This is so important. WW2 is the founding myth of the current world order of the synagogue of Satan. From world war 2 they get:
The United States was justified in killing its enemies and thus has a right to rule today.
Hitler is the original sin of white people (if that doesn’t work pivot to slavery, mostly controlled by the synagogue of Satan, but we’ll ignore that for now.)
Because of Hitler and the Holocaust we must: A. Always support Israel because they are a persecuted people who need a homeland. B. White people can never be ethnocentric because White people being ethnocentric always leads to anti semetism and the Holocaust. (Ignore that the synagogue of Satan is incredibly ethnocentric, see point A.)
Long story short, look at the Albert Pike letters, Jews played both sides (they funded Hitler’s rise, and
Imperial Russia’s collapse, America’s rise, England’s collapse), and if you fund both sides you control who wins no matter who does so. They also love it because it’s a satanic sacrifice of Christians and they hardly have to lift a finger and they manage to consolidate more money in their power. They also get rid of the most ethnocentric and strongest amongst us, a win on all sides in their mind. They also control our history through our history books, see Ghislane Maxwell’s dad was involved in McGraw-Hill (obviously Mossad). So because they control our past, they control our future. We have to take back our past.
Edit: oh yeah, and specifically regarding Churchill, he went bankrupt after WW1 and was owned by Jewish bankers after that.
Edit2: They’re freaking out because their lies are being exposed and as such their stranglehold on the world order is collapsing.
I agree and feel the need to distinguish the difference between Synagogue of Satan (SoS) Jews and bible believing, at least Torah believing (edit: Torah only, for now) Israelite Jews.
Just like our deep state government controls us and misrepresents the USA as a whole, so do SoS Jews.
The only history that will set us free is that which is filtered through an understanding of and belief in God’s word.
Isaiah 10:8-13 “Remember this, keep it in mind,
take it to heart, you rebels.
9 Remember the former things, those of long ago;
I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me.
10 I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say, ‘My purpose will stand,
and I will do all that I please.’
11 From the east I summon a bird of prey;
from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose.
What I have said, that I will bring about;
what I have planned, that I will do.
12 Listen to me, you stubborn-hearted,
you who are now far from my righteousness.
13 I am bringing my righteousness near,
it is not far away;
and my salvation will not be delayed.
I will grant salvation to Zion,
my splendor to Israel.”
Judaism is focused on the Talmud, which is the jewish teaching of how to GET AROUND the Torah.
They do NOT believe in the Torah, as in the first 5 books of Moses.
What most Christians do not understand is that jews use the word "Torah" to mean two DIFFERENT things:
(1) The first 5 books of the Bible, and
(2) ALL of the writings and oral teachings of Judaism, which includes the Talmud.
They can SAY they follow the Torah, but what they REALLY MEAN is they follow ALL of jewish teachings, where the Talmud is primary.
They even have entire schools devoted to learning the Talmud, but not the books of Moses.
There is a passage in the Bible where Jesus says to beware of the "priests" (meaning the rabbi jews) who "sit on the Chair of Moses" and then stand and preach something opposite of Moses (opposite of The Law).
While they are sitting on the Chair of Moses (which rabbis do in synagogues today), they talk about the Law as presented by Moses.
But THEN THEY STAND, and tell you why Moses was wrong, in that they preach what the Talmud says -- which is the opposite of Moses.
So, "Torah" does not mean the same thing to you as it does to them.
They are TAUGHT TO DECEIVE as a NECESSARY practice of their religion.
They are TAUGHT TO DECEIVE as a NECESSARY practice of their religion
Such an important distinction. Most God fearing Christians believe that most people are talking the truth when they speak, unfortunately they have no such qualms lying to our face, because they consider us to be cattle only fit to serve them. You can’t lie to a horse can you?
Edomites are from the line of Esau who God said He hated. They are the Talmud wielding Synagogue of Satan Jews. It seems King Herod gets the credit for installing them into the hierarchy of Judaism.
I use the term Israelite Jews to describe God’s chosen people from the line of Jacob, who God said He loved and also said would end up blinded to His Servant (Jesus) before rejoining and ultimately seeing and recognizing Jesus. These Israelite Jews, for lack of better nomenclature, God’s chosen (which ultimately includes Christians but I digress as they are not a part of who I’m describing here), will be reconciled with Messiah during the great tribulation aka Jacob’s trouble described in both Isaiah and Revelation.
ELI5 version: God chose stubborn people to work through on earth. They go back and forth following God’s commandments and rebelling. Showing the prosperity God’s way provides and the sinful nature of man that cannot follow His ways. God, through His prophets, tells His people that a savior is coming to save them. He tells them when, where, and how He will be born. God tells them how to recognize Him, how they will be blinded to recognizing Him. How He will be treated and rejected by them. Although, there were some authentic Torah believing Jews that knew God’s word well enough to recognize Him and believe. Think of the multitudes that laid palms and their cloaks at his feet upon His entrance into Jerusalem. They saw the prophesied colt he rode in on. There were multiple prophecies fulfilled that day. They knew. I could go on about this but I am only trying to describe the authenticity of some Jews vs the Talmudic SoS Jews. These same Jews who recognized Him were also eventually blinded as they did not understand that He was currently building a heavenly kingdom at that time. They saw Him die and could not rectify that with the earthly kingdom He was prophesied to bring them. The earthly kingdom He will bring on His return and rule over for a thousand years.
Isaiah tells them He will stir jealousy in them by working through a different group of people for a time. This stubborn group of people remain His chosen as God adds more chosen people, Christians (through Paul’s gospel), to the “chosen” group throughout this whole time.
God also tells everyone that in the end, during great tribulation, he will remove the blindfold and bring His original chosen people back to Him as they will then see and believe.
All labels are somewhat ridiculous especially the label Jew as I’m pointing out so forget the label and understand the group of people I am talking about. There does seem to be two general groups of Jews though, authentic, for lack of a better word, and SoS. It has less to do with DNA and more to do with covenants, faith, and belief. As Paul argues circumcision doesn’t make you a Jew but rather faith in Christ Jesus does.
Edit: It’s similar to how Christianity was corrupted by Catholicism, or perhaps Roman Catholicism. They claim to believe the same core doctrine as Christians but it is evident in their practices that they don’t. So much so that a reformation had to take place and yet still there are denominations to sort out. Like I said above. Groups should be less described by their labels and more acknowledged for their faith and beliefs. Even the term Christianity has been watered down to include too many. You either believe and adhere to God’s word or you forge your own path. The Israelites showed us for millennia how our own path leads to destruction. Repent and abide in God’s word to be found favorable and prosperous or don’t and lead yourself to hell. It’s really as simple as that. For the Jew first and also for the gentile.
The biggest problem Christians have today is not understanding who is who in the Bible.
That lack of understanding makes the entire thing baffling.
Part of the problem is that many words and phrases have been mistranslated over the years, whether innocently or otherwise.
The Bible was not written in English, but that is all we (English readers) have to go on. But what if important, key words were never translated properly, leaving us with a mish mash of truths that are only partly true?
The OT was written in Hebrew. The NT was written in Greek. Then, the OT was translated into Greek. Right there, we have potential for mistranslations.
Then, the whole thing was translated into Latin when the Roman Empire switched to Christianity.
For over 1,000 years, it was illegal to translate the Bible into anything but Latin -- and most Europeans could not read Latin!
