Anglo Saint

I do not pretend to be a genius. I have never taken an IQ test and I imagine if I did, it would indicate nothing extraordinary. However, I have been paying attention to those “on our side” who are clearly brilliant and herald themself as such. The question I keep asking them as they pontificate is this: What is the next step? What is your plan? I ask this question mainly as they wax their intelligence for all to see, spending their time and energy disavowing people (disavowal of Fuentes seems to be the most common). Yet when I ask this question I never get a practical answer. So either all the smartest people know something I don’t (very possible), trusting some secret plan that will emerge and become evident in the nick of time or they are only comfortable critiquing those in the arena from the outside. There is risk taking a clearly defined path because you publicly chance making yourself into a fool. We also know no path is immune to criticism. So which is it? Why was Fuentes wrong to inspire people to vote democrat in the hopes it topples the GOP and creates a vacuum for a new GOP? Be specific on why that is wrong and please share what path forward would have been better and what we should do now that Democrats have been voted in. I’m tired of the critiques from the ivory tower, yet never presenting a path forward for normies like me. Make your position clear and take action toward it.

The acceleration begins

Easy, you retarded wicked witch, we have abandoned God, so He has given us up to destruction.

Plug your nose and vote!

The love of money is the root of all evil. Nobody loves money more than Jews

Oh my goodness, we need Sam Sey back then!

I have been arguing with people about how Christians ought to vote for quite some time now, and almost without fail, my position gets straw-manned. My argument is simple: Christians should not be content with perpetually voting for the lesser of two evils. It is a fundamentally flawed approach that is ultimately destined to fail. But whenever I make this argument, the response is predictable: “Jesus isn’t on the ballot,” or “Every candidate is a sinner.” Of course. Nobody is suggesting that we wait for a perfect candidate. There is an enormous difference between a morally imperfect man and a candidate whose political positions require us to compromise our Christian convictions. What I am arguing is that there are people who could run for office whose political principles genuinely align with the law of God. Someone who is unequivocally opposed to abortion, opposed to ethnic replacement in our country, supportive of law enforcement, and committed to governing according to sound moral principles. Such a person would still be a flawed, sinful human being. The difference is that voting for him would not require me to violate my conscience. The next objection is always, “Well, nobody like that is on the ballot.” And that is precisely the problem. Why would the political establishment ever give you such a candidate when you have already demonstrated that you will vote for whoever they put in front of you, provided the alternative is sufficiently worse? I personally know at least ten people whom I could vote for without compromising my convictions. They are not perfect men, but they are men whose principles I could support in good conscience. Yet under our present political system, people like them have virtually no chance of obtaining meaningful political power. The system rewards corruption and compromise, and we continually reinforce it by accepting whatever candidates it produces. We have convinced ourselves that we must choose between two morally objectionable candidates because doing otherwise would supposedly allow the greater evil to prevail. But this reasoning can be used indefinitely. Every election becomes the most important election of our lifetime. Every compromise becomes necessary to prevent something worse. And every four years, we find ourselves making the same argument, often for candidates whose positions we would have considered completely unacceptable a generation earlier. Where has this strategy gotten us? We have spent decades accepting moral compromise in exchange for the promise of marginally better political outcomes. And the result is the political and moral condition we find ourselves in today. The lesser-of-two-evils framework is a game in which the people controlling the choices can continually move the country in whatever direction they please. All they have to do is present one candidate who is extraordinarily wicked and another who is marginally less so. Christians will then convince themselves that supporting the latter is not merely permissible, but a moral obligation. And the cycle continues. I am not arguing that we should demand perfection from politicians. I am arguing that we should demand candidates whom we can support without betraying our convictions. There is a difference between acknowledging that every man is a sinner and willingly supporting political positions that we believe are contrary to God’s law. Until Christians recognize that distinction and stop rewarding the very system they claim to oppose, nothing fundamentally changes. We cannot keep compromising our principles in the hope that, someday, enough compromises will produce a principled outcome.

Minor correction: *White people love being clean

Someone explain to me how any dual income family is financially struggling?