Protectionism and Geopolitics - Resurrecting Christendom?

[Jack]

I thought of (another) idea today - protectorates post-revolution. Supposing that Europe, Russia, and North America (by this I mean Canada and the United States, not Mexico) were turned into white areas, would it be an advantage to ressurect the idea of Christendom again? Let me explain:

First, the issue of blacks and hispanics (by this I mean mesitzos) in the United States. Racial foreigners in Europe would simply be deported. A North American white movement could concievably cut a chunk out of north Mexico and settle blacks there, and dump the hispanics in Mexico proper. Problem solved. No need to ship the blacks all the way back to Africa, just dump them in north Mexico and seal off the border with a massive concrete manned wall.

White world power could work on two levels - the Imperium itself, which would encompass white territories, and Christendom. Now, I need to explain this part - from what I have read, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are converging, and religion linked with nationalism is getting bigger. Post-Israel, it could be useful to have a foothold in the middle east. Israel is obviously not a white foothold in the middle east, but rather the white world is a tool of the Jews. So, how to get a section of military territory in the middle east? That's where I thought of the idea - Christendom Gut Muslim Lebanon and give it back to the Christian Lebanese, who made most of the population prior to their civil war. Then turn it into a military protectorate, with a degree of self-governing independence. Same goes for Armenia. With the coming fall of Israel (it will happen, sooner or later), the Muslims will have the Jihad idea going on, and it is fact that historically, Europeans have been far kinder to other Christian countries than Muslims have. The Armenian Genocide by the Turks illustrates this quite well - even under the USSR, the Armenians had it better off. Lebanon was, as I said, predominantly Christian prior to the civil war, and don't have the best experiences with Muslims. This leaves with interesting geopolitical options for a post-revolutionary Occidental Imperium. Christendom would basically be a non-racial political extension of the Imperium - the Imperium itself would be the political organisation of the white race within its lebensraum, its homelands.

Thoughts?

[Nordgau]

But if we stressed so much Christianity and the above-racial, all-human, universalist foundaments of this faith and established a Christian state in that area, how could we reject then such non-White Christians (and also African and South American) who wanted to immigrate into the countries where their "brothers of faith" live?

It's too much playing with the fire in my opinion. Creating a Christian state in Lebanon by pushing out the Muslims from there would create without good reason a new Ur-hatred between the White Occident and the Islamic Orient, with which compared the Israel-Arab conflict is nothing. The Islamic countries at least would fast recognize that that sort of "Christendom" is only a form of Machiavellist Machtpolitik.

I personally don't care about Lebanon or Lebanese Christs. Down there, it's definitily "their" (the Muslims') Lebensraum while Europe is our Lebensraum where no Muslim has lost anything. Because of the immigration of Orientals into White countries there are in the moment quite strained relations between White racialist and Islamic interests, and here the solution can only be to repatriate them all back, no matter if they want or not. A certain antagonosm between Orient and Occident will always exist, even when both are clearly seperated in their historical-cultural and geopolitical spheres. But I don't see any need in creating artificially a new reason for promoting the antagonism.
A renewed Europe that really would be that would also, together with a white North American bastion, needn't be afraid from a new Jihad.

The oil - yes, yes, we have indeed interests in that region. But from our moment we still have to do with conventional trade relationship with the Arabian world. Don't forget that that's in their interest, too, and that the "Arabian oil" isn't such a weapon anymore as it was in the seventies.
My favourite scenario would be here, by the way, that the brilliant scientists of our race would develop new, revolutionary energy technologies, so that our high tech civilization wouldn't hang at the oil needle anymore. Oh c'mon, let me dream...

[Jack]

But if we stressed so much Christianity and the above-racial, all-human, universalist foundaments of this faith and established a Christian state in that area, how could we reject then such non-White Christians (and also African and South American) who wanted to immigrate into the countries where their "brothers of faith" live?

Christian nationalism It's similar to the (old) Marxist notion of proletarian internationalism - not international mass migration and a borderless world, but a cooperative uprising against the imperialist and capitalist powers, international cooperation, but each nation keeps its own territory. Christianity has its own version of this, known as Christian nationalism, which again, like the Marxist notion, isn't paid attention to much anymore.

It's too much playing with the fire in my opinion. Creating a Christian state in Lebanon by pushing out the Muslims from there would create without good reason a new Ur-hatred between the White Occident and the Islamic Orient, with which compared the Israel-Arab conflict is nothing. The Islamic countries at least would fast recognize that that sort of "Christendom" is only a form of Machiavellist Machtpolitik.

