Is This the Death of Europe?

[Ford]

Ah yes. The native American European Whites.

Until recently the historic population has been mainly European and African. Prior to that, it was American Indian. Had these population groups kept their numbers to 95 percent of the base population, they each (in their era) would have avoided cultural dissolution and genetic destruction.

Genetic destruction? You've been spending too much time reading crap from your white...sorry...White Identity authors.

And no, the "historic population" of the Americas was not European and African until relatively recent history. The actual natives were here for thousands of years prior to when white...sorry...White people showed up with their slaves in tow.

 

[ksen]

Hi, my name is ksen. I'm a right-a-holic but I've been clean and sober for 9 years so far.

BTW what happened to you? You were crazy back then.

I stopped fighting the cognitive dissonance and admitted I was wrong back then.

Everything else has flowed from that.

 

[maxparrish]

Until recently the historic population has been mainly European and African. Prior to that, it was American Indian. Had these population groups kept their numbers to 95 percent of the base population, they each (in their era) would have avoided cultural dissolution and genetic destruction.

Genetic destruction? You've been spending too much time reading crap from your white...sorry...White Identity authors.

And no, the "historic population" of the Americas was not European and African until relatively recent history. The actual natives were here for thousands of years prior to when white...sorry...White people showed up with their slaves in tow.

Irrelevant. The red man of the US has passed into history, a remnant only of interest to gamblers, anthropologists and jade trinket tourists. For the last 150 years they have been on the edge of extinction. The United States was formed in, and populated by, the European and African populations - the red man was an outsider. In 1965 the law was changed which has lead to ongoing significant population increases, and to the detriment of that population's well being.

In another 100 years, that historic population will have passed into history and most of the country will be from Mexican (and some Central American) lineage, breeding, and attendant intellectual and behavioral attributes. Given the 200 year degeneration of their Spanish culture and its micro accomplishments, it is not a place anyone of other backgrounds would want to live in.

 

[abaddon]

Micro accomplishments… now THAT sounds like a culture I could admire better than the more frantically overbusy sorts.

Degeneration sounds like a wistful slant on plain simple change. Change is what time does. Nothing lasts.

 

[Ford]

Predictions of doom and gloom aside, Maxie, the fact is that what happens a century hence is something that will not be seen by the likes of you. Your quaint theories about race are dying right now. The racists you quote from are an ever-shrinking fringe, and as far as Europe is concerned all this racial purity shit has been dead since it's most prominent proponent capped himself in a bunker back in 1945.

The Thousand Year Reich is dead. Now go have a taco.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

For the last 150 years they have been on the edge of extinction.

Due to colonialism and racism.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I don't see how cultural pride and concerns about racial purity are connected. All of those cultural achievements didn't come about through careful attention to preserving race; they came about because people cared about their accomplishments.

Stop trying to build a temple of racial purity and build something that's a credit to the cultural accomplishments you supposedly care so much about.

 

[Jokodo]

Genetic destruction? You've been spending too much time reading crap from your white...sorry...White Identity authors.

And no, the "historic population" of the Americas was not European and African until relatively recent history. The actual natives were here for thousands of years prior to when white...sorry...White people showed up with their slaves in tow.

Irrelevant. The red man of the US has passed into history, a remnant only of interest to gamblers, anthropologists and jade trinket tourists. For the last 150 years they have been on the edge of extinction. The United States was formed in, and populated by, the European and African populations - the red man was an outsider. In 1965 the law was changed which has lead to ongoing significant population increases, and to the detriment of that population's well being.

In another 100 years, that historic population will have passed into history and most of the country will be from Mexican (and some Central American) lineage, breeding, and attendant intellectual and behavioral attributes. Given the 200 year degeneration of their Spanish culture and its micro accomplishments, it is not a place anyone of other backgrounds would want to live in.

There is nothing wrong with reading C-grade fantasy novels if that's what you enjoy.
Nor is there anything wrong with doing drugs that blur the distinction between imagination and reality.

It's just that those are two pastimes that don't go well together.

 

[Turambar]

Irrelevant. The red man of the US has passed into history, a remnant only of interest to gamblers, anthropologists and jade trinket tourists.

Incorrect: The "red man" as you call it and his DNA are alive and well in the genetic makeup of millions of Mexicans, Guatemalans, and other Central Americans with native American ancestry. They have Spanish names but many of their great grandparents were probably Mexica or Maya. Their ancestors were probably on the American continent long before your forefathers decided to jump the pond. Now ponder about that for a few seconds my angry fellow forum user.

In another 100 years, that historic population will have passed into history and most of the country will be from Mexican (and some Central American) lineage, breeding, and attendant intellectual and behavioral attributes.

Now that would be an irony wouldn't it? Descendants of native Americans slowly recolonising what was actually their land. Maybe some third generation Mexican American anthropologist will use your ancient posts still archived in the internet as an example of early 21st century xenophobia.

