I think my bias towards Protestant Christianity is based on my experiences in the rural Deep South. Nearly all Catholics I ran into were “ethnic Catholics” of Cajun descent who didn’t really take their faith that seriously. It was a cultural thing they did a couple of times a year and didn’t impact their behavior. The Protestants, however, hokey as they are, did seem to take their religion more seriously. Then, once I discovered the Reformed faith, I was happy to find a non-hokey non-goofy version of the Protestant religion.

I did, however, move one step closer to Rome from my Southern Baptist roots in doing so. My children have been baptized as infants and they memorize the catechism more than they do Scripture. And, come to think of it, I had to move to a larger metropolitan area to find a small conservative Reformed church. They’re almost non-existent in the rural Deep South.

What we’re finding is that high-IQ white people want to live around other high-IQ white people, and some of them are forming high-IQ high-fertility religious communities. Yet another manifestation of “The Big Sort”.

Along the coasts or in major metropolitan areas there would be a critical mass of conservative Catholics who could form a cohesive community, every bit as cohesive as the Protestant homeschooling mainstream.

1. They are an actually existing group with establishments around the globe who enjoy a coherent philosophy and theology, one that includes the fecundity that you are seeking.

2. While admiring Mormons and Reformed Christians for their positive attributes, they are are at best relatively recent offshoot branches of the main tree of Christian tradition. Only traditional Catholicism links you to a 2,000-year history of white people actually believing and practicing what you are seeking. This includes the Europe of the Middle Ages, a time when white nations were unified in their beliefs, rigorously expelled or at least controlled the Jews, and had the strength to fight back against foreign invasions.

3. Among religious leaders who have spoken up, you can include Bishop Williamson of the traditional Catholic SSPX who has received more heat from mainstream sources for defending traditional white males, being realistic about Jews, questioning the ZOG establishment and attacking feminism than any other notable figure. Since he is one of just 4 recognized traditional Catholic bishops, this is a high percentage.

4. Even in comparison to Mormons and homeschool evangelicals, traditional Catholics already have much higher birth rates. Every chapel will have several 15-passenger vans parked outside on Sunday mornings filled with children of families who “willingly accept children from God in whatever number He chooses to send them.”

5. It’s true that traditional Catholicism is strong on the feminist and Jewish question but weak on the racial issue. However, the reality is that traditional Catholic communities consist almost 100% of people of European descent who are marrying each other, having large families, and working to restore the world in which white European Christians flourished, even without a well-developed racial philosophy. Moreover, traditional Catholicism provides something lacking in neo-pagan WN movements, a way to transmit traditional values to countries like the Phillipines. While seeking the best for our own people, and while recognizing the existence of a war against the white races currently being waged by Jews and their minority foot soldiers, ultimately we cannot simply ignore the billions of other people living on the planet.

6. Regarding the question of aesthetics which you raise in your articles, traditional Catholicism offers “the beautiful” in a way that is not possible in any other group. Virtually all of the greatest art and music in the history of mankind was created for the service of traditional Catholicism. The traditional Catholic service is justly described as “the most beautiful thing this side of heaven.” The same cannot be said for Mormons or Calvinists. If “truth is beauty and beauty is truth,” then traditional Catholicism is “all you know or need to know.”

6. Lastly, we must recognize that the ultimate goal is eternal life. All thinking men in all times and all places have recognized that one question looms above all others — death and what comes after it. Traditional Catholicism creates a natural society on the ground which becomes the foundation for the journey towards heaven. I recognize that Mormons and Reformed have their own theories on these topics, but I submit that only traditional Catholicism has a coherent theology and practical strategy for attaining eternal life.

It’s very easy to make sweeping claims about Christianity being weakened by its universalism. One would do well however to recognize that Indian Catholicism as practiced by the Malabars is different from European Catholicism. Other examples from places like Ethiopia can be used as well in compare and contrast exercises. Recent popes have stressed the need for all the sui iuris churches to reclaim their unique identities.

The varieties of ritual, canon law and spiritualities indicate that Christianity can actually foster a healthy particularism, one that doesn’t give itself over to reckless miscegenation. Much of this trend is a of a particularly Latin flavor and is merely a rough period in history rather than a signal of the end of Western religion. Even within Roman Catholicism, there’s a been a serious rethinking of the papacy as an absolute center of pastoral life.