Here I have to agree with Guilliame Faye - Muslim and white racialist interests are heavily contradicting. If we go by the idea that danger to our race is to be based on physical danger, rather than influence, the Muslims are far more dangerous than the Jews are. Fourteen million Muslims in France, millions in Germany and Britain, and millions in Russia, and all of those numbers are rising, Muslims are our primary enemy. In fact, they are more dangerous to our race now than they were when they were marching through southern France before Charles Martel stopped them. They are on the inside. They are going to have better weapons. And they are here in far greater numbers. They have the same intentions as they did last time - Islamify the entire Occident. Christianity and the white race are synonymous. While the Jews are showing us what we can and cannot see, encouraging nonwhites to migrate into our countries and set up camp, the Muslims are pouring in, establishing Sharia Law as the legal system in hundreds of towns and areas across France, raping our women, starting riots, and so on - they are the main enemy. We can remove the Jews and regain our operational capability as a race, and then the real business begins - driving out the Muslims and assorted foreigners from Europe. This would be, in effect, a crusade. Our struggle is no where near as simplistic as a military coup. Our situation bears nothing in common with Adolf Hitler. It bears more in common with the situation our race faced against Genghis Khan and his allies. The Muslims want to unite the entire planet under one religion. This is fact, the Koran (I have read it) pushes the idea without end. The Occident and Islam are, and always will be, so long as one or the other exists, enemies on the grounds of convictions. There cannot be compromise, because compromise means capitulation - no one is going to capitulate. I don't think creating and enforcing a Christian Lebanon will make much of a difference. And an occupied country in the middle east would be a useful thing.

I personally don't care about Lebanon or Lebanese Christs. Down there, it's definitily "their" (the Muslims') Lebensraum while Europe is our Lebensraum where no Muslim has lost anything. Because of the immigration of Orientals into White countries there are in the moment quite strained relations between White racialist and Islamic interests, and here the solution can only be to repatriate them all back, no matter if they want or not. A certain antagonosm between Orient and Occident will always exist, even when both are clearly seperated in their historical-cultural and geopolitical spheres. But I don't see any need in creating artificially a new reason for promoting the antagonism. A renewed Europe that really would be that would also, together with a white North American bastion, needn't be afraid from a new Jihad.

If Iran, of its own will, removes the theocracy and replaces it with a secular republic, then we would (could) have a permanent ally in the region.

The oil - yes, yes, we have indeed interests in that region. But from our moment we still have to do with conventional trade relationship with the Arabian world. Don't forget that that's in their interest, too, and that the "Arabian oil" isn't such a weapon anymore as it was in the seventies.

Feeding the people who have just removed 20 million of your own people by use of brute force isn't something I think the Arabs will consider. I don't see much of a chance of the Arabs really caring a great deal about getting money from us - trading oil for food, medicine and manufactured products from China would make more sense.

My favourite scenario would be here, by the way, that the brilliant scientists of our race would develop new, revolutionary energy technologies, so that our high tech civilization wouldn't hang at the oil needle anymore. Oh c'mon, let me dream...

It would be good

[Moody]

Aloysha; "would it be an advantage to ressurect the idea of Christendom again"?

Moody Lawless; No! It would be easier to ressurect Christ Himself

Aloysha; "The Catholic and Orthodox Churches are converging, and religion linked with nationalism is getting bigger".

Moody Lawless; And the Protestant Churches too, don't forget them. The Anglican Church is debating whether to have homosexual bishops - some convergence.
Anyway, Nationalism is still considered to be a form of paganism, particularly to the Catholic Church. Ultimately the Church desires a Theocracy and so always implicitly undermines Nationalism.

Aloysha; "Christendom would basically be a non-racial political extension of the Imperium - the Imperium itself would be the political organisation of the white race within its, its homelands".

ML; And therefore be continually at odds with Nationalism. This sounds like running history backwards. Religiosity and race feeling must be in tandem, be inseparable.
Actually, the concept of 'Europe' replaced 'Christendom' historically. That 'Europe' is the future, being a sacred conception in itself.

[Jack]

Fair enough then. Christianity is falling apart anyway - at least as far as this (the generation born in the 80's onwards) generation is concerned. Moody, what do you consider Europe?

[Moody]

Fair enough then. Christianity is falling apart anyway - at least as far as this (the generation born in the 80's onwards) generation is concerned. Moody, what do you consider Europe?

I consider Europe to be a spiritual/political movement which has superseded Christendom.
Europe itself will become the expression of the Centre, of the Middle - that which stands while all around it falls.
This is symbolised by the Sunwheel.
The East and the West shall look back to Europa as they need to replenish their squandered cultures.
This is Europa as the womb of nations.

The European geographical minimum is from the Atlantic to the Urals, although the ideas of Eurasian theorists such as Thiriart etc., have much to commend them, if only as futuristic projections. Here, Europe ranges from Iceland to Vladivostock.

I see Europe as the White Homeland, the Mother to which all her children may return. It is also the potential power-base for the next culture which is to follow the fall of American capitalism.
In this, Europe in action, we have the symbol of the Lightning Flash.

[Jack]

I consider Europe to be a spiritual/political movement which has superseded Christendom.
Europe itself will become the expression of the Centre, of the Middle - that which stands while all around it falls.
This is symbolised by the Sunwheel.
The East and the West shall look back to Europa as they need to replenish their squandered cultures.
This is Europa as the womb of nations.

