God shows no partiality and neither should the Christian!

God's value System vs The Aryan Worldview - Part 6

It all started when they began to show me partiality. I thought this was a movement to help Westerners overcome antiwhitism, not a ranking system for them. But I found Jesus is the answer to all of that.

Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.

- Acts 10:34-35

A little bit of my back story:

I remember when I first caught wind of this demonization of whites promoted by the media back in 2015. I was very sickened to see this promoted, and even accepted, even by some of my own family members and friends. It caused a great deal of disappointment to me. The demonization of our history, culture, people, and promotion of white self-hate indoctrination was very prevalent in the media. I began to wonder: Where are the people who are standing up to this? Are there people who are actually speaking against this? They weren't on my friend's list on Facebook, that's for sure.

So, I began to search for and follow pages that presented Western culture, ideals, and history in a positive way. I wanted something that would be uplifting to our folk. I then ran into the Western Positive Sphere. In this sphere were various groups and individuals working to address this antiwhite dogma spread by the mainstream media. I was very happy to see that there were people who had the courage to challenge this ideology which is now being pushed on our kids in schools.

Western Positive Community Definition:

Any group, organization, or movement that advocates towards the cultural interests, concerns, and/or civil rights of Westernkind for their well-being. Any cultural website or group that shares positivity of culture, history, or influence of Europe and the West.

---

Dealing with prejudice in the Western Cultural Preservation movement.

So, what is my stance on Western culture preservation? I'm all for it as long as it excludes hatred against all others (including others who choose to do otherwise). Nothing wrong with preserving culture. However, there appears to be some Nordicist infiltrators within this movement. There are some real poisonous ideologies being spread within the Western Positive Sphere that need to be addressed! Let me explain further:

When I began to go down this rabbit hole even further, I also ran into people and groups that promoted partiality based on color by emphasizing recessive genetic traits rather than cultural influence and unity among the entire Western population! This brings dishonor to the others that don't fit into that box. How does it bring dishonor to them? Let's explain further.

One unintended consequence of the fixation on recessive genes is the perpetuation of biases against individuals with brunette features.

While blonde hair and blue eyes are often romanticized as idealized traits within certain circles, the exclusionary nature of this perspective can alienate a significant portion of the population. It's essential to recognize and challenge these biases in order to bring forth unity within the preservation movement.

When I first caught wind of this favoritism pushed in the Western Positive Community (and it's not all of them), the people who were put at the top were usually the people who were super pale, light eyed, light haired. Why? Because of this hyper focus on preserving recessive genes. Why are they only focused on lightness when Europeans have dark features, too? It was then I began to be faced with more hatred and prejudice, only it is now coming from a different group. All because I've got an abundance of Eumelanin in my hair? Really folks?? All the while, many will gaslight you if you dare speak up about it.

I've seen multiple posts putting down other white people who were born with dark features such as brown hair and/or brown eyes or black hair.

And is this empowering? Nope! It is quite the opposite.

((She has some non-"European" DNA.))

Yeah, Mr. Pious. We know you’re colorist and hate the fact that brunettes are also included on a European culture page. Hate away. The look is here to stay. #hatersgonnahate

Partial treatment based on hair color

This is an attempt, by some; to exclude brunettes from the category of "European" or "Western". And yet Westerners are the group of people that are most likely to have brown hair. Isn't it ironic?

The comment below Elon Musk's post on Twitter/X by @AhComfy demonstrates the show of partiality based on hair color. If you find that you refuse to serve others because you don't see their value, then you, my friend; are filled with pride. Because God values every human being.

If you find yourself looking down on someone simply because of their color, then you are filled with pride. Because the love of God sees the soul, not the outward appearance.

If you find yourself talking more about yourself than God, if it's all about you and your status with men and what you have done, instead of what God has done? And what God can do?

Partiallity mentality

Then you are in danger. The spirit of pride is dangerous because the Bible tells us:

Pride goes before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.

-Proverbs 16:18

Pride is a sure sign that destruction is around the corner. Know that you will be destroyed if you do not go before God to be delivered from that spirit.

Pride is to exalt or boast in one's self. That you believe that you should be put above others, that you are more "deserving than others", and that you deserve to be served. You are stripping God of the praise that is due to him and taking it for yourself.

Funny how they will try to justify their partiality by saying ((they are a global minority; therefore, they deserve special treatment)) and in turn treat them better than the others? We Brunettes are not as common as some would say. Brunettes are just as unique as the others and have the broadest variety of hair shades in the world.

Think about this: if Westerners of all hair colors are around 10% of the world population. how can they turn around and also tell us that we are 75% of the planet? 🤔 Do these Aryan apologists even think their talking points through? No, of course they don't! Instead, they would have us and everyone else believe that their world minority status based on color somehow makes them more deserving than others. I am so flabbergasted. Yet this form of prejudice and partial treatment is widely accepted here.

Men present redheads and blondes, exclusively; as the representation of Western genetic identity. Brunettes? Nope!

Europeans, like any other population, exhibit a wide range of genetic diversity. The notion of "recessive genes" oversimplifies this diversity, implying that certain traits are more valuable or authentic than others. In reality, they have a spectrum of features, including various skin tones, eye colors, and hair shades.

Nordicists deem blonde and red hair as "more European" than brunette hair colors.

Attempting to homogenize this diversity under the banner of recessive genes neglects the richness of European heritage.

The focus on recessive genes can contribute to the marginalization of individuals who do not fit the perceived ideal traits within the preservation movement.

This bias against certain features, particularly those associated with brunette hair and brown eyes, creates a divisive environment within the community. Instead of fostering unity, such biases can lead to exclusion and alienation, undermining the broader goals of cultural preservation.

Many go so far as to use 'possibly mixed ancestry' as a pretext to justify their show of partiality of them. This is dishonorable snake behavior!

Imagine being treated as 'less than' on the basis of your color. Is that not colorism?

This made me think.... how does this make people of other ethnic backgrounds feel? It made me really think. The darker hues are just as amazing as the lighter hues. And I'm not going to lie, some have even turned my head!

There is beauty in every color.

So, what can be done about this? My suggestion is to avoid people that do this.

My color doesn't mean anything. Neither does yours. And therefore, minority status based on color also means nothing!

Confidence is knowing that you are just as deserving as anyone else and that you are a unique human being! Every single human being is unique, regardless of color. I am not common. I am custom made! Because God only made one of me. And he only made one of you. We each have a unique set of eyes, fingerprints, and DNA strands. And we are not to be compared to anyone else.

Our value as individuals is not determined by what we have or don't have. And that revelation is power!