A Russian friend pointed out to me that among the autocephalous Orthodox Churches, there are differences in character and temperament. His example was that Romanian Orthodoxy was more into mystical theology.

Most of the comments here reflect a real ignorance of Christian history, liturgy and theology. Do yourself a favor and visit an Orthodox or Eastern Catholic parish sometime. You’ll find that in general, the more ethnic, the friendlier they are (this is especially true of Arab parishes). WNs could learn a lot about the importance of ethnicity and spirituality by seeing real examples of it among churches which have existed continuously for two millennia.

Ah! At last.

So, you just want more of the same, only more of it.
.
.
.
“How exactly do you think white people having more babies is bad for white people? ”
-Thomas White

You seem like a smart person capable of engaging in a debate without resorting to cheap tactics.

So why the above?

That would be like me asking you why you think an elderly White couple incapable having more children should be euthanized.

I’m not being coy about my viewpoints so take aim at them if you disagree with them. It’s just a waste of time to take shots at what you want want to imply that I’m suggesting rather than simply defending your position.
.
.
.
“Maybe it’s because if white people have too many children, they’ll forget to call their Congressman to stop amnesty? ”
-Thomas White

Yeah, good point. Because since amnesty has not been granted yet, there are no illegal immigrants in our nation, right? They all went home?

And their children, whom the government have deemed to be full fledged citizens (as they were born here)?
No amnesty means they’re leaving as well, I take it?

.
.
.

“You seem upset that I won’t ride your hobby horse as the end-all and be-all of white restoration. Sorry, I disagree with you.”
- Thomas White

Nothing to be sorry about. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But my “hobby horse” here is pointing out that you are advocating the same basic tactic of which you (correctly) attack others of engaging in, Albeit on the other end of the spectrum.

There are two extremes in this movement. One is waiting for the “inevitable” apocalypse so they can turn into the Road Warrior. The other is waiting for the “inevitable” revolution so they can turn into George Washington.

Both extremes essentially advocate doing nothing in the present.
.
.
.
“I do think a lot of the apocalyptic language are rationalizations of many white nationalists’ lack of success in life and with women; to suggest someone should have children also implies they should exhibit the self-control to get a good job and woo a wife…”
- Thomas White

This above quote of yours is what I’m talking about. It’s fixated on the notion that if a person does this or that, the future will be made magically better.

There are in fact a multitude of young White men out there who have no jobs, no prospects, no money and live with their parents AND YET are living with their girlfriends (or are married) and have kids.

It requires no mystical fortitude, skill or even basic charisma in this day and age to find a woman to shack up with and have children. There are apartment complexes and trailer parks full of such.
.
.
.
.
“One big disadvantage to a marginalized movement is it tends to attract losers, and I personally can’t wait to break out into the mainstream where more winners get involved…”
- Thomas White

Once again, this notion that once this or that happens the pieces will all fall neatly into place is no different than the lonewolf huddled around his stockpile waiting for the apocalypse to “wake people up”.
.
.
.
“On Christians and Haiti: there are plenty of non-Christians adopting out of Haiti and other places. Does Angelina Jolie strike a bell with you? How about queer Anderson Cooper? Again, you bring anecdotal, selective evidence when the data clearly show that white religiosity and ethnocentrism are correlated (e.g. plot Obama’s share of the white vote vs. frequency of church attendance by state).”
-Thomas White

(I’ll let slide the fact you accuse me of anecdotal evidence then throw out Angelina Jolie and Anderson Cooper as a rebuttal)

But I’m willing to go out on the anecdotal limb and bet that had Obama been pro-life he would have gotten 99% of the White church attending vote.

By the way, where can I find that data on Obama’s share of the white vote vs. frequency of church attendance by state?
.
.
.
“Christians are helping in Haiti because the place suffered a natural disaster, and whites are a noble race with compassion for the less fortunate.”
-Thomas White

Sorry, no, that’s not their motivation.

The following (written over a year ago) explains the motivation of “White Charity”,

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/charity_and_the_savage/
.
.
.
“You are trying to make this into a false choice. It is not as if we must choose between above-replacement birthrates and restoring a white supermajority to our country. I’d like to accomplish both goals.”
-Thomas White

Restoring a super majority?

We either aim for situation that is 100% White or we just learn to live with the status quo.

My ambition is towards my children or grand children (or great grandchildren) having a land of their own. To be able to walk the streets or tred the country without the possibility of coming across so much as one person that is not like them. To be able to live, work, vacation etc… solely in the company of their own kind.

