T Nation

Race..Culture..Non pc Question


As the world changes I think a good argument can be made that White Christian (males...) have been the driving force that created the ideals of Liberty, Rule of Law, Equality, and personal responsability.

When you review World History. I think the above is fairly clear. Without question others have helped and Whites have made errors. But overall I think the point holds.

If...If I'm correct..where does that leave us as we abandon those values and as the plague Multiculturlism spreads?


With the same collectivist tyranny that was the norm for most human societies.


Where do you think it leaves us?


Hey look, a stupid bigot asked a stupid bigot question, but predicated it with "non pc question". Clearly if I point out how much of a dipshit racist this guy is, he'll just say he's not "being pc".

Good job losing any credibility you might have had, ever.


Well, to you credit, your ad hominems are not really disguised as something else.

Even though I personally believe that a "WTF you fuckktard" would have been more succinct.


We have to embrace and celebrate diversity even though much of that diversity does not give two shits about celebrating or embracing ours.

If you don't you are a bigoted jerk who should die in a fire.

We should be open minded and free thinking, unless the ideas don't fit the mold that is how we view the way the world should be rather than how it is, and if you don't you are a closed minded dumb ass, and/or the curse of all curses "biggest shit head on this site". :slight_smile:

And most importantly-

We should think outside the box without even knowing what is in it. But don't worry about this one, because this type of thinking never produces anything but reinvented wheels anyways.
If you don't treat subjects with a glib disregard for their actual content you will never be confronted with your own ignorance. This is very important if you want to feel smart and emanate an air of smugness without ever accomplishing anything.


Careful, you are moving dangerously close to "bigoted against stupid bigots" territory here.

Probably a more effective strategy would be to explain why you disagree with his premise.


"bigoted agaisnt bigots" is another fun one. Its impossible. Being against bigotry means being against those who practice bigotry. It's an attempt to hijack the definition of the word to say "Anything can be considered bigotry, therefore nothing can be considered bigotry."

Question: If you see a man hitting a woman and you knock him the fuck out, should we say you "assaulted" the man? If you see someone steal an old womans purse, and you take the purse back from him, are you a theif, because you "stole" the purse from the man? Are you "bigoted" against murderers, rapists, theives, terrorists, etc?


I'm certainly not a bigot, but I'm not sure how I feel about his basic question if I'm going to be intellectually honest. I doubt a serious discussion will take place though given the manner in which he posed his question. Seems like he had a thought, and rather than express it, decided instead to yell fire in a crowded theater and is satisfied instead to watch everyone scream and run for the exits.


If I were you, I would open those World History textbooks and look up the Persian Empire, Mesopotamia, ancient Egypt, Phoenicia, ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, and Alexander the Great. Every single one of those ideals came about before the idea of Christianity and a lot of these ideals have their origins in the fertile crescent. Also, after the fall of Alexander and his Library plunged Europe into the Dark Ages, it was contact with the Persians and the pagans in Ireland that began reintroducing these ideals to the Europeans.


Typical. Someone just has to go and spoil a perfectly good, fictional, racist argument with facts, knowledge and rational thought. The OP clearly didn't want these 'details' cluttering up his thread.


As an Hispanic I often argue with my fellow mojo friends and black brothers about this. Not necessarily as whites being supreme, but why are most powerful countries excluding Asians, ran by the Anglos. There are examples of bad Anglo countries i.e. former Soviet Union States.

Look at South America yeah its doing well and good but in my opinion it could be a whole lot better, they are full of natural resources. Same as Mexico very rich in resources as well. Look at the majority of Africa and the Middle East and some of Indonesia and India. Why are the majority so downtrodden and in poverty?

Australia and New Zealand are doing well and are populated with Anglos as well. There must be something to this in my opinion. Are they smarter, better, stronger, No. But in my opinion I believe they have way of thinking of the greater of the herd than for the one. Mind you I do not include the Hitler types.

Also before you guys bash on me Im an Anchor baby from two wetbacks. The problem with America is not the Mexicans its the real Southern countries, i.e. Nicaragua, Salvador..so on and so on. Where real poverty is 90 percent of the population.


