White supremacists

What bothers me the most about these people is not just the fact that they hate brown people, but the fact that they're completely dishonest about everything. These people don't even have the balls to say, "I hate darkies!" anymore. Now it's this BS sob story about how they're worried about white people being wiped out and that they don't hate brown people, they just want them to not be in the same proximity. It doesn't require an education to realize these people hate anyone who doesn't look like them and that they can't stand the fact that the "non-h'wites" are starting to have a leg up in society.

These people even have the audacity to say it's not about skin colour. It is all about skin colour. If it wasn't, they would be including Armenians, Indians and Iranians to their "master race." It would probably be to their benefit in the first place since India was the crowning jewel of Aryan civilization in the Medieval era while Europeans were wading in disease, suppressing science and committing human sacrifice (i.e. Crusades, conversions, inquisitions etc.) Although, some of them (e.g. the guy who runs Bahaiface.com) are now taking credit for Hinduism, Buddhism, Carvaka, Yoga, Tantra, Vedanta, Ayurveda etc.

To be fair, they are at least honest about one thing: they aren't really white supremacists. They're Jewish and Black supremacists. According to them Blacks can simply wipe out the white people by just existing in the same proximity as them and Jews can always outsmart white people by tricking them into slowly wiping themselves out. If both of these groups were inferior, they could not do what the racists claim they can do.

These kinds of people are, quite simply, stupid. I've learned to just expect it from them, really helps keep the blood pressure down.

It's a difficult question. I, for one, have no problem with creating a pan-European ethnostate that makes citizenship a matter of European ethnicity (and I have no problem with Armenians or Sicilians or what have you being included in such a project). I don't believe in this inane notion of being simply "human" making one a bearer of "rights." The ancients didn't either; human rights is a modern invention rooted in the Enlightenment, individualism and contractualism.

Does that make me a supremacist? I don't want to dominate blacks or Arabs. I want to be part of a community where it is all European, a community in which my grandchildren will not be taught to feel guilty of their ancestors, where they will be among their own people. An organic community has shared values and can create its own collective destiny-- Societies with hundreds of ethnic groups cannot do such a thing without forfeiting their own diversity. That's why they won't last.

While it's good to be fair and honest about other peoples, it's also important to remember your own country, your own people. Think of your own ancestors-- Would they want your daughter to carry in their womb the negation of their heritage? A black child with a European parent, for example, will look black, and will first identify as black. At best, they will claim they are "multiracial"-- Either way, black identity will come first. And thus victim politics and anti-Western sentiments will follow.

Better to respect other cultures and peoples, but to also love one's own heritage.

Out of Phlegethon wrote:Think of your own ancestors-- Would they want your daughter to carry in their womb the negation of their heritage?  A black child with a European parent, for example, will look black, and will first identify as black.  At best, they will claim they are "multiracial"-- Either way, black identity will come first.  And thus victim politics and anti-Western sentiments will follow.

I can't speak for the USA (thank the Gods!) but in England mixed-race people don't automatically "first identify as black." We're having a lot of trouble with anti-western sentiments, but these are not people of African descent: they're Muslims, many as white as I am! European heritage includes people of African descent: Dumas and Pushkin for a start. This sort of thing is not Hellenic. As Isocrates said, people are called Hellenes because they share in our culture, not because they share our ancestors.

This all sounds very noble and tolerant, but would a non-European majority, adamant about the self-esteem of its previously minority status, be very likely to preserve values and institutions the way a Briton or Anglo-Saxon might?

While I am all for a pan-European embrace of the gods of the classical antiquity that constitutes the origins of their individual cultures, I think it is a little too egalitarian and multicultural to stretch that quote by Isocrates to fit the left liberal project of mass third world immigration.

DavidMcCann wrote:

Out of Phlegethon wrote:Think of your own ancestors-- Would they want your daughter to carry in their womb the negation of their heritage?  A black child with a European parent, for example, will look black, and will first identify as black.  At best, they will claim they are "multiracial"-- Either way, black identity will come first.  And thus victim politics and anti-Western sentiments will follow.

