And now for something very controversial.. (evolved somewhat into Ephraim and Judah Part II)

People usually underestimate the effect of genetics and biology on behavior.  In general, about 80% of our behavior is determined by our genetics.  Some Godless HBD scientists believe that this means that there is no free will.  God-fearing Christians know better, of course.  What it means is that not everyone's natural man takes the same form, but we all have the same commandment to reject it.  And if we do, we have the same reward: 2 Nephi 26:33: "[H]e inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile."

What is perhaps more interesting is that over multiple generations, if society is structured so that certain behaviors are rewarded with success and others are not, that genetic predisposition to certain behaviors can change as those with behavior patterns that are not-optimal will fail to succeed enough to pass on their genetic legacy to future generations.  This seems shocking, but it should be pretty basic and intuitive to anyone who's ever bred dogs, or horses, or any other domesticated animal, because it works the exact same way for them.

What it also means is that the form of the natural man can be altered if society is structured so that behavioral genetics change over time, and that certain natural man forms are more more destructive to society overall.  This can strike one as cultural supremacy, but it isn't—although the Northern European Hajnal Line natural man makes for good neighbors, it's also supremely dysgenic and likely to have paved the way for society walking to the brink of self-inflicted destruction.  The same could be said for the early Israelites or the Nephites, if the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon respectively are read with an eye for looking for that particular pattern.

Let me pause for a moment and give you two links that are relatively lengthy reads on the nature of HBD (human biodiversity).  There's a huge wealth of technical literature on the subject, but these two links aren't really technical.  They are, however, absolutely foundational to understanding much of what's going on in the world.  The first explains much of why during the Old Testament, the Israelites were under such strict commandments to maintain their nation and their culture, undiluted with other elements (wisdom that we've somehow forgotten today.  It's amazing that the charlatans and liars that make up Christianity today believe that this wisdom that's literally the main story of the Old Testament is somehow anti-Christian today.)  The second explains the "pride cycle" as seen repeatedly in both the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon; quite literally, there is a scientific explanation for it in the r/K-selection theory.  Better yet, go to the HBD tab up there at the top and read all of the references, but in the meantime, these two offer absolutely required context to understand what will follow..

https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/big-summary-post-on-the-hajnal-line/

https://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/the-theory/rk-selection-theory/

Now that I'm back, and you've had a chance to hopefully read and absorb the information in those two links, let's examine the impact of those theories on a situation that's relevant today.  I'd like to eventually do more of this with those two theories as the backbone to examine a number of socio-political situations that exist today—for instance, I've never gotten around to my Ephraim and Judah, part II where I examine how the behaviors of the descendants of the two are in an extremely unhealthy and dysfunctional relationship today that would best be served by letting the Jews have their place in Israel and Ephraim have their place in Europe and America and keeping the two of them at arm's length to reduce the opportunities for more mischief than we've already had, but that's a post for another day.

One of the most troublesome problems in America is what to do with the roughly 10% minority group of American blacks, which have never assimilated into America, never should have been brought here in the first place, quite honestly, but now that they're here, we've been trying (unsuccessfully, for the most part) to coexist peacefully by expecting that with proper education and appeasement (blackgeld, really) they will act like ersatz white people.  They don't.  And that's OK.  Arguably, they shouldn't.  Our culture isn't necessarily better than theirs, but it certainly is different, and the two don't mesh well and never have.  Although Lincoln was both evil and wrong in most of his ideas, his belief, which was never adequately acted upon, that black and white America would never be able to live together in peace in this fallen world, and that they should be returned to their own place (he favored the creation of new black colonies in the Caribbean or Central America; a small number of them did end up returning to west Africa and founding the country of Liberia) was a good one that would have acknowledged that in this fallen world, separation of the nations is the path to peace, not diversity and integration, which reliably and predictably leads to prolonged conflict.  Either the Caribbean or Africa would have been preferable to the unsustainable situation that we've been trying to manage since.

Anyway, this quote in the comments section over at the r/K home is an interesting one.

The movie [ed. The Black Panther] is anti-nationalist to it’s core and thus CANNOT be K: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/02/wakanda-is-israel.html 

"There is nothing 'nationalist' about this movie. If anything, it’s about how a nationalist (T’Challa) learned that his nationalism was wrong." 

Africa does not produce K-strategists any more than Hawaii does. The lack of winter means that you will never starve as long as you are willing to eat bugs. This breeds an r-selected low time preference into the population. Whites and [north] Asians had to figure out how to store enough food to last through until the first harvest of the next year. They had to process delayed gratification or they would eat all their seed crop before the end of winter and have nothing to plant after the snow melted. 

American blacks lived in similar conditions in the American South during slavery, which actually reinforced r-selected tendencies within the population because as they were valuable property, they never had to worry about starving. All the r-selected tendencies stereotyped today were present during slavery, according to the Thaddeus Russell’s A Renegade History of The United States. Male slaves would often bounce between plantations, fathering children wherever they went, and then abandoning them to go back to their master’s house before they were in too much trouble. 

And then emancipation, and suddenly the black man had to play to by white man’s rules, which were still K-selected, or he would STARVE. His children would starve. By WWII they had figured it out. The data from the 1950’s shows rising incomes, rising educational rates, lowering birth rates, higher monogamy rates than whites – in short fewer numbers of high quality offspring. So K-selection. Thomas Sowell likes to point to a cold war era study of the black children of American servicemen stationed in Germany that supposedly proves black children are just as capable as white children, but that’s not what it actually proves. It proves that [black] K-selects are competitive with other K-selects. That data proves that it takes multiple generations for K to become dominant within a population, but IT CAN HAPPEN. It did happen. 

But their race remains far more vulnerable to r-selection, as evidenced by the drugs, promiscuity, and welfare dependency that the 1960’s ushered in that basically undid all the progress of almost a century in just ONE GENERATION. American black inner cities are now more less on the level of major cities in sub-Saharan Africa. Failed economics, obscenely high crime rates, aggressive dominant females, majority promiscuous single mothers these are the results everywhere blacks are allowed to reintroduce r-selection. By contrast, everywhere they are required to play by K-selected rules, they do so just fine. 

If you want to fix the black population, take away the welfare. All at once. Shock the system. Let them find jobs or starve. Make them watch as the people celebrate the deaths of their single mother raised criminals. Never let up, never give any handouts. In one hundred years or so K-selection will dominate their race and you will get Wakanda.

Now, I don't show you this quote to endorse the policy there.  Just because you can mold the black population over multiple generations to one in which their natural man is one that makes for better neighbors than what it currently does doesn't mean that you should.  I'm not here to tell you what you should or shouldn't do, or what you think is right.  Personally, I value individual freedom too much to think that even benevolent social engineering is a good idea, so separation until such time as our cultures can mingle more freely and more peacefully is my preferred solution.  And if they never do until the Millennial Age is upon us, the wicked are destroyed, and we get along by default because only the righteous are left and Satan is bound—well, that's an acceptable outcome, and better than many that are actually more likely to happen.

But if the theories don't tell you what you should do, they certainly do a great job of predicting what will happen under certain societal trends, if they remain unchanged.

