Biblical Narratives Aren't Pious Fairytales:
Often critics of Christianity will point to biblical examples of poor moral conduct as examples of Christian values, despite biblical condemnation of those actions, often even within the account of the conduct itself; meant to be learned from, examples of consequence.

What these critics overlook is that the bible records a history of real people, with real problems, who like real people make mistakes, often do the wrong thing, fight on the wrong side of wars, and are morally flawed.
However just as they can be deeply flawed, they also overcame and became great extraordinary world changing men.

We don't need to live in the fairytale that our entire lineage from the dawn of time were hyper-pious warriors who could do no wrong.
They were real people, and real people make mistakes, they fall short, they succumb to vices.

It's simply the reality of our past, and it's our job to be better than them, and to ensure our children are better than us.

Too Many Chiefs Not Enough Indians:
Used to describe a situation where there are too many people giving orders and not enough people to carry them out.

While likely not originally themed on Injuns, it would have been adapted and popularised as such, as a polemic on the general consensus on why Injuns were entirely conquered and nearly erased:
That Injuns were both too divided amongst themselves, and too few of them were willing to actually put work in; most were instead trying to be idle leaders. Too many chiefs giving orders, not enough Indians following them.
While the White Americans were all united, taking orders from few men, who systematically conquered their adversary.

We have this problem among the dissent-right, too many of us are trying to become some kind of quasi-Fuhrer, an ideological leader, while being deadly allergic to any meaningful work.

Most are obsessed with being leaders, sporting our unique mspaint flags, and refuse to fall in line and follow.

This will be our downfall.

530 years ago, today, 12th October, 1492; one of history's most significant events occured.

A Genovese man, come explorer, lead a Spanish enterprise to cross the Atlantic Ocean in search of an alternative route to the Far East, instead he landed in the New World, the Americas.
This moment began an era of centuries of rapid colonisation by Europeans, of not only of the Americas, but every single piece of land on earth.

The wonders built, the technologies created, the continents conquered, the interstellar travelled, what we achieved in such a short period of time was extraordinary and unprecedented; which we hope to reconquer once again.
All this began with Christopher Columbus.

Happy Columbus Day!

Was Christopher Columbus Jewish?
No and it's absurd to claim anything other than Genovan. The "evidence" for a Jewish ethnic background is extremely speculative at best and barely worth a grain of salt.

I could go over all the details but it's best summarised here:
    "The Catalan, French, Galician, Greek, Ibizan, Jewish, Majorcan, Scottish, and other Columbuses concocted by historical fantasists are agenda-driven creations, usually inspired by a desire to arrogate a supposed or confected hero to the cause of a particular nation or historic community – or, more often than not, to some immigrant group striving to establish a special place of esteem in the United States. The evidence of Columbus's origins in Genoa is overwhelming: almost no other figure of his class or designation has left so clear a paper trail in the archives."
—1492: The Year the World Began (2009) by British historian Felipe.

Columbus was simply Genovan; however we'll know for sure soon, as an international DNA study for Columbus' precise ethnicity began in 2021, using his remains in Seville. If the results are honest, don't expect anything surprising nor exotic, given his location and class, Columbus will likely be Swiss-like.

Why is the dissent-right entertaining Jewish agenda-driven claims that Columbus was Jewish?
For an agenda-driven claim of their own, typically of pagans wanting to beat Christians to the Americas, by romanticising Leif Erikson's journey to North America.

