Whither Eurabia?

Posted by Guessedworker on August 27, 2009, 12:30 AM | #

Persuasion-wise, it is good to be able to maximise Otherness.  It’s certainly a lot easier to convince kum-by-yah Christians that mass repatriations are necessary when the soon-to-be repatriated are of an unsympathetic and aggressively competitive faith.

Posted by Captainchaos on August 27, 2009, 01:14 AM | #

We can move all non-repatriable muds in Europe to North America because that would be the best way to maximize the EGI of Americans of Northwestern European descent per Loriver’s suggestion.  That and scrap the concept of morality having any truth content, the lemmings will eat that one up, one clever chap once wrote a book on it - it’s all in his book.  We can count on Loriver for more brilliant breakthroughs of that “philosophical” bent all the time.

Frank: “We can’t martyr our Fatherlands.”

Loriver: “I quite agree.” (thanks for saving my ass)

LOL!

Posted by Dan Dare on August 27, 2009, 01:37 AM | #

...kum-by-yah Christians ...

A vanishingly rare species in Europe, I should have thought.

Posted by Laban Tall on August 27, 2009, 09:36 PM | #

I didn’t say or imply, archly or otherwise, nor do I agree, that the black population of the US are ‘politically irrelevant exotic nuisances’. What I did say was :

“One of the things which triggered Michael Caldwell’s book was his observation that the relationship between black people and the US government had been a dominant theme of US politics for the last forty years, despite black people comprising less than 15% of the US population.

If Muslim issues grab a disproportionate share of our rulers attention now, at maybe 4% of the population, what will politics be like when they’re 8% - or 14% - or 24% ?”

(And the Dalrymple link - and it was his usual excellent stuff, although I do have one or two reservations, came from commenters ‘Mark’ and Ed West)

Posted by Dan Dare on August 27, 2009, 11:58 PM | #

Thank you for the clarification, Laban.

I misread your comment and mistakenly assumed that you were drawing a parallel between the potential effect on the political system of a large increase in the Muslim population in Britain and that of the black population on the political system in the United States today.

I don’t actually think that drawing such a parallel would be that far-fetched, but I apologise for imputing that you consider the black population either politically irrelevant, exotic or a nuisance..

Posted by Frank on August 28, 2009, 01:59 AM | #

CC,

I’ve never valued EGI as anything more than a useful debating technique, or else as a simplified approximation for those who lack the heart to grasp nationalism. So, it shouldn’t be surprising that I’d violate EGI.

Our roots lie in Europe; we would risk losing our way without Europe. And rational explanations aside, a mere colony may not* put its interests over the survival of the cradle of its nation.

Regardless, America has territory to spare. You dream of some sort of powerful united America that stomps around telling the world how superior Germans are, but I’ve never held such ambitions. Power’s only useful for defending the nation, and it can eat its wielder.

*I didn’t say “cannot”.

Posted by Frank on August 28, 2009, 02:01 AM | #

I meant debating tool - ah an argument to use in a debate. The meaning is still clear regardless…

Posted by Frank on August 28, 2009, 02:08 AM | #

I have a hypothesis that national chauvinism is an early indicator of corruption and fall from power. Jewish chauvinism is at an all time high lately, so we’ll see over the next 50 years if they don’t fall from power as a result of overconfidence - the modern world moves so quickly that the fall might be much sooner. I know they’re supposed to be “horizontally transferring” to China and magical Jews can supposedly accomplish this feat because of their inexplicable awesomeness, but they’re not in the driver’s seat there yet.

Posted by Captainchaos on August 28, 2009, 03:30 AM | #

Frank,

We seek not salvation in courting compromise, only disaster.  There is nothing left to conserve, only revolution can save us now.  Our enemies will never yield.  The English have the mean (not in the sense of nastiness) habit of thinking big when it comes to themselves, thinking small when it comes to the other guy, and missing the big picture in the process.  Securing the North American continent for our Nordic people, as intended by Providence, which the Fuhrer believed guided him, is not a mutually exclusive proposition to Europe’s salvation.  The German people once tried to save our race because their Fuhrer asked it of them, and they loved their Fuhrer; they were destroyed for their trouble.  Fortuitously, as GT has noted, Germanic people make up the mass of Whites in North America.  We have what is rarely given in life, a second bite at the apple.