I can't speak for the USA (thank the Gods!) but in England mixed-race people don't automatically "first identify as black." We're having a lot of trouble with anti-western sentiments, but these are not people of African descent: they're Muslims, many as white as I am! European heritage includes people of African descent: Dumas and Pushkin for a start. This sort of thing is not Hellenic. As Isocrates said, people are called Hellenes because they share in our culture, not because they share our ancestors.

I totally second what David said. I am a native German, living since nine years in the UK -- I have not come across one person identifying themselves on the pigmentation of their skin! People identify themselves based on all sorts of things -- their nationality/citizenship, religion, specific area they grew up, hobbies and interests, being vegetarian or vegan, profession, etc.

And like it or not: a person who is say Muslim and from the Sudan with British citizenship is actually European and by fellow Europeans/Brits accepted as such; a citizen of the USA on the other hand--regardless how white-skinned and blue-eyed--is not.

Also, in case you are not aware: if you want to play the "ancestor card"... we all have our ancestral root in Africa!

Both of these noble posts demonstrate to me the sad fact that the ideological refuse of Christianity (egalitarianism, state-forced multiculturalism, total loss of ethnic identity) has made Westerners conceptually impotent to preserve their own uniqueness.

Our universalism and our moralizing will be our destruction. Like the Swedish woman who wanted to give shelter to gypsies and got rewarded with a gang rape. How long will it take westerners to realize that their post-Christian theology of pathological altruism is not shared by the rest of the world?

I'm not an egalitarian: my opinion of democracy is much the same as Plato's.

I don't believe in a multicultural society. Having a degree in anthropology, I know that a society is created by its culture. If you have several cultures in the same territory, you have more than one society.

If I don't want Muslim immigrants here, it's because of the possibility that they or their descendants might take the Quran seriously, and accept the bits about conquering the infidels, not because of their skin colour. As for that, I speak as one with neighbours from India and Nigeria. One is a CEO, the other a hospital consultant: rather them than a couple of English plebs.

Not being a racist is not to embrace the "ideological refuse of Christianity": it's to be a decent human being. I don't think any more needs to be said.

DavidMcCann wrote:I'm not an egalitarian: my opinion of democracy is much the same as Plato's.

I don't believe in a multicultural society. Having a degree in anthropology, I know that a society is created by its culture. If you have several cultures in the same territory, you have more than one society.

If I don't want Muslim immigrants here, it's because of the possibility that they or their descendants might take the Quran seriously, and accept the bits about conquering the infidels, not because of their skin colour. As for that, I speak as one with neighbours from India and Nigeria. One is a CEO, the other a hospital consultant: rather them than a couple of English plebs.

Not being a racist is not to embrace the "ideological refuse of Christianity": it's to be a decent human being.  I don't think any more needs to be said.

^ This!

Though you make appeals to Plato to explain your cosmopolitan and globalist view of who you would prefer to have as neighbors, your thinking here is still mired in Christian moralizing. The idea of a foundational "decent human being" relies on the notion that there is some universally agreed upon ground from which to measure for all human quality, an after image of the universality of Christ.

To prefer the upper classes of some far away country to the lower classes of one's own homeland is not aristocratic. It's bourgeois. It's destructive to that society as a living, organic whole. This kind of "citizen of the world " thinking eventually leads to the demographic replacement of one's fellow citizens, often resulting in a cluster of adversarial groups contesting the values and traditions of the host society.

Out of Phlegethon wrote:Though you make appeals to Plato to explain your cosmopolitan and globalist view of who you would prefer to have as neighbors, your thinking here is still mired in Christian moralizing.  The idea of a foundational "decent human being" relies on the notion that there is some universally agreed upon ground from which to measure for all human quality, an after image of the universality of Christ.  

Ooooorrrrr the concept of a "decent human being" is found as early as Aristotle, in his Nichomachean Ethics, concerning what a "serious human being" is. Long before Jesus was even a thought in Mary's head. I'm surprised you did not remember that. And it doesn't depend on a "universally agreed upon ground," it relies on the "right" ground. An entire population agreeing that the sky is red is still factually wrong.

