PDA

View Full Version : What Started The Racial Destruction of Europe?



Northern Paladin
Sunday, June 27th, 2004, 12:19 AM
I mean Europe was a rather Pure Place back in the day. Pre 1970s. What the Hell Happened? What factors contributed to the Multicultural Nightmare that is so Prevelant in Europe Today? Why is it that Nordic Countries such as Sweden,UK,Germany seem to be leading the way while Med ones seem to be Preserving their culture? What Gives? :~(

Strengthandhonour
Sunday, June 27th, 2004, 12:40 AM
I think that mediterenean nations preserve better because we have been fighting non-white invaders for a very very long time. Italy,Greece,Spain,etc have been fighting Moors,Saracens,Turks,etc for ages while the Northern European nations never really had to fight to preserve their countries in such way. But either way, it's a nightmare, not only for Northern Europeans but for Southern Europeans as well.

AngryPotato
Sunday, June 27th, 2004, 07:07 AM
Protected liberal thought.

My opinion is that our countries have allowed those of liberal thought to come into power. I can only speak from the American perspective on this and use no sources as proof. I see the madness in my daily dealings.

Felon prisoners who get air conditioning, three meals a day, college education, and medical care. They should be executed.

Adults that diddle little children and get 3 years of probation and don't have to classify publicly as a sex offender because it will violate their rights. They should be executed.

In a land of equal races I have to give up my spot in a university's enrollment list to a negrid simply because they're a negrid. Madness.

The flood of illegal immigrants from south of the border and offering them free healthcare, licenses, and the new thing is....THE RIGHT TO VOTE. Madness.

Integration of all races into a big milkshake. We must embrace the diversity and overlook the black on white crime and emphasize anything that may be white on black crime. Madness.

The demonization of our police forces and the constraints they are given. Madness.

The great American lotto. Lawsuits. Madness.

Unisexism. Metrosexualism? Fucking gay. Madness.

Diplomatic solutions > the Sword. Unnatural. Allows the weak to prosper.

Leadership by election. Strength and intelligence should decide leadership, not money and lying to the herd. Vermin prosper in such a country.

Homosexual marriages. Ahhh. They should be executed or something.

I would consider all of these things related to liberal thought. In the past such thinkers would end up with a dagger sticking from their chest. Their views have always been protected, but now their gender and sexual preference guarantee them more protections than I have. We need men like Teddy Roosevelt as leaders. Men who weren't afraid to be known as Rough Riders.

We need men to be men and women to be women. Generalization? No.

Scoob
Sunday, June 27th, 2004, 08:58 AM
I think maybe the misapplication of the Enlightenment idea of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" is to blame.

From the French Revolution onwards, "Liberty" has been misused as an excuse for irresponsibility. Contrary to this is the image of the Fasces: the idea of Unity as a source of strength.

And of coures the second two terms of the slogan beg the question: equality and fraternity with whom?

These three slogans have been used to separate people from their true brothers and equals, and enslave them to plutocracy in the name of simplistic "liberty." Humans never really act alone - the "Freedom" of individualism is just a delusion for people enslaved to a consumerist, workaholic lifestyle where "Career" comes before all else, including family.

Väring
Monday, June 28th, 2004, 06:09 PM
I'm sure there's a different story in each country, but in Sweden Olof Palme and Social Democracy in general played a huge part.

http://www.amren.com/0312issue/0312issue.htm

Scoob
Monday, June 28th, 2004, 06:19 PM
I'm sure there's a different story in each country, but in Sweden Olof Palme and Social Democracy in general played a huge part.

http://www.amren.com/0312issue/0312issue.htm Medieval society was based on stratified social classes, and the bourgeois democracies do not distinguish class in this way. The closest American approximation of class is based on money, not rank.

FadeTheButcher
Friday, July 2nd, 2004, 09:30 AM
It began with Christianity.

Scoob
Friday, July 2nd, 2004, 05:03 PM
Pagan Rome was already quite multiracial, before the Christians appeared.

Awar
Friday, July 2nd, 2004, 05:15 PM
Pagan Rome was already quite multiracial, before the Christians appeared.

It was just multi-ethnic. Most of their slaves were Gauls, Teutons, Thracians, Iberians etc. The pagan religion of rome was already in it's dying stages, it was bound to be replaced by Mithraism or Christianity or any other lively imported religion, or to be reformed.

