PDA

View Full Version : Meds aren't really racist, only culturalist or theologist



SudVolk
Saturday, April 17th, 2004, 06:52 PM
When Spain conquered S. America it was happy to encourage miscegenation between its settlers and the indigenous people because it had no concept of racial superiority, only cultural and religious superiority. The Catholic church encouraged this because it wanted more souls, and didn't care what colour they were. This theme of cultural, but not racial superiority is in evidence right across S. Europe: the forced conversion of Jews to Christianity rather than their extermination; the absorption of black slaves into Portuguese society. Spanish people might not likes blacks very much, but they don't mind S. Americans too much because at least they speak the same language and have some cultural affiliations with them. On the other hand Northern European countries have a history of racial rather than just cultural intolerance: Houston Stewart Chamberlin; Gobineau; Lanz; Hitler etc. So my argument is: is racism a Northern European thing only?

Gesta Bellica
Saturday, April 17th, 2004, 07:19 PM
When Spain conquered S. America it was happy to encourage miscegenation between its settlers and the indigenous people because it had no concept of racial superiority, only cultural and religious superiority. The Catholic church encouraged this because it wanted more souls, and didn't care what colour they were. This theme of cultural, but not racial superiority is in evidence right across S. Europe: the forced conversion of Jews to Christianity rather than their extermination; the absorption of black slaves into Portuguese society. Spanish people might not likes blacks very much, but they don't mind S. Americans too much because at least they speak the same language and have some cultural affiliations with them. On the other hand Northern European countries have a history of racial rather than just cultural intolerance: Houston Stewart Chamberlin; Gobineau; Lanz; Hitler etc. So my argument is: is racism a Northern European thing only?

The European history about racial preservation is still quite recent if we take a, look upon the entire temporal ark of our civilisaed world.
Such a feeling (than now has become more a necessity than a simple feeling) showed itself when the danger was real and not just a mere philosophical speculations.
To my opinion the temporal gap between North and South Europe is due to the fact that ony in the last 50 years the latter has become an immigration target more than an immigration source....
I think that we are minding the gap little by little..day by day more people in Italy is realizing that wa re reaching the point of non return.

If racism would be only a Northern European thing there won't be any hope.. actually every race in the wotld shoud develop self respect and self determination as values.

Tribunale Dei Minore
Saturday, April 17th, 2004, 09:32 PM
I'm racist against everyone who is enough different from me. But it is healthy, non-hateful racism. This is inborn and incurable. Sorry.

Scoob
Wednesday, April 21st, 2004, 05:57 PM
When Spain conquered S. America it was happy to encourage miscegenation between its settlers and the indigenous people because it had no concept of racial superiority, only cultural and religious superiority. The Catholic church encouraged this because it wanted more souls, and didn't care what colour they were. This theme of cultural, but not racial superiority is in evidence right across S. Europe: the forced conversion of Jews to Christianity rather than their extermination; the absorption of black slaves into Portuguese society. Spanish people might not likes blacks very much, but they don't mind S. Americans too much because at least they speak the same language and have some cultural affiliations with them. On the other hand Northern European countries have a history of racial rather than just cultural intolerance: Houston Stewart Chamberlin; Gobineau; Lanz; Hitler etc. So my argument is: is racism a Northern European thing only?
Very interesting proposal. Contrast Roman imperialism (assimilationist) to 19th century American Manifest Destiny (genocidal).

Turificator
Wednesday, April 21st, 2004, 09:05 PM
Very interesting proposal. Contrast Roman imperialism (assimilationist) to 19th century American Manifest Destiny (genocidal).

Roman Imperialism was never 'assimilationist': the Romans never forcefully converted anyone. The process of Romanization was a gradual one through which local provincial elites sought to obtain more political influence. This is a recognized fact among all Roman scholars.

On the other hand, the policy of European settlers in America was determined almost exclusively by their religious outlook: Protestantism, which assimilated the Jewish idea of 'coversion' and forced assimilation of the 'alien' to the point of justifying outright genocide.

I completely agree with Julius Evola, as well as with the (now defunct) French New Right on the fact that such genocidal biological racism is a product of Judeo-Protestantism. It is a form of totalitarianism, a desire to destroy what is different, which derives its essence from the genocidal intolerance of the (Semitic) Old Testament (roughly to paraphrase De Benoist).