EDIT: I'll add a bit about the Jews after all, a topic that came up in the wake of the Parkland shooting (a highschool that is dominated by rich Jews and poor minorities and has very few Heritage Americans, according to at least one report of a graduate.)  From Heartiste (edited by me, mostly for language) who in turn quotes Jewish fellow Lawrence Auster:

"Given the wildly overwrought suspicions that some Jews harbor about the American Christian majority who are in fact the Jews' best friends in the world, it is not surprising that these Jews look at mass Third-World and Moslem immigration, not as a danger to themselves, but as the ultimate guarantor of their own safety, hoping that in a racially diversified, de-Christianized America, the waning majority culture will lack the power, even if it still has the desire, to persecute Jews." 

That’s a highball of truth right there. The peculiar Jewish psychological profile of neuroticism coupled with psychopathy predicts this exact sort of behavior toward the majority culture. From a historical vantage, it’s incredibly short-sighted. 

And we see this jewish predilection playing out in every imaginable way. Today, Jewish provocateurs assemble groups of child soldiers in Florida, following the de Jesus Cruz shooting, to agitate for gun control, which is really goyim control. 

If the thesis that diaspora jews are most paranoid about a White Gentile uprising against them is true, then OF COURSE jews would want their Gentile hosts completely disarmed. 

Yet instead of wisely reflecting on their own motivations and simmering resentments, jews prefer to take the moon shot of rendering the goyim toothless and impotent.   [T]he goal of Jews and liberals is total disarmament of Heritage Whites. If it was about stopping violent crime, they would be all for effective methods like racial profiling and long prison sentences. But they aren’t. So they’re lying about their real motive.

Some more quotes from Jews about being Jewish in America.  First, Dr. Jacob Klatzkin, editor of the Encyclopedia Judaica.

"We are not hyphenated Jews; we are Jews with no qualifications or reservations. We are simply aliens; we are a foreign people in your midst, and we emphasize, we wish to stay that way. There is a wide gap between you and us, so wide that no bridge can be laid across it. Your spirit is alien to us; your myths, legends, habits, customs, traditions and national heritage, your religious and national shrines, your Sundays and holidays... They are all alien to us."

Arthur A. Cohen, noted Judeo-American scholar and theologian.

"It is an apparent truism that the concept of the Judeo-Christian tradition has particular currency and significance in the United States. It is not a commonplace in Europe as it is here; rather, Europeans since the war have become habituated to speak of Jewish-Christian amity, to define the foundations and frontiers of community, to describe and, in describing, to put to rest, historic canards and libels. In Europe they are not addicted as we are here to proclaiming a tradition in which distinctions are fudged, diversities reconciled, differences overwhelmed by sloppy and sentimental approaches to falling in love after centuries of misunderstanding and estrangement. I need not speak at length here of the religion of American secularism, that uncritical Jacobinism which is neither fish nor fowl, and certainly neither Christian nor Jewish. Suffice it to say that such secular religiosity is correctly perceived by both communities to be dangerous; it is the common quicksand of Jews and Christians. And it is here that we can identify the myth. Jews and Christians have conspired together to promote a tradition of common experience and common belief, whereas in fact they have joined together to reinforce themselves in the face of a common disaster. Inundated institutions have made common cause before a world that regards them as hopelessly irrelevant, and meaningless. The myth, then, is a projection of the will to endure of both Jews and Christians, an identification of common enemies, an abandonment of millennial antagonisms in the face of threats which do not discriminate between Judaism and Christianity; and these threats, the whole of the Triple Revolution—automation, the population explosion, nuclear warfare—these are the threats which evoke the formation of the myth. 

"The threats are real and desperate, but patching-over will not, in the long run, help. Patching-over can only deteriorate further what it seeks to protect. The Judeo-Christian tradition is an eschatological myth for the Christian who no longer can deal with actual history and a historical myth for Jews who can no longer deal with the radical negations of eschatology."

And Nesya Lieberman, granddaughter of former Senator (and notorious Fake American) Joe Lieberman:

"Jews have been praying for a return to Israel for millennia, and I'm fortunate enough to live in a time when such a return is possible. Why would I live anywhere else? Israel is my home."

And a small selection of Twitter responses when Fake American and Fake Conservative Ben Shapiro, who's only true principle ideology seems to be "Let's get America to fight some wars that benefit Israel, because I sure don't want Jewish kids to have to fight them." when he freaked out over "Judeo-Christianity."

Heather Anne@cler_morgaine
Judaism and Christianity are both *Abrahamic* faiths. The term 'judeo-christian' is used to to fake religious pluralism while excluding Islam, which arguably has more in common with both than they do each other 

Dr. Ramone, Esq.@melvinramone
Judaism rejects the core premise of Christianity. You're making up facts. 

Cornelius Rye@CorneliusRye2
It's literally not. It's a very recent invention by YOUR PEOPLE. Jews have very little to do with America pre-WWII. 

JOHNMEYER@JOHNMEY28401489
You represent Talmudism. Different thing. 

#BroniesForTrump@GWSSDelta
White evangelical Christians' rate Jews 69 out of 100, but Jews rate evangelical Christians 34 out of 100. I look forward to the day when Christians wake up from the "Judeo-Christian" "greatest ally" con and realize that Jews hate them. 

Emprah'sFinest@SamHydeShooter
Please tell me which of the Founders was a Jew. 

Deplorable Unum 🇮🇹@deplorable_unum
Wrong. America predates the 20th Century, when the "Judeo-Christan"  term first appeared. Stop trying to rewrite America history, little Benny. 

The Forgotten Man@_ForgottenMan
As many of the presidents of the past have said, "This is a Christian nation." The Judeo-Christian makes no sense, Judaism and Christianity are two very different religions.

Keep in mind that the modern Jewish faith is a literal descendant of the Pharisees whom Christ explicitly condemned, via the Talmud, which took Phariseeism to almost caricaturish levels.

http://www.truthtellers.org/alerts/pedophiliasecret_reprint.html

There's a reason that all of the now dissipated (so it seems) energy around the #MeToo panic made many Judeo-Americans nervous.  Even Larry David noted it, and said so during a Saturday Night Live monolog, that there was an "uncomfortable" degree to which "tribal" names were associated with the molesting of American women, girls and boys.  And then, naturally, he tried to invoke the spectre of the Holocaust as a defense mechanism to try and keep people from noticing what he had just pointed out by guilt-tripping them (ironic, given that the Americans are the ones who pulled the Jews' collective rear-ends out of the ovens that we should be able to feel any collective guilt about the Holocaust, but for whatever reason, it appears that we do.)

One of these days, I'll post some info—primary source info—that raises some pretty uncomfortable questions about the Holocaust narrative, and then point out that even asking historical questions about the Holocaust somehow causes a bizarre descent of shrieking harpies, and it's literally been criminalized to look into certain historical questions in most countries in the West.  What exactly are "they" so afraid that we'll find?

But for now, let me just reiterate a few of the 16 points.