An ethnostate is both impossible and unethical. The only reasons you list for creating one is for the preservation of culture and skin color. Culture is not an inherited trait, it is a learned trait. For that reason, a 5th generation American who happens to be black, a 4th generation American who happens to have genetic stock mostly from India and so on, are all still 100% culturally American. On what other ground would you justify segregating them from their fellow Americans? Their skin color and minor bone structure variations that have absolutely no impact on their intelligence, their ability to be virtuous, or to succeed in endeavors or anything else? You would desire to separate them from the white people simply because they look different, even if they are culturally every bit the same nationality you are? That is irrational. It is not justifiable.

And even if you could create an ethnostate, let's say in the U.S. Where would the humans you would reject go? Would a 5th generation American who is black be required to go back to where their ancestors came from? Let's say The Republic of the Congo. They have absolutely no ties to the Congo, absolutely no ties culturally whatsoever to Africa. Their only tie is they have an ancestor 5 generations distant who is from the Congo. They have not the language or the customs of the Congo, they only know how Americans act. Yet they would be forced into a culture that is alien to them, one that would forever see them as an outsider, because they are from another place and grew up in a completely different culture.

Or would you simply kill those people who sit for your view of an ideal ethnostate? Those are the only two options you have. Either deport them from their homeland or commit genocide. Otherwise your ideal ethnostate will never actualize.

Either action is deplorable.

Ooooorrrrr the concept of a "decent human being" is found as early as Aristotle, in his Nichomachean Ethics, concerning what a "serious human being" is. Long before Jesus was even a thought in Mary's head. I'm surprised you did not remember that. And it doesn't depend on a "universally agreed upon ground," it relies on the "right" ground. An entire population agreeing that the sky is red is still factually wrong.

I believe you're misreading my post, though whether you are doing so unwittingly or not is up for grabs. Your argument that the factuality of a logical proposition that the sky is red is universal is actually incorrect, as Aristotelian logic is not, in fact, the only kind of logic. Nor is contemporary sentential logic universal. Cultures differ in their understanding of philosophical terminology. Aristotelian logic is a two-valued logic, but Indian philosophy proffers logics that proffer more than two values (that can see a sky as blue and not blue at the same time, a result of their own metaphysical grounding) that grew organically out of their unique philosophical conceptualities.

As to Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics using human being as a category, sure, but this does not make the project of a foundational grounding for the measurement of human quality any more feasible. In fact, the Stoics make appeals to universality regarding humanity as well. These two adventures in philosophy have absolutely nothing to do with the violent, mass movements that have resulted from Christianity's dangerous belief in an intrinsic moral brotherhood of all humankind (that must, in some cases, be forced in case certain peoples do not realize they are brothers of Christ). This supra-terrestrial Internationale of Christians is the theological model for Humanism, the notion of human rights, internationalism and communism. It is the religious precursor to the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century.

An ethnostate is both impossible and unethical. The only reasons you list for creating one is for the preservation of culture and skin color. Culture is not an inherited trait, it is a learned trait. For that reason, a 5th generation American who happens to be black, a 4th generation American who happens to have genetic stock mostly from India and so on, are all still 100% culturally American. On what other ground would you justify segregating them from their fellow Americans? Their skin color and minor bone structure variations that have absolutely no impact on their intelligence, their ability to be virtuous, or to succeed in endeavors or anything else? You would desire to separate them from the white people simply because they look different, even if they are culturally every bit the same nationality you are? That is irrational. It is not justifiable.

I didn't personally advocate creating an ethnostate for the mere purpose of preserving skin color. I actually find appeals to "whiteness" to be the lowest common denominator of European identity. The ultimate project of an ethnostate would be to have a region or nation or community with values in common that can best assert its diversity in collective projects.

And even if you could create an ethnostate, let's say in the U.S. Where would the humans you would reject go? Would a 5th generation American who is black be required to go back to where their ancestors came from? Let's say The Republic of the Congo. They have absolutely no ties to the Congo, absolutely no ties culturally whatsoever to Africa. Their only tie is they have an ancestor 5 generations distant who is from the Congo. They have not the language or the customs of the Congo, they only know how Americans act. Yet they would be forced into a culture that is alien to them, one that would forever see them as an outsider, because they are from another place and grew up in a completely different culture.

I'm not talking about deporting people. I'm talking about seceding, which is actually totally a part of the founding of the United States. It was an act of voluntary secession.

Or would you simply kill those people who sit for your view of an ideal ethnostate? Those are the only two options you have. Either deport them from their homeland or commit genocide. Otherwise your ideal ethnostate will never actualize.