It was only the "insiders" in the Church who could read Latin. But could they read Hebrew to check whether the early translations were correct? Most could not.
Enter: The jews come to the rescue! They claimed to be experts in Hebrew, so they were often used as translators of the Bible from Hebrew (and Greek) into Latin -- for a book that they do not believe in, and for which their religion tells them to destroy.
Potential problem, eh?
Example: We see the word "harlot" and "whore" in the NT. Both words come from the same Greek word, porne, which means a woman who is a prostitute. Same Greek word, but two different English translations for some reason.
We see the word "whoremonger." In our modern English, we think this means a man who pays prostitutes. And we are told in the Bible that a whoremonger will not get into heaven. Why not?
Because our English word "whoremonger" comes from the Greek "pornos" which means a male prostitute, and not a man who pays a woman prostitute.
Well, a male prositute means a man who engages in homosexual acts, which is specifically identified as a sin in the Bible, and prohibited. THAT is why he cannot get into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Not because he pays for some poon, but because he engages in an act that is an abomination.
Likewise, our modern English versions use the word "jew" in many places, but that word did not exist in Greek or Hebrew or Latin.
It was a made-up word in English. The actual word used in most places where we see "jew" was actually "Judean." But in other places, "jew" is used to mean "Israelite" -- possibly because the jewish translators were trying to change the story.
These "jew" translations happened about 200-300 or so years ago, as the word was not used (in English) before then.
This is why it is only in the NT. During Jesus' time, the territory that had once been the Kingdom of Judah had been taken over by the Roman Empire (around 6 AD), and they called it Judea, a Roman province.
Many Edomites lived in that province at that time, and controlled it (subject to higher Roman authority). They were the ancestors of modern-day jews.
But anyone living in Judea could be called a Judean, which was in the original Greek. Just like today, a Chinaman can live in Texas and call himself a "Texan," though that is not the original meaning, anymore than a black man living in Bejing and calling himself "Chinese."
These out-of-context translations cause problems.
So, from Genesis 10 & 11 ...
One of Noah's sons was named Shem (also known as Sem)
His descendants are the Semites
Shem's great-grandson, Eber, is the father of the Hebrews
Eber's great-great-great-great-grandson was Abram (aka Abraham)
Then: Abraham >> Isaac >> Esau/Edom and Jacob/Israel
Therefore, both Esau and Jacob were Semites and also Hebrews.
But, Esau (aka Edom) intermarried with Canaanites, which was outside of the Semitic family tree. His children became the Edomites.
These are today's jews.
OTOH, Jacob (aka Israel) had pure Hebrew/Semite children, and they became the Israelites.
So, jews are not Israelites.
Therefore, it is not correct to use the term "Israelite jew."
Israelite Judean, yes.
Jewish Judean, yes.
Edomite jew, yes.
They were all Judeans if they lived in Judea, but not all Judeans were of the tribe of Judah (of which the kingdom no longer existed at the time of Jesus).
Jesus was a direct descendant of Judah (son of Jacob/Israel), making Jesus an Israelite, but not a jew.
The jews and the Israelites are TWO DIFFERENT tribes. The Jewish Encyclopedia says it, but the jews do not talk about that publicly. They let everyone believe they are the "Chosen Ones," when in fact they never were.
There does seem to be two general groups of Jews though, authentic, for lack of a better word, and SoS. It has less to do with DNA and more to do with covenants, faith, and belief.
I disagree. The jews themselves will tell you that they see "jew" as an ethnicity. Therefore, it is not about faith or belief. Afterall, you cannot have faith that you are black (if you are not), or a woman (if you are a man), or a chicken (if you are a human).
Likewise, you cannot be a different ethnicity via faith. That is part of the mixed-up belief system so many people have today.
But logically, it cannot be true.
Once you wrap your mind around the idea that jews, over many centuries, have perverted and distorted Christianity -- a religion they don't even like -- it will start to make sense.
As Paul argues circumcision doesn’t make you a Jew but rather faith in Christ Jesus does.
Paul was an Israelite (not a jew). In one passage, he mentioned his "fellow Israelites." He was writing to the White people of Europe in all of his letters.
Herod was an Edomite (i.e. jew) and forced everyone to convert to Judaism. Many of them practiced circumcision because they thought it made them "Hebrews," even though they were not. Their ancestor, Esau, mixed with Canannites, thus no longer allowing his descenents to be Hebrews (or Semites).
Circumcision does not make you an Israelite (or Hebrew, or Semite). The use of the word "jew" in that passage is, once again, a false translation.
The jews today are not true Semites.
They lie about that, too.
Remember: Paul lived at a time when the Romans (government) were killing Christians.
It was dangrous to be a Christian in the Roman Empire. Yet, he wrote to his fellow Romans in the passage you cite -- they were his fellow Israelite brothers, living in Rome.
He was telling them how Jesus wants them to live their lives. He wants them to follow The Law. Things like circumcision mean nothing if they do not follow The Law.
"Faith" according to Jesus is not merely a belief. It is following The Law. Only by following The Law do you actually demonstrate your faith.
And this is not the same as "saved by works." By "works," Jesus was referring to the practice of engaging in rituals. The "Tradition of the Elders" (forerunner to the Talmud of the jews) said that one has to practice rituals to show faith. But the Bible (OT) says nothing of the sort.
Jesus said one is not saved by works (i.e. rituals). Yet, the Pharisees did preach that, and later the Catholic Church would push that (and still does to this day) until Martin Luther discovered that the Bible not only does not say to do that, but says don't do it.
Anyway, the word "jew" used in this passage refers to the Israelite people, as it is they who were/are under "The Law," due to the covenant.
Again, the word "jew" was added in the English versions, which means we have to keep everything we read in context of the overall story, and not just pluck out one passage and think it means something that it might not mean, when considered in context.
Why is the promised land a land of milk and honey, when most Sephardic Jews and Ashkenazi Jews are lactose intolerant? Which race has the highest rate of lactose tolerance? It’s of my opinion that the Covenant passed to those who saw the messiah as such, and those who rejected him thus rejected the Covenant.
But in reference to Hitler, they (the Jews) wanted to condemn nationalism, the Christian religion (Hitler was Catholic) for the Jews those who love their country and being Christian is anti-Semitism, not the White person in Hitler, the Jews are White for the most part then they are also part of the problem.
Honestly I think the firewall he tripped more so than being a Christian nationalist was nationalizing the Rothschild national bank. That’s why he had to lose and ultimately became the scapegoat for such things. But ultimately your correct that they hate few things more than Anglo-Saxon Christians.
I think he told the bankers to fuck off after he gained power (though not 100% sure on the timing, as to whether or not he spoke about it publicly while running for office - he did run for president of Germany, after all, and came in 2nd).
The real issue for Hitler was that he knew the jews were the ones who murdered millions of Russian White people (also Christians, but it wasn't as much of a religious thing for him). He knew that the jews were coming for the Germans next.
You can actually SEE it in the historical newspapers from the early 1900's where the American newspapers (run by jews) were "sounding the alarm" about "jews being persecuted in Russia" then "jews being persecuted in Eastern Europe" -- once they got Russia, they were heading into Europe. Those articles ALWAYS used the 6,000,000 number, way before Hitler.
This video shows the newspaper articles from 1915-1938:
Although the person who made the video does not mention it, it was Warburg behind the money raising in the articles.