The flaws here are:
  — Erikson's L'Anse aux Meadows settlement in Newfoundland Canada was established around ~ᴬᴰ1015. Nearly 500 years prior to Columbus, so it's inconsequential if Columbus was this or that, Erikson still got there prior.
  — Erikson was a Christian missionary, so you can't romanticise this as some kind of "viking pagan" victory.
  — Erikson's journey was historically insignificant and meaningless; had no effect on anything beyond some rocks in Newfoundland and a reference in some old books.
  — Erikson's settlement was a failed settlement, all inhabitants either left or died, Columbus began the complete, permanent and successful conquering of the New World by Whites.
  — Erikson isn't even the first European to reach the Americas by a long shot, he's just one of the few capable of returning to tell the story, Solutreans, Romans, Phoenicians, other Vikings, etc, are known to have made it to the Americas, but none returned to Europe, all dying in the New World.
  — Solutreans (from ancient France) arrived in North America using the extended Atlantic ice shelf close to 30,000 years ago, being the first settlers, until being killed and absorbed into the colonizing Ameridans.

I've rambled enough, let's summarise:
    White man discovered and conquered two continents, Jews mad and want to appropriate this achievement. Apparently we're shocked?

Who Should We Follow?
Too Many Chiefs Not Enough Indians.
  Who do we bend the knee to? Who is going to pull the sword out of the stone?

Unfortunately I don't have that answer, we still need pious, fearless and uncompromising leaders; we just shouldn't all be trying to larp as such.
  The narcissim of trying to assert yourself as a leader is rampant in the dissent-right; pure acts of vanity.

You will know them when they arise, they will be: charismatic, in good shape (disciplined), clean groomed (presentable), demonstrate leadership qualities and be actually White, an example of such is Thomas Rousseau of Patriot Front.
   Both Tom and PF may not be agreeable nor suitable for everyone, but regardless, he demonstrates himself a capable leader.

I specifically stated the obvious: must be a White man; because for some reason we often rally behind obvious Nons or literal Jews. The controlled opposition "White Power"-Jew is a threat to us all.
Good and trustworthy leaders will be White men, exclusively (of good character).

Religion:
One other important and overlooked leadership quality is being religiously ambiguous/ agnostic, they're leading a racial movement, not a church.

Whites follow many different religions, and even more specific sub-groups (denominations), making your movement a specific religion will only achieve alienating the majority of Whites.
Keep it a single-issue movement: for White preservation, prosperity and expansion.

Understandably leaders will always have their religious opinions and affiliations, it's their job to keep it to themselves.
  Often I see "leaders" set out to promote, or create new or syncretic religions, which just: make them look goofy, alienate anyone serious, and cause infighting; this is an example of a bad leader.
  It's best to simply not discuss religion and leave that issue personal to followers.

However it goes without saying that we believe all Whites should be Christian (they can always be evangelized anytime) and perhaps of our specific denomination, but the pressing issue today is White racial extinction; we need to stop getting distracted.

Freedom of Religion:
The concept of religious freedom developed out of severe religious persecution in Europe, where Whites were killing each other over differences in religion.

American religious freedom sought to guarantee basic rights to life for all Whites and to unite Whites, despite their different religions and beliefs, under the doctrine of White Nationalism.

Historically American religious freedom only extended to variants of Protestantism and Deism, only extending to Mormonism once they renounced certain beliefs/ practices, and only extending to Catholicism in very recent times due to fears of divided loyalties fading.

This ultimately demonstrated Freedom of Religion still required Protestant morality standards and belief in a single God, and wasn't so lax to allow anything and everything.

It also certainly didn't allow America's Freedom of Peopling to all, which was only extended to Northwestern Europeans, with small tolerable quotas for other Whites.

Cuius Regio, Eius Religio.
Whose realm, his religion.

Many don't understand that American "Freedom of Religion" was the ideal improvement to the former European "Cuius regio, eius religio" which had forced the common White man to believe whatever religion his local ruler believed, regardless of his personal thoughts.

This caused immense European division and dissent; if America wanted to emerge and continue as a powerful unified state, this had to change. American principles also wanted to maintain individual liberty, which cannot occur with forced religion and persecuted intellectual freedom.

America was founded as a Protestant nation, with an expectation to be Protestant, and freedom to whatever belief you had; as long as you met three precedents:
—Protestant-Christian morality.
—White racial loyalty.
—Loyalty to the nation-state (America).
This effectively birthed White Nationalism as we know today.