As far as most 'Radical Right' thinkers and sympathizers in Europe - including myself - are concerned, the biological racism which characterizes many 'racialist' groups in the States (KKK in primis) is nothing but an extention of Semitic intolerance.

Necronomicom
Wednesday, April 21st, 2004, 09:26 PM
When Spain conquered S. America it was happy to encourage miscegenation between its settlers and the indigenous people because it had no concept of racial superiority, only cultural and religious superiority. The Catholic church encouraged this because it wanted more souls, and didn't care what colour they were. This theme of cultural, but not racial superiority is in evidence right across S. Europe: the forced conversion of Jews to Christianity rather than their extermination; the absorption of black slaves into Portuguese society. Spanish people might not likes blacks very much, but they don't mind S. Americans too much because at least they speak the same language and have some cultural affiliations with them.

many Catholics priests are color blind, they don't care what race you are as long you are catholic, most meds are not like that, in S. America the priests promoted racial integration with the indians, but one reason why they did this was to create indian vs indian conflicts, Catholic Indians would fight side by side with the Europeans instead of fighting against them, priests used the converted indians as voluntary labor force too. This doesn't mean average meds and Indians/mestizos got along fine, in Brazil there was many Portuguese vs mestizo conflicts, and those conflicts became much worse as the Portuguese population grew.

In Iberia the converted moors/jews were called mouriscos and suffered a lot of discrimination, there was even some Ethinic cleansing, called limpieza de sangre, going on against them.

Numbers are difficult to establish with accuracy, but some estimates suggest that between four and eight thousand Jews were burnt alive during the fifteen years Torquemada held the office of Grand Inquisitor, as well as a smaller number of Moriscos, or Moorish converts. Many more are said to have died or spent many years in the prisons and dungeons. It has been suggested that as many as 32,000 people may have been burnt alive, or in effigy, during the 340 years of the Inquisition's existence.

The Inquisition was an important tool in enforcing the limpieza de sangre ("cleanliness of blood") against descendants of converted Jews or Muslims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_inquisition


On the other hand Northern European countries have a history of racial rather than just cultural intolerance: Houston Stewart Chamberlin; Gobineau; Lanz; Hitler etc. So my argument is: is racism a Northern European thing only?

There are many racialists of South European ancestry, the only reason you don't know about them is because they are not famous, they never had their work translated to other languages, and most South American racialists had their work intentionally forgotten over time and are rarely ever mentioned.

If you can read Portuguese or Spanish check this out:

President of Argentina, Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, talks against race-mixing with indians and blacks:
http://www.geocities.com/fusaoracial/SarmientoMFP.htm

Various quotes said or published by high class white Brazilians against racial integration, and non-white imigration:
http://www.geocities.com/fusaoracial/ImigrantismoMFP.htm

Sylvio Romero, a member of the Brazilian elite, talks against racial integration:
http://www.geocities.com/fusaoracial/SylvioMFP.htm

Raimundo Nina Rodrigues, a Brazilian white supremacist of Portuguese ancestry:
http://www.geocities.com/fusaoracial/NinaRodriguesMFP.htm


"the negro race of Brazil, [...], will always constitute one of the factors of our inferiority as a people." - Raimundo Nina Rodrigues (1862-1906)

"Brazil is not, and shall not be Haiti" - Sylvio Romero (1851-1914)

Gesta Bellica
Wednesday, April 21st, 2004, 09:35 PM
many Catholics priests are color blind, they don't care what race you are as long you are catholic, most meds are not like that, in S. America the priests promoted racial integration with the indians, but one reason why they did this was to create indian vs indian conflicts, Catholic Indians would fight side by side with the Europeans instead of fighting against them, priests used the converted indians as voluntary labor force too. This doesn't mean average meds and Indians/mestizos got along fine, in Brazil there was many Portuguese vs mestizo conflicts, and those conflicts became much worse as the Portuguese population grew.

In Iberia the converted moors/jews were called mouriscos and suffered a lot of discrimination, there was even some Ethinic cleansing, called limpieza de sangre, going on against them.