Otherwise I wouldn’t even bother.

We may never get that, but we must at least work towards it as the ideal.

In that, I’d prefer a country of ten million if it was 100% White to a country of 900 million that was 70% White.

…

So to answer your question: Is my idea of victory an America in 2080 with 500 million whites and 400 million non-whites? No, I’d like to aim higher than that. However, that would be a better outcome than 400 million non-whites and 200 million whites. I have children and will one day have grandchildren who will have to live through this demographic transformation. I do not let the perfect become the enemy of the better, especially when there’s no logical connection between the two.

How exactly do you think white people having more babies is bad for white people? Maybe it’s because if white people have too many children, they’ll forget to call their Congressman to stop amnesty? Your argument is a ridiculous, non-sensical fallacy trying to make a choice out of two compatible, self-reinforcing strategies. You seem upset that I won’t ride your hobby horse as the end-all and be-all of white restoration. Sorry, I disagree with you.

I do think a lot of the apocalyptic language are rationalizations of many white nationalists’ lack of success in life and with women; to suggest someone should have children also implies they should exhibit the self-control to get a good job and woo a wife instead of engaging in competitive displays of “who’s the better Nazi” on Stormfront. One big disadvantage to a marginalized movement is it tends to attract losers, and I personally can’t wait to break out into the mainstream where more winners get involved and leave the WN/VNN ghetto behind.

On Christians and Haiti: there are plenty of non-Christians adopting out of Haiti and other places. Does Angelina Jolie strike a bell with you? How about queer Anderson Cooper? Again, you bring anecdotal, selective evidence when the data clearly show that white religiosity and ethnocentrism are correlated (e.g. plot Obama’s share of the white vote vs. frequency of church attendance by state). Christians are helping in Haiti because the place suffered a natural disaster, and whites are a noble race with compassion for the less fortunate. Even the Japanese are sending relief teams. To criticize people for helping after a natural disaster is both inhuman and un-European.

But unfortunately there are a lot of white nationalists who insist on an autistic, inhuman way of relating to the world as a mark of ideological purity.

Really?

……………………………….

‘ Haiti awash in Christian aid, evangelism ‘

“The horrific destruction and human suffering in Haiti exert an almost irresistible pull on U.S. Christian missionaries eager to help.

“Every church and mission group has a presence in Haiti,” said Wendy Norvelle, spokeswoman for the International Mission Board, which supports foreign missions for the Southern Baptist Church. “It’s very, very, very saturated with those who would want to go and share God’s love and do hands-on ministries providing humanitarian relief.”

Before the earthquake, there were about 1,700 long-term, professional missionaries in Haiti, according to Bert Hickman, research associate at the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Mass. He said that number is about average for Latin and South American countries with populations similar to Haiti’s 10 million.

But that count doesn’t include the thousands of American missionaries who go to Haiti each year on trips that last just a few weeks or a few months, drawn by Haiti’s extreme poverty and its proximity, just a two-hour flight from Miami.

Some of these missionaries go on their own. Some are sponsored by churches or denominations, or through groups like Campus Crusade for Christ, which sends college students all over the world. Since the quake, there has been another wave of trips thrown together by churches to help needy Haitians and to check on mission properties supported by their churches.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35262608/ns/world_news-haiti_earthquake/

…………………………………………………

I’ll tell you what, when the International Brotherhood of White Atheist Charities outnumber Christian charities in the third world you can assert that White Christians” are (not) any more crazy on race than anyone else.” Until then I think I’d hold off on such proclamations.
.
.
.
.
“We don’t have a black people or brown people problem, we have a white people problem. When whites improve themselves spiritually and regain their self-confidence these other problems will be solved as well.”
-Thomas White

That’s “magic thinking”.

Our problems are not going to be solved magically.

Far too many Whites today buy into Magical Thinking, whether it’s “Judgment Day” when all the wrongs will be made magically right or “Racial Equality” in which ‘social-justice’ will magically make blacks intelligent.

Having lots of children will not magically make non-Whites go away anymore than keyboard commandos will.
Until we drop the magic thinking and accept the cold hard reality of our predicament, we will remain where we are now. Right now (in the present) we need our leaders to begin constructing the economic, cultural and political ‘lifeboats’ for which our people can seek to escape the HMS Diversity. We need fully functioning segregated communities as soon as possible.