Like them, I believe in full Freedom of Religion, but I expect you to be Protestant, or be seen as odd.

National Origins Formula: United States (1921-1965).

Freedom of Peopling:
The United States always had a policy for freedom of peopling, where not just one ethnic group could populate the nation (usually restricted to founding population) and allowed immigration into the nation (usually barred, or of founding populations homeland, only) also not of just one ethnic group.

However this was never unlimited, from the very founding of the nation, with the Naturalization Act of 1790, citizenship was restricted to "free White persons of good character", only; which is quite a large freedom of peopling when you consider the very numerous White ethnic groups, widely diverse: genetically, culturally and linguistically.

Political issues and mistakes occured over the history of the United States (through trickery and deceit) which allowed Non citizenship, however immigration would still remain almost exclusive to Whites (Europeans).

This would come not to be seen as enough by Americans, which would birth the National Origins Formula in the early 20th century, driven by the huge influx of Southern and Eastern European immigration; which was enacted by an "emergency quota act" to halt this immigration.
This capped total immigration to 2-3% of the US population and capped immigration of specific ethnic groups to 2-3% of their current domestic population
The most drastic immigration change from this was a reduction of Southern and Eastern Europeans from 43% of all immigrants yearly, to 14%, just a few years later.

This formula did two things: protected native population from displacement, and forced an 80% immigration preference to Northwestern Europeans.

It protected native population as with the maximum cap, foreigners (immigrants) would never be able to constitute a significant portion of the nation.

Why would they intentionally restrict Southern and Eastern European immigration?
American Exceptionalism and self preservation. The National Origins Formula was put into place to protect the ethnic composition of the United States, which was supermajority Northwestern European; and because Northwestern Europeans were seen as objectively superior due to the global and technological feats they achieved, particularly in America; both of which they wanted to protect.

This isn't a statement against Southern and Eastern Europeans, there is nothing wrong with their immigration and mixing into other European nations; and Americans didn't believe it was an issue either.
They simply to wanted to moderate their immigration to maintain an effectively Northwestern European nation.

Australia, during their White Australia Policy, did the same thing, just more severe: restricting as much as 75% of all immigration to from the United Kingdom.

In summary, America's Freedom of Peopling was to Northwestern Europeans, with minority allowances for all other Europeans.

Don't Call Yourself a Wog:
Research (link to post).
—in defence of Southern Europeans.

The word "wog" is a slang abbreviation of the word "golliwogg", identical to the very modern abbreviation "non" of the word "non-white", all of which ironically simply mean non-white.

Wogs are non-white.
Only Whites can be Southern European.
Southern Europeans are White and cannot be wogs.
Don’t call yourself a wog, it’s a non-white slur.

Don't Call Yourself a Wog:
—in defence of Southern Europeans.

In very recent times, the word "Wog" has been made synonymous with "Southern Europeans" despite never in it's history being used to refer to them, it has always been a term that explicitly meant "non-white", including in the country who iconically use it: Australia. The association with Southern Europeans is both a recent misconception and intentional media revision.

The word "wog" is a slang abbreviation of the word "golliwogg", identical to the very modern abbreviation "non" of the word "non-white", all of which ironically simply mean non-white.

To summarize: (exhaustive timeline here)
– In 1894 the term “golliwogg” is invented to describe a negro fictional character.
– By 1912 golliwog becomes a popular slang term for non-whites.
– By 1929 it is abbreviated to “wog” and becomes a common British naval slang term for non-whites.
– Between 1945 and 1980 up to 1 million Southern Europeans and North Africans migrate to Australia, including (approximately 15k Chileans, 30k Turkish Cypriots, 30k Egyptians, 35k Indians, 50k Lebanese, and 30k Turks*) all under the guise of “Southern European.” During this time the term wog is popularized in Australia.
– 1981 the first entry into an Australian dictionary for the term “wog” is made, which is explicitly defined as any dark skinned individual (non-whites), “especially Arabs” with no mention of Southern Europeans.