Well but Catholic priests were not always like that.

When the Spaniards and Portugueses started to colonize South America many priests questioned if the Amerindians had a soul or if they were just a little higher than apes in the evolutive hierarchy.
Many refused to teach their doctrine to the indigenous.

Siegfried
Wednesday, April 21st, 2004, 09:37 PM
As far as most 'Radical Right' thinkers and sympathizers in Europe - including myself - are concerned, the biological racism which characterizes many 'racialist' groups in the States (KKK in primis) is nothing but an extention of Semitic intolerance.

But you do encourage racial integrity? Or do you see no problem with miscegenation and multiracial societies?

SudVolk
Wednesday, April 21st, 2004, 09:45 PM
Numbers are difficult to establish with accuracy, but some estimates suggest that between four and eight thousand Jews were burnt alive during the fifteen years Torquemada held the office of Grand Inquisitor, as well as a smaller number of Moriscos, or Moorish converts. Many more are said to have died or spent many years in the prisons and dungeons. It has been suggested that as many as 32,000 people may have been burnt alive, or in effigy, during the 340 years of the Inquisition's existence.

The Inquisition was an important tool in enforcing the limpieza de sangre ("cleanliness of blood") against descendants of converted Jews or Muslims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_inquisition
Check out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torquamada

where it mentions Torquemada's Jewish ancestry.

Necronomicom
Wednesday, April 21st, 2004, 10:58 PM
Check out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torquamada

where it mentions Torquemada's Jewish ancestry.

"He was born in 1420 in the village of Torquemada (Latin turris cremata, "burnt tower") near the northern Spanish city of Valladolid, and may have had Jewish ancestry"

it doesn't confirm anything, its just a rumor, many "antis" say Hitler was part jewish, but its not true, they say it for defamation purposes only.

Necronomicom
Wednesday, April 21st, 2004, 11:26 PM
This theme of cultural, but not racial superiority is in evidence right across S. Europe: the forced conversion of Jews to Christianity rather than their extermination;

North Europeans have always been the most pro-jewish people ever, they don't even want to assimilate jews, they allow jews to be jews, meds gave a very hard time to the jews in Portuguese Brazil, while the nordics welcome their jewish friends in Dutch Brazil (aka Jewish Brazil):

"The history of the Jews in Brazil begins almost simultaneously with the history of the country itself. As early as 1548 Jews were banished by the Portuguese Inquisition to Brazil "

"The secret Jews welcomed and assisted the Dutch in 1618, particularly as at that time they had good reason to dread the introduction of the Inquisition"

"The Dutch relied upon this large Jewish population for assistance when they prepared their plans for the conquest of the country."

"the Dutch commander, at once issued a proclamation offering liberty, free possession of their property, and free enjoyment of their religion to all who would submit. This brought over about 200 Jews, "who exerted themselves to make others follow their example." Unfortunately for the Jews, Bahia was recaptured by the Portuguese in 1625"

"The Dutch soon gained another foothold and spread their conquests. The Portuguese city of Recife, or Pernambuco, was captured by the Dutch in 1631; and immediately most of the Jews and Neo-Christians from Bahia and elsewhere removed to that city, although it had a large Jewish population of its own, as it had been principally settled by Jews."

"When in 1645 Joam Fernandes Vieyra was inciting the Portuguese to reconquer Brazil, he pointed particularly to Pernambuco, or Recife, expressly calling attention to the fact that "that city is chiefly inhabited by Jews, most of whom were originally fugitives from Portugal. They have their open synagogues there, to the scandal of Christianity. For the honor of the faith, therefore, the Portuguese ought to risk their lives and property in putting down such an abomination.""

"The Jews, however, were loyal to the Dutch; and in 1646, when the war was raging, they raised large donations for the service of the state. So influential were they that, when in 1648 the Portuguese contemplated the purchase of Pernambuco, they considered the advisability of making the clause concerning the Jews a secret article, before even broaching the subject to Holland."

"More than 5,000 Jews were in Recife at the time of the capitulation. Many of these removed to Surinam; while many others, under the leadership of Aboab and Aguilar, returned to Amsterdam. Some went to Guadeloupe and other West Indian islands; while a few of the refugees reached New Amsterdam, as New York was then called."