Using Rome as an analogy of USA is a bad idea, they are simply much too different.

Scoob
Friday, July 2nd, 2004, 05:29 PM
It was just multi-ethnic. Most of their slaves were Gauls, Teutons, Thracians, Iberians etc. The pagan religion of rome was already in it's dying stages, it was bound to be replaced by Mithraism or Christianity or any other lively imported religion, or to be reformed.

Using Rome as an analogy of USA is a bad idea, they are simply much too different. Northern Africa, Persians, Arabs (Philip the Arab was an emperor). Egyptian religion was quite popular in Rome - so there were Egyptians there too. Similar to the Turks, Arabs, N Africans, etc in Europe now.

Awar
Friday, July 2nd, 2004, 05:42 PM
Yeah, but we can't really speak of Rome being multi-racial, since all those people mentioned are just of different sub-racial groups.

Anyway, I'm not sure about Philip the Arab, but Romans often used such nicknames
as a reminder of their great victories over some tribe or kingdom, hence names like
Scipio Africanus, Germanicus etc.

Anyway, the British empire ruled over India, most of Africa, Australia, southeast Asia and pacific islands etc. and nobody accuses Brits of mixing with Negroids, Australoids, Dravidians etc. etc.

USA has a large Negroid minority on it's soil, yet nobody accuses Americans of being mulattoes.

It's a skewed point of view, what makes you think that Greeks or Romans were able to become so mixed with non-whites in the age when travelling from Athens or Rome to Jerusalem or Alexandria took weeks or months on horseback and wooden ships that could carry few men.... not to mention they were both slave-owning states with high disregard for the lives of their slaves, while Britain and USA were much more lax.

Johannes de León
Friday, July 2nd, 2004, 07:03 PM
Philip the Arab was an emperor I remember reading in an history book that he embaraced every single member of the political power in Rome, because his latin was terrible. :D

Btw, he only ruled for 5 years. (244-249)

Johannes de León
Friday, July 2nd, 2004, 07:06 PM
Anyway, I'm not sure about Philip the Arab, but Romans often used such nicknames
as a reminder of their great victories over some tribe or kingdom, hence names like
Scipio Africanus, Germanicus etc. He was born in Damascus, in the roman province of Syria. He was the son of a Julius Marinus, a local Roman citizen, possibly of some importance.

here is a statue of him (attached).

Scoob
Friday, July 2nd, 2004, 10:08 PM
OK, well now we must beg the question a bit. What exactly is the racial destruction of Europe? By that do you mean the breakdown of distinct Ice Age Northern European phenotypes? Then what is to blame is the Neolithic Revolution and the end of the Ice Age. And even these pre-Neolithic peoples were blends of previous invaders and wanderers, if we are to believe the archaeological record.

Rome is just a recent example of a civilized empire (Neolithic lifestyle complex) invading Europe and eventually fading away, as many have before and since. Since any empire expands to rule over foreign people, it will become ethnically mixed - whether these ethnicities are different "races" is a matter of opinion. Calling them all "subraces" of "Caucasoids" is a a non-sequitor IMO because Romans did not conceive of race in this way. This is an idea from the 19th-20th centuries.

So, what do we contrast with the "racial destruction" of Europe? Racial integrity? Racial elevation? Racial composition? etc. We need a list of concrete criteria.

FadeTheButcher
Saturday, July 3rd, 2004, 03:13 AM
Pagan Rome was already quite multiracial, before the Christians appeared.

The present racial crisis is a direct product of Christian values (e.g., equality, universalism, humanity, individualism, morality and so forth). This is not to say that Christianity has brought on the present crisis, only that it has directly evolved out of the Christian embryo into ever decadent forms of Christiany, first and foremost, secular humanism.

Scoob
Saturday, July 3rd, 2004, 08:52 AM
The present racial crisis is a direct product of Christian values (e.g., equality, universalism, humanity, individualism, morality and so forth). This is not to say that Christianity has brought on the present crisis, only that it has directly evolved out of the Christian embryo into ever decadent forms of Christiany, first and foremost, secular humanism. Maybe the basic problem is Universalism - Paul's idea of converting the gentiles, which was odd and quite different from the eclecticism of Roman paganism or the clannish exclusivism of Judaism.

As for morality - that was around long before Christianity.

PS: Feed me a cat.;)

FadeTheButcher
Saturday, July 3rd, 2004, 10:31 AM
As for morality - that was around long before Christianity.