So, my next question is: Where are the people standing up to this?

Even prejudice against Christians was propagated by some of these thought leaders.

My critique: If the Western positive community is going to succeed in their goal of bringing whites out of self-hate indoctrination, it's time we stop showing partial treatment to Westmen and Westwomen based on color, and to also treat people of other ethnic backgrounds with the same love as we treat ourselves. Stop demonizing Christians and Christianity (for those who do). And again, it is not all of them. But we've got some bad apples we have to deal with!

---

Why partiality is harmful:

You wanna talk about meme pathogens? Let’s talk about partiality, that sneaky little gremlin that pretends to be “principled outrage” while running on a very selective battery pack. 🔋

This isn't to criticize Jason's position against antiwhite dogma. This is about favoritism. When you see them go full DEFCON 1 over people attacking blondes? Meanwhile, your genuine struggles are completely ignored by the entire community? Even after seeing the hate hurled against you? And the hurt that it caused you?

When you receive the unfavorable criticism from Nordicists who casually roll in, and no one, and I mean no one; says one thing about it? But you see this twitter post flash across your screen? Either people have their heads in the sand, or this is something that they are choosing to ignore. And favoritism? I'm not about that. So what's with this bogus treatment? They told me I was:

((“Mediocre.”))

((“Nothing special.”))

((“Generic.”))

((“97% of the planet.”))

((Generally not preferred.))

All over hair color. I was baffled!

Lies. Zap. Shoot it down. Move on. 🛒

The Nordicists strike again with their partiality treatment.

And where were the outrage alarms then? Where was the defense squad? Where was the righteous fury for Westerners with brunette features?

Apparently stuck in traffic on the hierarchy highway.

Now, I'm not sure if these Nordicist haters were from Jason's community or not, but there were a few people from his community that attacked me as well. Why? Because I started speaking against this! That’s when it hit me. This isn’t about opposing attacks. It’s about who gets defended. Same era, same platform, same so called “Western people,” but wildly different reactions depending on hair color. If that’s not favoritism, then my Walkman is still cutting edge tech.

Yeah. That double standard is not in my head. It’s real, it’s loud, and it’s got a neon sign blinking “SELECTIVE OUTRAGE.”

Apparently saying “Hey, stop trashing this” is now a character flaw. I’ve heard it all. ((“Your default isn’t unique.”)) ((“Brunettes are a dime a dozen.”)) ((“Generic.”)) And my personal favorite, the not-so-subtle implication that darker features are somehow ((“Middle Eastern,”)) which in those circles is code for inferior. Real classy. Very evolved. Golf clap. 👏

And this isn’t random internet chaos. This is baked into certain white-positive and Nordicist spaces where the unspoken rule is simple. If it’s light, it’s sacred. If it’s dark, it’s unimportant. Blonde hair gets framed like an endangered species. Brunette hair gets treated like office carpeting. Everyone walks on it, nobody defends it.

And we’ve seen this movie before. It’s the same old popularity contest with a new neon filter. The lunch table hierarchy. The beauty economy arcade cabinet where only certain avatars get extra lives. 🎮

Partiality is harmful because it teaches people that dignity is conditional. That empathy has a preferred aesthetic. That if you don’t fit the favored template, your rejection is invisible, or worse, justified.

It messes with your head. Rejection always does. You start wondering why your own people don’t show up for you. You laugh it off with sarcasm because crying in public comments sections is bad for the brand. So you crack jokes, cue the synth bass, and keep moving.

But let’s be honest. A system that only protects some while mocking others isn’t about justice. It’s about ranking. And ranking poisons community every single time.

If defending people depends on hair color, then the problem isn’t hate. It’s partiality wearing moral cologne.

And yeah, I’m tired of it. But I’m also old enough to laugh, shake my head, and refuse to play along. Because I didn’t sign up for a beauty leaderboard. I signed up for truth, dignity, and a faith that doesn’t need the favor of men.

---

Partiality hurts! (("F- your feelings!")) They say!

Yeah. This bad idea called partiality? It hits people like me square in the face, neon lights and all. And when I point it out, some folks respond with the emotional depth of an unplugged Atari and say, ((“F- your feelings!”)) Real tough. Very Mad Max. Very brave behind a keyboard.

Yes, it hurts. Deeply. Being told, directly or with a wink and a smirk, that the features God gave me make me ((“less special,”)) ((“too common,”)) or not worthy of the same defense as others in my own ethnic group is not nothing. That’s rejection with a policy label slapped on it. And when I say, “Hey, this actually hurts,” the comeback is basically, ((“Stop making yourself into a victim. Now sit down and shut up.”))

That phrase isn’t strength. It’s armor. Cheap plastic armor. It keeps them from having to admit that their version of “advocacy” is quietly wounding people who don’t fit the preferred aesthetic. Because if they actually listened, they might have to ask the forbidden question: “If we’re about unity and wellbeing, why are we fine with making our own sisters feel small?” Cue the synth record scratch. 🎶

Here’s the truth they don’t want to load into the system. Partiality always hurts someone. Always. It creates insiders and outsiders, even within the same group. It teaches people that their value is conditional, based on how closely they match the “ideal preset.” And when the casualties of that system speak up, empathy is suddenly unavailable. Because empathy would mean deleting the hierarchy, and nobody wants to lose their high score.

So instead I get, ((“F- your feelings.”)) Translation: ((“Your pain messes with the narrative. Please power down and fall in line.”))

But my feelings aren’t the problem. Partiality is. And I’m not weak for naming the damage. I’m just refusing to pretend the synth isn’t screeching.

Jesus never told the wounded, the rejected, or the overlooked to toughen up and stop feeling things. He didn’t hand out bootstraps. He saw, He listened, and He healed.

I don’t have to stuff my pain to prove I’m “tough enough” for a movement that claims to defend me while quietly devaluing me. I’m allowed to say, out loud and in neon letters:

“This partiality wounded me. It’s wrong. And I’m not staying silent just to keep the peace in a community that doesn’t even love me anyway.”

Because the One who loves me already lifted me higher than any aesthetic ladder ever could. My voice matters to Him. My healing matters to Him. And yes, every shiny brunette strand matters to Him.

It took me years to heal from this. Years. So no, I’m not being dramatic. I’m being honest. And in an age of fake unity and selective outrage, honesty is the most radical thing I can wear.