The conclusion here is that the term has always consistently meant “non-white” across the entire Anglo world, including Australia. This being the proper Oxford definition today “wog: a person who is non-white”.
Australians may not have considered Meds (Southern Europeans) White, or simply wished to insult their non-Anglo complexion and ancestry, which is why they used derogative terms against them and called them wogs (literally non-white).
Regardless of if they were right or not to call them that, or to think of Meds that way; the term genuinely meant non-white and was used in Australia to mean non-white. Trying to "reclaim" the word wog for certain Whites, is identical to trying to reclaim the word negro for certain Whites, it is an oxymoron.

There is also the possibility the term wog was thrown around due to over 200k non-white North Africans and Middle Easterners migrating to Australia under the false guise of “Southern European”, giving a false image of Southern Europeans while the real Southern Europeans simply blended in with the other millions of European immigrants. In any case, a misconception was born and the Australian government along with the media intentionally blurred the lines between Southern European and wog, to confuse the common people; this misconception never occurred in England and wog remains a term for non-white among the common people.

As a last note, be wary of those who self-identify as "wog"; as within Australia, the supermajority of persons self-identifying as wog, are of North African and Middle Eastern descent, especially Turkish and Lebanese.

Wogs are non-white.
Only Whites can be Southern European.
Southern Europeans are White and cannot be wogs.
Don’t call yourself a wog, it’s a non-white slur.

Updates:
Don't Call Yourself a Wog
- Please read additional clarifications at the end, added to image.
The World's Racial Perspective
- Cleaned up image and added the additional clarifications that were posted after, to main image.
White Ethnogenesis
- Updated infographic, adding higher resolution and cleaned up. Still have more additions in the works, such as civilizational milestones, to add.

Nordicism:
Why deny what we all know as true?

Previously I've discussed and provided the plausibility that the ancient Archaic Caucasian tribes known as West Siberian Hunter Gatherers (WSHG), Natufian Hunter Gatherers (NHG) and Ancient North Eurasians (ANE), were not only White, but free of foreign racial admixture (those of them that provided ancestry to modern Europeans).

The former two are a topic of contention as it is commonly questioned whether those with significant ancestry from them are considered White or not. While most of Europe has a little ancestry from both, NHG is only significant in ancestry in Southern Europe, and WSHG is only significant in Eastern Europe.
This questioned whether they can be considered White for such ancestry, I believe they can be considered White even if entirely comprised of either group today (assuming no non West Eurasian admixture).

Should we want it?
However acknowledging they were White doesn't mean it's desirable nor ideal to have significant ancestry from them, the prior point was simply that such ancestry doesn't rule you out as White, but it's still ideal to reduce that ancestry among Europeans; given the prominence of NHG and WSHG ancestry among Southern and Eastern Europe, this effectively means that Europe, and Whites generally, should be predominantly Northwestern European.

Why reduce it?
Not meant as disparaging, but bluntly put, NHG and WSHG are notably inferior to the other major West Eurasian groups.

We see this in the reduction of quality, advancement and prominence, of the Southern European nations of antiquity. Once the global epicentre of high culture, now reduced to mediocre; still better than all Nons of the world, but never back to their previous heights.
What changed? The rapid influx of NHG ancestry across Southern Europe, still White, just reduced in superiority; prior to which the ancestry of Southern Europe was chiefly WHG, EEF, CHG, and a-like. Eastern Europe had similar issues regarding WSHG influx.
NHG and WSHG were great and had amazing feats of their own, but it doesn't measure up to what we see in NWE's.

We also see this in the unprecedented achievement of Northwestern Europeans (NWE):
"The world-wide expansion of the white race [NWE] ... between 1500 and 1900 is the most prodigious phenomenon in all recorded history ... white men [NWE] racially occupy four-tenths of the entire habitable land-area of the globe, while nearly nine-tenths of this area is under white [NWE] political control. Such a situation is unprecedented. Never before has a race acquired such combined preponderance of numbers and dominion."
—The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy. Lothrop Stoddard (1920).