But beyond that, Hitler knew what the jews had been trying to do in Germany from the time of the end of WW1 when Germany was in chaos, as the government just abandoned ship, in terms of any upholding of law (they were losing the war, and chaos ensued within Germany).
Here is a timeline of historical events, showing in part how jews were trying to take over Germany, from 1918 until Hitler took over. Remember, the overthrow of Russia was in 1917, and they just assumed they could move straight into Europe and continue their bloodshed, as the end of the war made Germany weak at home:
A much more thorough analysis than mine, bravo. Keep doing what you’re doing. My main thrust was not that they necessarily hate us because we’re Christian, but they hate us because we’re the only people who might have a chance at stopping them.
It depends on examples. what do you do if you are multiethnic? Should someone half black and half white only marry black? etc
The big problem is a lot of people default to one drop rule. So half black kids ignore their white heritage. Hispanics are all part white, some even purely white, and they tend to disregard their heritage too even though european culture is responsible for most everything Latin Americans hold dear (catholicism, the food, soccer, art, music, etc)
Human nature drives us to compete with one another, which is why
collectivism will never succeed.
You may be white, but other white people are also competing with you for resources.
In a world where competition is natural, people prioritize their own family and personal interests first.
The truth is, a random stranger who shares your ethnicity isn’t going to care about you. They don’t know you.
So what does this mean?
They’ll always look out for their own family and themselves before anyone else. When it’s a choice between you, a stranger, and their family, they’ll throw you under the bus.
Take Gavin Newsom as an example—why is he harming California? He’s a white man, yet where is his ethnic loyalty?
It doesn’t exist! He cares only about his family and himself.
The Bible teaches us about Judas, right? What did someone from Jesus’ own tribe do? He betrayed Jesus for money.
This story is significant.
Because of the competitive nature of resources, many people from your ethnic group wouldn’t hesitate to betray you if it served their interests.
So, for those who think ethnic heritage is what matters most, they’re missing the point.
In a world driven by competition, ethnic loyalty holds little weight.
As long as your world view is directed by a "scarcity of resources" you will only see and experience a scarcity in life.
The moment you choose to see Abundance in all you do will be the moment Abundance enters your life.
I highly recommend "Think and Grow Rich" by Napolean Hill for anyone feeling scarcity in life.
"Rich" isn't just about money. We can have richness in our relationships, richness in our experiences, and richness in our accomplishments. We can have richness in all we do.
This book will change the life for those open minded to learn its secrets. One must have a Desire to learn and put into practice it's secrets, but people of ALL ethnicities, backgrounds, and circumstances have used its secrets for massive success.
Some will make excuses and have "reasons" it won't work form them.
But as a mentor said to me just yesterday.
You can have excuses or results, but you can't have both.
Gavin Newsom is a tribalist of the NWO. The NWO wants complete domination of the world. Those within the NWO have given up their ethnic tribalism to NWO tribalism. A world driven by competition is a world of the NWO. Think outside the NWO box.
People wanting to be with their own is as natural as wanting to have sex. You’re basically trying to do what feminism has done to women. Feminist’s deny that most women want to raise a family not slave for corporations.
You’re not fully grasping the complexity of the human brain.
Think of the brain as a software application—one that has undergone many updates over time. Just like software evolves with new features and optimizations, the human brain has adapted and changed as we’ve progressed through different eras of history.
When you say it's "natural" for people to want to stick with their own, you’re referring to the Human Brain Version 1.0—the primitive, default settings we relied on for survival in the early stages of human development.
In this version, the brain operates on instinctual programming, much of which is designed to detect threats and prioritize survival. Back then, "those others"—people from different tribes or groups—were often perceived as dangerous simply because they were unknown. Fear of the unfamiliar was a default survival mechanism, causing early humans to cling to their own group for protection.
So yes, based on those default settings, it makes sense that people would instinctively feel more comfortable with others who look and act like them. This is deeply ingrained in our brain's original programming from thousands of years ago. When you talk about the "natural" desire to stick to one’s own, this is what you’re referring to.
But here’s what you’re missing:
Humans have been evolving for thousands of years, and our brains—just like software—have gone through numerous "updates" since version 1.0. We no longer live in isolated tribes, and the circumstances that shaped our early instincts have changed drastically.
Over time, human societies have gained new experiences, learned from interactions, and built complex systems of communication and cooperation. These experiences have rewired our brains in profound ways:
Cultural Interactions: Different groups of people have interacted for centuries, and in many cases, learned to coexist peacefully. The human brain has adapted to recognize that "those others" are not always a threat but can be allies, partners, and friends.
Common Language: Today, many groups speak shared languages like English, which bridges the gap between cultures. This shared communication helps dissolve the "us vs. them" mentality that was so deeply embedded in our brains in earlier stages of evolution. Now, we can understand and relate to people from different backgrounds in ways our ancestors never could.
Biological Integration: We now understand that humans across all ethnicities can intermarry and procreate, producing children that represent a blend of different cultures. This knowledge challenges the idea that we are entirely separate from one another. The biological possibility of mixing genes across ethnic groups shows that we are fundamentally interconnected.
Globalization and Shared Resources: The modern world is interconnected in ways early humans could never imagine. Today, our survival often depends on cooperation with people from different backgrounds, whether in trade, innovation, or peacekeeping efforts. The brain's capacity for understanding cooperation has evolved beyond tribal loyalty.
My final thoughts.
The idea of sticking to one's own may have been vital in Human Brain Version 1.0, where fear and survival ruled every decision. But in the modern world, with all the knowledge, experiences, and connections we've gained, we’ve moved far beyond those default settings. Our brains are now capable of much more nuanced and evolved thinking.
To cling to the outdated, instinctual fear of "those others" is to deny the growth and potential of the human brain. It’s not just about what’s "natural"; it’s about recognizing that humans are capable of adapting to new realities. We have the ability to transcend our original programming and form meaningful connections across all kinds of differences. That’s the true potential of the modern human brain.
I have not seen humans as a large group let go of tribal instincts. Maybe in the new world you may be correct but I have to see it to believe it.
Mass immigration as a whole has not existed in human history like it is today and it has mostly been a failure in places like the US, Canada and Europe.
The brain as software? There is no comparison, try to grasp the complexity of it please. For instance, where is our memory, our consciousness of even our soul?
Ethnocentrism is simply loving oneself, one’s family, community, state and country in that order. It seems to be scrubbed from the internet but one of those old Greek philosophers says “Democracy requires homogeneity, because when foreigners are introduced the society lacks the necessary phila (one of the Greek’s words for love) to function.”
Here’s a quote from Aristotle that I managed to find:
“It is also a habit of tyrants to prefer the company of aliens to that of citizens at table and in society; citizens, they feel, are enemies, but aliens will offer no opposition”
So where we’re at now is that the society is ruled by Jews. Jews hate the American populace because by and large they are Anglo Saxon and Christian. Jews also think that promoting diversity in the society will make the general populace focus on other problems than them, and for the most part that’s true. If the rest of your society is diverse, you have no standing to call them out for being diverse.
While ethnocentrism may not have worked in the long run for us that doesn’t mean that it can’t hold a society long enough to create great wonders like Egypt, Greece, Rome and many of the modern nations. Most of these problems are elucidated in Sir John Glubb’s life cycle of empires. Another good work on the effect of heterogeneity on humans is Robert Putnam’s E Pluribus Unum paper.