4. The Alt Right, as a philosophy rooted in Western Civilization, desires to preserve it and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy. 

9. The Alt Right believes that the hierarchy of decision making employed by humans is identity > culture > politics. 

10. The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means. 

11. The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.

See, the fact is; the Jews have never really assimilated into American society. Oh, sure, plenty of them live here and work here, and have managed to use their nepotistic tendencies to rise to positions of influence in various rent-seeker occupations, after which they promptly started attacking and destroying American cultural and legal traditions, to the point where the American film industry, American education industry, American political industry, and American financial industry actively work to cripple and fleece the American people, and the American courts actively mangle the Constitution to mean the exact opposite of what it says.

But I don't necessarily begrudge the Jews for being Jewish in their culture and behavior. I do, however, think that it's best by far for both the Jews and the Americans if the Jews were Jewish in their culture and behavior in Israel rather than in the West.

Diversity + proximity = war. Peace between the nations is best obtained by the same method that peace between neighbors is maintained; by respecting boundaries and having good fences.

"Judeo-Christianity" is nothing but the Satanic ideology of secular humanism with a Coexist bumper sticker slapped on the back of it.

And I say this as a guy with at least a small degree of Jewish ancestry that I know of, from the Swiss Jewish (or formerly Jewish) John and Thomas (his son) Yonn in the early 1700s.  I suspect that the Yonn's abandoned their Jewish identity almost immediately, if they hadn't already, since Thomas married an English girl in South Carolina after coming here, and there's no record I can find of his descendants having practiced Judaism or having not married local Christian girls.

However, it was sufficient that my paternal grandfather's patriarchal blessing declares him to be of the lineage of Israel, but not of any specific tribe as "the blood of Israel is mixed in [his] veins"—a rather singular pronouncement that I've never heard of anywhere else.  And one of my own sons was declared to be of the lineage of Judah in his patriarchal blessing; something that normally only happens to converted Jews.  So again; I don't begrudge the Jews their Jewishness, but I recognize that the mixing of Judah and Ephraim has had rather catastrophic consequences for the descendants of Ephraim, which will likely rebound at some point against Judah as well, unless they can stop vexing Ephraim, and go home to their homeland where they belong.

Read 2 Nephi 21 (which quotes Isaiah 11), particularly vs. 13 for more confirmation.

13 The envy of Ephraim also shall depart, and the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off; Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim.

On Christianity and the Nations

Reposting an exchange I had with someone a while ago:

Him: A lot of this is me just working this out, thinking out loud, etc. No, I don't want to destroy all the distinctions. I am interested in seeing cordial and peaceful relationships though between tribes, as much as possible, anticipating Rev. 7. All this cannot happen without the impact and influence of Christ. I'm also interested in persons who thoughtfully marry others of different races, even as I realize the precariousness of this.

Me: It's usually a case of solipsism (if it involves you personally) or pedantry (if it doesn't) to lose sight of the big picture by getting lost in exploring the ramifications of the exceptions. The whole discussion upthread about adoption into the nation, and stuff—yeah, sure, of course that happens. But it's irrelevant because the exceptional individual of some other cultural background who is accepted and adopted into the host culture doesn't fundamentally change the host culture. It's MASS immigration in sufficient numbers that they set up rival cultural poles that compete with the host culture that is the issue under discussion.

So T— has remarked here before that he's married to a Hispanic wife. So what? The fact that I don't want the US to be inundated under a flood of Mexican and Central American invaders doesn't mean that I care that he's married to a Hispanic wife. The atomized example is not the big picture. Nobody cares who T— marries. That's his affair, not ours. The same is true for any cross-national marriages.

But in a healthy culture, those examples do not create schwerpunkts or cultural beachheads. In societies that practice exogamous marriage, those who marry in from outside often hyper-correct and are more culturally strict in their adoption of the local culture in order to fit in. Only in weak, sick, and dying cultures do we see big enclaves of competing cultures established side by side, and the inevitable result of such is conflict. Not necessarily violent, depending on what the cultures are, but the potential always exists.

And those who come from other cultural traditions can, at times, bring with them new practices that the natives like and eventually adopt. Texas, for example, was settled by the Scots-Irish and other Borderer people, who mostly came from Tennessee and whatnot in the early 1800s. The ethnic Mexican population of the area was not high, and they were genetically insignificant for the most part, except in the absolute most southerly part of the State, which was ceded to the US as part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and wasn't settled by Anglo-Texians until after that point. That doesn't mean that Texans didn't adopt Spanish vaquero traditions to emerge as the quintessential American cowboy, and that Texas cuisine, even in the heavily Anglo population doesn't feature tacos and frijoles and stuff like that. Cultural syncretism isn't necessarily a bad thing, and America isn't lesser because the American cowboy is ultimately the continuation of a Spanish tradition rather than the traditional southern cowherder tradition of walking alongside your herd with a stick which we inherited from our Anglo-Saxon forebears.

And to your point about what Revelations and other scriptures tell us what to expect; well, no matter how much I love Western civilization and find that it suits me quite well, that doesn't mean that it's perfect and doesn't have its flaws. Someday I can expect the perfect civilization, ruled by Christ himself at the head, but I don't worry too much about trying to create that ahead of time using human means—that's not far from the heresy of Babel, after all. I think that in the meantime, differing cultures coexisting peacefully and separated by well-defined borders which help to keep that coexistence peaceful, is the best we can do. It's obviously better than we ARE doing, but it's something that we can at least aspire to.

Someone Else (referring specifically to my first sentence): And often it's deliberate sophistry. After all, we're looking at issues involving human populations, and of statistical truth. The are no clean, bright lines. It's not geometry. Someone who chooses to focus on anecdotal exceptions is either laboring under significant cognitive limitations, is engaging in deliberate sophistry, or has been indoctrinated into suppressing normal reasoning processes when questions important to the narrative arise.

Yet Another Someone Else: We can, and have, accommodated assimilable immigrants. This land was settled and built primarily by people of Anglo-Celtic origin, i.e. from the British Isles. It is an inextricable part of the demeanor, attitude, values, and legal concepts of the country. The most readily assimilable immigrants were those who came from the same British Isles, after that the cousins of northwest continental Europe, after that the more distant cousins of southern and eastern Europe, and after that assimilability rapidly drops off—to the point of outright absurdity as we have seen in the wake of the 1965 Immigration Act.

Here's an additional thought (courtesy of Facebook memories) that I had on this topic:

1 Timothy 5:8—"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." 

Galatians 6:10—"As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith." 

Matthew 15: 26—"But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs." 

Christ did not teach "give away your country to anyone who comes along and wants to take it." It is not right—it is, in fact, according to Paul, a denial of the faith and worse than an infidel, to forsake one's own people. Let's get rid of the profoundly stupid rhetoric that unlimited immigration means "love" and "I'd like to preserve my nation as an heirloom for my children" means "HATE." That is a vicious lie and doesn't even make any sense. 

The verse from Matthew describes my preferred immigration strategy. This is OUR nation and it is not meet to take from our own children to give to others.  Curiously, the next two verses make exceptions for those of exceptional skills or virtues. Look at that! 