And that will be hard work. No magic thinking will get us there. It will not be easy. It will be costly and full of heartache and turbulence but it is the thing which we must do.

Otherwise, to follow your track, it would be like the Revolutionaries in 1776 proposing that colonists simply have more children than the English as a way to gain independence from the British Empire.

.
.
.
.
“I’m not sure why you’re so hostile to the idea of increasing white birth rates,”
–Thomas White

I’m hostile to the notion that Brazil is the ideal.

I’m hostile to shifting the focus off of what is of greater significance. If the White population in America were to fall by half there would still be more than three times as many Whites left as there were during the civil war.

.
.
.
.
“The incoherence of your arguments is staggering. I feel like we are talking sideways at one another.”
-Thomas White

Then I will spell it out once more for your edification.

Our numbers are not the issue. The issue is the presence of non-Whites in our communities and nations. Remove them/segregate ourselves from them and our numbers can fluctuate up and down with no long term ill effect.

Ill ask (for a third time) is your idea of victory is an America that is (circa 2080) around 500 million Whites and 400 million non-Whites?

It’s a simple question.

Like many white nationalists, you are obsessed with non-whites instead of addressing the problems with whites first. This leads you to mischaracterize my arguments. I have not said let’s increase our birthrates INSTEAD of working to reduce and reverse non-white immigration. I am saying work towards both goals. And in fact, they’re the SAME GOAL. Feminism is destroying us at the family level while its allied ideology of multiculturalism is destroying us at the national level.

You totally miss the point of this article if you think my point was to encourage Christians, in general, to have more children. I am simply reporting the FACT that more religious people have more children, and to highlight the self-defeating dysgenic tendencies of the atheism present among some white nationalists.

There is no evidence religious Christians are any more crazy on race than anyone else; in fact, NumbersUSA reports evangelicals to be the MOST conservative demographic group in regards to immigration. You want to cite anecdotal, statistically insignificant reports of non-white adoption, yet the facts show that interracial marriage is lowest in places where white people are the most religious. Yes, there are a few Christian multi-culti nuts out there, but there are even more secular multi-culti nuts. Among the white population, non-Christians were much more likely to vote for Obama than Christians. Your hypothesis simply doesn’t hold water based on actual data instead of your own false stereotypes, however personally hostile you feel towards Christians.

I’m not sure why you’re so hostile to the idea of increasing white birth rates, except perhaps because this idea requires more of you than ranting about non-whites on a blog. It requires you to go out in the real world, marry a woman, get a good job and raise a family. Unfortunately, our movement is full of people too eccentric or dysfunctional to manage those tasks. I am amazed at the hostile response among people who present themselves as advocates for white families to the idea of actually having a white family; there’s always some excuse, some reason why the obvious logic doesn’t apply to “me.” Sorry, I’m not interested in a club of quirky, childless bachelors complaining about the latest multicultural grievance.

We don’t have a black people or brown people problem, we have a white people problem. When whites improve themselves spiritually and regain their self-confidence these other problems will be solved as well.

Yeah I know. I pointed that out above.
In fact it’s a bit of an understatement to say they were having “plenty” of children as our numbers more than tripled in just two centuries.

In other words, the rate of increase since 1800 has, until very recently, been EXTRAordinary.

My overall point was that the declining numbers of Whites in The West is completely unconnected with the increasing numbers of non-Whites in The West.

If White couples were having ten kids per family the thirdworld would still be pouring into our lands because it is the goal of our adversaries to multi-cult our societies one way or the other.
.
.
.

“You argue as if turning off non-white immigration is some kind of switch we can just flip.”
-Thomas White

That’s actually the complete opposite of what I’ve been saying.

I’m warning about the need to focus on non-White immigration. It is no mere switch. It is, from our current vantage point, an insurmountable task. Nevertheless, flipping it is indeed the ultimate goal.
Not just stopping it but reversing it.

At any rate, what of the non-Whites already here? And what of the ones yet to be born to the already swelled ranks of various colored peoples here?

Us having more children will not diminish their numbers.

Or (and I’ll ask again) is your idea of victory an America that is (circa 2080) 500 million Whites and 400 million non-Whites?

Again, the goal is for a nation/area/realm/what have you, which is 100% White.

Anything less is just more of what we already got!

