), the whites run.  

Look at Europe today.  Look at how pathetic the whites are at handling the encroaching Muslims.  Sure, a minority are putting up a fight and are taking to nationalism.  But the majority of Europeans are holding up poster boards for the invading Muslim refugees.  It's disgusting.  They're handing over Europe to barbarians.  It'll take another 700 years to kick them out at this rate.  Another Reconquista.  Do the Europeans of this generation have what it takes?  I do not think so.  They have history to guide them, but I think most people don't give to bits about history.  



Consider how cowardly and effeminate white men are today.  Look at the priests of the Conciliar Church.  50% fαɢs, I tell you.  Look at how men have no sense of masculinity any longer.  Look at how they allow women to run willy-nilly into a harsh cruel working world, or how they allow women to become their kings.  How white men allow their women to speak--as if they have the authority that men are supposed to have.  Why do white men do this?  Because they are effeminate, and they cower from responsibility and confrontation.  They run.  White Flight.  Just like whites leave bad neighborhoods in this country, the white men of the west run from confrontation and hassle.  Because "confrontation and hassle" are bad neighborhoods that they want to escape.  

Speaking of bad neighborhoods:



[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/UKAQX74yRyc[/youtube]

For those of you who just watched that video...just listen to the frustration of that woman.  Listen to her, as she describes how the 17,000 muslims have simply moved into Calais, and created their muslim city-within-a-city.  They have their own named streets in their own little muslim shantytown, for crying out loud.  And listen to this woman's frustration at how the citizens of Calais are dumb and clueless about what to do.  Listen to how the police are not going after the muslims...but instead they are going after any citizen who dares to complain.  Defend yourself against a muslim attack, and you will get thrown in jail.  Could this be the nature of white people?  Where the hell are the men?  Cowards, most of them.  Again, I'm sure there's exceptions--such as this woman's son.  But the lot of them are doing nothing about this.  All of this madness is being allowed by these insane white people.  All across Europe.  There is hardly a trace of masculinity to be found anywhere in the face of this crisis.  Everyone has given in to their hedonistic desires for comfort.  For pleasure.  

And, in the face of this European madness, what in the hell are white women doing?  They are going after the invading barbarians.  They're welcoming the muslims in with open arms.  But this isn't, exactly about Europe's muslim immigrant crisis.  I'm having a discussion about race.  What are white women doing here in America?  A lot of the time, they're riding a carousel of men through their twenties.  80% of the decent women are running after 20% of the men--and this 20% is usually the alpha males who will use up those women.  And what else are white women doing?  Mudsharking.  Fornicating with black men.



I have nothing against interrational marriage.  There are exceptions--sometimes a white girl going for a black guy can be true love.  However, often times, these are DTF girls who are trying to be deviant for deviant's sake.  They're going after something exotic.  They're leaving their circle, their community, their sphere, and going after something a little more strange and mysterious.  And why?  Because the caucasian men have failed them.  The caucasian men have fled.  They have run off to...I dunno.  They've become gαy.  They've become metro.    (The latter, underlined link is hilarious.)  What woman wants to be with a spineless video-game-playing marshmallow?  It's disgusting.  White culture in America is literally engaged in a cuckold.  



[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/UxpVwBzFAkw[/youtube]

Whites are on the run.  Whites are on the run from bad neighborhoods.  Whites are on the run from muslims.  White men are on the run from duty and honor.  White women are on the run from duty, honor, and spineless white men.  Running is what whites do, a lot of the times.  AGAIN.  YES.  Exceptions.  Plenty of exceptions.  LOTS of exceptions.  Heaven forbid I forget the Alamo, or the American Revolution, the Vendee, the Battle of Lepanto, and so on.  Yes, I know.  

But did you people know that caucasians dominated the Middle East?  Arabs did not control Asia Minor until Islam.  Whites have lost Asia Minor, Northern Africa, damn near lost Europe, but they're on the way to losing it again.  In America, whites have forefit their territories to criminal minorities.  

Quote

From approximately the third millenium BC to 500 AD, most of central Asia was inhabited by nations genetically related to modern Persians and Europeans.  Mummies found that date back to that time include many with blonde, red, and light brown hair.  As late as 600 AD, depictions of the Tocharian people of the Tarim basin in what is now western China show them with light-colored hair and eyes.  And in Anatolia, the population was primarily Indo-European, including Greeks, Armenians, and others.  Today, thanks to immigration, war, and ethnic cleansing, the region is now almost entirely inhabited by Turkic peoples speaking Turkish languages.  