For those who are in dire straits in foreign lands, we can help them, and we should, for such is virtuous and a demonstration of love of our neighbor, as commanded by Christ. That does NOT mean that they have a right to come to America. Even the Good Samaritan just took his victim to an inn in the next town, not to his land of Samaria.  Our biggest problem is that we don't even bother finding out if who we bring here are victims or victimizers. Given what's happening in Europe on a daily basis, and we're starting to ramp up here too, I'm leaning towards a lot more of the latter. 

But I have an idea. If you think refugees (and "refugees") coming to America is a good idea, SIGN UP TO HOUSE THEM IN YOUR OWN HOUSE. Otherwise, how about you keep your mouth shut and quit trying to foist the cost and risk on someone else in America just so you can feel good about yourself and preen in front of your friends, neighbors and fellow church-goers (or not) about how tolerant you are. PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS. Let's put some virtue back into virtue-signaling. 

How to Ensure that Feminists Never Reproduce except with the lowliest of low value males

https://everydayfeminism.com/2017/12/intersectional-feminist-first-date/

Well, here's what feminism expects every woman to ask on a first date as a weed-out questionnaire.  Of course, the problem is, the kinds of guys that they actually want aren't going to subject themselves to something so stupid in the first place.  By even suggesting such a thing, they've already weeded themselves out of the reproductive gene pool

But for the sake of fun, I'll answer the questions the way that I would if I were somehow to find myself subjected to them.  This would have to involve me becoming widowed or transported into an alternate reality, so it's really hypothetical.

1. Do you believe that Black Lives Matter?

Black Lives Matter is a terrorist group.  Anyone who supports them should be shot in the street, and then the shooter cheered by America as a hero.

What?  Trial?  Constitution?  Give me a break; the Left doesn't care about any of that.  And since they don't care, fair is fair.  They don't need to have access to the benefits of it.

2. What are your thoughts on gender and sexual orientation?

Sex describes your biology.  Gender describes your grammar.  There's no such thing as sexual orientation, just normal, healthy, psychologically functional and then broken.

3. How do you work to dismantle sexism and misogyny in your life?

Well, I'm out with you on this date in spite of your obvious and apparent lack of any charm or redeeming social traits, aren't I?  I should be given a medal; I'm a freakin' hero already.

4. What are your thoughts on sex work?

If it's work, you're doing it wrong.

5. Are you a supporter of the BDS movement?

I believe in boycotting, divesting and sanctioning any entity that deliberately singles out white, male, heterosexual men for targeting and harassment.  I couldn't care less about how the Israelis deal with a surly population of interlopers in their territory, though.

6. What is your understanding of settler colonialism and indigenous rights?

Settlers and colonists established their nations, the indigenous have whatever rights the settlers consent to let them have.  That said; get ready for a major upcoming disruption in the tolerance that Americans and Europeans have for the would-be settlers and colonists who think that they can take our countries from us.  It ain't gonna be pretty.  You ever heard that Kipling poem "Wrath of the Awakened Saxon?"

7. Do you think capitalism is exploitative?

That kind of emotive nonsense is exactly why our more intelligent ancestors knew that women's suffrage was a terrible idea.  Too bad it took us 4-5 generations to figure out what everyone else in the world already knew.  That's a bad data point for white supremacy, isn't it?

8. Can any human be illegal?

Of course.

9. Do you support Muslim Americans and non-Muslim people from Islamic countries?

There's no such thing as a Muslim American.  You're either a Moslem or an American, because the two are mutually exclusive.  On that note: all Fake Americans have to go back.  If they leave soon of their own accord, it'll be a lot prettier than if they wait until our patience for them is completely exhausted.

10. Does your allyship include disabled folks?

I'm not even your ally.

So; I took your stupid quiz.  I doubt I won anything that I actually want, so see ya.  I'll leave the check for you to pick up since you're such a strong, independent woman.

Kate Steinle's killer aquitted

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/30/five-times-deported-illegal-alien-jose-zarate-found-not-guilty-in-murder-of-kate-steinle/

The dramatic Breitbart headline: Five-Times-Deported Illegal Alien Found **Not Guilty** in Murder of Kate Steinle.  Shock Verdict: Seven-time convicted felon — had confessed!  Sanctuary: San Francisco

There is no greater example of how much the so-called leaders of America actually HATE Americans than this. Unbelievable.

Anyone who doesn't look at today and see echoes of the 1850s and Bleeding Kansas and the inevitable upcoming Civil War 2.0 is sticking their head in the sand.

We'd have been better off with King George than with the feckless, hateful tyrants who we have today.

Parenthetically, if you still believe in law, order, justice and "muh Constitution"—this is a great example of the problem—none of those things WORK anymore in America. Ammon and Cliven Bundy have been held prisoner for no reason against the express purpose of the Constitution for... what; over 600 days running now? While a Fake American is given a free pass to murder American women on the street. Not even a slap on the wrist. Not even a stern talking to about "Try not to kill any more Americans while you're here taking American welfare money, OK?"

There is no law that can't be ignored at will by those who are on the Left.

There is no order, because the Left hates American order and wants to destroy it.

There is no justice because the Elites hate Americans and want to punish them for being Americans, and ultimately exterminate them and replace them with a more compliant population that already accepts daily corruption and socialism as part of their life.

There is no Constitution, because for decades, all of the powerful who have ignored it have never been brought to account. Almost daily, we see the Constitution violated by agents of the Federal government, from all three branches.

America is done, unless Americans WAKE UP and take their country back. Already it's too late to happen without almost certain terrible bloodshed. The longer we wait, the worse it's going to be. For us, and for the traitors in DC, and for the Fake American invaders who HAVE TO GO BACK.

Yes, you might say, the pattern isn't always reliable.  OJ Simpson was given a pass for murdering a white woman because of black solidarity and hapless white guilt tripping about "muh racism."  On the other hand, George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson were acquitted.  Just because sometimes a vast, bureaucratic system does what its actually supposed to do doesn't mean that it isn't actively hostile to its original purpose and to the American people, though.  There are simply too many examples of it going awry because of corruption, political considerations, or other problems for me to have any confidence in it anymore.  And then when retired judges openly admit that they ignore precedent and even the law and go with what they "feel" is right, whatever lingering odor of confidence that I once had is dashed for good.

On Mormons being Christian

An interesting post from a guy that I often read:

Apparently saying that 3 does not equal 1 now qualifies as "hate speech." An episode unfolded yesterday here in town that exposed just how far gone even most conservative evangelicalism is in riding the inclusivity train right off the cliff 

A local Christian women's Facebook group, after a couple months of ambiguity, determined to update their policy to clarify that they were open to Christians only, not unbelievers. My friend politely asked what this did and didn't mean, since there were Mormons in the group as well, who by definition are not monotheists. The group admin *deleted* her comments, then, when confronted, insisted that she had somehow done so by accident. 

