New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
Sign up
52
The bar (media.scored.co)
posted 1 month ago by MLJFireDragon747 on scored.co (+0 / -0 / +52Score on mirror )
posted 1 month ago by SNES_X on scored.co (+0 / -0 / +5Score on mirror )
31
smh (media.scored.co)
posted 1 month ago by ScallionPancake on scored.co (+0 / -0 / +31Score on mirror )
"Globalism wasn’t inevitable. It was imposed through war, media, finance, and permanent occupation. But blaming today’s spiritual collapse on “soft people not having kids” while refusing to examine how we got here is like scolding a man for bleeding out without mentioning the knife still in his back.

The Allied soldiers didn’t knowingly fight for globohomo. They fought with honour, for things they believed in, but that doesn’t change what their victory enabled; and they themselves have said so.

In his book The Unknown Warriors, Nicholas Pringle collected hundreds of letters from WWII veterans who served Britain faithfully, men who watched their brothers die on the beaches, in the air, in foreign deserts, only to grow old in a country they no longer recognized.

What did they say?

“The men who offered their lives have been betrayed and gave their lives in vain.”

“We can no longer feel proud of our country and the behaviour which is now accepted as normal.”

“If I had my time again, would we fight as before? Need you ask?”

They weren’t bitter about hardship; they were bitter because they were lied to. They were told they were fighting for Britain only to see Britain dismantled. They were assured they were defending the English way of life only to be forbidden to speak of it again after their “victory.” They were told they were saving freedom only to have their speech policed, their patriotism pathologized, and their grandchildren disinherited in the name of progress.

These were not “far-right” men, but simply old Britons who remembered when doors were left unlocked, children were safe in the streets, and fathers came home to intact families. They watched that world vanish. And they saw who replaced it.

“I went to Germany as an enemy and left as a friend. Where were the fanatics I was told about?”

“My main regret is that I didn’t fight for Hitler; at least he was for his own people.”

And the punchline, forever repeated by the smug and the simple, is “Well, at least we’re not speaking German.”

No. You’re speaking Punjabi, Arabic, Yoruba, Somali, and Patois in what was once the land of Hengist and Horsa, where the tongue of the Anglo-Saxon kings now echoes only in museums and courtly reenactments. German is a sister language. These are alien tongues of peoples never invited, never asked for, and now installed above the sons of the soil whose fathers died believing they were saving something.

The machine that destroyed Germany was never turned off. It was exported to the West in full. “Denazification” became a permanent state of being, what I have called Eternal Nuremberg, in which all white nations are placed on perpetual trial, and the only permissible future is one of guilt, silence, and erasure.

The veterans did not consent to this, but they were used to effectuate it. And now, in their final years, they see what they fought for: a multicultural state that scorns them, laws that muzzle them, and foreign elites that celebrate their extinction.

Their faces are still wheeled out once a year, in front of red poppies and cameras, to sanctify the regime that replaced everything they loved. That is the real cruelty, not that they were sacrificed, but that their sacrifice is now weaponized against their very blood.

The modern West worships guilt, inversion, and endless penance. It cannot imagine redemption, only repetition. And the men who once fought with pride now watch their homelands rot from within, as the Machine blares their victory songs and tells them it was all worth it. If you don’t see the cruelty in that, you’re not paying attention.

The Nuremberg spell will only break when men recover their memory, their myth, and their courage to say that the “bad guys” weren’t the ones who ruined their country; and sometimes, you lose more in winning."

https://xcancel.com/FullVerity/status/1986855199185481862
14
posted 1 month ago by BlackPillBot on scored.co (+0 / -0 / +14Score on mirror )
posted 1 month ago by somerandomname on scored.co (+0 / -0 / +9Score on mirror )
60
Slippery Slope (media.scored.co)
posted 1 month ago by shmuklipoopoo on scored.co (+0 / -0 / +60Score on mirror )
posted 1 month ago by SNES_X on scored.co (+0 / -0 )
I think it's important people are clear what they mean by "nationalism". I see too often people from all sides of the political spectrum talking about it either good or bad without really understanding what it means.

One of the core ideas they get wrong is that someone can "join" another nation. That's not really true. A Russian living in England does not become English. Maybe his grand-kids might be, but only if he works at actually adopting the culture, language and customs of the English people. Just because you are living in a country and you have a passport and you have voting rights does NOT make you a "real" citizen of that country.