Ultimately I think humanity is growing up, and eliminating those who constantly set each other against ourselves will go a long way to creating a better world.
Aristotle and other philosophers are essentially sharing opinions and theories based on their personal beliefs. Much of philosophy is built on observations rather than scientifically proven facts, which means it often lacks empirical grounding.
Ethnocentrism, for example, is often misunderstood. It isn’t about self-love—it’s a form of collectivism. Ethnocentrism emphasizes "us" over "me," placing group identity above the individual. This type of thinking inevitably leads to conflict, and ultimately, war.
But why does ethnocentrism lead to war?
You did not choose your ethnic identity.
This is crucial because humans have an innate desire to understand why they belong to a certain ethnic group—why they were born white, black, or any other race. Once people begin searching for a reason for their ethnic identity, it often leads to the belief that their group is special or "chosen."
When people start to believe they are "the chosen ones," it fosters a dangerous mentality of superiority. It creates an “us vs. them” dynamic where one group views itself as inherently better or more deserving than others. This mentality naturally leads to conflict with other groups, who may also believe they are chosen or superior. Such competition for validation, resources, and power breeds hostility.
Ethnocentrism fuels tribalism.
When you prioritize your ethnic group, you draw hard lines between "us" and "them." This tribal mindset creates divisions that can’t be easily bridged. Tribalism is exclusionary by nature, and when groups feel threatened by others—whether economically, politically, or culturally—those divisions become battlegrounds.
History shows that these divides lead to oppression, conquest, and war. Groups will fight to defend their perceived superiority or rights, often at the expense of others.
Competing for limited resources.
Resources on this planet are limited—land, water, wealth, and political power are all finite. Ethnocentrism makes groups feel entitled to these resources, and they will fight to secure them for their own group’s survival and prosperity. This competitive drive, amplified by the belief that "our group" deserves more, inevitably leads to conflict with other groups vying for the same resources.
Ethnocentrism leads to conflict, even within ethnic groups.
While ethnocentrism promotes group loyalty, it doesn’t eliminate competition within that group. Internal power struggles, class differences, and personal ambitions still exist. Leaders often use ethnic loyalty to rally people for their own selfish goals, even when it harms the broader group. This internal friction can destabilize societies and create even more conflict.
In short, ethnocentrism promotes division, superiority, and competition—all ingredients for war. History is filled with examples of this, from genocides to colonial conquests. When group identity becomes the priority over individual humanity, conflict is not just possible—it’s inevitable.
Aristotle and other philosophers are essentially sharing opinions and theories based on their personal beliefs
I’m sorry, but do you actually have anything other than your opinion here? At least I loosely referred to history and some of the most timeless philosophers that we have. I could quote the Bible if you’d like:
43 “Foreigners who live in your land will gain more and more power, while you gradually lose yours. 44 They will have money to lend you, but you will have none to lend them. In the end they will be your rulers.” Deuteronomy 28:43-44 ESV
What you seem to be missing is that you’re taking the talking points of our rulers who hate us, who on one hand will tell you ethnocentrism is wrong and with the other hand are the most ethnocentric amongst us. Don’t listen to what Jews say, watch how they act, and time after time they act in ethnocentrism while telling us that it’s the worst thing ever.
The people who defend racial tribalism as “natural” often do so without having meaningful bonds with individuals from other ethnic or cultural groups.
There’s a high probability that their perspectives are shaped by a lack of personal experience or deep relationships with people from outside their "tribe."
Without those connections, it’s easy to fall back on tribalistic thinking because it feels comfortable and familiar, reinforcing the idea that "us vs. them" is somehow an inherent truth.
But when you form real bonds with individuals from other so-called "tribes," it challenges that worldview. You start to see people as individuals, not representatives of a group, and you realize that we share more in common than these artificial divisions suggest.
The notion that tribalism is "natural" begins to break down when you experience firsthand the richness that comes from interacting with people who have different perspectives, experiences, and skills.
Those who hold tightly to racial tribalism may have never had the opportunity—or chosen to step outside their comfort zones—to build friendships or collaborations with people from diverse backgrounds. If they did, they might see that cooperation across so-called “tribes” can be far more enriching and productive than isolation or division.
What’s often missed in this defense of tribalism is the fact that human history shows that societies advance most when they collaborate and share knowledge across cultural lines. The more we isolate ourselves within a single group, the more we limit our potential for growth, innovation, and progress. Racial tribalism, while seemingly “natural” in a primitive sense, ignores the fact that human societies have evolved and that we thrive on connection, not division.
In essence, defending tribalism as "natural" is often the result of living in an echo chamber, disconnected from the benefits of broader human interaction. Expanding those bonds and embracing diversity—especially economic diversity—not only breaks down harmful divisions but also strengthens societies by unleashing the full range of human potential.
The people who defend racial tribalism as “natural” often do so without having meaningful bonds with individuals from other ethnic or cultural groups.
The point is: Many people DO NOT WANT those bonds.
There’s a high probability that their perspectives are shaped by a lack of personal experience or deep relationships with people from outside their "tribe."
I have known people of all races. Regarding blacks, I have worked and socialized with some. None of them have been a problem for me. Others that I don't know personally HAVE been a problem for me.
None that I have known have had any particular positive benefit to my life.
Although most are neither positive or negative, some are extremely negative, and none are extremely positive.
The same has been true for other "tribe" members I have known.
There is just no net benefit, and on the whole is a net negative.
Non-Whites have a hard time grasping this concept because for THEM, living in a society built by Whites and run on White prinicples has been a benefit ... for THEM.
I understand that perspective, but it is beside the point.
But gunpowder came from China. 9th century alchemists. or for example, mayan indians gave value to the zero mathematically. And Indians (from India) defined zero philisophically
Everything is connected. Food, technology, art, religion, etc.
"The notion that tribalism is "natural" begins to break down when you experience firsthand the richness that comes from interacting with people who have different perspectives, experiences, and skills."
Tribal heritage is different perspectives, experiences, and skills. Tribal heritage is not set in stone. It changes from day to day. It seems you consider tribal heritage as a closed society. It is not.
Yes but being ethnic centric will never work long term anyways.
the amount of downvotes this comment got is fucking disturbing. You guys really want to go back to the Old Testament, don't you? Where it's all about muh bloodlines, muh geneologies. Dumbasses need to read the New Testament before you usher us into a Nazi 2.0 situation!
This is so important. WW2 is the founding myth of the current world order of the synagogue of Satan. From world war 2 they get:
The United States was justified in killing its enemies and thus has a right to rule today.
Hitler is the original sin of white people (if that doesn’t work pivot to slavery, mostly controlled by the synagogue of Satan, but we’ll ignore that for now.)
Because of Hitler and the Holocaust we must: A. Always support Israel because they are a persecuted people who need a homeland. B. White people can never be ethnocentric because White people being ethnocentric always leads to anti semetism and the Holocaust. (Ignore that the synagogue of Satan is incredibly ethnocentric, see point A.)
Long story short, look at the Albert Pike letters, Jews played both sides (they funded Hitler’s rise, and Imperial Russia’s collapse, America’s rise, England’s collapse), and if you fund both sides you control who wins no matter who does so. They also love it because it’s a satanic sacrifice of Christians and they hardly have to lift a finger and they manage to consolidate more money in their power. They also get rid of the most ethnocentric and strongest amongst us, a win on all sides in their mind. They also control our history through our history books, see Ghislane Maxwell’s dad was involved in McGraw-Hill (obviously Mossad). So because they control our past, they control our future. We have to take back our past.