So my friend dutifully posted again, bending over backwards to coat her words with grace and love, and merely noting that it was important to be clear that Christians and Mormons don't really share the same faith at all, so the group should be simply be renamed for the sake of clarity and accuracy. A Mormon friend of hers cheerfully rejoined and said that actually Mormons are Christians, and another said, “Yeah, we believe the Trinity—three distinct beings in one Godhead, etc.” 

My wife piped up briefly to say, "Well, see, that's the problem. Actually Christians don't believe in three distinct beings" and quoted from the Athanasian Creed. One of the Mormons responded fairly defensively seeking to justify the Mormon view from Scripture. 

At that point, the group admin shut down the thread, declaring that it was not glorifying to God, the devil was at work, it was hateful and slanderous, and posted a general rebuke warning people not to debate their beliefs. This was the cue for the other (mostly conservative evangelical) people in the group to pile on and accuse my wife and her friend of "hate speech."

There are three points I want to make about this.  All of them are very relevant to our interactions as members of the only true church with our brothers and sisters who are Christian, but of an incorrect and incomplete tradition.  Elder Christofferson's talk from the April 2017 General Conference is an important reference too.

First; let's note the obvious error, just for the sake of posterity.  Within the Church, we believe that claiming Christ as the head of your Church is what makes one Christian, and attempting to follow in his footsteps.  This is obviously consistent with the definition as used by the Nephites and the Jews in the very early years of the Church following Christ's Ascension, but outside the Church, there are often a lot of odd qualifiers that get thrown in.  I've heard of Christians who believe that acceptance of the Nicene Creed is a baseline for being considered Christian before, although I've never heard anyone do so about the Athanasian Creed before.  To Latter-day Saints, the very existence of either Creed is evidence that the Church had already departed from true doctrine and divine principles and was languishing in Apostasy.  The Nicene Creed was adopted by political exigency, after a bunch of bishops from Anatolia got together and decided by committee what doctrines to accept or not accept.  There was a strong element of politics involved as well, as the Arians were mostly Germanic peoples, culturally incompatible with the dwindling Romans.  The Vandals, the Goths, the Lombards, etc. were all Arians (although the Franks and Anglo-Saxons were not).  Although they were tolerant of the Nicenes when those peoples ruled over the ashes of the Roman Empire, the reverse was usually not true, and much of the conflict between Arianism and Nicene Christianity was motivated by politics and not by doctrine.  The more honest and Christlike of the commentators at the link above will note that Christians have been unable to come to an understanding of the nature of the Godhead, or Trinity, in 2,000 years of struggling with the question, but needless to say drawing a line in the sand in the comments field of a Facebook group was hardly a good idea for more reasons than one.

In any case, while the Nicene Creed is ambiguous and answers very little, the actual beliefs of the Arians—as expressed by the Arians or Arianus himself—are hard to get at, since his enemies since have destroyed much of what he wrote.  With our understanding of the nature of Divinity given to us by revelation and the experiences of Joseph Smith, it's clear that the Arians were closer to being correct than the Nicenes.  But the Arians were violently oppressed by the Nicenes and either killed as heretics or forced to renounce the Arian heresy and convert to Nicene Christianity.  We should hardly be surprised that echoes of this tyranny still come down to us through the centuries; and we should not act surprised that people get really stubborn about what they would accept.  Following the Protestant Reformation in Europe nearly a thousand years after the death of the last Arian king (Grimwald of Lombardy, d. 671 A.D.) Arian thought, or at least Semi-Arian thought resurfaced.  Europeans fought what is possibly a much more devastating war than the World Wars of the 20th Century—the Thirty Years War—precisely over differences of confessional tradition (or at least that was the stated reason, although it quickly devolved into a war between Great Powers for political ends)—people feel strongly about this kind of thing and always have.

Second, many in the Church have adopted an attitude of trying to gain the sufferance of the world.  The Brethren have, of course, encouraged us to build bridges between other religious communities, and this has been misinterpreted by many into a search for acceptance.  In some cases, this manifests as pushiness (you have to accept that we're as Christian as you are!) or hurt, as expressed above.  This is foolishness, of course.  The acceptance we should seek is that of God.  The World will never accept the ways of God fully.  If we are to be persecuted for the sake of the Gospel, well, we've certainly been told to expect that, haven't we?  Matthew 5 teaches us "10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you."

I'm always somewhat surprised when I hear of members of the Church who are surprised and hurt, or worse, find their own strength failing, because they fail to adequately gain the inclusiveness with the world which they crave.  For that matter, I'm somewhat surprised that they crave it.  We are supposed to be a peculiar people; let's be so, then, and embrace the implications thereof.  Maybe you didn't grow up in a region where anti-Mormon evangelical sentiment was relatively high and The God Makers was shown at various churches from time to time.  But I did.  I never expected to be accepted as a Mormon in the greater Christian community, and I learned long ago not to crave it either.  And I saw how fragile our illusion of acceptance was in 2016.  In many political discussion forums, when it looked like Evan McMullin was going to get a significant Mormon proportion of the vote and potentially throw the election away from Trump to Hillary merely so that the so-called Mormons could posture about their moral superiority in not voting for Trump, even as they knew that Hillary would destroy what little is left of our freedoms were she elected, any hint of "they're one of us" was thrown to the winds.  As an aside, in post election voter data, it looks like the LDS were the group that broke for Trump in the highest numbers, even moreso than Evangelical Christians.  But we won't get any credit for saving the country or the Constitution, even though it hung by a thread.  Such is the nature of things.  Guys like Jeff Flake hardly help.

Third, Elder Christofferson also warns us of shaming and shaming culture.  Now, it's not clear to me from the example above that the LDS sisters were themselves the authors of this guilt trip (it seems, in fact, that they probably weren't), which is a clear shaming tactic.  Most likely it was the admins who decided that drawing a line between your beliefs and someone who believes something else is "hate speech" but I've gotta tell ya; I really hate to see the term "hate speech" and other shaming tactics thrown around indiscriminately.  As Elder Christofferson teaches us (if you needed him to point this out to you), it is not the Lord's way to change hearts and minds by shaming people into behavior that we want from them.  Always avoid it.  Never indulge in it.  As it says in D&C 121: "41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—"

It is not in keeping with the commandments of God to try and shame or guilt-trip or otherwise indulge in any kind of emotional blackmail to get behavior that we want from people.  If they choose to behave badly, such is the prerogative of their agency.

16 Points

If I can be cheeky enough to say so, Elder Ballard has inadvertently made my job harder following this past weekend's General Conference.  I have often made a very clear distinction in how I talk of the difference between supremacism and nationalism.  The former would mean, of course, that I think my people are supreme; better than any other.  This paradigm is today mostly limited to only a handful of groups, really—the La Raza people are Latino supremacists, the Han are Chinese supremacists, some elements of the Black Power, BLM, Nation of Islam guys are black supremacists, and modern Judaism is basically a tribal supremacist belief system today.  Of course, individuals of any group can be supremacists of all different kinds, but those are the only ones where supremacism is routine enough part of their cultural fabric that it can fairly be applied to the group generally, with the knowledge that those who are not are the exceptions rather than the rule.