Our survival depends on the complete physical segregation of ourselves from them, irregardless of our present numbers.
.
.
.

“We subject ourselves to destruction as a race because we have a spiritual problem, a lack of self-confidence in our civilization. Feminism, and thus low birth rates, is family-level manifestation of this spirit of despair. A healthy society that wants to maintain its racial integrity ALSO, and I think by necessary implication, is a society in which children are valued such that we have above-replacement birth rates.”
-Thomas White

Well, your own article suggests Christians have more children. Are they working to preserve our race and civilization?

Really?

Is there any group working harder than White Christians to flood The West with non-Whites?
The jews are certainly encouraging and cheer-leading it, but for sheer enthusiasm and ‘boots on the ground’ effort none come close to White Christians.
Yes, the Christians value children. So much so that they are adopting them from every corner of the earth and bringing them into Western lands.

And the fact of what is happening in Haiti right now should give you pause in how you frame your argument.
From charities to independent couples, Christians are working hard to bring as many Haitians into America as possible.

And the White Christians running off to Haiti are doing so using their faith as the imputes for what is, essentially, an assault upon the White race.

Right now Whites are probably only around 53% of the population of America. In twenty years time where will that percentage be?

45%, perhaps? Maybe less.

And as mainstream Christians (as in 99% of believers) are disposed towards egalitarianism there is AT LEAST a 50% chance that the children born to White Christians today will marry non-Whites and produce even more non-Whites.

And what argument will you make with them to prevent that? After all the biblical depiction of paradise is that of a city where people from every nation, race and ethnicity come together to worship their one, universalistic, god.

…

We subject ourselves to destruction as a race because we have a spiritual problem, a lack of self-confidence in our civilization. Feminism, and thus low birth rates, is family-level manifestation of this spirit of despair. A healthy society that wants to maintain its racial integrity ALSO, and I think by necessary implication, is a society in which children are valued such that we have above-replacement birth rates.

A society like Italy where women have 1.2 children, spending half their lives on selfish idle dissipation in Eurotrash discoes, is also a society that is going to lack the cohesion to defend its ethnic interests. You can’t have one without the other.

Both are symptoms of a common ailment, the white man’s loss of nerve.

I never said you did.
I’m responding to a specific argument you made in THIS piece, not to your your entire body of writings.

My point was that declining birthrates is not a problem, at all. By all indications the numbers of White people more than tripled over the past two hundred years. There are now 500 million more people in Europe than there were when Napoleon was on his rampage in the early 1800′s.

Whites today are probably around 12% of the worlds population. And that is probably about where we were when Columbus sailed the ocean blue.

Declining birthrates does not = increased immigration. That’s a sham argument being used by those who wish us ill. It’s a smokescreen.
It simply does us no good to pick up the contrived talking points of our adversaries and run with them.

It’s not about numbers relevant to square miles. Nor is it about industry, national economy or the sustaining of critical social functions. If it were then Europe would have been flooded with 50 million Africans and Asians after the Black Death wiped out a third or more of the White race in the 14th century.

The issue is about the presence of non-Whites in our lands.
Remove them and our numbers can shrink by half and it won’t matter. Whether one billion or one hundred million, we would still be 100% of the population.

…

Observer: This discussion is practical, so I have to say good luck with your strategy, but I wouldn’t bet my genes on it. I can just imagine the pickup line, “Hey baby, come join my fundamentalist Mormon commune where you get to be a part of my harem and we abort most of the boy babies”.

In this article, I have pointed to a supply of untainted anti-feminist women that exist on the ground, at least in the Deep South, among conservative Protestant Christians. They’re surrounded by these wimpy beta Christian males and would be fairly easy to woo for a confident, fit man of a truly traditional mindset. It does require, though, letting go of dysgenic atheist materialism and embracing the historical faith of our people over the last millennium.

We can argue pie-in-the-sky all day of what could/might work, but for a young WN with a five-year timeframe to get married and start having babies, I know of no better alternatives.

A country, at least the majority of them, is a people; a biological entity. It exists and functions whether it is comprised of 4 million or 40 million.

Birthrates fluctuate.

That’s why Europe today is OVER POPULATED. As is America -even taking Whites alone.

In 1800 Europe’s population was, roughly, 200 million. By the year 2000 it was over 700 million (with around 95% of those being native Europeans).

What has happened recently with declining birthrates was most likely a natural balancing of the hyper-population growth brought on by the industrial revolution.