Edit: oh yeah, and specifically regarding Churchill, he went bankrupt after WW1 and was owned by Jewish bankers after that.
Edit2: They’re freaking out because their lies are being exposed and as such their stranglehold on the world order is collapsing.
This comment needs upvotes of 5 points at a time. Spot on.
Seconded.
Thanks guys, I know we’re at great awakening.win, but these times really do feel like the great awakening that was promised.
I agree and feel the need to distinguish the difference between Synagogue of Satan (SoS) Jews and bible believing, at least Torah believing (edit: Torah only, for now) Israelite Jews.
Just like our deep state government controls us and misrepresents the USA as a whole, so do SoS Jews.
The only history that will set us free is that which is filtered through an understanding of and belief in God’s word.
Isaiah 10:8-13 “Remember this, keep it in mind, take it to heart, you rebels. 9 Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. 10 I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.’ 11 From the east I summon a bird of prey; from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose. What I have said, that I will bring about; what I have planned, that I will do. 12 Listen to me, you stubborn-hearted, you who are now far from my righteousness. 13 I am bringing my righteousness near, it is not far away; and my salvation will not be delayed. I will grant salvation to Zion, my splendor to Israel.”
No such thing as an "Israelite jew."
Jews are the Edomites, not the Israelites.
Judaism is focused on the Talmud, which is the jewish teaching of how to GET AROUND the Torah.
They do NOT believe in the Torah, as in the first 5 books of Moses.
What most Christians do not understand is that jews use the word "Torah" to mean two DIFFERENT things:
They can SAY they follow the Torah, but what they REALLY MEAN is they follow ALL of jewish teachings, where the Talmud is primary.
They even have entire schools devoted to learning the Talmud, but not the books of Moses.
There is a passage in the Bible where Jesus says to beware of the "priests" (meaning the rabbi jews) who "sit on the Chair of Moses" and then stand and preach something opposite of Moses (opposite of The Law).
While they are sitting on the Chair of Moses (which rabbis do in synagogues today), they talk about the Law as presented by Moses.
But THEN THEY STAND, and tell you why Moses was wrong, in that they preach what the Talmud says -- which is the opposite of Moses.
So, "Torah" does not mean the same thing to you as it does to them.
They are TAUGHT TO DECEIVE as a NECESSARY practice of their religion.
That is what most Christians are missing.
They are TAUGHT TO DECEIVE as a NECESSARY practice of their religion
Such an important distinction. Most God fearing Christians believe that most people are talking the truth when they speak, unfortunately they have no such qualms lying to our face, because they consider us to be cattle only fit to serve them. You can’t lie to a horse can you?
Dude! Thank you for clarifying the difference. This had me baffled to no end. Now it makes perfect sense!
This is the most educational thread on GAW we've had in a while, in my opinion.
Edomites are from the line of Esau who God said He hated. They are the Talmud wielding Synagogue of Satan Jews. It seems King Herod gets the credit for installing them into the hierarchy of Judaism.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1764531226210152661.html
I use the term Israelite Jews to describe God’s chosen people from the line of Jacob, who God said He loved and also said would end up blinded to His Servant (Jesus) before rejoining and ultimately seeing and recognizing Jesus. These Israelite Jews, for lack of better nomenclature, God’s chosen (which ultimately includes Christians but I digress as they are not a part of who I’m describing here), will be reconciled with Messiah during the great tribulation aka Jacob’s trouble described in both Isaiah and Revelation.
ELI5 version: God chose stubborn people to work through on earth. They go back and forth following God’s commandments and rebelling. Showing the prosperity God’s way provides and the sinful nature of man that cannot follow His ways. God, through His prophets, tells His people that a savior is coming to save them. He tells them when, where, and how He will be born. God tells them how to recognize Him, how they will be blinded to recognizing Him. How He will be treated and rejected by them. Although, there were some authentic Torah believing Jews that knew God’s word well enough to recognize Him and believe. Think of the multitudes that laid palms and their cloaks at his feet upon His entrance into Jerusalem. They saw the prophesied colt he rode in on. There were multiple prophecies fulfilled that day. They knew. I could go on about this but I am only trying to describe the authenticity of some Jews vs the Talmudic SoS Jews. These same Jews who recognized Him were also eventually blinded as they did not understand that He was currently building a heavenly kingdom at that time. They saw Him die and could not rectify that with the earthly kingdom He was prophesied to bring them. The earthly kingdom He will bring on His return and rule over for a thousand years.
Isaiah tells them He will stir jealousy in them by working through a different group of people for a time. This stubborn group of people remain His chosen as God adds more chosen people, Christians (through Paul’s gospel), to the “chosen” group throughout this whole time.
God also tells everyone that in the end, during great tribulation, he will remove the blindfold and bring His original chosen people back to Him as they will then see and believe.
All labels are somewhat ridiculous especially the label Jew as I’m pointing out so forget the label and understand the group of people I am talking about. There does seem to be two general groups of Jews though, authentic, for lack of a better word, and SoS. It has less to do with DNA and more to do with covenants, faith, and belief. As Paul argues circumcision doesn’t make you a Jew but rather faith in Christ Jesus does.
Edit: It’s similar to how Christianity was corrupted by Catholicism, or perhaps Roman Catholicism. They claim to believe the same core doctrine as Christians but it is evident in their practices that they don’t. So much so that a reformation had to take place and yet still there are denominations to sort out. Like I said above. Groups should be less described by their labels and more acknowledged for their faith and beliefs. Even the term Christianity has been watered down to include too many. You either believe and adhere to God’s word or you forge your own path. The Israelites showed us for millennia how our own path leads to destruction. Repent and abide in God’s word to be found favorable and prosperous or don’t and lead yourself to hell. It’s really as simple as that. For the Jew first and also for the gentile.
The biggest problem Christians have today is not understanding who is who in the Bible.
That lack of understanding makes the entire thing baffling.
Part of the problem is that many words and phrases have been mistranslated over the years, whether innocently or otherwise.
The Bible was not written in English, but that is all we (English readers) have to go on. But what if important, key words were never translated properly, leaving us with a mish mash of truths that are only partly true?
The OT was written in Hebrew. The NT was written in Greek. Then, the OT was translated into Greek. Right there, we have potential for mistranslations.
Then, the whole thing was translated into Latin when the Roman Empire switched to Christianity.
For over 1,000 years, it was illegal to translate the Bible into anything but Latin -- and most Europeans could not read Latin!
It was only the "insiders" in the Church who could read Latin. But could they read Hebrew to check whether the early translations were correct? Most could not.
Enter: The jews come to the rescue! They claimed to be experts in Hebrew, so they were often used as translators of the Bible from Hebrew (and Greek) into Latin -- for a book that they do not believe in, and for which their religion tells them to destroy.
Potential problem, eh?
Example: We see the word "harlot" and "whore" in the NT. Both words come from the same Greek word, porne, which means a woman who is a prostitute. Same Greek word, but two different English translations for some reason.
We see the word "whoremonger." In our modern English, we think this means a man who pays prostitutes. And we are told in the Bible that a whoremonger will not get into heaven. Why not?