For a long time now, dishonest propaganda has told us that white nationalism in America is equivalent to white supremacism in America, and I've therefore been careful to be very precise with my terminology by condemning the one, and accepting, if not even sometimes applauding, the other.  But then Elder Ballard gave his talk and condemned any form of "racism, sexism or nationalism".  Now, it's clear from context that he's referring to nationalism as supremacism, not as "love of your people" and patriotism.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it's very unlikely that Elder Ballard would condemn, for example, Mormon, who gave us clear examples of his own fervent Nephite nationalism when he agreed to lead their armies against the Lamanites because he loved his people and wanted to preserve them.  Or the many prophets and General Authorities of the past who have spoken fondly of love of country and people. Was Elder Ballard calling out Ezra Taft Benson?  I don't think so. Or even, for that matter, Elder Koch who spoke only a few minutes later of his love of his country, Brazil, and the fact that passing another Brazilian in the street was a moment that struck him because their shared nationality was something that brought them together in unity.

But, it is my sad experience that few members of the Church will be willing (or in some cases, able) to see beyond the word which has now been moved onto the Bad List­™ and won't respond with anything but, "But Elder Ballard!" and head for the fainting couches if I try to talk about context and which definition of the word I'm referring to, etc.  For all practical purposes, he has taken the word Nationalism out of the acceptable words I can use to explain my political philosophy.  So I'll need to come up with another term that isn't loaded with triggers for the unthinking to describe it, otherwise, I'll fail to convince very many of the merits of my philosophy.

To that point, I'm going to take Vox Day's "16 Points" manifesto and recreate it here.  I say recreate rather than "copy and paste" because I am going to modify it slightly.  And that's how it's meant to be.  Vox didn't create the 16 Points to be an iron-clad manifesto but as a foundation to be built on, because as he himself is wont to say, there is no leader of the alt-right.  It's like an open source document that others can use in their own way as they see fit, to better meet their goals—assuming, of course, that the goals are broadly similar.  Or, to put it more succinctly, it's OK to tailor it slightly to your intended audience.

And so I ask you to read these 16 Points and tell me, if you think you can, how any of these contradict or conflict with anything you heard at General Conference.  (Most of them, of course, have no relevance at all to anything said at General Conference.) I don't think you can in a way that doesn't involve deliberately misrepresenting what either these say or what the General Authorities say, assuming that one or the other must mean something other than what it says.  But this is my A/B testing, if you will.  I already know how the 16 Points work with other people within Christendom, I'm curious how well it flies in the Church, or if the membership of the Church will have a hard time hearing these points.

Not only have I slightly modified the specific language of the 16 Points, but I've also decided to annotate at least some of the points with some additional commentary.  I recognize that without having been somewhat steeped in the schools of thought out of which the 16 Points evolved, that there might be some head-scratching about why something is included or what exactly it's supposed to mean.  I've done my best to fill that in too.

Anyhoo, without further ado:

1. The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right, because they're of the Left. Progressives are not Alt Right, for the same reason. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right. National Socialists are not Alt Right. By definition, no ideology that accepts the premise of the Left—as all of those listed do, to some degree or other—can be on the Right.
2. The Alt Right is an alternative to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk's 10 Conservative Principles and the intellectual tradition of William Buckley, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism.
3. The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of restoring what has been lost.  The Alt Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history.
4. The Alt Right, as a philosophy rooted in Western Civilization, desires to preserve it and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy.
5. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly patriotic and believes patriotism, regardless of your nation, to be a virtue. It supports all nations and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and migration.
6. The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.*
7. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.**
8. The Alt Right is scientific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method, while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that the "science industry" is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on the scientific method, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific.
9. The Alt Right believes that the hierarchy of decision making employed by humans is identity > culture > politics.
10. The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.
11. The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.
12. The Alt Right doesn't care what you think of it.***
13. The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.†
14. The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.‡
15. The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, or people. Every race, nation, and people has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.
16. The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.††

* Globalism is part of the heresy of Universalism, which is indistinguishable from Trotskyism and is rooted, ultimately, in the same hubris as Babel.  One does not reach God through anything on Earth other than the Atonement of Jesus Christ.  This does not mean that we disavow organizations that are global in scope (for example, the Church)—merely that we do disavow the notion of a One World government or the erosion of national sovereignty, or the imposition of a system of government on any people that is not of their own choice of any kind other than that headed by Christ himself.

** The Parable of the Talents; Matthew 25: "14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.  15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.  16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.  17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.  18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money.  19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.  20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.  21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.  22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.  23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.  24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:  25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.  26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:  27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.  28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.  29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.  30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

We are not created equal.  Again; context.  In the Declaration of Independence, it clearly means that we are equal under the law, and in today's world, even that is obviously no longer true.  In any other respect, we are not equal.  We do, however, have equal claim on the rewards of the Lord if we live righteously and make the most of what we are given.  You'll note that the servant who turned two talents into four got exactly the same reward—word for word—as he who started with five, and turned it into ten.  But in no wise are we to suppose that they were equal, because we are, after all, capable of doing math, and we all know that four is not equal to five much less ten.

*** What did God tell Joseph Smith after the 116 pages were lost?  D&C 3: "7 For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—  8 Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble."  Many other examples.  We are not to fear Man, we are to fear only God.

† This is a little bit wonkish, and goes against the grain for the Science of Economics, which is largely libertarian in most respects.  But it is, actually, economically and empirically sound—you'll just need to read a bit deeper than most to get the arguments for it.  Steve Keen's Debunking Economics is a good place to start, but you'll probably also need to read beyond that.

‡ Although this sounds like a straightforward and oddly placed phrase, there's actually a long history behind it.  One can readily see, if one cares to pull ones head out of the sand and look, that every people in the world except white people are encouraged to do their thing, whereas we are constantly told that we are the ills of all the world, and that it will be better when we are either bred out or killed off (preferably both—I suspect a lot of men around the world wouldn't mind access to our women without our men being around to get in the way.  Take a look at "Great" Britain, Germany, or Sweden, and the child grooming pedophilia scandals involving migrants, the rape and sexual assault scandals, etc.)  This particular phrase was actually authored by a white supremacist, but that doesn't mean that it isn't correct.  It's worth noting that the rest of that particular manifesto was not carried forward into the 16 Points, precisely because it is wrong.

†† Applies to points 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15 and 16 at least.  But especially 11.  https://heartiste.org/diversity-proximity-war-the-reference-list/

What is Western Civilization?

Long ago (or at least it seems so now) I read Samuel Huntington's essay "The Clash of Civilizations."  If you haven't, you should.  In fact, here it is right here.  Go read it now.  It's OK, I'll wait...

What I haven't ever read is the full-length book that expanded on that notion.  I've recently had it pointed out to me that I should; that it's brilliant; that without doing so, I can only claim to know about the issue, not to actually know it.  The premise that Huntington proposes has been "rebutted" many times over the years, by those with a penchant for Trotskyist globalism, but in the last couple of years it's become obvious that Huntington was right.  Soon, even the dimmest, most stubborn globalist cheerleader will be forced to admit it.  Therefore understanding what our culture is, and why it is coming into conflict with other cultures, is a paramount question for today.