The flood of third world peoples into The West has nothing whatsoever to do with our birthrates.

America has off-shored almost every critical industry. Even menial jobs like ‘customer service’ is contracted out to places like India. Our biggest export is Hollywood!
So exactly what critical slots/functions are being left empty that requires tens of millions of foreigners (and their families) to fill?

And how many immigrants are on welfare or other (White) tax payer funded government programs? Probably 75% or better.
Factor in crime and their presence is actually a dramatic net loss on the national economy and a progressive drain on the local one. Not to mention the effect on quality of life.

I’ll say again, declining White birthrates have absolutely nothing to do with the flood of third-worlders into The West.

And, I’ll ask again, what exactly is gained if we simply compete with them (blacks, hispanics, Indians, Chinese, Arabs, etc..) numerically if they are still here among us, still pouring in and still breeding?

We have a problem. The goal is to solve it, not to perpetuate its conditions.

Whites being 51% of a slum is not a solution.

The goal is Whites being 100% of a population, whether that be 4 million or 400 million.

Physical segregation and geographical partition is the goal. That is the solution.

Our best minds should be working on the facilitation of that end. All of our politics, philosophy and money should be aimed at that inevitable necessity.

After all, the concept behind the term White National is a White nation.

…

Regarding an excess of young men, which seems to be the main concern: If the young men go forth and convert others what exactly is the problem? Isn’t the goal to have a surplus White population that is expanding again?

The fringe polygynous practitioners of today are unsophisticated, cruel, and foolish in how they expel their young men. If the youths were prepared to be missionaries they would be a force to be reckoned with.

If the very long term concern is whether the young men have enough wives keep in mind that it is very easy to have more female than male babies without resorting to invasive technologies. But that is a concern for the far future.

It’s a fact that this has been done successfully by Whites and that it rapidly led to revolution, a de facto ethnostate, a healthy family environment with good values, and a prosperous modern culture.

I think many WN’s console themselves with various excuses of why it should always be OTHER white people doing the wife-wooing and child-raising. I see very little room for excuses as to why WN’s shouldn’t be fecund and thus self-replicating through time, if we’re a serious movement in for the long haul. For some it seems WN is a sympathetic-complaining-and-moaning club.

This piece was an exercise in showing what I believe to be the most practical way to achieve those goals. Many will go back to reading their Evola, Oliver, Spengler and Ludovici (childless eccentrics all), cursing the decadence of our age while their genes rot. Maybe some will realize the sterility of curmudgeonly intellectual singleness and go get some skin in the game.

Thomas White – 1. “ On the idea of building a WN religious community based on some sort of paganism: the new paganism will never serve in the same way as the old paganism. What I mean is that the new paganism does not consist of people who literally believe in some sort of Aryan god or goddess, but rather the idea of the gods and goddesses serve as vague metaphors for a kind of quasi-spiritualism/mysticism. Asatru adherents remain atheistic materialists from what I can tell, believing in no afterlife or ultimate accountability for their actions. They are analogous to the modern Anglican Church, whose adherents are comforted by the trappings of religion but in reality has no power over its adherents because they don’t really believe anything anymore. The current Archbishop of Canterbury once went on record as saying he wasn’t sure there was a God!”

I consider myself an Odinist, however vague that may seem to you. You are correct insofar that some Asatru followers don’t believe in literal gods but see them as metaphors — in fact, I would say the majority see it this way. However, I believe you have reduced it down to make it appear simple, something befitting peasantry perhaps. Asatru/Odinist, or whatever you want to call them, generally do not see their gods the same way a Christian looks upon their God, we believe we are descended from them, case in point, I have read that some pagan kings even traced their lineage back to Odin. Personally, I do not condemn myself to place so much grief on making a choice about what the gods really are; it’s not important; it is how we conduct ourselves that determines who we are.

I would also like “materialist” defined. I’m sorry, but I see no problem with men working towards a better life for their future generations, however materialistic they may have to become to support such an endeavor (such as living in the here and now).

Why do we have to depend upon an afterlife to account for our actions? Here again, Asatru/Odinists stand divided on what they believe, but also, it doesn’t matter, and we do not splinter because of it. I believe you should research Odinism more thoroughly before making these accusations and by doing so you would have encountered what is called Wyrd (not to also mention the Nine Noble Virtues). In essence, everything that we do will affect us somehow, if not us personally, than some one among us… this is our accountability. You can sum it up this way, instead of fretting over where we will be going when we die and trying to insure that we behave ourselves so we can guarantee our destination, I prefer to consider my family and friends when I make choices, and the effects my choices will have upon future generations to account for my actions — what better accountability could their be beyond this?