      Either action is deplorable.

I would only use violence in self-defense, that is, if someone tried to force me to stop seceding non-violently.  And this is actually very much a possibility, as one can see from the example of the American Civil War.  Total war was waged on Southerners, including on women and children, in some cases, for basically being naive enough to believe in the Constitution, viz. that they could secede from a voluntary Union.  However, the use of violence is relatively meaningless (in this age of drones, military robots, and who knows what else), as any small amount of European-descended people trying to create such a society would be utterly wiped out of existence militarily, to the applause and hooting of the chattering classes (whatever ethnicity they are at that point).

I am a so-called half-breed and I pretty much disprove your notions of race. I was never really raised in any particular culture and identifying as both Oji-Cree and Celtic (Welsh) was my own personal choice. If there really were this genetic predisposition towards culture, the rest of my family would be following suit and I would've felt the compulsion to be French Canadian instead of Celtic.

Also, If you feel your culture is going to just disappear because of some other culture showing up then I have to wonder if you actually have a strong cultural identity. As a retail store clerk, I interact with a variety of people of different cultures on a daily basis and I have yet to feel that my culture is going to die out. I seriously doubt that the Ukranian, Greek, Indian, Asian, Arabic and African customers feel threatened either. Most of my friends are of different cultures than me and yet I don't feel myself becoming French, Dutch, Iranian etc.

When it comes to white guilt, I have never been told I should feel guilty for being white (I look like white). If anything, I hear more negativity about First Nations than I do about white people. If any ethnic group feels ashamed, it's First Nations people.

On another note, I have never felt discriminated against by my fellow First Nations either. I am a ceremonial name-giver (a very important role in First Nations Spirituality) and I have never been told that I CAN'T participate in any ceremonies. The elders of my tradition have told me that anyone regardless of ethnicity can participate in our ceremonies.

While I won't say you're a full-on white supremacist, it's quite obvious that you are prejudiced. The fact that you feel threatened by different cultures is evidence of that.

Would you want to segregate other European peoples as well? A Welsh man, a Greek man and a German man are very different from each other as well.

I am double posting. Just for shits and giggles, can you tell me how pure these two European men are and what "sub-race" of European they belong to?

TheSeekingDisciple wrote:I am a so-called half-breed and I pretty much disprove your notions of race. I was never really raised in any particular culture and identifying as both Oji-Cree and Celtic (Welsh) was my own personal choice. If there really were this genetic predisposition towards culture, the rest of my family would be following suit and I would've felt the compulsion to be French Canadian instead of Celtic.  

Please point me to the parts in my above comments where I develop a "notion of race."

Having said that, I would actually like to point out that you fit quite snugly into what I was getting at.  You are half-Oji Cree, and you are radically opposed to Europeans being able to dwell among their own, or have their own society.  Is that just a coincidence or what!  Yikes, sorry to point that out.

When was the last time you were concerned enough to ponder what might happen to European-descended peoples when they become a minority?  When was the last time you were worried about how such people might be able to preserve their heritage and culture?

You weren't.  Because your sympathies are compromised.

TheSeekingDisciple wrote:Also, If you feel your culture is going to just disappear because of some other culture showing up then I have to wonder if you actually have a strong cultural identity.

This is actually a very common way of coaxing someone else into totally giving up their country to the Other.  It's sort of like the way feminists tell men to "man up!" and accept their fanatical, cultish doctrine.  Much like talk of "white privilege", such tactics are manipulative to the core.  

TheSeekingDisciple wrote:If any ethnic group feels ashamed, it's First Nations people.

Agreed.  They faced enemies more cunning than them, and lost the majority of their territory.  European-descended people should learn from their, yes, shameful blunders.

TheSeekingDisciple wrote:While I won't say you're a full-on white supremacist, it's quite obvious that you are prejudiced.

The idea of calling someone "prejudiced" for defending their group interests amusingly only works on people of European heritage.  Isn't it interesting that a double standard like that exists?  I wonder what that might indicate as to the reigning ideology!  Hmmm!

TheSeekingDisciple wrote:The fact that you feel threatened by different cultures is evidence of that.