"Whether measured in people or events, 97 percent of accomplishment in the scientific inventories occured in Europe and North America ... A study by MITI - Japan's equivalent of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) - concluded that 54% of the world's most important inventions were British. Of the rest, 25% were American."
—Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950. Charles A. Murray (2003).

Should we oppose Northwestern Europeans mixing with Southern/ Eastern Europeans?
No, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it, both are White, and their children will be also, but we should be mindful to be eugenic and encourage larger healthy NWE families and ensure all nations are predominantly comprised of individuals with predominantly NWE ancestry.

Untermensch.
There will always be NWE who are as well, inferior, even disabled, which should also be reduced to protect the greater White genepool, with respect to the lesser individual.

One in Christ.
In theological views of Soteriology, all Whites are equal in the eyes of Christ and do not differ in their ability for Salvation.

However while we are equal in Christ (spiritually) we are inequal in genetics (physically), we're on equal standing in regards to Christ, but unequal standing in regards to the quality of our genetics, and culture.

Lingua Franca:
Literally translated "language of the Franks" is a term for "common language", which designated any language used by many peoples who primarily spoke different languages, to bridge their communication; specifically among Western Europeans, as the term "Frank" came to mean Western European.
Historically the most prominent lingua francas were Greek (West Asia) and Latin (Europe and Mediterranean).

The lingua franca today is English, across all of Europe and their diaspora.
Yet I see many try to encourage "all the based and redpilled people" to learn and speak languages among themselves (as a lingua franca) they believe is aesthetic, such as Icelandic, German, etc, which serves no utility and is a waste of time.

The purpose of common languages is that they're common, not a secret language among a small group, which makes them out to be larping pariahs.

Of 450m Europeans (EU), 370m speak English, if you add the Anglosphere, you get an additional 470m English speakers. English is by far the most dominant language among Whites with no close seconds, you don't need to reinvent the wheel.
Just speak English.

The value of English goes beyond it's prominence among Whites, it's a highly advanced, developed and articulate language.
— It uses the 26 character Anglo-Latin script, a dual case variation of the Latin script; highly familiar, which uses an advanced phonetic based alphabet with advanced low stroke characters.
"26 letters and about 8 commonly used forms of punctuation accomplish what other languages need thousands of symbols for."
— Highly articulate thanks to it's West Germanic base language, grammatically influenced by Old Norse, vocabularily influenced by Old Norse, Norman, French, Latin and Ancient Greek; giving it an enormous vocabulary.
— Is the international language of academia, business, commerce, science, medicine, politics, diplomacy and many other key areas. Even in the world of computing: most coding and the programming languages themselves, that power even other languages behind the scenes, is written in English.
— Morphologically is intelligent and not complicated. Most verbs have only 3 forms, no gendered nouns/ adjectives and no second person pronouns. Articles are simplistic and straightforward, i.e. "the" vs German "der, die, das, den, dem, des".

I advocate for all Whites to be highly fluent in English. There's truly no upgrade.

However I also encourage multilingualism:
— Latin: all Whites should learn Latin, as it still holds a highly important place in the legal, medical, and scientific fields the world over. It allows one to read over 2 millennia of scientific and literary classics from across Europe, being the language of Western Civilization. It also allows one to read the bible in (my opinion) the grandest biblical textual-basis, ensuring proper understanding, as the benefit of dead languages is that definitions don't evolve.
— Liturgical language should however remain vernacular (your own language) [1 Corinthians 14:19].
— Regional Language: It's encouraged (but ultimately not necessary) for all Whites to be highly fluent in their regional language: i.e. Afrikaans in South Africa, French in France, Swedish in Sweden, etc.