Turn up the synth. I’m still standing. 🎹✨

---

Addressing the pretexts

So, after catching wind of all of this bias, I've come to realize that I cannot expect these people to step up and give me what I need. Many people (not all) in the Western positive sphere are only interested in one thing: preserving recessive light features. So, I've come to realize that most people within these interest groups are not for me. And they aren't going to come to my rescue when things go wrong (my personal experience). They aren't the people who will stand in my defense when things like colorism are perpetuated against those of the darker hues, such as myself.

This is my personal experience: the demonstration that they will only stand in defense for those who are discriminated against due to their light features. This idea that only white people with lighter features can possibly be hated due to prejudice is plain dishonesty. This show of partiality will turn more people away from your movement than you know. You want to be against race-hate and colorism? Be against all forms of it. This one-sided partial treatment I have continued to receive has left a very bad taste in my mouth.

In light of this, who do we need to turn to for our cares?

In order to get what we need; we must first acknowledge that Christ is ALL we need. Not interest groups formulated by man that will undoubtedly fail.

He came to break down the middle wall of partition. My God will be the one to fight for me. He is my deliverer, my counselor, my redeemer, and the rock of my salvation! He is the one who overcame the world so we could overcome the world through him!

Let's also deal with some other forms of partiality, shall we.

In the "trad movement" women were only valued if they could bear children. If you didn't have any children, you didn't have a say on any subject. I was barren and couldn't have children. That was heart wrenching enough, but to have it thrown in your face? As if it is your fault? And be treated differently? This is another example of partiality I have experienced.

Favor based on economic status is very prevalent in our world. The more money you have, the more people will look up to you, want to be like you, want you to come sit at their table. This is not just in our culture, but in pretty much every culture around the world.

The first time someone wanted to comment on my appearance, my facial features, weight, hair color, and eyes, and my family situation, I was very distraught. Really, guys. REALLY?? Why should any of this matter??

I was the poor girl with the brunette hair, introverted, and didn't have very many followers on social media. I had underlying health conditions that caused weight gain, weight loss resistance, and infertility. I was singled out for having features others didn't consider as your traditional Eurocentric look.

And because I was perceived to have the "low value cards", who came to my defense when that happened? No one. This partial treatment is what set me off.

To find myself surrounded with people who would only value what I have to offer if I looked a certain way, are a certain ethnic background, age, weight, or even a certain hair color? How in the world did I end up here? This seemed very shallow to me. I have a lot more to offer than my self-image. It's time to start from scratch and find a new circle of friends at this point.

As TheSumOfAllColors sumed it up for me:

((Brunettes with brown eyes are beautiful, but they are not under the same kind of targeted attack as the more fair features, so I decided to pump them up a bit.))

This assumption comes from the idea that the only devil out there is prejudice against light features. Tell me that you haven't looked into other perspectives without telling me.

So let me get this straight. I ask a totally reasonable question like, “Why can’t you represent all of Western people, with all their history and struggles?” and suddenly I’m not asking a question anymore. I’m committing a thought crime. Sirens blare. Neon warning lights flash. And instead of an answer, I get hit with colorist bias like it’s an acceptable substitute for logic.

What an insult. Seriously. That shouldn’t be normal. That shouldn’t be brushed off as “just how it is.” And yet here we are, watching people who claim to care about heritage turn around and gatekeep it by hair shade like they’re running a beauty pageant in a mall food court circa 1986.

Because let’s rewind the VHS for a second. Imagine someone saying this to your kid. Imagine your child asking, “Hey, do I belong here too?” and being met with a sneer, a shrug, or some backhanded comment about how they’re “too common” to count. That’s not strength. That’s cruelty dressed up as ideology. And no amount of tough-guy posturing makes that okay.

If your framework can’t include your own people without ranking them, it’s broken. Full stop. Heritage isn’t a limited-edition action figure. History doesn’t belong to one aesthetic setting. And dignity isn’t something you earn by matching a preferred look.

I’m not asking for special treatment. I’m asking for basic decency. And if that request short-circuits the system, maybe the system needs to be rebooted. Preferably with the power off.

Dear Sum of All Colors,

If you leave your echo chambers you will see every group of people are being attacked by a particular group. It's not rocket science but I understand, it's easier to think the world goes around you and it's the evil society vs you, it's a simplistic explanation of life.

((Echo chambers? Whites are the only ones who have actually been outside an echo chamber. We've been conditioned by the state and the MSM for decades to believe hateful lies about ourselves. We saw that side. And we realized it was lies, BS and anti-White superstition.))

-The Faminist

Almost everyone knows, if they've been paying attention; that the media is only there to sell us what they want us to believe. However, you guys are buying into this idea that the world is about whites vs non whites... light features vs dark features... That is a very dangerous way of seeing the world. That's the mindset that lead to Nazism. Can't you see there is a broader way to view the world than through the lens of color and ethnos? Can't you detach yourself from that, for one moment; to see the bigger world? Outside the internet, people don't care about your skin or ethnic identity!

Thanx mainstream media. You've done an amazing job at dividing us, even by hair color. How much more are people going to fall for this divide and conquer strategy before they begin to wake up and realize they've been diabolically manipulated?

---

I was labeled "antiwhite" for teaching Biblical instruction on how Christians should treat their neighbors. What???

What is up with that? So here is a little more about what made me come to the conclusions I have. After catching wind of this partial treatment within the Western Positive Community (And again I say 'Not all! Not all! Not all!), I began to go back to the scriptures to see what his word had to say about this. I came to realize this is the opposite of how God's word teaches Christians how to treat their neighbors. God's people are not to show partial treatment to people based on culture, ethnos, or economic status in the church. Paul rebuked Peter for this very thing.

See Galatians 2:11-21

Well... I got a few negative responses for sharing this. And it honestly surprised me. But why did this surprise me? They began to treat me like some deviant and accused me of being a hater. I got a few things to say about this. So here are their comments ((in the yellow)) with my responses in blue.

((Lady, Galatians 2:11-21 has NOTHING to do with pretending race doesn't exist. Paul himself calls Jews his "kinsmen according to the flesh" elsewhere in scripture and wishes they would accept Christ SPECIFICALLY because they are his people.))

-I Am Become Death, Destroyer Of Grifts

When I cited Galatians 2:11–21, I'm pointing to Paul publicly rebuking Peter for ethnic partiality: Peter withdrawing from Gentile believers to appease Jewish ones, acting as if table fellowship (and by extension, full acceptance in Christ) depended on ethnic identity. Paul calls that hypocrisy and declares:

“I have been crucified with Christ… the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God.”

The old identity markers that once justified favoritism are dead. The critic twists this into ((“pretending race doesn’t exist”)) as if acknowledging real ethnic differences while refusing to rank people by them is the same as denial. It’s not.