I disagree. Morality should not be confused with ethics.


Maybe the basic problem is Universalism - Paul's idea of converting the gentiles, which was odd and quite different from the eclecticism of Roman paganism or the clannish exclusivism of Judaism.

Universalism, individualism, and egalitarianism all have the same source in the Abraham story.

Northern Paladin
Saturday, July 3rd, 2004, 07:52 PM
OK, well now we must beg the question a bit. What exactly is the racial destruction of Europe? By that do you mean the breakdown of distinct Ice Age Northern European phenotypes? Then what is to blame is the Neolithic Revolution and the end of the Ice Age. And even these pre-Neolithic peoples were blends of previous invaders and wanderers, if we are to believe the archaeological record.

The Prescence of a Large amount of Non-Whites in Europe who will significantly effect the gene pool of native Europeans if not removed. Thereby forever altering and thereby destroying the unique European Phenotype.


The present racial crisis is a direct product of Christian values (e.g., equality, universalism, humanity, individualism, morality and so forth). This is not to say that Christianity has brought on the present crisis, only that it has directly evolved out of the Christian embryo into ever decadent forms of Christiany, first and foremost, secular humanism.

I don't think Christianity is responsible for Europe's "Racial Degeneration" though it played it's role by bringing Europe out of it's Isolation. It is Colonalism and Globalisation. Once different people come in contact with one another there are two choices acceptance/co-operation or warfare(genocide) obviously most Europeans have chosen to accept/co-operate non-whites, therefore welcoming them into their society.

Ironically Colonalism was suppose to give the White Man dominion over all the colored Masses but it has resulting it the exact opposite.

I feel with Globalazation we have opened a door that is unclosable. It is almost inevitable that populations that were once isolated and now in everyday contact don't mix.

Scoob
Saturday, July 3rd, 2004, 08:26 PM
I agree most with Northern Paladin here. If anything, Christians in the USA and Europe are some of the few people who retain traditional European values and are against the consumerist multicult.

Meanwhile, the most secular people I know tend to be much more in favor of capitalist materialism - and therefore globalism, multiculturalism (everyone should be a corporate/consumerist clone) , anti-traditionalism, etc. They are anti-marriage and in favor of making people into atomized individuals who serve "the market" above all else.

Fade, how do you define morality as opposed to ethics?

FadeTheButcher
Sunday, July 4th, 2004, 05:53 AM
If anything, Christians in the USA and Europe are some of the few people who retain traditional European values and are against the consumerist multicult.

I disagree with this. I am an American Southerner. I also live in one of the most Christian parts of the U.S., the Bible Belt. These evangelical idiots are amongst the most fanatical supporters of Israel you will find anywhere. They are also entirely in favour of gross consumerism and free market capitalism. The South these days is largely a wasteland of McDonald's restaurants, Walmarts, shopping malls and parking lots like any other part of America. These people are not in support of 'traditional European values'. They are supporters of neoclassical liberalism, which has never caught on in Europe itself, aside from maybe Thatcher in the U.K. and the other Anglo Saxon colonies like Australia and New Zealand.


Meanwhile, the most secular people I know tend to be much more in favor of capitalist materialism

This makes no sense whatsoever, Scoob. The most rank form of capitalist materialism you will find anywhere on Earth is in the United States, one of the most religious countries in the entire world. In fact, Samuel Huntington, the most respected political scientist in America, has a new book out about this. There are more religious zealots in America than there are in most Islamic countries, in fact. On the other hand, the more thoroughly secularized European continent have always had strong socialist or anti-capitalist parties, such as Germany.


and therefore globalism, multiculturalism (everyone should be a corporate/consumerist clone) , anti-traditionalism, etc. They are anti-marriage and in favor of making people into atomized individuals who serve "the market" above all else.

Once again, the most adament supporters of globalisation you will find anywhere are Americans. And what's more, the Christian and more right-wing areas of the United States are the biggest supporters of this, the type of people that vote overwhelmingly for George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. Real communities are practically nonexistent here these days, even in the Bible Belt where I live. Lets not forget how infested this area is with Negroes to begin with or all the Mexicans that now live in Texas and Florida doing agricultural work. These areas are far from being any bastion of European traditionalism. Instead, just the opposite is true. The market is taken as the model for EVERYTHING here.


Fade, how do you define morality as opposed to ethics?