Because our English word "whoremonger" comes from the Greek "pornos" which means a male prostitute, and not a man who pays a woman prostitute.
Well, a male prositute means a man who engages in homosexual acts, which is specifically identified as a sin in the Bible, and prohibited. THAT is why he cannot get into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Not because he pays for some poon, but because he engages in an act that is an abomination.
Likewise, our modern English versions use the word "jew" in many places, but that word did not exist in Greek or Hebrew or Latin.
It was a made-up word in English. The actual word used in most places where we see "jew" was actually "Judean." But in other places, "jew" is used to mean "Israelite" -- possibly because the jewish translators were trying to change the story.
These "jew" translations happened about 200-300 or so years ago, as the word was not used (in English) before then.
This is why it is only in the NT. During Jesus' time, the territory that had once been the Kingdom of Judah had been taken over by the Roman Empire (around 6 AD), and they called it Judea, a Roman province.
Many Edomites lived in that province at that time, and controlled it (subject to higher Roman authority). They were the ancestors of modern-day jews.
But anyone living in Judea could be called a Judean, which was in the original Greek. Just like today, a Chinaman can live in Texas and call himself a "Texan," though that is not the original meaning, anymore than a black man living in Bejing and calling himself "Chinese."
These out-of-context translations cause problems.
So, from Genesis 10 & 11 ...
Therefore, both Esau and Jacob were Semites and also Hebrews.
But, Esau (aka Edom) intermarried with Canaanites, which was outside of the Semitic family tree. His children became the Edomites.
These are today's jews.
OTOH, Jacob (aka Israel) had pure Hebrew/Semite children, and they became the Israelites.
So, jews are not Israelites.
Therefore, it is not correct to use the term "Israelite jew."
Israelite Judean, yes.
Jewish Judean, yes.
Edomite jew, yes.
They were all Judeans if they lived in Judea, but not all Judeans were of the tribe of Judah (of which the kingdom no longer existed at the time of Jesus).
Jesus was a direct descendant of Judah (son of Jacob/Israel), making Jesus an Israelite, but not a jew.
The jews and the Israelites are TWO DIFFERENT tribes. The Jewish Encyclopedia says it, but the jews do not talk about that publicly. They let everyone believe they are the "Chosen Ones," when in fact they never were.
I disagree. The jews themselves will tell you that they see "jew" as an ethnicity. Therefore, it is not about faith or belief. Afterall, you cannot have faith that you are black (if you are not), or a woman (if you are a man), or a chicken (if you are a human).
Likewise, you cannot be a different ethnicity via faith. That is part of the mixed-up belief system so many people have today.
But logically, it cannot be true.
Once you wrap your mind around the idea that jews, over many centuries, have perverted and distorted Christianity -- a religion they don't even like -- it will start to make sense.
Paul was an Israelite (not a jew). In one passage, he mentioned his "fellow Israelites." He was writing to the White people of Europe in all of his letters.
Herod was an Edomite (i.e. jew) and forced everyone to convert to Judaism. Many of them practiced circumcision because they thought it made them "Hebrews," even though they were not. Their ancestor, Esau, mixed with Canannites, thus no longer allowing his descenents to be Hebrews (or Semites).
Circumcision does not make you an Israelite (or Hebrew, or Semite). The use of the word "jew" in that passage is, once again, a false translation.
The jews today are not true Semites.
They lie about that, too.
Remember: Paul lived at a time when the Romans (government) were killing Christians.
It was dangrous to be a Christian in the Roman Empire. Yet, he wrote to his fellow Romans in the passage you cite -- they were his fellow Israelite brothers, living in Rome.
He was telling them how Jesus wants them to live their lives. He wants them to follow The Law. Things like circumcision mean nothing if they do not follow The Law.
"Faith" according to Jesus is not merely a belief. It is following The Law. Only by following The Law do you actually demonstrate your faith.
And this is not the same as "saved by works." By "works," Jesus was referring to the practice of engaging in rituals. The "Tradition of the Elders" (forerunner to the Talmud of the jews) said that one has to practice rituals to show faith. But the Bible (OT) says nothing of the sort.
Jesus said one is not saved by works (i.e. rituals). Yet, the Pharisees did preach that, and later the Catholic Church would push that (and still does to this day) until Martin Luther discovered that the Bible not only does not say to do that, but says don't do it.
Anyway, the word "jew" used in this passage refers to the Israelite people, as it is they who were/are under "The Law," due to the covenant.
Again, the word "jew" was added in the English versions, which means we have to keep everything we read in context of the overall story, and not just pluck out one passage and think it means something that it might not mean, when considered in context.
Dang. That was a great explanation. Screencapped.
Why is the promised land a land of milk and honey, when most Sephardic Jews and Ashkenazi Jews are lactose intolerant? Which race has the highest rate of lactose tolerance? It’s of my opinion that the Covenant passed to those who saw the messiah as such, and those who rejected him thus rejected the Covenant.
"Torah believing jew" those exist?
Very good comment.
But in reference to Hitler, they (the Jews) wanted to condemn nationalism, the Christian religion (Hitler was Catholic) for the Jews those who love their country and being Christian is anti-Semitism, not the White person in Hitler, the Jews are White for the most part then they are also part of the problem.
Honestly I think the firewall he tripped more so than being a Christian nationalist was nationalizing the Rothschild national bank. That’s why he had to lose and ultimately became the scapegoat for such things. But ultimately your correct that they hate few things more than Anglo-Saxon Christians.
I think he told the bankers to fuck off after he gained power (though not 100% sure on the timing, as to whether or not he spoke about it publicly while running for office - he did run for president of Germany, after all, and came in 2nd).
The real issue for Hitler was that he knew the jews were the ones who murdered millions of Russian White people (also Christians, but it wasn't as much of a religious thing for him). He knew that the jews were coming for the Germans next.
You can actually SEE it in the historical newspapers from the early 1900's where the American newspapers (run by jews) were "sounding the alarm" about "jews being persecuted in Russia" then "jews being persecuted in Eastern Europe" -- once they got Russia, they were heading into Europe. Those articles ALWAYS used the 6,000,000 number, way before Hitler.
This video shows the newspaper articles from 1915-1938:
https://rumble.com/vtv060-six-million-jews-1915-1938-6-6000000.html
Although the person who made the video does not mention it, it was Warburg behind the money raising in the articles.
But beyond that, Hitler knew what the jews had been trying to do in Germany from the time of the end of WW1 when Germany was in chaos, as the government just abandoned ship, in terms of any upholding of law (they were losing the war, and chaos ensued within Germany).
Here is a timeline of historical events, showing in part how jews were trying to take over Germany, from 1918 until Hitler took over. Remember, the overthrow of Russia was in 1917, and they just assumed they could move straight into Europe and continue their bloodshed, as the end of the war made Germany weak at home:
https://alphahistory.com/weimarrepublic/weimar-republic-timeline-1918-20/
https://alphahistory.com/weimarrepublic/weimar-republic-timeline-1921-23/
https://alphahistory.com/weimarrepublic/weimar-republic-timeline-1924-28/
https://alphahistory.com/weimarrepublic/weimar-republic-timeline-1929-33/
This timeline, IMO, puts things in the proper perspective.
Filed under: More things we were never taught in school (for some odd reason ...)
A much more thorough analysis than mine, bravo. Keep doing what you’re doing. My main thrust was not that they necessarily hate us because we’re Christian, but they hate us because we’re the only people who might have a chance at stopping them.