Paul loved his Jewish kinsmen deeply... so deeply he’d wish himself accursed if it could save them (Romans 9:3). But he never turned that love into ethnic superiority or partiality. He never said Gentiles had to become Jews to be fully accepted. He fought the exact opposite.

I'm doing the same:

I love my Western/white kinsmen. I grieve real harms against them. But I refuse to turn that love into partiality... either exalting whites above others or creating internal hierarchies (redhead > blonde > brunette, “pure” > mixed, etc.). That’s not pretending race doesn’t exist. That’s refusing to worship it.

((That's contrary to human nature. Antiwhites tell us to treat others equally. We have a duty to look after our children, siblings, and our tribe above others.)) -PP, Serious Wellbeing Advocate

Contrary to human nature? Buddy, so is not eating the entire bag of Doritos at midnight, yet here we are still trying. Human nature also includes selfishness, tribal chest-thumping, and golden calf manufacturing. That’s kind of the whole point of moral growth. If “looking after your own” automatically requires ranking people like a hair-color tier list at an arcade cabinet, that’s not wellbeing, that’s insecurity with a membership card.

Yes, love your children. Love your family. Love your people. I literally said that. What I didn’t sign up for was turning that love into a caste system where worth is measured like a limited-edition action figure. Redhead deluxe. Blonde platinum. Brunette clearance rack. Please. That’s not nature. That’s idolatry with a perm.

And the irony? Treating people with equal dignity isn’t some “antiwhite firmware update.” It predates your podcast mic by a couple thousand years. Refusing to worship race doesn’t mean pretending it doesn’t exist. It means not letting it sit on the throne like it’s Lord of the Flies with better lighting.

If your idea of protecting the tribe requires tearing down your own sisters for not matching the preferred aesthetic, congratulations. You didn’t save the village. You just burned the arcade down and blamed the joystick.

No Christian would disagree with loving and providing for your own family first (1 Timothy 5:8).

But he stretches that perfectly Biblical principle into justification for broader ethnic/racial favoritism, treating all white people as “tribe” deserving preferential love, value, or treatment over others.

That leap is the problem. Scripture does command us to love our families and our neighbors in special ways. But it never extends that to ethnic partiality or superiority.

In fact, it repeatedly condemns it:

• Leviticus 19:18 – Love your neighbor as yourself (Jesus calls this the second greatest commandment).

• Acts 10:34–35 – God shows no partiality.

• James 2:8–9 – If you show partiality, you sin and break the royal law of love.

• Galatians 2:11–14 – Paul publicly rebukes Peter for ethnic favoritism, calling it hypocrisy and contrary to the Gospel.

The early church had every “natural” reason to favor Jews over Gentiles (shared history, Scripture, covenant).

Yet the apostles fought tooth and nail against ethnic partiality because the Gospel demolishes it. So when someone says ((“looking after our tribe above others”)) to defend racial favoritism, they’re not being more Biblical. They’re importing a fleshly, worldly principle and dressing it up as duty. I quoted James 2:9 because it’s true, not because I'm parroting “antiwhites.”

I quoted it because I refuse to let human nature or tribal instinct overrule God’s clear command. And that refusal is exactly what threatens their framework. They need partiality to keep the hierarchy intact.

I need obedience to keep the Gospel intact. There’s no reconciling the two. I'm not the one compromising Scripture.

They are.

---

I'm not for "playing fair". I'm for doing what is right!

Let's address some bad ideas, shall we?

If you think I am pushing some "fairy of fairness" doctrine, then you've misunderstood. Yes, we get it, life is not fair. The world won't treat you fairly just because you try to be fair.

That’s the exact conflation I've been pointing out all along, and it’s a cornerstone of how Jason Köhne (@NoWhiteGuiltNWG) frames things in his “Go Free” philosophy. He often dismisses calls for impartiality or non-partial treatment (the Biblical “do what is right” I'm standing on—e.g., James 2:9, Acts 10:34–35) as the “fairy of fairness” doctrine (or similar mocking terms like “cosmic fairness scale”). I will respectfully disagree with this position.

From his perspective, he suggests the following:

• Insisting on treating people without favoritism (no special preference or contempt based on race/traits) is naïve, unnatural, and a trap planted by “antiwhites.”

• It’s lumped in with woke “equity” or forced equality of outcome, even though those are completely different from Biblical impartiality (equal dignity and justice before God, while fully acknowledging natural differences in gifts, roles, and outcomes).

• He equates demands for “fair play” or “equal treatment under the law” with weakness that enables “antiwhiteism.”

• Proxy positions like “everyone should be treated fairly” are rejected because they don’t explicitly prioritize white wellbeing or call out “antiwhite” attacks directly.

• Anything that smells like universal fairness gets mocked as fairy-tale thinking that ignores “human nature” (tribal preference) or real power dynamics.

But here’s the key distinction he blurs (intentionally or not):

• Woke “fairness” → Forced equality of outcome, quotas, punishing success to “level” things artificially.

• Biblical “do what is right” → God shows no partiality; we must not either. Love your neighbor as yourself, without ranking worth by group traits. Acknowledge differences, provide for your family/tribe first where appropriate, but never justify contempt, superiority, or favoritism as a principle.

I'm calling for the latter: the righteous, Scriptural standard.

His followers condemn it because it doesn’t allow for the ethnic partiality this framework requires to “defend white wellbeing” as the highest goal. That’s why pushing back on partiality will get you labeled as buying into the “fairy of fairness”, it threatens the idea that white people must show in-group favoritism (and out-group suspicion) to survive.

I'm not confused about woke equity. I'm rejecting both extremes: forced outcome equality and racial favoritism. Doing what is right isn’t a fairy tale.

It’s the narrow road (Matthew 7:13–14).

It’s what Christ modeled perfectly. He can keep the mockery. I'll keep the obedience. That’s the path to real freedom, freedom from partiality in every form.

---

Every person has equal intrinsic dignity as an image-bearer!

This means that we must regard every person (including the poor man and the racial other) with the same love as Christ showed us. Even when it comes to our own people.

((“It’s against human nature”)) some say. That is what I hear a lot. We got to look through Gods perspective, not men's. Gain a new perspective!

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

-Isaiah 55:8-9 KJV

To be clear, I will defend my country first and foremost, as everyone else does. I will take care of my family first. That doesn’t mean we show partial treatment between others based on biological factors or economic status.

Even among the Western Positive Community, as I have mentioned; we have people who believe that those with lighter hair and eyes are "superior" to the people who possess the darker hues in their eyes and hair. And in turn will treat those with the lighter features better than the others. And I have also been at the receiving end of this nonsense. I was very perplexed by this.