Posted by Frank on August 28, 2009, 04:48 AM | #

I’m only a small part English (~1/4th), and your theories on English genetics are fit for a baboon. I’ve countered it, and you’ve chosen to ignore my counter.

The English have the mean (not in the sense of nastiness) habit of thinking big when it comes to themselves, thinking small when it comes to the other guy, and missing the big picture in the process.

This does not in any way fit my argument. I was thinking of the Old World, and you were thinking of the New World. I was thinking of my people; you were dreaming of power. Since we both live in America, and I trace back centuries as do you I suspect, I couldn’t possibly be siding with my people at the expense of the greater whole now could I? I’d have responded similarly against resettling in Germany, though obviously Britain is more dear to me (as a matter of degree not kind).

Gasp, the WWII analogy doesn’t fit every situation - perhaps life is a tad more complicated. Now though I’m sure you’ll block this too.

-

Securing the North American continent for our Nordic people, as intended by Providence, which the Fuhrer believed guided him, is not a mutually exclusive proposition to Europe’s salvation.

Providence now shines on the mestizo “raza”. I’m aiming merely for survival, though I realise there are resources in the US. There’s also Oceania to consider and Canada and possibly Russia - all of these resources will potentially be available for Europeans (if a larger unit is needed to thwart East Asia which seems to be the concern).

America was too large to begin with, and I see nothing sacred about it.

Fortuitously, as GT has noted, Germanic people make up the mass of Whites in North America.  We have what is rarely given in life, a second bite at the apple.

The type of empire you dream of is fit for slaves - mestizos would make for a better citizenry.

You’re blinded by past wars and incapable of seeing the present. I might be blinded by something else if attempting some objective view of me..., but I’ve overcome the Civil War to the extent I’m not seeking to win what the South wanted.

To the extent Americans having many Germans is significant it’s only in that they’d be more apt to identify with the Germans of WWII and that they’d have shallower roots here. We speak a different language, so you could risk a civil war if you attempt a national reconquest movement with a regional appeal that links something as alarming as reconquest with NS identity as you’re doing now. Is it a German gene to not think? It’d be takimag all over again, though of course that was again the fault of the English and Jews. Always the English and Jews keeping the Chosen Germans down… It’s not unGerman to think. Hitler surely used some strategy too.

Posted by Frank on August 28, 2009, 04:57 AM | #

What is it you dream to accomplish? What is the purpose of Germans dominating the world?

Is the desire merely to feel superior? Is the desire to use the power to “progress” via technology and bring about some utopia? Do you dream of blending Jewish brains with German bodies and brains so then you can finally tell the world you’re superior? Or do you dream of even transhumanism? What is it you wish to do with your power?

Were it possible to bind the world under tradition under white rule which is similarly bound under tradition then perhaps domination wouldn’t lead to ruin. But you don’t seem to fear German reason nor believe Germans are capable of making mistakes.

The very demise of the West was brought about by its power. Every empire that ever was fell and was overwhelmed by its slaves. Time and time and time and time again - the theme repeats. And you wish to save the West by building another empire without any fear of the same thing happening again because this time the Chosen are in control? This time things will be different somehow?

I’m not opposed to the West being in control or to a similar alliance ruling the world, it’s only natural for a hierarchy to exist in order to bring order and peace. But such rulers would themselves have to be bound. You never mention this concern. What must the Chosen do before it’s clear they’re… merely human?

Posted by Frank on August 28, 2009, 05:12 AM | #

Anyway, I only seek such power via alliances when necessary or else via alliances within aforesaid order.

I wrote: “The type of empire you dream of is fit for slaves - mestizos would make for a better citizenry. “

Because you seem to wish for a united managerial state that allows for a full free flow of migration within. Such a thing would wreck immense social damage by destroying particular attachments and communities. The benefit would be economic power, but it would be at the cost of the soul of the empire and would thus be short-lived.

You’ve also said once before you might wish for German Germans to be at the helm of an alliance or other order - that is actually more appealing to me. However, you seem to believe Germans will rule such without need for traditions or other boundaries because they’re as I wore about before “Chosen” somehow.