"Many Jews from Rio were burned at an auto da fé at Lisbon in 1723. Several of these martyrs were men of great repute"

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1427&letter=B

Nordics aren't really racist, not even culturalist or theologist, they have no problem accepting jews the way they are, at least the meds try to assimilate them ;)

Hidalgo
Thursday, April 22nd, 2004, 01:52 AM
On the other hand Northern European countries have a history of racial rather than just cultural intolerance: Houston Stewart Chamberlin; Gobineau; Lanz; Hitler etc. So my argument is: is racism a Northern European thing only?
Gobineau was french. I think France is located in central Europe. Oh well, the french are nordish so yes they can be counted as northern europeans

And isn't there an absorbation of black immigrants into english society? :-O

Turificator
Thursday, April 22nd, 2004, 08:46 AM
But you do encourage racial integrity? Or do you see no problem with miscegenation and multiracial societies?

I seek to preserve the ethnic identities of the European peoples. I firmly oppose multiracialism, but not on the basis that I 'hate' other races/ethnicities, but that the identity of my folk is precious and must be preserved, just like the identity of all other peoples (which would make me, I guess, a 'differentialist').

As for recent aliens in Europe: if we can't send them home we should avoid them integrating and encourage them to take pride in their own tradition (whatever it may be), even if this means creating ghettoes or fostering ethnic strife (which I believe would actually be healthy for Europe in the present, decaying situation...). Note how the liberal right instead talks about integrating all foreigners...

I don't think my position is anyway unique in Europe, but it is very different from that of most American racists (who, as I said, mostly derive their attitude from the Semitic Old Testament...)

The main threat to local ethnic and cultural identities today is no doubt globalism, which must be opposed on all fronts. Do you share my views?

Siegfried
Thursday, April 22nd, 2004, 09:35 AM
I seek to preserve the ethnic identities of the European peoples. I firmly oppose multiracialism, but not on the basis that I 'hate' other races/ethnicities, but that the identity of my folk is precious and must be preserved, just like the identity of all other peoples (which would make me, I guess, a 'differentialist').

As for recent aliens in Europe: if we can't send them home we should avoid them integrating and encourage them to take pride in their own tradition (whatever it may be), even if this means creating ghettoes or fostering ethnic strife (which I believe would actually be healthy for Europe in the present, decaying situation...). Note how the liberal right instead talks about integrating all foreigners...

I don't think my position is anyway unique in Europe, but it is very different from that of most American racists (who, as I said, mostly derive their attitude from the Semitic Old Testament...)

The main threat to local ethnic and cultural identities today is no doubt globalism, which must be opposed on all fronts. Do you share my views?

More or less. I do not endorse the ghetto-thing though; non-Europeans should be removed from Europe. Ghetto's can be a temporary solution, but nothing more. In the end, they will have to be repatriated or, once segregated in ghetto's, we will have to get their birth rates down. One swift way of dealing with the non-Europeans in Europe would, of course, be mass sterilisation. That won't happen in the current political climate though.
I also think Cultures and individuals have an innate will to power, causing them to clash with each other. Strife is inevitable and a sign of healthy life. Some peoples will no doubt disappear because of this, which is only natural. This has nothing to do with hating other races or ethnicities.

As dr. Revilo P. Oliver said:

When the veil of fiction was rent, man shuddered before "Nature, red in tooth and claw." Nature had always been that and always will be, and the hands of man, even when he fashions and defends the noblest civilization, must forever be bloody hands, for this is a world in which only the strong and resolute nations survive, while the weak, especially the morally weak, who babble about brotherhood and peace, are biologically degenerate and doomed to extinction.

Vestmannr
Friday, April 23rd, 2004, 10:12 PM
Regardless of whether Hispanics share a racial unity (they dont), they pretend to. The term they use here as in solidarity is 'La Raza', The Race. And, it is primarily a racism of Mediterannean mythology, focused upon the glories of the Roman Empire and Latin Church. The only ones I've seen that buck that trend are a criminal class amongst Mexicans that hold to an Aztecan superiority form of racism. Go figure. Racism is universal, in any case ...