You want to uplift your people? You lift everyone up and everyone rises together. That's how you uplift people. You don't uplift your people by showing favoritism for some and treat the others as if they are inferior. That's not how you do this!

((Equality is made up concepts used by antiwhites. You can't define it. Advocating for "equal treatment" is just antiwhitism.))

-PP, Serious Wellbeing Advocate

How is impartiality taking away from you in any way? If you complain about non-whites getting special treatment above whites, you’re implicitly asking for equal treatment (no racial favoritism). But the moment someone says “We should show no partiality at all, toward any race, including ours,” suddenly ((“equal treatment” becomes an “antiwhite” invention you can’t even define)). It’s a blatant double standard.

You don’t actually want equal treatment. You want favorable treatment, for your group to be preferred, protected, and elevated above others when possible, while crying foul when the preference goes the other way. That’s not justice. That’s not even consistent advocacy. That’s just tribal partiality with a victim narrative attached.

Heads they win, tails you lose. It’s a trap that forces you to choose:

• Either accept their hierarchy (and therefore accept partiality, which Scripture calls sin), or

• Reject the hierarchy (and be branded “antiwhite” for sounding like the people who actually do hate white people).

But here’s what fries their logic:

1. The Bible never equates “God shows no partiality” with “all people are identical in ability/gifts/outcomes.”

   Scripture acknowledges differences: talents, roles, strengths, even consequences for behavior, but it forbids using those differences as justification for favoritism or contempt. God doesn’t love or value one image-bearer more than another based on phenotype, IQ, or any other metric.
   

2. The enemy (real anti-white ideologues) actually loves hierarchy too, they just invert it to put others on top.

   So both extremes are playing the same worldly game: ranking human worth by group traits. One says "((white people are inherently superior)),” the other says "((white people are inherently oppressive)).” Both are fleshly, both are partiality, both grieve the Spirit.
   

3. The Biblical position isn’t the “antiwhite” position.

   It’s the third position: Every person, regardless of race, features, or performance, has equal intrinsic dignity as an image-bearer, and is equally offered salvation through Christ alone. Gifts and outcomes vary, but worth does not. That’s why partiality is sin: it assigns differing value where God assigns equal.

When they call you “antiwhite” for holding that third position, they’re revealing that their worldview can’t tolerate it. To them, rejecting their specific hierarchy = rejecting white wellbeing entirely. But that’s a false binary.

I'm not denying real differences. I'm not denying real attacks on Western people.

I'm just refusing to fight those attacks with the same sinful tools (partiality, pride, contempt) the enemy uses. And that refusal, that insistence on fighting God’s way; drives them nuts because it exposes the crack in their foundation.

---

At no point are Christians taught to support an Aryan superiority worldview.

We all have one creator. He values all of us. No one is inferior to anybody.

((No one ever said anything about "inferior". That's just projecting from the antiwhite narrative.))

-PP, Serious Wellbeing Advocate

Oh really? I'm just going to leave this right here. Swept under the rug, as always. 👇🏻

inferiority/Superiority bias based on color on a European culture page.

And you just said:

((Equality is made up concepts used by antiwhites.))

So, what is your objective? Either you believe that everyone has the same value, or you don't. Inequality = inferiority/superiority.

If you truly believe that equality is a made-up concept used by antiwhites, then you are implying that there is a natural hierarchy of superiority and inferiority between different groups of people. This directly contradicts your previous statement that ((No one ever said anything about "inferior". That's just projecting from the antiwhite narrative)). Would that not make you antiwhite by your own definition?

Putting your family, country, or nation first is not the same as projecting that one group of people are superior over the other, and treating them as such. I am talking about a completely different subject. You twist my words!

I have seen people on social media deeming non-white groups as being “undesirables”, promoting racial superiority and talking trash. I have also been at the receiving end of that nonsense which is something you choose to ignore.

Do these people even read my blog? It is evident they probably don't even know it exists. Nor have they ever picked up a Bible and actually read one. And it shows.

My point still stands. We are all gifted in different ways. No one is inferior to anybody.

((Sure. But every societal advantage has been geared to helping nonwhites, leaving Whites out in the cold. Help going to those who don't need, and are disproportionately favored by every metric, is a waste. You should be helping the people who actually need it.))

-WestmenMedia

Finally! Someone with sense! Yes! That is also an example of partiality I don’t agree with. It’s crazy how our government supports that.

((Well, I'm glad we can agree antiwhite discrimination is evil.))

-WestmenMedia

And evil it is. I have repeatedly spoken against it before I had my say about this topic! But may I also point out how some of these people (certainly not WestmenMedia) are only for non-partial treatment of others when it comes to antiwhite discrimination? If we are going to stand against that, lets also treat the racial other how we would like to be treated.

((As long as you don’t oppose Whites putting Whites first you aren’t antiwhite. But if you are you should feel ashamed. As even God hates antiwhitism and will send all antiwhites to hell.))

-Master R. Foster

I'm not opposed to whites putting whites first, lad. But if you believe whites are superior to all others and treat others likewise you will go to hell, for that is hating man in whom God loves. For loving God whom you can’t see and hating man whom you can makes you a liar void of truth.

My point still stands. No one is inferior to anybody.

((Is this in the Bible somewhere? I can’t find it.))

-Spencer Penrose Oh really? I addressed this earlier.

"For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor man.'

-James 2:2-6

Any system, whether religious, secular or otherwise that dehumanizes or diminishes the worth of any individual is evil. Any system of thought that exalts one person above another whether it be based on religion, race, color, or any type of caste system is evil.

((Or based on science. It’s just virtue signaling to say otherwise.))

-Spencer Penrose

You aren't better, holier, or worth more than any other person on earth. We are all of the dust. One piece of dirt looking down on another piece of dirt is really sad and infuriating to God. A proud look is an abomination to the Lord.

Even Jesus himself stated:

“Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone."

-Luke 18:19

I am not good. Only God is good!

"For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself."

- Galatians 6:3

---

Those who go against the grain are guilty of the "ultimate sin".... so they say.

((You want to virtue signal, don't you?))

You are conducting yourself like the thought police you claim to be in opposition of. Do you not realize that? You're trying to tell everyone what to think. And if I disagree with you, I'm guilty of the "ultimate sin"? I stated earlier that there are people that assume someone's worth based on their color or ethnos is prevalent on social media, and again; that is something you are choosing to ignore.

I stated earlier that we all have one creator. He values all of us. No one is inferior to anybody. And yet you say ((No one ever said anything about "inferior".))