Morality is a specific type of ethic that distinguishes between good and evil. Ethics is a broader category that distinguishes between right and wrong.

FadeTheButcher
Sunday, July 4th, 2004, 06:07 AM
I don't think Christianity is responsible for Europe's "Racial Degeneration" though it played it's role by bringing Europe out of it's Isolation.

I disagree. The fundamental values of Christianity (e.g., morality, equality, humanity, individualism, universalism) and so on are directly responsible for the present crisis. As I said before, it is most certainly not Christianity -- as a religion -- that is responsible for the situation we are in today. Christianity is largely dead in Europe anyway. Instead, it is the vast spiritual vacuum that has been brought on by Christianity's demise that is the problem. The real problem is 'Christianity's ghost', that being, ideologies like secular humanism and the more extreme versions of liberalism that are a product of the Enlightenment. Secularization was never complete in Europe. Europeans stopped believing in God but only clung that much harder to Christianity's values reconstituted as liberalism. This is quite well known amongst political theorists as well. I am a political scientist myself. I could do a genealogy of all of the above values and trace them directly back to Christianity. I have already done some work on just this issue at my own board. If necessary, I will past some excerpts from books and referred articles in scholarly journals over here for the benefit of the gallery.


It is Colonalism and Globalisation.

I don't see how colonialism is a problem. European colonialism began centuries before the transatlantic voyages of Columbus, for instance, the colonisation of Prussia by the Teutonic Knights. Globalization is also a very recent phenomena and the racial problem began long before the discourse of globalisation ever appeared on the radar screen.


Once different people come in contact with one another there are two choices acceptance/co-operation or warfare(genocide) obviously most Europeans have chosen to accept/co-operate non-whites, therefore welcoming them into their society.

But nonwhites were not welcomed into Europe, generally speaking, during the colonial era. It was only in the postcolonial era that has really become a problem. This is hardly true just for the European countries that had colonies either. Take Sweden for example. There are millions of nonwhites today in Sweden yet Sweden never colonised Africa or South America.


Ironically Colonalism was suppose to give the White Man dominion over all the colored Masses but it has resulting it the exact opposite.

You are confusing colonialism here with the colonization of the world at large by Europeans. Actually, colonialism began much earlier, as I said before, during the High Middle Ages.


I feel with Globalazation we have opened a door that is unclosable.

Globalisation is definitely a problem. There is no doubt about that. It is a stretch of the imagination, however, to say that globalisation is the cause of our problems.


It is almost inevitable that populations that were once isolated and now in everyday contact don't mix.

There was nothing inevitable about the situation we are in today. The reason that Europe is flooded today with nonwhites is because of a moral failing that is directly traceable to socially and historically situated values. That is, Europe was unable to justify segregating whites from nonwhites on the basis of the values (the ones I outlined above) that it inherited from the Christian religion.

Northern Paladin
Sunday, July 4th, 2004, 06:21 AM
I've been to the South. To the "Bible Belt" it seems to me they are a lot "Racist" have more tradinational values than the more secular North. Yes Christianity also has a strong influence in the North but I see it as a more Liberal Secular Christianity. And the South's as more "Conservative".


I don't see how colonialism is a problem. European colonialism began centuries before the transatlantic voyages of Columbus, for instance, the colonisation of Prussia by the Teutonic Knights. Globalization is also a very recent phenomena and the racial problem began long before the discourse of globalisation ever appeared on the radar screen.

I don't think Columbus and the Discovery of the New World this kind of Colonalism can be compared to the Teutonic Knights "Colonising" Prussia. How far is Prussia from Germany? How Different are "Prussians" from Germans. I'd say they are basically one in the same.

On the other hand It was the Discovery of the New World that Spawned the Slave trade.

After Abraham Lincoln(God knows why this guy was such a Nigger Lover the trouble he caused for White America can not be over exaggerated) decided to set the slaves free they wanted rights.

Eventually they got what they wanted with the "Civil Rights Movement" and all their NAACP crap.

Not only did they get them they made Whites feel guilty about it. So the Liberal Atmosphere that was created resulted in the 1965 Congress passed the Immigration Act that would let Non-Whites into the USA. And here we are today White America getting Darker by the mintute every 12 secs a new Immigrant arrives. Having opened a door that is very hard if not impossible to close. :(

Awar
Sunday, July 4th, 2004, 04:11 PM
ehm... Prussians were originally Slavs/Balts who became germanized during the German eastward expansion. They are one and the same now, but haven't been previously.