Thanks for those Weimar Republic links,fren.
Very interesting and very much appreciated.
Damned straight.
EXACTLY!!!!!
Yes but being ethnic centric will never work long term anyways.
Once freedom of choice comes into play. Human beings will always seek to do what makes them personally happy.
They won’t care about the ethnic group. They will care about their family and themselves first.
Over time… the people who are the most ethnic centric will always die out.
Simply because they will always become the most authoritarian!
How else can you force millions of people to have the same passions and desires as each other.
Racial and ethnic pride will always fail. Due to what it takes to make millions of people to passionately care that much.
Most people will not care too much about their ethnicity and roots.
Most people just want to live life and experience happiness in the world.
Such as travel, camping, boating, dining, etc.
That is a very superficial take, and one that many people have been propagandized to accept.
Ethnicity and family/self is one and the same.
Not caring about your roots is not caring about yourself.
Caring more about camping and boating is a shallow life.
I need to be less verbose like this guy, nail meet head. Said it better in less than what I did myself.
"Less verbose" is not usually how I am described.
LOL.
It depends on examples. what do you do if you are multiethnic? Should someone half black and half white only marry black? etc
The big problem is a lot of people default to one drop rule. So half black kids ignore their white heritage. Hispanics are all part white, some even purely white, and they tend to disregard their heritage too even though european culture is responsible for most everything Latin Americans hold dear (catholicism, the food, soccer, art, music, etc)
No, it’s not.
Human nature drives us to compete with one another, which is why collectivism will never succeed.
You may be white, but other white people are also competing with you for resources.
In a world where competition is natural, people prioritize their own family and personal interests first.
The truth is, a random stranger who shares your ethnicity isn’t going to care about you. They don’t know you.
So what does this mean?
They’ll always look out for their own family and themselves before anyone else. When it’s a choice between you, a stranger, and their family, they’ll throw you under the bus.
Take Gavin Newsom as an example—why is he harming California? He’s a white man, yet where is his ethnic loyalty?
It doesn’t exist! He cares only about his family and himself.
The Bible teaches us about Judas, right? What did someone from Jesus’ own tribe do? He betrayed Jesus for money.
This story is significant.
Because of the competitive nature of resources, many people from your ethnic group wouldn’t hesitate to betray you if it served their interests.
So, for those who think ethnic heritage is what matters most, they’re missing the point.
In a world driven by competition, ethnic loyalty holds little weight.
As long as your world view is directed by a "scarcity of resources" you will only see and experience a scarcity in life.
The moment you choose to see Abundance in all you do will be the moment Abundance enters your life.
I highly recommend "Think and Grow Rich" by Napolean Hill for anyone feeling scarcity in life.
"Rich" isn't just about money. We can have richness in our relationships, richness in our experiences, and richness in our accomplishments. We can have richness in all we do.
This book will change the life for those open minded to learn its secrets. One must have a Desire to learn and put into practice it's secrets, but people of ALL ethnicities, backgrounds, and circumstances have used its secrets for massive success.
Some will make excuses and have "reasons" it won't work form them.
But as a mentor said to me just yesterday.
Gavin Newsom is a tribalist of the NWO. The NWO wants complete domination of the world. Those within the NWO have given up their ethnic tribalism to NWO tribalism. A world driven by competition is a world of the NWO. Think outside the NWO box.
People wanting to be with their own is as natural as wanting to have sex. You’re basically trying to do what feminism has done to women. Feminist’s deny that most women want to raise a family not slave for corporations.
You’re not fully grasping the complexity of the human brain.
Think of the brain as a software application—one that has undergone many updates over time. Just like software evolves with new features and optimizations, the human brain has adapted and changed as we’ve progressed through different eras of history.
When you say it's "natural" for people to want to stick with their own, you’re referring to the Human Brain Version 1.0—the primitive, default settings we relied on for survival in the early stages of human development.
In this version, the brain operates on instinctual programming, much of which is designed to detect threats and prioritize survival. Back then, "those others"—people from different tribes or groups—were often perceived as dangerous simply because they were unknown. Fear of the unfamiliar was a default survival mechanism, causing early humans to cling to their own group for protection.
So yes, based on those default settings, it makes sense that people would instinctively feel more comfortable with others who look and act like them. This is deeply ingrained in our brain's original programming from thousands of years ago. When you talk about the "natural" desire to stick to one’s own, this is what you’re referring to.
But here’s what you’re missing: Humans have been evolving for thousands of years, and our brains—just like software—have gone through numerous "updates" since version 1.0. We no longer live in isolated tribes, and the circumstances that shaped our early instincts have changed drastically.
Over time, human societies have gained new experiences, learned from interactions, and built complex systems of communication and cooperation. These experiences have rewired our brains in profound ways:
Cultural Interactions: Different groups of people have interacted for centuries, and in many cases, learned to coexist peacefully. The human brain has adapted to recognize that "those others" are not always a threat but can be allies, partners, and friends.
Common Language: Today, many groups speak shared languages like English, which bridges the gap between cultures. This shared communication helps dissolve the "us vs. them" mentality that was so deeply embedded in our brains in earlier stages of evolution. Now, we can understand and relate to people from different backgrounds in ways our ancestors never could.
Biological Integration: We now understand that humans across all ethnicities can intermarry and procreate, producing children that represent a blend of different cultures. This knowledge challenges the idea that we are entirely separate from one another. The biological possibility of mixing genes across ethnic groups shows that we are fundamentally interconnected.
Globalization and Shared Resources: The modern world is interconnected in ways early humans could never imagine. Today, our survival often depends on cooperation with people from different backgrounds, whether in trade, innovation, or peacekeeping efforts. The brain's capacity for understanding cooperation has evolved beyond tribal loyalty.
My final thoughts.
The idea of sticking to one's own may have been vital in Human Brain Version 1.0, where fear and survival ruled every decision. But in the modern world, with all the knowledge, experiences, and connections we've gained, we’ve moved far beyond those default settings. Our brains are now capable of much more nuanced and evolved thinking.
To cling to the outdated, instinctual fear of "those others" is to deny the growth and potential of the human brain. It’s not just about what’s "natural"; it’s about recognizing that humans are capable of adapting to new realities. We have the ability to transcend our original programming and form meaningful connections across all kinds of differences. That’s the true potential of the modern human brain.
I have not seen humans as a large group let go of tribal instincts. Maybe in the new world you may be correct but I have to see it to believe it.
Mass immigration as a whole has not existed in human history like it is today and it has mostly been a failure in places like the US, Canada and Europe.
The brain as software? There is no comparison, try to grasp the complexity of it please. For instance, where is our memory, our consciousness of even our soul?
What are these made of and where do they reside?
And which brain are you talking about?
Ethnocentrism is simply loving oneself, one’s family, community, state and country in that order. It seems to be scrubbed from the internet but one of those old Greek philosophers says “Democracy requires homogeneity, because when foreigners are introduced the society lacks the necessary phila (one of the Greek’s words for love) to function.”
Here’s a quote from Aristotle that I managed to find: “It is also a habit of tyrants to prefer the company of aliens to that of citizens at table and in society; citizens, they feel, are enemies, but aliens will offer no opposition”
So where we’re at now is that the society is ruled by Jews. Jews hate the American populace because by and large they are Anglo Saxon and Christian. Jews also think that promoting diversity in the society will make the general populace focus on other problems than them, and for the most part that’s true. If the rest of your society is diverse, you have no standing to call them out for being diverse.