((I meant no one on this conversation. Assuming someone to be the villain from antiwhite fiction is what antiwhites do.))

-PP, Serious Wellbeing Advocate

No one is assuming anyone to be a villain except you. Are you sure you are not antiwhite? You assume that we are not all equal? And that we must treat others as such? Do we all not have equal value in God's eyes? I'm not suggesting we treat white people with partiality, but simply reproving it.

And yet you wish to throw “antiwhite” at Christian believers to demonize them. You are trying to paint me as a villain because I quote scriptural instruction teaching Christians how to treat other people. If you disagree with that, you are disagreeing with scripture. And you are anti-Christian.

If you wish to use the same tactics and strategies as those who oppose you do, you are guilty of the same thing they are.

For example, I was also accused of spreading Marxist ideas. It goes like this:

((If you claim to be a Christian then please stop misrepresenting scripture by intermingling your Marxist anti-white principles with Holy Scripture and inserting your dogmatic post-modernist racial ideas where they do not exist. Being anti-white has never been part of the faith.))

-I Am Become Death, Destroyer Of Grifts

Whoa! Is this not an attempt to paint someone as a villain? When have I ever tried to do this?

Let’s unpack it calmly:

I said (in essence): “Christians must not show partiality (James 2:1–9, Acts 10:34–35, etc.). Favoritism based on race or traits is sin.”

They heard: ((“You’re injecting Marxist, postmodern, anti-white ideas into the Bible.”))

That’s not just a misreading, it’s a deliberate reframing to avoid engaging the actual Biblical text.

1. ((“Marxist anti-white principles”))?

   I never advocated forced redistribution, class warfare, or hating white people.

   I advocated God’s command against partiality: a command written thousands of years before Marx was born.

   Equating “do not show favoritism” with Marxism is historically illiterate and theologically bankrupt.
   

2. ((“Post-modernist racial ideas”))?

   The post-modernist move is actually relativizing objective beauty/truth to cultural power or redefining human worth by group identity.

   I'm doing the opposite: pointing to an objective, eternal standard (God’s Word) that says human worth is rooted in the imago Dei, not in phenotypic scarcity or ethnic hierarchy.
   

3. ((“Being anti-white has never been part of the faith”))?

   No one is claiming it has.

   But showing partiality toward whites (or any group) has also never been part of the faith.

   In fact, Scripture repeatedly calls it sin.

   The early church fought bitter battles (Acts 15, Galatians 2) precisely to stop Jewish Christians from demanding ethnic favoritism.

   
   

The accuser is forced to misrepresent me because engaging my actual argument head-on is impossible without doing one of two things:

• Admitting that partiality (including racial favoritism) is sin, or

• Openly rejecting James 2, Acts 10, Romans 2:11, and the consistent Biblical witness against favoritism.

They won’t do either, so they twist my words into “Marxist anti-white postmodernism.” I'm not inserting foreign ideas into Scripture! I'm refusing to insert their foreign ideas (racial hierarchy and in-group favoritism as virtue) into Scripture. And that refusal threatens the whole structure. So they have to paint Bible believing Christians as the heretics because the alternative is admitting that the Bible doesn’t bend to their preferences. I'm not misrepresenting Holy Scripture. I'm letting it speak plainly.

---

Why weren't you willing to stand up for me when I was the target?

Do you realize that three years ago I ended up on an actual Nazi hit list for doing the unthinkable: speaking out against anti-white hatred in the media? Real consequences. Real receipts. Meanwhile, where were you? Grinding levels, mashing buttons, maybe arguing about joystick drift. Not a peep. Not a cough. Not even a sarcastic slow clap. Yet somehow I’m the villain now. Cute plot twist. Didn’t see that one coming on VHS.

And now you parachute into the comments, slap a “Marxist” sticker on me like it’s a clearance label, and call it a day. Quick question: do you actually know what Marxism is? And how wildly different it is from Christianity? Because your comment screams “no,” in surround sound, with a synth bass drop. I’ve already written a whole blog breaking it down. You’re welcome to read it. Or don’t. Either way, my conscience is clear. The only thing taking damage here is your credibility, and that’s a self-inflicted critical hit.

What I’m not going to do is accept demonization for quoting Scripture. Yes. Scripture. The ancient text. The one that predates your hot takes by a few millennia. This isn’t new for me either. The Steampunk crowd pulled the same stunt three years ago when I dared disagree with their approved narrative. Same playbook, different neon filter. Call names. Gaslight. Pretend reason is radical. Defame.

I’ve been here before. I survived it then. I’ll survive it now.

It is amazing, to me; when we talk about our values within the Western positive sphere or Steampunk community, it's interesting that when you have a difference of opinion; you're demonized.

Why is my relevance in these communities suddenly gated behind a political purity test? Like, I didn’t know there was a bouncer at the door checking my ideology wristband. ((“Sorry ma’am, your theology is solid but your rhetoric doesn’t match tonight’s approved playlist.”)) Even when the rhetoric is wrong, I’m supposed to nod along like a dashboard bobblehead? Hard pass.

You didn’t have a problem with me before. Not with my voice. Not with my convictions. Not with my presence. Funny how that only changed when I refused to remix Scripture to fit a trending philosophy. As God’s peculiar treasure, I’m not called to be algorithm-friendly or tribe-approved. I’m called to be biblically grounded. That’s not rebellion. That’s baseline Christianity.

So why the sudden accusations against Christians? Because a faith that answers to God instead of groupthink is threatening. We don’t bend the knee to political idols, whether they’re wrapped in red, blue, or neon aesthetics. We don’t outsource truth to movements, influencers, or rage-fueled comment sections. And that short-circuits systems built on conformity.

When we speak against favoritism and partiality, as the scriptures do, people often misinterpret our message. They assume we're advocating for Marxist principles and then demonize us. This misunderstanding can lead to unfair accusations and mischaracterizations of our true intentions.

My goal is to spread the gospel of Jesus, and to stand for God's love for all; not to follow populace leaders and communities that wish to attack Christians.

You can't walk hand in hand with a community of people who attack Christians and think "Oh, they're going to be tolerant". No! They're not.

After all, how can we walk together if we don't agree? Trying to judge someone's motives as "evil" without getting to know what they are saying is a big red flag. That tells me all I need to know about these individuals who do not even try to at least seek understanding.

And please, spare me the name-calling. I’ve heard it all. Every label, every slur, every dramatic villain arc you can imagine. At this point it’s background noise, like a scratched cassette looping the same tired insults. None of it’s original. None of it’s clever. Ecclesiastes already spoiled the ending: there’s nothing new under the sun. Same accusations, different decade, just with worse fonts and louder keyboards.