 

[nightwyrm]

If maxparrish also have a fear of seafood and sex, he could be the HP Lovecraft of the 21st century....

 

[Angra Mainyu]

In another 100 years, that historic population will have passed into history and most of the country will be from Mexican (and some Central American) lineage, breeding, and attendant intellectual and behavioral attributes. Given the 200 year degeneration of their Spanish culture and its micro accomplishments, it is not a place anyone of other backgrounds would want to live in.

Do you think life in present-day Mexico is on average better or worse than life in Spain (or Mexico) in 1815 - or about the same?
Which one would you choose, as a place to live, assuming you start with the same assets as a random inhabitant of those places?

 

[maxparrish]

In another 100 years, that historic population will have passed into history and most of the country will be from Mexican (and some Central American) lineage, breeding, and attendant intellectual and behavioral attributes. Given the 200 year degeneration of their Spanish culture and its micro accomplishments, it is not a place anyone of other backgrounds would want to live in.

Do you think life in present-day Mexico is on average better or worse than life in Spain (or Mexico) in 1815 - or about the same?
Which one would you choose, as a place to live, assuming you start with the same assets as a random inhabitant of those places?

Spain. Mexico has been going downhill for more than a century, and but for oil it would be closer to "Upper Volta" than Europe...perhaps it already is.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Do you think life in present-day Mexico is on average better or worse than life in Spain (or Mexico) in 1815 - or about the same?
Which one would you choose, as a place to live, assuming you start with the same assets as a random inhabitant of those places?

Spain. Mexico has been going downhill for more than a century, and but for oil it would be closer to "Upper Volta" than Europe...perhaps it already is.

Are you sure?
Spain in 1815 had no antibiotics, no vaccines, no Internet, no phones, not even electricity; women were not allowed to vote (and political participation was much restricted for men than in today's Mexico), there was legal slavery, no freedom of religion, and so on.

 

[Jokodo]

Spain. Mexico has been going downhill for more than a century, and but for oil it would be closer to "Upper Volta" than Europe...perhaps it already is.

Are you sure?
Spain in 1815 had no antibiotics, no vaccines, no electricity, women were not allowed to vote (and political participation was much restricted for men than in today's Mexico), there was legal slavery, no freedom of religion, and so on.

But you could travel across the country without meeting mestizos, sure that makes up for it...

 

[laughing dog]

Spain. Mexico has been going downhill for more than a century, and but for oil it would be closer to "Upper Volta" than Europe...perhaps it already is.

Are you sure?
Spain in 1815 had no antibiotics, no vaccines, no Internet, no phones, not even electricity; women were not allowed to vote (and political participation was much restricted for men than in today's Mexico), there was legal slavery, no freedom of religion, and so on.

You've described max's heaven.

 

[maxparrish]

Spain. Mexico has been going downhill for more than a century, and but for oil it would be closer to "Upper Volta" than Europe...perhaps it already is.

Are you sure?
Spain in 1815 had no antibiotics, no vaccines, no Internet, no phones, not even electricity; women were not allowed to vote (and political participation was much restricted for men than in today's Mexico), there was legal slavery, no freedom of religion, and so on.

I misread. If I had to choose between Spain of 1815 or Mexico today, that is hard to say. But it is easy to say that Mexico was more democratic and less hopelessly mired in corruption by 1836 than it is today. By early 19th century standards, Mexico was likely a leader in modernity rather than a hell hole. But it is now a degenerate oligarchic mess.

 

[bilby]

Is this a quote from Mein Kampf? It has very much the same style and tone.

Really? That's odd given that I identify as a semitophile.

Nothing odd about it really; Hate is much the same regardless of which groups you choose to despise.

The problem with Hitler is not that he would have opposed mass migrations of third worlders into Germany but that he wanted to exterminate many of them in their own countries - as well as those Germans whose ancestral genetics might be traced, in part, to the Jewish diaspora of 1000 AD.

The problem with Hitler was his division of humans into arbitrary sub-groups; his hatred of some of those sub-groups; and his desire to stimulate such hatred in others.

Moreover, I think a little cultural 'salt and pepper' of a base population is quite charming; it creates entertaining and stimulating cultural variety...say, something like touristy Chinatown or Little Italy in S.F. in the 1950s, or the Barrio de Analco Historic District of Santa Fe. And I am sure there were such "salt and pepper" cultures in Germany.

Until the Nazis decided that they were not German or 'Aryan' enough.

But I also believe that it has been in the interests of American European Whites and African Blacks, and the German people (and Western Culture) to have maintained its historic native born population (as the American Indian belatedly realized). Dilution of the historic populations greater than 5 percent almost always means trouble.