The European geographical minimum is from the Atlantic to the Urals, although the ideas of Eurasian theorists such as Thiriart etc., have much to commend them, if only as futuristic projections. Here, Europe ranges from Iceland to Vladivostock.

I see Europe as the White Homeland, the Mother to which all her children may return. It is also the potential power-base for the next culture which is to follow the fall of American capitalism.
In this, Europe in action, we have the symbol of the Lightning Flash.

The 'Mother', lol - and yet somehow you connected leftism, egalitarianism, and so on, with the mother figure. Inconsistency Or have you changed? I agree with almost all of what you've said. Minus the Sunwheel. It just seems to be a bit overused since Hitler took it. Nice, but overused. The Americans (see SF) have hijacked it anyway. And the Lightning Flash? Oswald Mosely is ok. Incidentally, what philosophers/political philosophers have contributed most to your thought?

[Nordgau]

The European geographical minimum is from the Atlantic to the Urals.

The problem is that the theoretical establishing of a spiritual, historical and geopolitical unit "Europe" that ends at the Urals would be more impossible to be transformed into a political reality or in any other reality that has actual effects than anything else.
Despite of all tendencys of a population flight from Siberia to the European part of Russia (and a mass immigration of Chinese into parts of Siberia) there's no danger of Russia to break apart at this line nor will Russia give up it's Eastern territories.
Also, there is no real difference between Russia West and Russia East of the Urals. Generally spoken, west of the Urals is old Russia while the East, the great Siberia, is "colonisation land" of later times. So for Russia the Urals are more a line as for the USA the Mississippi river is, but it's not a line between two cultures. The Uralic line was chosen by the European Geographers in modern times because it is indeed the only natural border to the East, to "Asia" that one can find. But it still has something artificial as a border of a culture world.
If one regards Russia or the "Orthodox world" as something special, though with narrow relationships and connections to the Occident, one had to draw the line directly East of Finland, the Baltic countries, along the Pripyet swamps and the Carpathian mountains.
If one includes Russia without reservations to the Occidental culture and civilisation one had to regard the Russian settlement up to the Pacific as the final and most extreme spurs of it. The problem is here bigger than with North America and Australia (which also are "European", "Occidental" new settlement areas), because with the Russian Eastern settlement areas, with Siberia, the directly geographical connection is given.

I don't see really a practical possibility so fast to establish a sharp line at the Urals. That would only work if Russia really would treat it as "second zone" and establish a sort of "inner border" in it's own country. But because of political reasons they will hardly do it as the Chinese or Asia generally would interpret such a step this way: Russia treats its Asian possessions as not really Russian land and regards them itself as less legitimate.

[Moody]

Aloysha; "The 'Mother', - and yet somehow you connected leftism, egalitarianism, and so on, with the mother figure. Inconsistency".

Moody Lawless; No I've long said that these leftist ideas developed out of Europe's pre-Indo-European substratum.

Aloysha; "The Sunwheel ... just seems to be a bit overused since Hitler took it. Nice, but overused".

ML; Those symbols either resonate with you, or they don't.

Aloysha; "The Americans (see SF) have hijacked it anyway".

ML; It belongs to all Aryans.

Aloysha; "Incidentally, what philosophers/political philosophers have contributed most to your thought?"

ML; The usual ones; Nietzsche is the main one - I try not to have too many.

[Jack]

Aloysha; "The 'Mother', - and yet somehow you connected leftism, egalitarianism, and so on, with the mother figure. Inconsistency".

Moody Lawless; No I've long said that these leftist ideas developed out of Europe's pre-Indo-European substratum.

Quite true. And yet you embrace Europe as a mother figure while decrying leftism. That's the inconsistency I see. I don't have it because I have no issue with Goddess worship, I just think an iron-guard patriarchial mentality needs to be developed around it, hopefully without contradiction. And now I'm beginning to wonder if Russian collectivism and 'Aryan' hierarchy aren't incompatible...

Aloysha; "The Sunwheel ... just seems to be a bit overused since Hitler took it. Nice, but overused".

ML; Those symbols either resonate with you, or they don't.

The lightning flash doesn't resonate with me, and if the swastika is sacred I think we'd better keep it that way. Personally the werewolf rune works fine for me.

Aloysha; "The Americans (see SF) have hijacked it anyway".

ML; It belongs to all Aryans.

Aryans are the elite. People are born white European, they become Aryan. It belongs to a handful.

Aloysha; "Incidentally, what philosophers/political philosophers have contributed most to your thought?"

ML; The usual ones; Nietzsche is the main one - I try not to have too many.

Nietzsche is great. I like Ernst Jünger, Julius Evola, Spengler (and Yockey), from what I've read of Toynbee I like him.... damn. I used to be able to mention over a dozen Perhaps I'm becoming more refined... or chaotic.