I don't personally feel threatened, but I do view competing groups as political enemies on the grand scale of things (see Carl Schmitt on the difference between a political enemy in political realist terms as opposed to a "moral" or "aesthetic" enemy).  Groups compete and dominate one another; that's reality.      

TheSeekingDisciple wrote:Would you want to segregate other European peoples as well? A Welsh man, a Greek man and a German man are very different from each other as well.

Just as it should be up to the European-descended people themselves to autonomously create a society in their own interests, so it should be up to those specific groups to preserve their unique cultures.

TheSeekingDisciple wrote:I am double posting. Just for shits and giggles, can you tell me how pure these two European men are and what "sub-race" of European they belong to?  

I don't know, but they're both extremely ugly individuals. Yikes...

Aktaion wrote:Ooooorrrrr the concept of a "decent human being" is found as early as Aristotle, in his Nichomachean Ethics, concerning what a "serious human being" is. Long before Jesus was even a thought in Mary's head. I'm surprised you did not remember that.

Since we were talking about Aristotle, it might be worthy of mentioning that the great Peripatetic in his Politics, advocated a racially and culturally homogeneous polis. He also warns about letting in Others because it could lead to a revolution against the ruling order...

TheSeekingDisciple wrote:... If any ethnic group feels ashamed, it's First Nations people.

...

The Seeking Disciple -- Why on earth is that? Whatever for?

Out of Phlegethon wrote: I don't know, but they're both extremely ugly individuals.  Yikes...

How old are you?

De Li, It started in the 1600s with Europeans taking advantage of a cultural barrier. Europeans tried buying the land knowing that First Nations people had no concept of owning land (can't sell something you don't own). After the treaty was signed, the native were put on reserves and were not allowed to do anything outside of the reserve or they would have to stop identifying as Native. This wasn't working too well so the government set up Residential schools from the 1880s to about 1994. First Nations children were brought from reserves to these schools where they were "assimilated." The kids were being beaten or were having hot brands or pins stuck in their tongues for speaking their native languages, were being told they were worshiping the devil, were having their culture denigrated and were being abused (emotionally and sexually) by clergy and teachers running the schools.

Out of Plegethon, if anyone is trying to manipulate anyone, it's you. It's obvious to me that you're trying to make your prejudice something noble when it really isn't; moreover, you are clearly threatened by other cultures. From personal experience, that's usually because you really don't have one or you're really clueless about how culture works. Just an FYI, there is no genetic predisposition and hostility towards other cultures is not equal to any ethnic culture. You want to know how European peoples will preserve their culture? By actually participating in it! Nobody's stopping them from doing that. Also, I am learning French, listening to traditional European music (French and Celtic), attending cultural festivals, participating in cultural clubs and practicing a European "Pagan" religion. Explain to me where I have no interest in preserving European culture when I am doing the above activities.

Let me just ask you some questions. What exactly is your culture and what does it entail? How do you define someone as European? How pure-blooded do they have to be considered European in your eyes? Do you live in Europe? If not, do you plan on moving there?

TheSeekingDisciple wrote:De Li, It started in the 1600s with Europeans taking advantage of a cultural barrier. Europeans tried buying the land knowing that First Nations people had no concept of owning land (can't sell something you don't own). After the treaty was signed, the native were put on reserves and were not allowed to do anything outside of the reserve or they would have to stop identifying as Native. This wasn't working too well so the government set up Residential schools from the 1880s to about 1994. First Nations children were brought from reserves to these schools where they were "assimilated." The kids were being beaten or were having hot brands or pins stuck in their tongues for speaking their native languages, were being told they were worshiping the devil, were having their culture denigrated and were being abused (emotionally and sexually) by clergy and teachers running the schools.

-- The Seeking Disciple, yes, I am aware of the horrors committed by the settlers from Europe against the Native People of America -- I just cannot see how this is in any way shameful to the victims (i.e. the Native People)! If anybody must be ashamed it is the offenders (i.e. invaders from Europe)! (As a German the notion that the victims feel ashamed is strange to me -- it is as saying that the Jews and social minorities should be ashamed because of the atrocities committed by the Nazis! -- For any German in their right mind, it is obvious that we have to own the national collective guilt committed by our nation against other nations, against the Jews, against ethnicities, and against anything which did not fit 'Hitler-norm'!)