-From Cuckservative: How "Conservatives" Betrayed America

When the Gothics were invading Rome through aggressive immigration, consider the cowardice of the Romans.  Yes, it was white Germans who were invading.  I believe they were trying to escape the Huns, however.  And, it was also white Romans--who ought have had their act together and not been afraid of anything--who fled.  The Romans had everything, but they squandered it.  Just as Caucasians are doing today.  Let's look at one of their cowardly statements, as they failed to see their own doom settling into their own heartland--they sound just like the white shitlibs of today:

Quote

The barbarians, having forsworn their swords, have turned to the plow and nurture the surviving Romans as allies now, and friends.  - Orosius 417 AD

Ha!  

Now, let's read about their regrets:

Quote

Finally, by the mixture of pottery and iron, materials which never form a cohesive bond, which one after another are going to separate from each other, are signified in as much as it is well known that Roman soil has been occupied by foreign or rebellious peoples, or has been surrendered to those who have surrendered themselves through the fiction of peace, and we see barbarian peoples...which have been mixed into our armies, cities and provinces, living among us but not assimilating our customs.  -Sulpicius Severus

Quote

The ancient Romans were feared, we are afraid.  The barbarian peoples used to pay them tribute, we are dependent on the barbarians...  How unfortunate we are!  How far we have declined. -Salvian of Marsellies, On the Government of God  440 AD

Quote

No longer will our ancestors even glory in this appellation, because they now begin to lose their descendants.  -Saint Sidonius Apollinaris, Bishop of Auvergne

As the author sums it up in the book, Cuckservative:

Quote

The migrants easily crossed the relatively undefended frontier, and proceeded to wander, taking what they wished and burning cities as they went.  Again, remember, these were not armies, and not even raiding parties of warriors along the lines of the Vikings; these were entire populations with women and children in two.

 

Rome couldn't even defend against migrants.  They ran from that responsibility.  


Running is what whites do.  

Why?  Because whites always are on the hunt for hedonistic pleasure.  And so, in that regard, perhaps Immaculata001 is right.  Sure, it's entirely possible that she was being a jaded and snide little snot with her post to me.  I wouldn't put it past her.  But her point is a point.  Let's consider it for a moment.  Perhaps the act of fleeing is the "sickle cell crisis" of whites.  I mean, hell...whites are the ones who are liberal.  Haven't you noticed?

Quote

Some years ago at a Baptist-affiliated church in Minnesota, a white man performed an unusual ritual.  He got on his knees before the black music leader and tearfully begged the man's forgiveness for the historical sin committed by his white American ancestors in enslaving the music leader's African ancestors.  

The music leader, on behalf of all black Americans past and present, raised the white man to his feet and announced that he (and presumably all black Americans), accepted the white man's (and presumably white America's) repentance, forgave him on behalf of all black Americans past and present, and the two men embraced.  About two-thirds of the congregation immediately rose to their feet applauding both men, and more than a few tears were surreptitiously wiped away from more than a few eyes.  

It was apparently, in the glistening eyes of many, a deeply touching moment.  

The other one-third of the congregation sat there in disbelief, incredulous at the arrogant inanity of the ludicrous church theater.  For some, it took a heroic amount of self-control to restrain the laughter that threatened to burst forth at the absurd racial self-flaggelation on display.  

God help us.  

 

To what end do I mention this?  I dunno.  I suppose I'm just offering food for thought on 2016's Black History Month.  It is clear that I am put out with white behavior in the West.  White behavior in the West is, for the most part, liberal behavior.  I hate liberalism.  

Folks, I'm at Level Jonah.  I'm at Level Jonah with the Church, this country, and white people.  Basically, every structure that I'm supposed to be able to rely upon is a pathetic failure.  Of course, this is where the need for Catholicism comes in.  But even then, you've gotta watch out for fαɢɢօt priests who would misguide you.  So, good luck.  

I hope you've enjoyed the source material I've provided in this little post for your entertainment.  Let the conversations begin.  Just keep in mind, I'll likely not be responding much, as I'm going to be very busy in the next few weeks.  Although, I'm sure that I'll be checking in anyway, as I've always found racial discussion to be stimulating.    

So I copied this essay from a dying thread in hopes to keep the topic of the essay above alive. Is white flight an evolutionary trait? In the harsh northern climates it would be more practical to avoid conflict so that your sources of warmth aren't destroyed in a war, so is it possible that the white flight concept isn't a new thing?