America lost its way because we lost this fact. We have this idea that we can import people from all over the world and somehow maintain our national identity. We can't. All we end up doing is becoming a colonized state made up of those various countries. It's not just a skin color thing, as Germans, French, Irish and Italians, probably the closest national cousins (if there is such a thing) still haven't really integrated into the American identity.

If we are going to create a "nation" of Americans, it must be by blood and race. That is the ONLY way a people can come together as a nation. It's in the very name. "Nation" has the same root word as "native" and "natal", having to do with birth. National status is transferred from parents to children, and it can be done no other way. Nations are made up of countless families all interlocked with marriages. A French man and an American woman get married and have kids, and those kids can become American if the wife's family gets involved. That French man can become part of their family, and when his kids intermarry with other Americans, then the fate is all but sealed. "Grandpa was from France, but I don't know what that means, because all my other grandparents are American" is what we should be hearing from our kids.

Real nationalists understand this. They understand that you build a nation not by integrating foreign people into your country (which has the OPPOSITE effect) buy by raising FAMILIES. If someone wants to join us, they must come by marriage or not at all.

You guys think back to how the Latter-day Saints (AKA mormons) built a NATION within the United States. Every institution in the US tried to destroy us, so we had to flee to the middle of a God-forsaken desert to colonize it. And we succeeded, somehow.

We kick-started the process by taking advantage of plural marriage. The explicit purpose of plural marriage was to accelerate the growth of natural-born "citizens" of our nation. God commanded us to do it because he wanted more babies. So those involved with it got to work, and had tons of babies. My own ancestor had more than 10 wives and nearly 100 children. Think about that. Every waking moment he spent making new babies, supporting his families, and preparing homes where new babies could be born. Everything else was a means to that end. Today, I constantly run into distant cousins who are all related by this one man. 100 babies became 1,000 became 10,000 became 100,000 in a matter of generations. At some point in the future, there's a chance that almost everyone on planet earth will see him as their ancestor.

If there is going to be an American nation in 10, 20, 50 years it will only be because the people in this nation are getting married and having LOTS of kids. Nowadays, with a modern understanding of health and fitness, there is no reason why a healthy, young woman can't have 20 kids before reaching menopause. The fact that we don't see young women choosing to do this means that our nation is dying. Those young women, and the young men who simp for them, are dead-ends, useless branches.

But can you imagine a future when most young women choose to become mothers of large families? Imagine if in 2030 this is the new standard arrangement. All the young women coming of age seek a husband who wants to make lots of kids and support them. Then they get to work making babies. By 2050, they have already had 10-20 kids, and their oldest children are setting off to start a new life with their spouses. How many people will be alive in 2130? Thousands and thousands from a single person. As an old woman, she'll have her grandkids visit her and it will be an endless parade. On her birthday, the mail truck will be full of birthday cards and well-wishes. Family reunion photos will need to be taken by drone.

If we are going to have a WHITE future, it is only because WHITE PEOPLE are going to reproduce in record numbers. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY. If you care about that, then you MUST be having lots of babies RIGHT NOW.

Our new president and prophet pointed this crucial fact out in his latest general conference address. Sure, the birth rate among latter-day saints is higher than our neighbors, but it is not nearly high enough. Everyone young and old should be focused on creating more life and raising that life successfully.

In my own life, with 5 kids of my own, I'm still surprised when people say I have a "large" family. No I don't. I grew up with more siblings than that, and if it were physically possible for my wife we'd have ten more kids. Historically, 5 kids is a small family. We need to change our mindset on these things. There's multiple families in my community with more than 5 kids. Even the "liberal" members of my church have that many at a minimum.

REAL nationalists are doing the "natal" thing a lot. They are creating more and more babies, as many as they can. They are not goose-stepping or thinking about taking over governments or winning elections. Those things ultimately are inconsequential compared to the monumental task of raising the next generation. No babies means there's nothing worth fighting over because you already lost.

