A reply to my friend "Free Northerner" who is taking a serious approach to the analysis of future marital relationships. link ( http://freenortherner.com/2014/07/04/traditional-family/ )

---

I am happy to advise when I see a Christian about to, putting it colourfully, tie himself in knots worrying about how to finesse the future…With too much anxiety about future situations, catalysing your knowledge of the particular ways in which marriage has been weakened in white, European civilisation, you could likely be enervating yourself and de-meaning your future actions by over worry.

Remember what Our Lord said in the Sermon on the Mount : Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” and “Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself” Meaning – don’t worry yourself sick, have some faith in yourself and in God. Take care of the things you are facing today.

Remember also that the LORD said through his prophet Hosea: My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. This one commands a Christian to explore and gather his intellectual resources to himself. However, he must still remember God’s law and what he wants for his own.

God’s law is for people to be married. So, when we put ourselves into a marriage we are also following his law and the structure that he intends both ourselves and the institution to be. If you give thought to the way you could be a leader in your household even while wifey is putting in some hours at work, then you’ve used your ability to make your knowledge work for you. If a wife wants to be sinful and to break the marriage vows, it is ultimately on her. Of course, the husband should at the same time be doing what he can to take care of the evil thereof. But, the blame of sin would fall on the divorcing wife and those who were complicit in helping her with her sin. You can’t really flinch in anticipation of that conflict that has some chance, but not every chance, to affect you years down the road. That’s not the Christian way.

Pingback to "Amos & Gromar" post - "Polyamory Continued, What if It's Good?"

The blogpost answers the "Amos & Gromar" blogpost Polyamory continued: what if it’s good, what if it’s eugenic?

This is the better thing to be permissive about, that is to say it might be good and "eugenic". It's better than the post written only a little while about regarding not concerning oneself regarding the issue of ongoing White Genocide via blending a white person and a non-white person. ("Don't Touch That System")

The reason is that Feminism which is the root of "polyamory" is a spiritual issue which can, as the theory goes, only be solved by adherence to traditional religious faith - faith of our fathers. And, since missionary work is done best by devoted a-political missionaries (often sponsored by a nation-state), which is certainly not the description of neo-reactionaries, it's best to avoid getting mired in active forays into anti-Feminist activism. Don't you notice that people that attract most of the Feminist grievance are those with a trolling approach, like Mr. Matt Forney? They aren't trying to win converts as much as stir the pot. The bloggers who advocate for masculinity in the face of Feminism are more insular, and so white "Roosh" or "Heartiste" perhaps more credibility than Forney, they are not gaining the outside attention like he is...

Have I perceived it wrongly? At least, I see the above described situation as coinciding with other research that says denominations that are heavy on conversion are <i>also</i> noted for high attrition and turnover. Example: Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. The usual way of gaining adherence to a religious denomination is by growing the followers through positive birth-rates and a degree of cultural insulation. Historically, the establishment of a state Church has also been a deciding factor. (If Political Correctness isn't our established religion, how do you explain its massive growth?)

No, "Amos & Gromar", the issue of anti-whitism and nationalism are the political ones and the ones not to allow to be "eugenic". Politics is something that can be fought over. Also, it might be good to think that fighting Anti-Whitism is something that can be fought over due to fairness, see the Mantra "Asia for the Asians, Africa for the Africans, but white countries for everybody?" and "What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?" Fairness or pointing out the contradictions, doesn't seem to work against Feminism.

J.P.O.