Same goes to the Black population. In an environment where you don't need much planning to survive, would it be more practical to be confrontational? And is it possible that all of this is evolutionary rather than a modern invention?


And if these things are in fact true, is it possible that the liberal media intentionally exploited these traits to get the mess we have today?


Please note that when I say evolutionary I mean micro evolution and Darwin's original theory, which was adapting to a specific environment.

So please post your thoughts but please no name calling. If you have a disagreement please find evidence and present your cases in a civilized manner.

I believe that there are parallels between the prides associated with various ethnic groups or races. Much of this is a reaction to the agendas promoted by modernist and liberal thinkers. Their goal is to remove the influence God has on our societal structure. One way to do this is by causing this harmony among peoples. Another way is to promote a sinful pride of the flesh.

Social engineering, wich inludes groups such as LaRaza, the Black Panthers and other movements, has done much harm to souls. It is only one front of the modernist agenda, however. Evolution is very much a part of this engineering.

I hope this was on-topic...

The World's solutions to everything of importance does not allow Jesus Christ and His Church.  Life in the "World" is like a race where one is not allowed to use their legs, one can invent every way of running but they can't use their legs.

This whole thread is about people of the World, it is not about Catholics. Why single out so-called "whites", Africans, Europeans as being bad, better, superior? ALL the people of the World are not of God, they are not of the City of God. Why debate about who is the best among them? This entire thread is just that.

Don't get caught up in the ignorance and blindness of the World.

So I copied this essay from a dying thread in hopes to keep the topic of the essay above alive. Is white flight an evolutionary trait? In the harsh northern climates it would be more practical to avoid conflict so that your sources of warmth aren't destroyed in a war, so is it possible that the white flight concept isn't a new thing?

Same goes to the Black population. In an environment where you don't need much planning to survive, would it be more practical to be confrontational? And is it possible that all of this is evolutionary rather than a modern invention?


And if these things are in fact true, is it possible that the liberal media intentionally exploited these traits to get the mess we have today?


Please note that when I say evolutionary I mean micro evolution and Darwin's original theory, which was adapting to a specific environment.

So please post your thoughts but please no name calling. If you have a disagreement please find evidence and present your cases in a civilized manner.

To return briefly to this point:

-People become more confrontational when resources are limited, not less, as they compete over limited resources. A cold climate would therefore be more likely to produce violent cultures.

-The European racial type did not even develop in a harsh climate. European winters are relatively mild.

-Many peoples who evolved in far colder climates than Europeans - the Algonquin Indians for example - are known for their warlike cultures.

-One could easily use this type of thinking to rationalise the reverse position. One could argue that, in warm equatorial climates, the abundance of food supplies makes confrontational behaviour unnecessary because it is less important to preserve sources of sustenance owing to their abundance, while in northern climates it is vital to be willing to vigorously and violently protect and acquire the more limited sources of sustenance in order to survive. This theory is actually more credible.

-Europeans are the most naturally confrontational people by nature, and I believe that history bears this fact out. Ideological conflict is and was nowhere so pronounced as it in Europe. What were the martyrs but confrontational? The Saints? The Crusaders? The Popes who battled kings? The men who discovered the new world? Even the Protestant revolutionaries and the French revolutionaries. The Communists and the fascists. European history is characterised by conflict and confrontation more than the history of any other region.

-Tropical peoples are known more for their docility, not for their confrontational natures. African-Americans were known historically for their mildness and meekness, not for violence and aggression. See the writings of Alexis de Tocqueville, for example.

-For better or for worse, European civilization subdued the entire world, and Europeans colonized half of the planet. Before "white flight" there was white colonization.

-Liberalism itself is an aggressive ideology. It is aggressively anti-Christian. Liberalism is in fact the precise opposite of being un-confrontational... it is extremely confrontational. It confronts the entirety of human history, culture, and accepted morality. It confronts God himself and proclaims his death. It confronts reality. It would be foolish to see liberalism and it's effects as being the result of cowardice and weakness alone... Our societies accept the destruction brought by Islam not out of cowardice but out of nihilism. We have lost our values and our sense of purpose precisely because liberalism, in it's mad zeal, fought so viciously to tear those things down.

These bizarre theories of what amounts to white inferiority are clearly a product of white guilt and biological determinism blended together in some sick amalgamation. Both white guilt and biological determinism are utterly un-Catholic.