-

I appear to not really know where you stand then, but I’ve a pretty good estimation by now at least.

Posted by Captainchaos on August 28, 2009, 05:20 AM | #

Frank, get this through your thick skull, total reconquest of North America entails the removal of most muds from North America (read: NO SLAVE EMPIRE!).  GT certainly supports that, and is a barely closeted National Socialist.  For him microcommunity is just a way to slip NS through the back door.

Posted by Frank on August 28, 2009, 05:26 AM | #

The only reason I’m inclined to like the West being at the helm is that it being manned by my own people and presumably by Christians would be more trustworthy to resist the power and simply not upset the order. Foreign states would be left alone, and in turn they’d be expected to leave the West alone.

A balance of power might be the only thing that can hold man’s temptation in check, but as technology grows war becomes increasingly dangerous. Somehow tradition must be used to bind man else he’ll attempt to “progress” and thus destroy everything.

Posted by Frank on August 28, 2009, 05:29 AM | #

Frank, get this through your thick skull, total reconquest of North America entails the removal of most muds from North America (read: NO SLAVE EMPIRE!).  GT certainly supports that, and is a barely closeted National Socialist.  For him microcommunity is just a way to slip NS through the back door.

You misunderstood me.

I meant a large white state tolerant of a free flow of migrants would be fit for slaves.

If such is your desire, then you might as well go with mestizos.

-

GT is a NS? Ugh, I feel so alone then, lol. There are a few other bloggers with near identical positions to my own though at least.

Posted by Frank on August 28, 2009, 05:30 AM | #

Clarification of the clarification...:

A large white state allowing for free migration of whites within would be fit for slaves. There’d be no distinction and no place of belonging.

Posted by Captainchaos on August 28, 2009, 05:47 AM | #

If you cannot find the will to remove Blacks you can kiss the South goodbye.  It is up the each region to foster a sense of rootedness there, if that is what they wish, but first we’ve got to wipe the slate clean of muds.  Half-measures are for cowards, and yes, ultimately race traitors.  Either you will do what is necessary or you won’t.

Posted by White Preservationist on August 28, 2009, 06:02 AM | #

Re:CaptainChaos - even though I agree with many of your ideas and sentiments, I think that you really ought to tone down the unnecessarily negative rhetoric, especially ceasing to use such words like “muds” since this is a public message board viewable by anyone.  When people read rhetoric like that it is likely to turn them away from our cause as opposed to bring them closer to us.  Remember that the moronic masses (of any and all races) cannot stomach stark reality very well and must be treated and talked to kind of like children.  Say what you want in private conversations, but words like “muds” here on these public boards make us look like a bunch of crazed/genocidal expulsionists.

Instead of the word “muds,” why not just use the word “non-White” instead?

In regards to the gradual removal of Black Africans from North America and their repatriation ‘Black to Africa,’ you ought to read the following chapters from the book White America: HERE and HERE.

Posted by Frank on August 28, 2009, 06:59 AM | #

If you cannot find the will to remove Blacks you can kiss the South goodbye.  It is up the each region to foster a sense of rootedness there, if that is what they wish, but first we’ve got to wipe the slate clean of muds.  Half-measures are for cowards, and yes, ultimately race traitors.  Either you will do what is necessary or you won’t.

Most of the South is irretrievably lost, at least for the near future… But a part will survive in Appalachia.

If Scotland or heck Cornwall is large enough to want secession, then Appalachia is surely large enough. If the need arises to unite against an external threat, then we should include in it in our founding that we’ll do just that to help ensure divisions will be less of a weakness. And similarly trade should be encouraged among white states.

Posted by Frank on September 10, 2009, 06:03 AM | #

SPLC article: Hawaii goes racist

With no known hate groups and a much-trumpeted spirit of aloha or tolerance, few people outside Hawaii realize the state has a racism issue. One reason: The tourism-dependent state barely acknowledges hate crimes. That makes it hard to know how often racial violence is directed at Caucasians, who comprise about 25% of the ethnically diverse state’s 1.3 million residents. Those who identify themselves as Native Hawaiian — most residents are of mixed race — account for nearly 20%.