It's at our public library.  Sure, it's checked out right now, but I put the next hold on it, and I should have it within a few weeks.  In the meantime, I thought it might be interesting to discuss what Western civilization actually is.

Huntington spells out what he believes the major civilizations of the world are today in the essay (which you just read if you haven't already, right?) so I'll start with that list: Western, Sinic or Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Latin American, Slavic-Orthodox and Sub-Saharan African. As an aside, according to his divide, some cultures that speak Slavic languages are part of Western civilization (or even Islamic civilization) rather than Slavic-Orthodox, highlighting the paramount important of religion in determining civilization.

The earliest roots of what would become Western Civilization start out with the Classical civilizations of Greece and Rome.  Not only were these civilizations great and powerful in their own day, but they were literate, and they passed on down to us because of this much of the foundation of our own thought.  The rational pursuit of knowledge through study comes from the philosophers of the Greeks; Plato and Aristotle founding much of what academic inquiry even means, joined by guys such as Thucydides and Herodotus, etc.  Literature too, gets its start in a manner that we recognize with Homer, Hesiod, and later other Greek writers.  Even the system of government that we use throughout most of the West has its nascent form in Athens and the Roman Republic.

I have to caution against drawing too direct a line from Classical Civilization to modern Western civilization, though.  In many other ways, Classical civilization is completely alien to us.  Does anyone in Western civilization really believe that we could attempt to implement the brutal eugenic policies of ancient Sparta, no matter how much they may admire Leonidas?  Or the anti-family state-sponsored agoge, complete with the ritual hunting and murdering of untermenschen Helots?  As much as one can admire Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar as brilliant military minds and great spreaders of their civilization, is it admirable that Plutarch claims Caesar killed a million Gaulish warriors and enslaved a million more—at a time when their ability to field warriors was only three million?  That's what we call today ethnic cleansing or genocide.  Maybe one can point out that at least sometimes in the history of Western civilization we had some similar episodes; the colonization of the Americas was characterized by often very bloody civilizational clash, after all.  But uniquely in the history of mankind, did Western civilization have critics who bemoaned this for ethical reasons, and uniquely did they stop doing it, even as they approached the height of their power.  It wasn't co-civilizational sub-Saharan Africans who protested the Congo Free State (rather, they were perfectly willing to help out if it was profitable for them); it was other elements within Western Civilization that made it such a scandal.  The Classical civilizations were an important foundation to Western civilization, but clearly it is not sufficient in and of itself.

The next element that has to be layered in to the development of Western civilization is Christianity.  As Tom Holland said:

“We preach Christ crucified,” St Paul declared, “unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness.” He was right. Nothing could have run more counter to the most profoundly held assumptions of Paul’s contemporaries – Jews, or Greeks, or Romans. The notion that a god might have suffered torture and death on a cross was so shocking as to appear repulsive. Familiarity with the biblical narrative of the Crucifixion has dulled our sense of just how completely novel a deity Christ was. In the ancient world, it was the role of gods who laid claim to ruling the universe to uphold its order by inflicting punishment – not to suffer it themselves.

Today, even as belief in God fades across the West, the countries that were once collectively known as Christendom continue to bear the stamp of the two-millennia-old revolution that Christianity represents. It is the principal reason why, by and large, most of us who live in post-Christian societies still take for granted that it is nobler to suffer than to inflict suffering. It is why we generally assume that every human life is of equal value. In my morals and ethics, I have learned to accept that I am not Greek or Roman at all, but thoroughly and proudly Christian.

You do not get anything that resembles Western civilization without Christianity; it is that system of belief that truly separates Western civilization from the late Classical civilization which preceded it.  If you are going to quibble with the quote above by saying, "The Crusades! The Inquisition! The Colonialism!" you probably should get more educated on all of the above before speaking up.  Plus, keep in mind my point above about Leopold of Belgium.  The same claims were made against the Spanish (who are not part of Western civilization) and others.  Only in Christendom is this condemned.  Although, of course, a parallel similarity was profoundly influential in Buddhist thought—hence the appearance of guys like Gandhi, etc.  This was a much more radical (and alien) idea than merely Christian valuation of human life, however—it was pacifism for its own sake, which doesn't make any sense to anyone in Western civilization except for highly divergent liberal hippies, who as r-strategists, constantly try to dump on Western civilization anyway.

The next element to be introduced is the customs and traditions of the Germanic people (often overlaid on a Celtic substrate.)  This is where Western civilization deviates from Slavic-Orthodox and Latin civilizations, although the tribes of Visigoths, the Rus, and other more far-flung Germanic groups gave a weak patina of this to other areas outside of the core Germanic settlement.  It's fair to say that Western civilization isn't really a development of Classical civilization per se; it's the appropriation of most classical civilization elements and Christianity and the syncretic  fusion of those elements by an alien people to their own culture; the alien people being, of course, the Northern European Germanic people (and their largely Celtic substrate over large parts of their core settlement area.)  The presence of a large population of "freemen" (or comitatus, to use the word the Romans coined to describe this alien (to them) custom) who had the right to bear arms and sit in council with their chief is one core element from the Germanics.  This evolved into Salic Law as the migration period ended and the first "empires" of the Germanic peoples started to form, which codified much of what was already happening, and then laid the foundation for legal tradition throughout Western civilization for centuries to come.

This also sets the stage for separating Core Western civilization from southern Europe, a divide that not all will make, but all will recognize the significant cultural differences between Northern and Southern (and Eastern) Europe; the influence of the Germanic tribes is this factor.  But this evolved through a particular vector, and without that particular vector, you still don't get anything recognizable as Western civilization.  This is actually only somewhat recently recognized, although the fact that it existed is no mystery.  Just that the likely causes of it were.  These divisions can be more or less described by looking at a map of the Hajnal Line (which as you'll see, leaves out southern Italy, much of Spain, especially the parts that were "Reconquistadored" late, Ireland, and Finland.  In reality, it should be much more jaggedy, should probably have spots within it that are left off (Highland Scotland and probably Wales, for example) and parts without that should be added as "islands"—the Ulster area of Northern Ireland and western Finland, probably the rest of Austria or the Sudetenland at least, for example.  I'm making the case that only the areas within the Hajnal Line truly qualify as "Western civilization" other areas (like Ireland, southern Italy, etc.) that are without it are merely dabbling in Western civilization, or imitating certain aspects of it, without fully embracing it.  They are satellite pseudo-Western nations, not truly members in full fellowship.

Of course, later colonies of people from within the Hajnal Line to areas outside it still qualify, so places like Iceland, the US and Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. are, of course, prominent members of Western civilization despite their geographic appearances outside the traditional Hajnal Line.  But their ancestors came from within it, and in all of those cases, they were successful in dominating their new homes to such a degree that they did not really hybridize either culturally or even genetically (to any significant degree) with the peoples who were there before them.