Yup, your position is basically that of the Nazis; Your arbitrary choices about who to hate are different, but that's not really important - if Hitler had decided to hate Muslims instead of Jews, the only difference would have been that, at the time, he would have found fewer people to attack in his sphere of influence.

I find it both fascinating and alarming that people have misinterpreted Nazism as 'attacking Jews', and believe that this is the only danger against which we must guard to avoid a repeat of the horrors of the 1930s and '40s.

When you realise that Nazism is in fact based in the much broader 'attacking minorities', and that the choice of Jews as the most hated of those was an arbitrary artefact of history, it suddenly becomes frighteningly clear just how little we have learned.

The Nazis attacked the Jews because they were identifiably different, and because they were there. They believed that the presence of people who are different dilutes and weakens a culture; and that the solution is for the dominant culture to stand up and exercise its strength and superiority to rid itself of the inferior people. Your posts in this thread fit right in with that discredited, ugly, and dangerous way of thinking.

 

[maxparrish]

Nothing odd about it really; Hate is much the same regardless of which groups you choose to despise.

The problem with Hitler was his division of humans into arbitrary sub-groups; his hatred of some of those sub-groups; and his desire to stimulate such hatred in others.

Until the Nazis decided that they were not German or 'Aryan' enough.

Yup, your position is basically that of the Nazis; Your arbitrary choices about who to hate are different, but that's not really important - if Hitler had decided to hate Muslims instead of Jews, the only difference would have been that, at the time, he would have found fewer people to attack in his sphere of influence.

Like Hitler, I also share a love of dogs, neoclassical architecture, and pretty German and Nordic women. That does not mean I am a Nazi, does it?

Nor is there anything unique about liking or disliking certain cultures or categories of persons. Since the birth of man we have divided humanity into categories - by gender, race, national origin, religion, level of economic development, geography, climate, class, color, education, criminals, occupation, tribe, and now genetic pools. Its what sociologists and anthropologists, as well as ordinary lay persons, do. You can pretend there are no categories or distinctions between various groups or communities, but reality will always intrude on your la-de-dah fantasy.

Some of those differences inspire admiration, others sympathy, others fear, and yet others revulsion. Some people don't like Christians, others don't like the hyper-religious, and others don't like country red necks. Nothing wrong with it AS LONG such dislikes are deserving, and do not violate the rights of those persons.

Hitler got it wrong because a) he disliked (actually murderously hated) the wrong categories of persons AND b) was determined to imprison and kill them all within and beyond the German borders. He was entitled to (wrongly) hate Jews, but he was not morally entitled to exile or kill them. Those in Germany had been a part of German citizenry, society and identity for over 10 centuries - their particular religion and mixed semitic genes were irrelevant.

Similarly, California Attorney General Earl Warren and Franklin Roosevelt were not entitled to put 70,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry in internment camps...even if they did not like "Japs".

However, EVERY nation on earth has the sovereign right to determine who it lets migrate into its nation. And they get to decide which criteria for entry they want to apply...including the pre and post WWII Germany. And I am suggesting that this criteria should be based on several factors: the minimal size of the base population, and the net benefit or loss to the base population in terms of economics and quality of life.

Some groups are a plus, some are a negative. To ignore that is, as Germany's does, is suicide for its population; it is on the road to the base populations harm and the harm and cultural demise of their posterity. Apparently they feel shame if they acknowledge that.

I find it both fascinating and alarming that people have misinterpreted Nazism as 'attacking Jews', and believe that this is the only danger against which we must guard to avoid a repeat of the horrors of the 1930s and '40s.

The Nazis attacked the Jews because they were identifiably different, and because they were there. They believed that the presence of people who are different dilutes and weakens a culture; and that the solution is for the dominant culture to stand up and exercise its strength and superiority to rid itself of the inferior people. Your posts in this thread fit right in with that discredited, ugly, and dangerous way of thinking.

So I guess the Japanese are on the road to death camps because of their dislike of the widespread immigration of foreign populations? Or maybe you think Norway and Denmark, also tough on immigrants, are building their own versions of Auschwitz? Or perhaps you think the Hungarians are on the verge of manufacturing Zyklon B?

Nonsense.

 

[bilby]

Nonsense.

Thank you for including a summary at the end of the post; Just for future reference though, it is traditional to prefix such summaries with 'TL;DR'.

 

[Ford]

Like Hitler, I also share a love of dogs, neoclassical architecture, and pretty German and Nordic women. That does not mean I am a Nazi, does it?

One can be a virulent racist and not be a Nazi. Your OP link makes it clear what you are, but you're not apparently willing to own it.

Nor is there anything unique about liking or disliking certain cultures or categories of persons.

There is nothing unique or new about virulent racism. What's new is that fewer and fewer people are willing to accept the view of people like yourself that white people are inherently superior.