Hm. Maybe its an evolutionary psychology thing? White people generally come from places that have long winters - working together to survive would be very important, and the ability to be politically savvy as well.




Could be capped and plant but I somewhat agree with Valor on this issue. There is something to be said about why some races are better OFF than others, and please nobody say because the MAN is keeping us down.
Gotta go to work, lets not bash each other lets hear some good talk. I have always loved this topic when talking to fellow minorities now I can hear it from the evil white man. ( sarcasm ).


This a fucking stupid question

Most of the advancement by 'white Christians?' Indian and arabic mathematics outstripped anything at the same time in western circles (one of the great mathematicians, Hypatia, a PAGAN WOMAN was killed for being pagan by christians in alexandria). We owe algebra entirely to arabic mathematicians. Concrete was used in ancient Rome and only 'discovered' in the 18th century. Medieval Baghdad had primitive batteries. The chinese had paper, gunpowder and stirrups centuries before they were even dreamed of in the west. Arabs and byzantine clerics preserved classical texts that became the basis of thechristian Renaissance. Without their scholarship, it's unlikely we would have had a Reformation, a Renaissance, a rebirth of humanist learning etc. Athenian democracy (and later on, briefy, the Roman republic) flourished before any Christian autocrat would ever have dreamed of allowing power to slip from his fingers.

Much of the improvement over the last 200 years has been from the 'west'. But a lot of that period in the west was characterised by Christian intolerance. Your question is idiotic, poorly constructed and just plain stupid

And yes, in homage to Orion, WTF fucktard


I think it is the exact opposite, the "Anglos" invented individualism as an ideal and actually believed in it for a while.

Naturally, people like Hitler came along and put the herd before the individuals, because we would obviously all be so much better off if "we all just worked together".

Only that we arent.


I'll give you liberty I suppose. A lot of the founding principles of America and democratic freedom in general came out of the Enlightenment, which was run by predominately white Christians, BUT that isn't to say that those were the only people with ideals of Liberty. Those are just the ones most influential on the modern west which we're all familiar with. Also, the (implied) attempt to attribute the contributions of relatively few white Christians to the whole of the population is retarded. WTF fucktard. Did any white Christian you've ever met contribute significantly to advancing "Liberty, Rule of Law, and personal responsibility."

Now, concerning white Christians as being the ones who most championed Rule of Law and Equality, that's laughable. Hammurabi codified law while us whities were worshiping trees and killing each other indiscriminately. And equality? The people who started a massive inter-continental slave trade are the champions of equality throughout history? Please.

So while very very many of the ideals of Liberty et al can be attributed to some white Christians, much of it cannot. Also, to (implicitly) claim the achievements of relatively few people for the entire group is retarded.

Your question also presumes that being white and Christian has something to do with forming those ideas (which it might I guess). Perhaps other structural components of European society motivated these things.

In short, I can't believe I even responded.


Please define what you mean by this word. Depending on your answer I will absolutely agree or join in calling you a bigot.


Well, I take your point about multiculturalism (I think). But you don't have it quite right. The Western tradition that has given us all the great things you note predates Christianity and, of course, found its origins in Ancient Greece and Rome. That's not to say Christianity hasn't been a part of that Western success - it has, tremedously - it's just that Classical Greece and Rome birthed it, and Christian Europe advanced it, and primarily we stand on the shoulders of the Scottish Enlightenment.

And, the whole "white" angle simply isn't true, except as historical correlation to the successful culture - and while it is true that the predominant ethnicity of this great Western success is European-esque/Caucasian, the biology of race has been completely irrelevant of any of the success (or failures) of civilizations.

Also, the case for the Near/Middle East contributions to knowledge and the success of the West (as is usually remarked, "during the Dark Ages") is overstated, and these overstatements are typically the result of political correctness.

Multiculturalism is nonsense on stilts - this idea that cultures are all kinda "equal" is not only idiocy - believing in it is cultural suicide (and would be for any culture, for that matter - what other culture obsesses with the fact that "it is simply no better than any other culture" than does America, and some of Europe?). But with that in mind, a rejection of multiculturalism can never be disguised racism, and I hope that isn't where you were headed.

Because if it was, I would be inclined to say something downright unpleasant.