While ethnocentrism may not have worked in the long run for us that doesn’t mean that it can’t hold a society long enough to create great wonders like Egypt, Greece, Rome and many of the modern nations. Most of these problems are elucidated in Sir John Glubb’s life cycle of empires. Another good work on the effect of heterogeneity on humans is Robert Putnam’s E Pluribus Unum paper.
Ultimately I think humanity is growing up, and eliminating those who constantly set each other against ourselves will go a long way to creating a better world.
Edit: found the first quote, Aristotle on democracy, diversity and Philia: https://www.reddit.com/r/democracy/comments/a1vp64/i_feel_aristotle_was_correct_in_his_assessment_of/
Well said.
"Muh diversity" has been promoted by jews for the purpose of destroying the White race through miscegenation (race mixing).
Muhammad Ali said it well:
"You're a hater of your people if you don't want to stay who you are."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqiWFLsgVi4
“Diversity is our strength” is the greatest lie of our modern age and such a hard frame for us to break because the programming is so strong.
Aristotle and other philosophers are essentially sharing opinions and theories based on their personal beliefs. Much of philosophy is built on observations rather than scientifically proven facts, which means it often lacks empirical grounding.
Ethnocentrism, for example, is often misunderstood. It isn’t about self-love—it’s a form of collectivism. Ethnocentrism emphasizes "us" over "me," placing group identity above the individual. This type of thinking inevitably leads to conflict, and ultimately, war.
But why does ethnocentrism lead to war?
This is crucial because humans have an innate desire to understand why they belong to a certain ethnic group—why they were born white, black, or any other race. Once people begin searching for a reason for their ethnic identity, it often leads to the belief that their group is special or "chosen."
When people start to believe they are "the chosen ones," it fosters a dangerous mentality of superiority. It creates an “us vs. them” dynamic where one group views itself as inherently better or more deserving than others. This mentality naturally leads to conflict with other groups, who may also believe they are chosen or superior. Such competition for validation, resources, and power breeds hostility.
When you prioritize your ethnic group, you draw hard lines between "us" and "them." This tribal mindset creates divisions that can’t be easily bridged. Tribalism is exclusionary by nature, and when groups feel threatened by others—whether economically, politically, or culturally—those divisions become battlegrounds.
History shows that these divides lead to oppression, conquest, and war. Groups will fight to defend their perceived superiority or rights, often at the expense of others.
Resources on this planet are limited—land, water, wealth, and political power are all finite. Ethnocentrism makes groups feel entitled to these resources, and they will fight to secure them for their own group’s survival and prosperity. This competitive drive, amplified by the belief that "our group" deserves more, inevitably leads to conflict with other groups vying for the same resources.
While ethnocentrism promotes group loyalty, it doesn’t eliminate competition within that group. Internal power struggles, class differences, and personal ambitions still exist. Leaders often use ethnic loyalty to rally people for their own selfish goals, even when it harms the broader group. This internal friction can destabilize societies and create even more conflict.
In short, ethnocentrism promotes division, superiority, and competition—all ingredients for war. History is filled with examples of this, from genocides to colonial conquests. When group identity becomes the priority over individual humanity, conflict is not just possible—it’s inevitable.
Aristotle and other philosophers are essentially sharing opinions and theories based on their personal beliefs
I’m sorry, but do you actually have anything other than your opinion here? At least I loosely referred to history and some of the most timeless philosophers that we have. I could quote the Bible if you’d like:
43 “Foreigners who live in your land will gain more and more power, while you gradually lose yours. 44 They will have money to lend you, but you will have none to lend them. In the end they will be your rulers.” Deuteronomy 28:43-44 ESV
What you seem to be missing is that you’re taking the talking points of our rulers who hate us, who on one hand will tell you ethnocentrism is wrong and with the other hand are the most ethnocentric amongst us. Don’t listen to what Jews say, watch how they act, and time after time they act in ethnocentrism while telling us that it’s the worst thing ever.
Only on Q comment here. I can not upvote you enough
Skin color tribalism is retarded.
especially because if you go full tard, whites lose. 80% of the world is not "white"
The people who defend racial tribalism as “natural” often do so without having meaningful bonds with individuals from other ethnic or cultural groups.
There’s a high probability that their perspectives are shaped by a lack of personal experience or deep relationships with people from outside their "tribe."
Without those connections, it’s easy to fall back on tribalistic thinking because it feels comfortable and familiar, reinforcing the idea that "us vs. them" is somehow an inherent truth.
But when you form real bonds with individuals from other so-called "tribes," it challenges that worldview. You start to see people as individuals, not representatives of a group, and you realize that we share more in common than these artificial divisions suggest.
The notion that tribalism is "natural" begins to break down when you experience firsthand the richness that comes from interacting with people who have different perspectives, experiences, and skills.
Those who hold tightly to racial tribalism may have never had the opportunity—or chosen to step outside their comfort zones—to build friendships or collaborations with people from diverse backgrounds. If they did, they might see that cooperation across so-called “tribes” can be far more enriching and productive than isolation or division.
What’s often missed in this defense of tribalism is the fact that human history shows that societies advance most when they collaborate and share knowledge across cultural lines. The more we isolate ourselves within a single group, the more we limit our potential for growth, innovation, and progress. Racial tribalism, while seemingly “natural” in a primitive sense, ignores the fact that human societies have evolved and that we thrive on connection, not division.
In essence, defending tribalism as "natural" is often the result of living in an echo chamber, disconnected from the benefits of broader human interaction. Expanding those bonds and embracing diversity—especially economic diversity—not only breaks down harmful divisions but also strengthens societies by unleashing the full range of human potential.
The point is: Many people DO NOT WANT those bonds.
I have known people of all races. Regarding blacks, I have worked and socialized with some. None of them have been a problem for me. Others that I don't know personally HAVE been a problem for me.
None that I have known have had any particular positive benefit to my life.
Although most are neither positive or negative, some are extremely negative, and none are extremely positive.
The same has been true for other "tribe" members I have known.
There is just no net benefit, and on the whole is a net negative.
Non-Whites have a hard time grasping this concept because for THEM, living in a society built by Whites and run on White prinicples has been a benefit ... for THEM.
I understand that perspective, but it is beside the point.
Precisely, basic maga/q people love 2a...
But gunpowder came from China. 9th century alchemists. or for example, mayan indians gave value to the zero mathematically. And Indians (from India) defined zero philisophically
Everything is connected. Food, technology, art, religion, etc.
Q is worldwide, no way around it.
"The notion that tribalism is "natural" begins to break down when you experience firsthand the richness that comes from interacting with people who have different perspectives, experiences, and skills."
Tribal heritage is different perspectives, experiences, and skills. Tribal heritage is not set in stone. It changes from day to day. It seems you consider tribal heritage as a closed society. It is not.
the amount of downvotes this comment got is fucking disturbing. You guys really want to go back to the Old Testament, don't you? Where it's all about muh bloodlines, muh geneologies. Dumbasses need to read the New Testament before you usher us into a Nazi 2.0 situation!
I pray for them.
What they don't understand. The Cabal has brainwashed them to the opposite extreme.
They see themselves as "Morally Correct" to save their own race. What they don't realize. That's the Cabal playing both sides.