As a final note, this isn't to discourage the learning and use of others languages. I highly recommend those interested to pursue other languages, for recreational, educational or even intrinsic value; but never for primary usage, as we shouldn't pretend other languages are necessary; reserve English for that place, as it will greatly benefit ourselves and our people.
An example of a language with great intrinsic value is German, with the countless grand works of the past half millennia, in fields of theology, philosophy, economics and many others; but even German doesn't compare to English and Latin.

In summary, all Whites should be fluent in English and well studied in Latin.

The World We Fight For.

The Founders of Ethiopia Were White:
Their civilization exists today only as ruins among primitive squalor.

    On those shores washed by the Libyan Sea... are found the Libyan Aegyptians, the White Aethiopians*...
Pomponius Mela, Chorographia 2:1.23

    If we pass through the interior of Africa in a southerly direction, beyond the Gætuli, after having traversed the intervening deserts, we shall find, first of all the Liby-Egyptians, and then the country where the Leucæthiopians* dwell... the Æthiopians are divided into two races... the Troglodytæ make excavations in the earth... for dwellings... serpents is their food; they have no articulate voice, but only utter a kind of squeaking noise...
Pliny the Elder, Natural History 5:8

    Those who dwell along the river, are black in colour and have flat noses and woolly hair... they are entirely savage and display the nature of a wild beast... speaking as they do with a shrill voice...
Library of History 3:8.1-3

*Leucæthiopians translates to White Ethiopians.

If we pass through the interior of Africa in a southerly direction, ... after having traversed the intervening deserts, we shall find, first of all the LibyEgyptians, and then the country where the Leucæthiopians dwell. ... After passing all these peoples, there are vast deserts towards the east until we come to the Garamantes, the Augylæ, and the Troglodytæ ... then the Ægipani, half men, half beasts, ... the form of the Ægipani is such as is commonly represented in paintings.
Pliny the Elder, The Natural History 5:8


Later writers such as Pliny the Elder used the terms "Aegipanes", "Aegipans", or "Oegipans" to describe a race of satyr-like wild men said to reside in Libya. This depiction was continued in medieval bestiaries where the terms aegipans and satyrs were sometimes used to describe ape-like or bestial creatures. These are thought to be fanciful descriptions of baboons or monkeys.

Primus Inter Pares, First Among Equals:
All Europeans are equals in Christ and race, however among these equals there are clear genetic superiors (primus inter pares, first among equals).

97% of recent human accomplishment was achieved by White males born in Northwestern Europe, which heavily corresponds to reduced 'West Siberian and Natufian' admixture; while both are pure Caucasian groups, they are evidently not as good in genetic quality as the predominately 'West Steppe Herder/ Early European Farmer/ West Hunter Gatherer' Northwestern Europe.

The sphere of Primus Inter Pares was raised north away from Italy and over Scotland, Ireland and Lower Scandinavia, as the epicentre of accomplishment (>60%) was from on either side of the English channel, with reduced accomplishment from the forementioned regions due to smaller populations.

Raising the quality of all Europeans would require disproportionately higher NWE fertility rates, and NWE migration across Europe to intermingle with other Europeans.

Appreciation of Southern and Eastern Europeans:
In relation to these previous posts.
—Freedom of Peopling.
—Nordicism.
—Lingua Franca.
—The World We Fight For.
—Primus Inter Pares.

In the previous few posts, we explored the superiority of NWEs among Whites; however I wanted to express those remarks weren't made to disparage Southern and Eastern Europeans (SEEs).

I simply see all Europeans as White brothers, equals; and made the remarks in terms of collective and respectful eugenics across the entire European genepool.

I don't see SEE ancestry as a detriment nor view them as less, they themselves have also accomplished many great and world changing feats; however their accomplishments don't compare to what we see from NWE.

Just as I'd want the best of England to disproportionately grow and become reflective of the nation, improving the nation for all those there; I wish the same for all of Europe and their diaspora across the world.
For a brighter future for all Whites.