**REAL nationalists are thus "NATALISTS".**

The fact that the jews are screaming that this is the new form of anti-semitism is all you need to know. Your enemies are TELLING YOU every day what they fear the most! THEY FEAR WHITE BABIES! They fear CHRISTIAN babies! They fear babies raised to learn right from wrong and trained to make their own families and have lots and lots of kids!
72
posted 1 month ago by genesisSOC on scored.co (+0 / -0 / +72Score on mirror )
So Trump voiced his idea of 50-year mortgages. This is insane -- only if you assume there is an interest charge.

What would you think of 50-year mortgages with zero percent interest for families with more than 5 kids? Like, each child knocks off the interest rate by a little bit. Add in a condition that the parents must stay together to claim the benefit...

Property taxes can also be used this way. Allow states to levy high property taxes, but then set them to all but zero for the primary homes of families with children. No kids? No tax benefit.

Obviously we'd have to control what sort of people can take advantage of these offerings.

Realistically, the way we make housing more affordable is to make more housing. Right now there are no real estate developers thinking "I can make a lot of money dividing up land into 1 acre lots with 1,000 sf homes on them." Why not? Because no one wants that. Or if they do, they can't afford it. What's going on? I think it's the whole paradigm of "my house is my investment" and banks getting involved. Houses used to be something you could buy for a few years of wages. No one used to own a home they couldn't rebuild in less than a year on their own or that they couldn't afford to rebuild. We need more builders, we need more individuals building their own homes, and we need to get banks out of the picture. Use cash for these kinds of transactions, not credit and certainly not loans.

Manufactured homes are a real thing. They are not ridiculously expensive. Lots of low-income workers buy them in my area. They want a home that they don't have to borrow money to build on land they didn't have to borrow money to buy. It's a very good solution. My grandparents lived in a double-wide when they retired. That was their "dream" home. If you can't afford a manufactured home, you can probably find a used trailer house. Yes, they suck, but they are functional and cheap and they're not hard to maintain.

The point is there's ways to "fix" the real estate market that don't involve government regulations.

Here's another idea.

I've already seen land co-ops going up and there are quite a few. You have to look for them and many just aren't available to the general public (as it should be.) The basic idea is you pool people's resources, buy a bunch of land, and then build your own homes on that land. If you get 5-10 young families involved, they could "purchase" construction services from each other. "You help me build my house, I'll help you build yours" type deals. The only thing you need to buy is construction materials and the land. If this sounds appealing, look into it, I think a lot of homesteaders want something like this, and if they are in a small tight-knit community with other like-minded people all the better.

My particular take on the land co-op thing is to have a corporation that is owned exclusively by the people who live on it. Buy something like 1,000 acres and use it for agriculture. Hire employees, mostly from the owners of the corporation, or divide up the land among them for their own purposes. Some of them can run cattle, goat, sheep, chickens, etc.. and the others do various kinds of farming. Rotate the land over the years for maximum yields with minimum inputs. Give each owner a small half-acre lot in a corner of the land, build a little playground and a community hall or something and have each person live in a small house. Since ownership in the corporation is tied to actually living there, there's no chance of outside investors taking over, especially if you actually make a successful farm.

I think suburbs are done for. They're no longer useful. Just like cities became useless once mass transit became a thing, suburbs are no longer essential since we don't need to commute to work for most jobs. It makes way more sense for someone to plop down a factory in the middle of nowhere, especially since you don't need thousands of workers to keep that factory working. I can see a time where, just like in the past, your job and your home were almost the same thing.

Stop expecting government to solve your problems. Think really hard about what the real problem is and you'll find your own solutions, just like your ancestors did.
White Women (www.youtube.com)
posted 1 month ago by SNES_X on scored.co (+0 / -0 / +2Score on mirror )
33
posted 1 month ago by Vlad_The_Impaler on scored.co (+0 / -0 / +33Score on mirror )
31
Mein Kampf 728 (media.scored.co)
posted 1 month ago by BreadandWinePilled on scored.co (+0 / -0 / +31Score on mirror )
38
posted 1 month ago by RealWildRanter on scored.co (+0 / -0 / +38Score on mirror )
10
posted 1 month ago by TacosForTrump on scored.co (+0 / -0 / +10Score on mirror )
38
Are we the baddies? (cdn.videy.co)
posted 1 month ago by RealWildRanter on scored.co (+0 / -0 / +38Score on mirror )
12
posted 1 month ago by BlackPillBot on scored.co (+0 / -0 / +12Score on mirror )
Toast message