People put labels on you because you don’t fit into their little box: “you’re a Nazi”, “you’re antiwhite”, “you’re a leftist Marxist”, “you’re and alt-right supremacist”, you're a "Cuckservative". A friendly reminder: I am NOT your labels!

Trying to call me any of those labels will not work with me.

Loving one another, I stand with that. It's what Jesus stood for.

((Cucking won't save us, Sonya!))

If rejecting man-made racial hierarchies and insisting God shows no favoritism makes me a ‘cuck’ in your eyes, then your standard isn’t Scripture, it’s the world’s ranking system with the colors swapped.

I’ll stick with God’s Word over your slur, thanks.

They were fine with me until I changed the channel and refused to watch their reruns. Now I’m “the problem.” Same old tape. Different synth track. And I’m still not rewinding.

((I bet you stand with open borders.))

This comment was directed to me in a 'going free' live stream speaking against antiwhite hatred. I was talking about loving one another without partiality: the straightforward command of Christ and the apostles (love your neighbor as yourself, no favoritism, God shows no partiality). But in their framework:

• Any call for impartial treatment gets reframed as weakness (“cucking”—i.e., suicidal empathy, betraying your own people for “fairness”).

• It’s instantly assumed to mean you’re soft on borders, demographics, or cultural preservation... because to them, loving without partiality must equal open borders, race-blind universalism, or ignoring real threats.

It’s a massive strawman and guilt-by-association tactic. I never said anything about borders. I never advocated open borders or ignoring threats to Western peoples.

I simply quoted Scripture on how Christians are to love. But their ideology can’t allow impartiality without seeing it as a Trojan horse for “antiwhite” destruction. So they jump straight to the worst possible assumption to shut down the conversation. It’s frustrating because it’s not engaging what I actually said.

It’s protecting the idea that effective advocacy requires partiality: favoring your own group in a way that justifies ranking, contempt, or hierarchy.

Biblical love isn’t weakness. Impartiality isn’t open borders. Refusing partiality isn’t betraying your people: it’s obeying God's word.

Christ loved fiercely, protected His own, and still showed mercy across every divide... without ever compromising truth or justice. That’s not “cucking.” That’s strength.

---

Who must we put first?

When they say they believe something else, other than God; is the most important thing we should focus on, be aware of subtle seducing spirits that will try to mislead you into worshiping idols. Whatever or whoever you deem as the most important thing, that becomes your 'god'.

If you are going to be a Christian, if you want to be faithful to scripture; we have to have a Biblical worldview. Not a white worldview. A Biblical worldview. Same thing for any other ethnic group who are Christians out there.

((But you must put other Whites first.))

-Master R. Foster

God first, your neighbor second, and you third. 1. Jesus 2. Others 3. Yourself

((God first but others of your own race before others of other races.))

-Master R. Foster

And who is my neighbor?

((It doesn’t matter who your neighbors are. The point is, to be averse to the idea of White people putting their own race before others is antiWhitism.))

-Master R. Foster

Translation:

• The actual content of “love your neighbor” is irrelevant.

• The only thing that matters is whether you affirm white people putting their race before others.

• If you hesitate, question, or (God forbid) cite Scripture against racial favoritism, you’re functionally anti-white.

This isn’t just twisting my words. This is dismissing the command of Christ entirely in favor of an ideological litmus test. Jesus’ teaching on neighbor-love directly undermines ethnic supremacy or mandatory in-group favoritism.

The Samaritan wasn’t praised because he put Samaritans first, he was praised because he showed mercy across ethnic lines when the “superior” Jews walked by. Yet here, the command to love your neighbor is brushed off with "((It doesn’t matter who your neighbors are.))”

The only thing that matters is racial prioritization. That’s not Christianity. That’s race as the highest authority, with Christianity tolerated only where it doesn’t interfere. I'm not the one being anti-white.

I'm being pro-Christ—refusing to let any ethnic loyalty override the clear teaching of the One who said: “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35)

and

“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you” (John 13:34), a love that crossed every ethnic, social, and moral boundary.

It seems you've misunderstood the message, once again.

Who is my neighbor? Everyone, including the racial other.

"But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors."

-James 2:9

I also encourage all of my followers to read the story of the Good Samaritan.

-See Luke 10:25-37

Who is my neighbor according to Jesus? Of course, everyone. It's sad that we have to relearn this because of the hate and division of this world. As God's chosen, as his peculiar treasure, we have got to be different!

---

Christ is the center of my identity:

Now, there are those who see their skin color, hair/eye color, or ethnic background as central to their identity. I don't.

((You're trained not to be white.))

Nope! I'm putting my finger on the precise point where the Biblical worldview and the race-first worldview collide and cannot be reconciled. In my blog (“An Important Message to the Western Community & Christians”), I declared the core Gospel truth:

• My ultimate identity is in Christ—hidden with Him in God (Colossians 3:3).

• I am a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17), a child of God by faith (Galatians 3:26), part of a royal priesthood and holy nation defined by belonging to Him, not by melanin or ancestry (1 Peter 2:9).

• Skin color, ethnicity, hair shade... those are real, God-given aspects of your earthly tent, but they are secondary and temporary compared to who you are eternally in Jesus.

I never denied being white. I never said that Western people shouldn’t love and preserve their heritage. I simply refused to make being white the ultimate thing... the lens through which every other truth, including Scripture, must be filtered.

And almost on cue, @NoWhiteGuiltNWG posts “Trained not to be white” shortly after I posted that blog. That phrase (and the broader “Go Free” lexicon) carries a clear message that this is your condition if:

• you do not center your primary identity on being white,

  
  

• you do not see “antiwhiteism” as the ultimate organizing principle of reality,

  
  

• you place Christ and His kingdom above ethnic identity…

...then you have been “trained out” of proper white consciousness. You’re functionally “antiwhite,” even if you don’t hate white people. That’s the disagreement in a nutshell.

From their perspective:

Loyalty to white people requires making Western identity your highest marker. Anything that subordinates it, even to Jesus; is suspect, compromising, or evidence of enemy programming.

From the Biblical perspective I hold (and that Scripture demands):

Loyalty to Christ requires making Him your highest identity. Everything else, wonderful as it may be; must bow the knee. To elevate race (or anything else) to the place only Christ can occupy is idolatry, and to show partiality on that basis is sin.