But what really happened within the Hajnal Line to cause this foundation to completely and fully develop into Western civilization as we know it?  The Hajnal Line itself describes marriage patterns, and the reason for it is the Catholic church's ban on consanguinous "cousin" marriages, which were enforced most strictly in the corest core of core Europe; the Merovingian stronghold of Austrasia, and it's later satellites in Neustria, Burgundy, Saxony, Anglo-Saxon Britain, Lombardy, etc.  In short, it spread from the capitol in Metz through all of what would become a "Greater Germania"—France, the Holy Roman Empire, Scandinavia (minus the Lapplander and Finnish areas) and the kingdoms that later emerged as England.  This ban on close relative marriage was also present in other parts of Christendom, but inside the Hajnal line, it was combined with two other developments, and these three, together, created selection pressures that created modern Western Civilization.  As Avner Greif said:

“The medieval church instituted marriage laws and practices that undermined large kinship groups. From as early as the fourth century, it discouraged practices that enlarged the family, such as adoption, polygamy, concubinage, divorce, and remarriage. It severely prohibited marriages among individuals of the same blood (consanguineous marriages), which had constituted a means to create and maintain kinship groups throughout history. The church also curtailed parents’ abilities to retain kinship ties through arranged marriages by prohibiting unions in which the bride didn’t explicitly agree to the union. 

“European family structures did not evolve monotonically toward the nuclear family nor was their evolution geographically and socially uniform. However, by the late medieval period the nuclear family was dominant. Even among the Germanic tribes, by the eighth century the term family denoted one’s immediate family, and shortly afterwards tribes were no longer institutionally relevant. Thirteenth-century English court rolls reflect that even cousins were as likely to be in the presence of non-kin as with each other. 

“The practices the church advocated, such as monogamy, are still the norm in Europe. Consanguineous marriages in contemporary Europe account for less than one percent of the total number of marriages. In contrast, the percentage of such marriages in Muslim, Middle Eastern countries, where we also have particularly good data, is much higher – between twenty to fifty percent. Among the anthropologically defined 356 contemporary societies of Euro-Asia and Africa, there is a large and significant negative correlation between Christianization (for at least 500 years) and the absence of clans and lineages; the level of commercialization, class stratification, and state formation are insignificant.”

So, the end result of this was the replacement of the large, extended family with the nuclear family as the primary unit.  This lack of large extended families eventually undid the entire tribal structure of core Europe.  Large, extended, cohabiting families, on the other hand, are still very normal in places like, say, Sicily or Eastern Europe—outside of the Hajnal Line.  In these areas, there's an environment in which "nepotistic altruism"—giving favors to extended family and other forms of what we in Western civilization deem to be corruption—which was largely eliminated within the Hajnal Line.  Combined with manorialism—the founding principle of feudalism, where the Lord of the Manor had vested in himself certain legal and economic powers, and in turn owed certain obligations to the serfs or villeins as well as the free farmers who used the land of his manor, or demesne.  As hbd chick observes, manorialism "was really an almost all-encompassing socio-religious-political system which, although its features and importance did vary at different times and in different locales, pretty much regulated nearly all aspects of medieval Europeans’ lives."  Throughout "Core Europe" it existed for the better part of three quarters of a millennium; even in areas where it was adopted a bit later, it lasted nearly half of one.  What are the selection pressures that manorialism plus outbreeding and non-consanguineous marriage exerted on the developing Western Man?  Again, from hbd chick:

The working theory around here is that the Outbreeding Project set up the selection pressures for getting rid of much of what we could call “nepotistic altruism” in Core Europe, allowing for greater cooperation and trust between unrelated individuals and, therefore, a more open and “corporate” sort of society. A second working theory is that manorialism set up selection pressures for a whole suite of traits including perhaps: slow life histories; future time orientation; delayed gratification; the good ol’ protestant work ethic; a general compliant nature and even rather strong tendencies toward conformity; perhaps even a high degree of gullibility; perhaps a few extra IQ points; and even more cooperation and trust between unrelated individuals. ... The manor system also probably contributed to the selection for the reduction in impulsive violence. ... the Outbreeding Project and manorialism very much went hand-in-hand as well — the medieval European manor system could not have happened without all of the outbreeding, and the Outbreeding Project was reinforced by the manor system (since marriage was often regulated within the manor system).

Does that now sound like modern, Western Civilization?  Not the feudalism itself, of course, but the selection pressures it generated caused, after many generations, a new type of European to emerge in the northern portions of the continent.  A Brazilian with whom I communicate on occasion expressed the idea that many in Latin America see themselves as members of Western civilization, but he sees these stark differences clearly—as do I, and my oldest son, for that matter, who lived for a few years in various parts of Spanish Latin America.  He pointed out that both in Latin America and Southern Europe (the same is true of Eastern Europe) that the culture is characterized by "low trust society, weak rule of the law, corruption, weak work ethic, etc."  This is a major disconnect, and why I cannot consider Europeans of descent outside of the Hajnal Line to truly be members of Western civilization.  The Jews also have extremely strong nepotistic tendencies, and a culture that encourages "digging a pit for thy neighbor" if it gives you personally an advantage; although they also at first glance appear to be members of Western civilization, and in fact many of them live among us, they also are not.  Again, from hbd chick, on the "sin" of being a sucker among the Jews: https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2015/03/04/thou-shalt-not-be-a-freier/

What does this mean for America?  Firstly, it means that the large numbers of immigrants that we took on 100-150 years or so ago from Ireland, the former Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, and the Jews are not really members of Western Civilization, didn't understand it, and have largely undermined its success in America to greater or lesser degrees.  When first arrived, they turned quickly in large numbers to organized crime, voluntary segregation instead of attempted assimilation, tribal nepotistic takeovers of businesses, politics, and to some degree, even entire industries (media, Hollywood, etc.) and in defiance of the good of the host nation in which they were living, they agitated and campaigned for changing immigration laws both to 1) bring more of their kind that they could nepotistically deal with, and 2) change the fabric of the prevalent Anglo-Saxon with a touch of Dutch and German American society to one in which they stood out less, by inviting even more alien cultures into the fold.

If this hasn't been bad enough, the mass invasion of the US by the completely non-Western civilization members of Latin America in their tens of millions, and from Islamic civilization (a bigger deal in Europe than America, but it's growing fast here too) is a genuine crisis; an existential threat to Western civilization on the American continent.  Give or take a few tens of thousands, Switzerland has the same population as Honduras.  Because of our shared Western civilization background, America could probably absorb the entire population of Switzerland without it being too disruptive (we're way too diverse now to quibble about Anglo- vs. Germano- backgrounds now; although Benjamin Franklin and other Founding Fathers were more skeptical) but absorbing the population of Honduras will never happen successfully; they simply won't integrate and assimilate.  Ever.

If we hope to remain a bastion of Western Civilization in America, instead of being absorbed into a growing Latin culture, or continue to be held hostage to an admittedly native subset of sub-Saharan African culture, or even worse, continue to invite Islamic civilization into our homes to the extend that it becomes a significant threat, then we need to recognize who and what we are and stand up for it again.  Maybe Western civilization isn't the pinnacle of human achievement (although I kind of think it is) but even if it's not, it's ours and we have every right to our civilization, the same as every other people on Earth.