TheSeekingDisciple wrote: Out of Plegethon, if anyone is trying to manipulate anyone, it's you. It's obvious to me that you're trying to make your prejudice something noble when it really isn't; moreover, you are clearly threatened by other cultures. From personal experience, that's usually because you really don't have one or you're really clueless about how culture works. Just an FYI, there is no genetic predisposition and hostility towards other cultures is not equal to any ethnic culture. You want to know how European peoples will preserve their culture? By actually participating in it! Nobody's stopping them from doing that. Also, I am learning French, listening to traditional European music (French and Celtic), attending cultural festivals, participating in cultural clubs and practicing a European "Pagan" religion. Explain to me where I have no interest in preserving European culture when I am doing the above activities.

Let me just ask you some questions. What exactly is your culture and what does it entail? How do you define someone as European? How pure-blooded do they have to be considered European in your eyes? Do you live in Europe? If not, do you plan on moving there?  

Haha, good points and questions The Seeking Disciple. I find it quite obvious that Out of Phlegethon suffers from the loss of having any actual cultural roots, as 'European-descended' American -- he neither belongs to the native culture of the country he lives in, nor to the culture the invaders originally came from; however, since he obviously is not Native, he clings on desperately to the broken link to the culture of the invaders so many generations ago. I find it telling that every single US American I have had contact with, who is neither Native, nor has parents originating from a non-US country, bring up their various 'European roots'. In reality, 'European-descended' US American culture has very little in common with any of the actual European societies! 'White US American Culture' is now a culture in itself -- a very young and isolated culture. If Out Of Phlegethon really is so 'proud' of his culture and wants to preserve 'his' culture, then be everybody's guest! But instead --because nobody wants "that" culture-- they go ahead in the typical manner of the white invaders and appropriate and steal again, what isn't theirs --i.e. claiming to be 'European'.

If you want to be 'European' -- or Hellenistic or Roman or Celtic or Germanic or other for that matter -- make an effort to assimilate and integrate into the culture, just as someone would have done in Antiquity. (And as you, The Seeking Disciple do.) It did not matter then, whether you were born into the culture -- genetics as 'entrance and member ticket' are not required, neither then nor now.

De Li wrote:Haha, good points and questions The Seeking Disciple. I find it quite obvious that Out of Phlegethon suffers from the loss of having any actual cultural roots, as 'European-descended' American -- he neither belongs to the native culture of the country he lives in, nor to the culture the invaders originally came from; however, since he obviously is not Native, he clings on desperately to the broken link to the culture of the invaders so many generations ago. I find it telling that every single US American I have had contact with, who is neither Native, nor has parents originating from a non-US country, bring up their various 'European roots'. In reality, 'European-descended' US American culture has very little in common with any of the actual European societies! 'White US American Culture' is now a culture in itself -- a very young and isolated culture. If Out Of Phlegethon really is so 'proud' of his culture and wants to preserve 'his' culture, then be everybody's guest! But instead --because nobody wants "that" culture-- they go ahead in the typical manner of the white invaders and appropriate and steal again, what isn't theirs --i.e. claiming to be 'European'.

So much brewing in this tepid stew.  I'll try to address some of your points.  Here goes.

I am firmly rooted in my regional culture and ancestry; it's largely all gone due to the rise of mass "American" culture (which has nothing in common with our high culture).  The original nexus of American culture, itself a series of graftings of European identities on American soil found its "Golden Day" in figures like Emerson, Thoreau, Dickinson, Whitman, etc.  Whence "Anglo-Saxon world" and similar notions, and actually the proto-conflict between New England Yankees and their Englishness versus Southrons and their Scots-Irish character.  This identitarian component to American culture was once so accepted that one could refer to being "of American stock" and people had an idea what that meant; it was not necessary then to refer to "European-Americans" etc.    

I reject the idea of being "proud" about anything I have not personally accomplished.  That said, I am not "proud" of my culture; it is all but dead.  America is pretty much dead, politically and culturally.  You will find that many Americans like myself actually agree with European "anti-Americanism."  Myself and others have seceded from it.  