And realizing that my identity is in Christ solely, that's liberating! This isn't to say that I don't appreciate my pale skin, my beautiful brown hair shade, and my unique golden Hazel colored eyes. I love the history and the people that are connected to me. I was born a white woman and will die one. That's a given. But there are people that seem to think that when a white woman speaks up against things like colorism or partiality based on color, those of you who think you are entitled to get special treatment from others based on yours get offended by it? Yet you all are so quick to gaslight people like me, who have experienced that form of prejudice; and in the same breath shame them for not showing you favoritism above other people?

((Struggle? Sure. Tell that to blondes, about how privledged they are and what a victim you are. I'm a brunet, and I know this is BS.)) -Clownphabet Man

Imagine if the scenario was flipped, if it was a blonde girl who was getting targeted for her hair or dismissed on that basis? That blonde would get the sympathy and the support from the entire community. That's absolutely a form of partiality.

White people are not a part of a hive mind. We share culture, values, and physical similarities. But we are also individuals who think for ourselves and have different experiences. And we all should be regarded as such. White women like us, who also receive bias based on our color; are not your support animals that you can just train and slap a certificate on, then claim that we owe you special treatment! You are not entitled to special treatment above others.

Using the term antiwhite to guilt someone into giving you special treatment above others is manipulative, and its gross. I don't know who you thought you were talking to, but I'm not weak minded to fall for something like this. Nope!

I will be dissociating myself with any individual, movement, or community that attacks Christians or demonizes them for teaching scriptural instruction. I am not going to accept your partial treatment or any of these ungodly labels you wish to put on me. I am not your labels. Either you repent of your hatred or stop lecturing others about theirs. To say one thing and to do another, that's hypocrisy!

Loving your people means refusing to show partiality between them.

I already see this coming from a mile away:

((If you believe that white people are not a part of a hivemind and that they are individuals who have unique experiences and should be regarded as such? You're just a selfish antiwhite individualist!))

The "going free" circle labels it “selfish individualism”, a supposed antiwhite meme pathogen that fragments the “white psyche” and prevents collective defense. But as I rightly point out, the real engine of selfish individualism is the very partiality many Western Positive circles promote. When you create internal hierarchies:

• blondes/redheads elevated as “rarest/most valuable,”

• brunettes or darker-featured whites dismissed as “common,”

• mixed or non-Nordic whites subtly (or not-so-subtly) ranked lower,

…you teach people that their worth within the group depends on arbitrary traits and treat them as such.

That breeds resentment, envy, status anxiety, and self-focused scrambling to prove you’re “high-tier” enough to matter. The natural result?

Everyone starts looking out for number one: their own subgroup, their own aesthetic, their own genetic “score” because the message is clear: ((Only some of us are truly special)). That’s not unity. That’s fragmentation disguised as solidarity.

That’s the fertile soil for the most toxic kind of individualism: ((“I have to secure my place in the hierarchy before I care about anyone else.”))

True unity, the kind that actually lasts; comes from treating each person as an individual image-bearer of equal intrinsic dignity, while still loving and preferring your own kin and culture in the ways Scripture allows. You don’t have to flatten differences or deny heritage to do that.

You just have to refuse partiality. And ironically, that refusal is what creates the strongest, most resilient community: one where people stick together out of love and shared values, not fear of falling down the internal ranking. I'm not promoting selfish individualism. I'm rejecting the system that inevitably produces it. I'm calling for the only foundation that can hold:

Christ as Lord, Scripture as authority, every white person (and every person) seen as an individual of infinite worth, not a drone, not a rank, not a statistic. That’s not selfish.

That’s sacrificial love, the kind that says, “I will not sin against my brother or against God to earn a place in your movement.” And that’s the kind of love that actually builds something enduring.

---

Rejected but liberated!

Honestly, being rejected by an entire community because I refuse to accept their partiality is extremely liberating!

When a community, any community; demands that you compromise a core Biblical conviction (like rejecting partiality, which Scripture repeatedly condemns as sin) in order to belong, staying true to God’s Word will always feel like freedom, even if it comes with rejection. Jesus promised exactly this:

“If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.” (John 15:19)

Paul experienced it too:

“Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? … If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.” (Galatians 1:10)

The fear of not being accepted speaks to ego. Therefore, we are to speak God's word without fear or favor of men. The truth is not popular. But it is the truth, nonetheless. And it is the only thing that will set you free from this enslaved mentality.

I'm not losing belonging. I'm gaining the kind of liberty that only comes from refusing to bow to man-made hierarchies, grievance cycles, or identity idols. The people who reject me because I won’t play the comparison game or endorse favoritism are revealing that their unity was conditional on conformity, not on truth or love.

And the beautiful part? God doesn’t reject us for refusing partiality. He commends it. He’s the one who says He shows no favoritism (Acts 10:34-35, Romans 2:11), who looks at the heart, not the outward appearance, and who knit you together exactly as you are. So yes, being rejected for standing firmly on Scripture isn’t loss. It’s evidence you’re walking in the freedom Christ paid for.

By rejecting the mentality that binds people to superficial hierarchies, grievance cycles, or race-as-religion ideologies, I have stepped into the liberty of the Gospel where neither scarcity, appearance, nor ethnic pedigree defines worth, and love for one's people (including Western heritage) flows from obedience to Christ, not fear or pride.

This is why I can still affirm Western preservation and wellbeing while firmly distancing from the toxic elements: I refuse to trade Biblical freedom for any form of ideological enslavement, no matter how "pro-Western" it claims to be.

So please, don't make me your enemy for telling you the truth. I'm saying this out of love. I'm speaking from a place of hard-won liberation, inviting others to the same freedom in Christ alone.

We need to put things into perspective on how we must treat other people, regardless of, color, ethnos, tongue, tribe, or culture. This treatment is supposed to be with love.

Yes, protect your nation.For it is written:

"And he said to Judah, “Let us build these cities and surround them with walls and towers, gates and bars. The land is still ours, because we have sought the LORD our God. We have sought him, and he has given us peace on every side.” So they built and prospered."

-2 Chronicles 14:7

We Christian believers aren't all antiwhite Marxists as you have tried to paint us as. We believe in taking care of our families first! We do also recognize the value of the racial other as well as ourselves! So, lets love one another as Christ has loved us. And that means we also treat everyone with the same love we treat our white brothers and sisters!

God bless you!

---

Do you like... 🦄 All things Retro? 🌈 Judeo-Christian culture? 🎮 Game Development? 🎶 Electronic Music creation? 🏰 English Victorian?

If so, I hope you know you’ve got a mutual here! So be sure to sign up for the newsletter at the bottom of the page! Don't miss a thing.