FadeTheButcher
Tuesday, July 6th, 2004, 10:08 AM
ehm... Prussians were originally Slavs/Balts who became germanized during the German eastward expansion. They are one and the same now, but haven't been previously.

Plenty of Prussians are also the descendants of German colonists from the Late Middle Ages.


I've been to the South. To the "Bible Belt" it seems to me they are a lot "Racist" have more tradinational values than the more secular North.

I am not sure what you mean by traditional values. Perhaps you could elaborate on that. The South is just as overrun by crass materialism as any other part of the United States, especially in cities like Houston, Atlanta, and Charlotte.


Yes Christianity also has a strong influence in the North but I see it as a more Liberal Secular Christianity. And the South's as more "Conservative".

I am not really sure what these Christian Southerners are supposed to be conserving, although one particular political party does operate under that pretense. If anything, the history of the South over the past forty years or so has been that of radical change.


I don't think Columbus and the Discovery of the New World this kind of Colonalism can be compared to the Teutonic Knights "Colonising" Prussia. How far is Prussia from Germany? How Different are "Prussians" from Germans. I'd say they are basically one in the same.

You seem to be associating 'colonialism' here with overseas European expansion, starting in the 15th century. As I noted before, it is important to keep in mind that this expansionism did not arise sui generis in the 15th century, but was merely the latest phase in an ongoing process of European conquest and settlement which had been going on since the Central Middle Ages.


On the other hand It was the Discovery of the New World that Spawned the Slave trade.

Actually, the slave trade had been going on for quite sometime between the Portugeuse and West Africa before Columbus landed in the New World. But yeah, that is nitpicking and I would of course agree with your point, in the general sense.


After Abraham Lincoln(God knows why this guy was such a Nigger Lover the trouble he caused for White America can not be over exaggerated) decided to set the slaves free they wanted rights.

Abraham Lincoln was a racist who wanted to rid America of Negroes. He formulated plans to do just that during his presidency. The U.S. Congress even appropriated funds for this specific purpose. In fact, the majority of Americas who opposed slavery in the day and age of Abraham Lincoln did so for white supremacist reasons. The egalitarians were always a very small minority of abolitionists. Take the Wilmot Proviso for instance. Its advocates at the time referred to it as the 'White Man's Resolution'.


Eventually they got what they wanted with the "Civil Rights Movement" and all their NAACP crap.

Yeah. The NAACP alone is worth an entire thread to itself. The NAACP was founded by Jews. There was not even a black president of the NAACP until the 1970s.


Not only did they get them they made Whites feel guilty about it.

Its important to understand just why this came about. Groups like the NAACP, as I pointed out above, were not established by Negroes. They were established by Jews who hoped to ally themselves with blacks in order to advance Jewish interests. One of the fundamental reasons American Jewry felt it to be so imperative to 'fight racism' was the way they reacted to what they call 'The Holocaust'. Never again, right?


So the Liberal Atmosphere that was created resulted in the 1965 Congress passed the Immigration Act that would let Non-Whites into the USA.

This is another interesting story in its own right. White Americans were hardly knocking down the doors of Congress in 1965 because they felt they were missing out on racial diversity. The 1965 Immigration Act was actually the culmination of a long Jewish struggle to overthrow America's immigration laws. The reasoning behind this is that America's restrictive immigration policy led to the deaths of millions of Jews in 'The Holocaust'. Furthermore, American Jews hoped to flood America with nonwhite immigration in order to diversify the population. This is in their interests because they felt that racially homogeneous societies were a danger to Jews in the aftermath of NS Germany and the pogroms of czarist Russia.


And here we are today White America getting Darker by the mintute every 12 secs a new Immigrant arrives. Having opened a door that is very hard if not impossible to close.

Yes. It is also imperative to understand just why this came about too. Much of what we despise about contemporary America is the product of a small minority, Jewish Americans, and how they reacted to 'The Holocaust'.

Gesta Bellica
Tuesday, July 6th, 2004, 10:31 AM
The demografic pressure from outside the "western world" is the biggest problem for me.. until we will have a huge mass of hungry people with nothign to lose at our doors there's no way we are gonna win.
They will keep on flooding here until we will consume everything we have in a desperate attempt to fulfill our (and theirs) physical needs..they will bring us down with them.