Our cultural greatness, our great literature, art and classical music, I experience in an America that exists for me and very few other people.  That is my fatherland.  And at the end of this age of Bronze my thoughts and deeds will find renewal in this fatherland.

I think you are confusing European ethnic identity with European cultural identity.  In terms of cultural identity, you could-- and would!-- argue that a Nigerian can be a "good European."  This is not the sense I mean.  I mean in terms of ethnicity.  Our Republic was built by ethnic Europeans, and these came from Western Europe.

I highly doubt ethnic Europeans in the Americas, Australia or Africa would care to hear a German-turned-Briton lecture them on what is European or not.  Your new fatherland is the lap dog of McAmerican foreign policy.  The next time some Yankee Zionist starts beating the war drum and gesturing vaguely towards the Middle-East, your lapsed Empire will follow the beat and squeal with cuckolded delight.  Indeed, you are already hard at work cuckolding your descendents via your immigration policy...  

While there are many things contemporary Americans can learn from Europe in general, they have little to learn from Great Britain.  Americans that would escape what their country has decayed into should study Greek and Roman, and French and German, political thinkers.

As to the Native peoples; they are not really "American" in the original sense.  Many of them despise the Republic and its historic people.  That is a good reason not to breed with them if you are descended from those "invaders."  And it is a good reason for these Native peoples not to breed with Europeans, because then their ancestry is watered down, too.  A preference for endogamy need not be demonized on either side.  Mutual benefit through dialogue is preferable to the "Melting Pot" of the womb. One is fooling oneself to believe being stretched between these two radically distinct peoples is something glorious and diverse. It isn't. It disperses sympathy across a lattice of cultural elements. Thus you get the fellow here above practicing like three different religions at once.

Though nowadays we are all constrained by political correctness to call all the pre-American folk and the slaves some sort of "-Americans," I find this unsatisfying.  It does little for the identity of either folk to try to become Americans (for those that try), and it has been harmful to actual Americans to integrate them (especially the latter).  Indeed, being united under a term that can be made to mean anything is actually not very meaningful.

TheSeekingDisciple wrote:Out of Plegethon, if anyone is trying to manipulate anyone, it's you. It's obvious to me that you're trying to make your prejudice something noble when it really isn't; moreover, you are clearly threatened by other cultures. From personal experience, that's usually because you really don't have one or you're really clueless about how culture works. Just an FYI, there is no genetic predisposition and hostility towards other cultures is not equal to any ethnic culture. You want to know how European peoples will preserve their culture? By actually participating in it! Nobody's stopping them from doing that. Also, I am learning French, listening to traditional European music (French and Celtic), attending cultural festivals, participating in cultural clubs and practicing a European "Pagan" religion. Explain to me where I have no interest in preserving European culture when I am doing the above activities.

As I said before, "prejudice" is only invalid when it is in favor of European identity. And as I previously mentioned, your notion of being "threatened" is silly and unrealistic. You're just proving my point, basically, the more you flail about with these ideological notions you have internalized.

As to your other points about culture, see my above post to the post-Teutonic fellow.

Out of Phlegethon -- reading your posts just made my day, still laughing! Gosh, you are so hilariously ridiculous, being poked a little bit, your post have turned from merely being idiotic and appauling into something quite entertaining. Cheers! -the 'post-Teutonnic fellow' haha!

You don't really have a culture. The reason you are a white supremacist is because you want someone to blame for the fact that your life is in the shitter. Culture is simply a tool for you to exploit and nothing more. You could give two shits about culture; moreover, it's quite doubtful you even give two shits about yourself. It's obvious you've given up any hope of improving yourself or even improving your community. I get it though, it's easy to blame everyone else rather than actually deal with what's ailing you. It's easy to defend the powerful and scapegoat others.

Not only do you not have a culture, but you don't even have an identity or even so much as a personality. If there is a personality, it's hidden. It's sad because you actually have passion, but are too busy wasting it rather than doing something beneficial with it. All you have is white supremacy and some hope for a utopia. Even if you did manage to get a "Eurotopia," you'd still be miserable. You NEED a scapegoat; you thrive on it. It'd go from you scapegoating black men for stealing your aryan women to scapegoating "secretly-black" men stealing your aryan women or from Jews making you poor to Jews making you poor. It's not about you defending culture, it's about you taking the easy way out.