I will humbly submit to you what I have stated elsewhere: the free, courageous, and proud white man does not fear death because he knows where he is going, but because he knows what he has done!

As a side note, I believe the term “pagan” can be replaced with the term “culture” without losing anything in the transliteration. Mr. O’Meara, your recent article in TOQ (“Race, Culture, and Anarchy”) have certainly broadened my view about culture and will continue to make a lasting impression upon me!

I hold you men who fight for our cause with high regard!
~ Krista – 25 year old homeschooling mother of two beautiful girls!

How exactly is having more children going to improve our lot in the day-to-day function of our society?

Our problem is not our numbers, but non-White numbers. It is their presence among us, great or small, that is the problem.

I doubt Whites having more babies will stop the flood of non-Whites into Western lands.

Will we really consider it some sort of victory if, circa 2080, there are 250 million Whites verses 240 million non-Whites living together in America?

We have to segregate ourselves from them one way or the other.

Engaging in a numerical horse race with the third world is merely a continuation of the status quo.

My idea of victory doesn’t look like Brazil.

As for Christianity, here is the mentality among even conservative protestants, articulated by Albert Mohler head of the Southern Baptist seminary,

…………………………………….
“Richard and Rowena Pet were the young Dutch couple who wanted so badly to be Arno’s mother and father. They had struggled with infertility for years before deciding to adopt. As they awaited the adoption of Arno, Rowena became pregnant. Last August she gave birth to Jim, who was left in the care of relatives as Richard and Rowena flew to Haiti in January to claim Arno and complete the adoption process.

According to Charter, adoptive parents often stay at the Hotel Villa Therese in the Pétionville district of Port-au-Prince. That is where Richard and Rowena took Arno. That is where they were when the earthquake came. And that is where they died together.

Who can read this account without heartbreak . . . and a heart warmed?

Of course, for the Christian there is far more to this story. In the story of Arno Pet we find a picture of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Adoption is perhaps the most powerful depiction of the Gospel found in the Bible. We are all orphans, born under the curse of sin. By the sheer grace and mercy of God, those who come to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ are adopted as sons. Redeemed sinners are adopted as sons “through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise and glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.” [Ephesians 1:5-6]

Arno Pet began life as an orphan, but he ended life as a son. He was abandoned at his birth, but he died in the arms of his parents. He did not die as Arno, he died as Arno Pet.

In the rubble of the Hotel Villa Therese the film crew found the bodies of Richard and Rowena and Arno Pet. In that same rubble, we find a picture of the Gospel of Christ. He who has eyes to see, let him see.”

-http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/02/03/adopted-for-life-and-death/
…………………………………………

Monotheism is a poison pill. It’s very nature advocates the idea of a universal standard and universal humanity and morality.

And those concepts are killing us.

Simply having more children will not make the colored hordes go away.

…

Re: polygamy. I think a major piece of Kevin MacDonald’s non-Jewish research is his documenting how monogamy is the essence of Western culture. The pre-Christian Germans practiced it naturally. A polygamous society is not a Western society. They are also unstable societies, as evidenced by the practicing polygamists out in Utah who constantly have to run off young males so the patriarchs can ensure sexual access to the young women. To me, anyone who endorses 40-year-old men having sexual relations with multiple teenage “wives” is fundamentally anti-Western; this is the behavior of Semites, not whites. You might as well tell white people to stop eating beef and start eating insects, it’s just not in us.

To O’Meara: Sacrificing one’s genetic future for the sake of establishing a White Republic is the sort of winner-take-all game it is wise to avoid in life. It could be 100 years before this is viable, and in the meantime we need racially aware whites to reproduce and sustain themselves.

Morgan’s right. It will be the warriors who will form the White Republic — for the fathers will have to look out for the safety of their children.

I think a religion that belief in reincarnation could be more useful than other forms of afterlife, as it turns the presevation of your nation and eugenics into not just a legacy for your decendents but also the only way of ensuring that your afterlife is a good one. While many christians dont care what hapens to this world and those “Left Behind” as they are going to heaven.