The National Union - Page 26 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Private discussion areas.
#14464188
anarchist23 wrote:Ethiopian Monarchist



Image


Don't give that falseness you know damn well I'm your enemy just as you are my enemy; and I'm not back I'm going to leave this place for a year. To research, get physical fit, learn to write and spell better, I going to be an new Black Man. So farewell, everybody and I hope within a year you reject your false egalitarian ideologies. If not, I shall see you in the battlefield that is Pofo. Goodbye. BTW, If you say wake up again, well I just got this to say.
User avatar
By anarchist23
#14464333
^
I think you are mistaken. I have never ever been disrespectful to you. Please don't judge me with the other PoFoers as I am upset at their childish behaviour as well.
Image
User avatar
By annatar1914
#14464536
Ethiopian monarchist wrote:
Don't give that falseness you know damn well I'm your enemy just as you are my enemy; and I'm not back I'm going to leave this place for a year. To research, get physical fit, learn to write and spell better, I going to be an new Black Man. So farewell, everybody and I hope within a year you reject your false egalitarian ideologies. If not, I shall see you in the battlefield that is Pofo. Goodbye. BTW, If you say wake up again, well I just got this to say.


Come on EM, stay here, don't go on Iron March because they're a waste of time so far. The iron doesn't strike when it gets hot; it gets hot by striking, and you'll do better in debates here by keeping at it.
User avatar
By Quantum
#14465073
Isn't it funny that pan-nationalists have negative views of African, Middle Eastern culture yet wants to promote that very same culture in their native lands? Pan-nationalism is a right-wingers' infantile, politically correct dream.

Ethiopian monarchist wrote:So you saying there should be one socialistic culture in the world?

No, but there should much fewer cultures and languages in the world. I wouldn't mind that these crap languages are replaced by nice sounding ones like French, for example. It would make learning French much easier for sure but there are not many wealthy countries that speak French.
#14465479
Many pan-nationalist advocates do not hold negative views of either African or Middle Eastern culture, but simply believe every culture has its place and the place of Gulf Arab or West African culture (or really any foreign culture which seeks to vie for dominance in the civic space with and gradually supplant the indigenous culture) is not in Europe, Yokohama, Argentina, or small town Wisconsin, but in its own land, along with the people themselves who are carriers of said culture.
User avatar
By Paradigm
#14465577
Far-Right Sage wrote:Many pan-nationalist advocates do not hold negative views of either African or Middle Eastern culture, but simply believe every culture has its place and the place of Gulf Arab or West African culture (or really any foreign culture which seeks to vie for dominance in the civic space with and gradually supplant the indigenous culture) is not in Europe, Yokohama, Argentina, or small town Wisconsin, but in its own land, along with the people themselves who are carriers of said culture.

I find it curious that none of these pan-nationalists seems to apply that standard consistently to the Americas.
User avatar
By Ombrageux
#14465699
Paradigm - The Amerindians have been overwhelmed, just as the Gaulish in France were by the Romans and the native Egyptians by the Arabs. The current occupants of the Americas are European, African and Asian and that can't change barring a large amount of ethnic cleansing the Amerindians are not capable of accomplishing. In any case, I don't think it's reasonable to expect a European or African in North America to ethnically cleanse himself for the sake of high-minded ideological consistency..

But I would note that some nationalists (e.g. Gregory Hood, Alain Soral) tend to be supportive of anti-globalist Latin American nationalisms that contain an Amerindian element, notably Hugo Chávez's regime or that of Evo Morales.
#14465730
Indeed, it's irreversible at this stage. Some would even argue that millions of black Africans should never have been trafficked in for heavy labor in a slave capacity, which as well fundamentally changed the face and character of North America (the U.S. specifically), but then, they would have an even better chance of reversing that than Amerindians would in displacing the white population. The fact is that it was a successful campaign or series of campaigns of genocide and ethnic cleansing, and the matter is settled for the foreseeable future in this era.

And as Ombrageux points out, that doesn't mean pan-nationalists and those who lambast the political and economic push toward globalization from the right aren't supportive of indigenous populations or their often folk/peasant-based agrarian socialist or left-nationalist movements and states in Central and South America.
#14465756
Ombrageux wrote:Paradigm - The Amerindians have been overwhelmed, just as the Gaulish in France were by the Romans and the native Egyptians by the Arabs. The current occupants of the Americas are European, African and Asian and that can't change barring a large amount of ethnic cleansing the Amerindians are not capable of accomplishing. In any case, I don't think it's reasonable to expect a European or African in North America to ethnically cleanse himself for the sake of high-minded ideological consistency..


In other words, everyone should have to leave the land of the whites, but whites do not have to leave the land of others.

Or would you be willing to give up Alaska then?

--------------------

Far-Right Sage wrote:Indeed, it's irreversible at this stage. Some would even argue that millions of black Africans should never have been trafficked in for heavy labor in a slave capacity, which as well fundamentally changed the face and character of North America (the U.S. specifically), but then, they would have an even better chance of reversing that than Amerindians would in displacing the white population. The fact is that it was a successful campaign or series of campaigns of genocide and ethnic cleansing, and the matter is settled for the foreseeable future in this era.


If you are under the impression that most indigenous peoples of the America died because of European military might, then you would be incorrect. The fact is that most died of diseases to which Europeans were immune. I will not go into the reasons why Europeans were more immune to these diseases, as it would be off-topic.

More on topic, the number of indigenous people in the Americas is higher than it was in 1492. Your argument implies that the only reason that the indigenous people of the Americas do not simply begin an ethnic cleansing campaign immediately is because they do not have the soldiers for it. I disagree. I think they do not do it for two reasons: 1) they are not morally bankrupt douchebags, 2) the gov't would swoop down and bomb them to death.

These are also the reasons why whites don't do it and blacks don't do it and Latinos don't do it.

And as Ombrageux points out, that doesn't mean pan-nationalists and those who lambast the political and economic push toward globalization from the right aren't supportive of indigenous populations or their often folk/peasant-based agrarian socialist or left-nationalist movements and states in Central and South America.


I have never seen any of you support indigenous struggles. I have a vague recollection that Rei might have said something once, but that's it. You guys are as supportive as libertarians. In theory, you should support indigenous struggles, but on a practical level, there is no apparent support.
User avatar
By Ombrageux
#14465800
PoD - A lot of North American White Nationalists are secessionists and so are indeed quite willing to give up a substantial amount of territory to other peoples (whether they are the indigenous inhabitants of the continent, came here against their will as with descendants of black slaves or came here willingly specifically to enjoy the fruits of a Western civilization they themselves were unable to produce).

A foreseeable problem is that the new Latino, Black or Amerindian republics could end up being as dysfunctional as Haiti or Mexico are today (or most other postcolonial nations for that matter). And so, the inhabitants of these territories would not be content with their own sovereignty on the territory Whites cede to them, but would for very rational reasons of self-interest seek (again) to settle in the new White Republic for the same reasons they are invading Western nations today. So White Nationalists would have to be pretty strict about the constitutional arrangements of the new Republic for their (currently fantastical) project to be viable and not be back to square one.

I have not read enough of the literature to say what those in the movement believe the ideal borders of the White Republic would be in North America. No doubt there are very diverse opinions. Personally I have no opinion on the question of racial nationalism* or White Secession, but I do believe the American Empire is a menace to humanity in general, and to American citizens and Europeans in particular, and should be dismantled one way or another.

* To be precise, I believe genetic proximity is only desirable to the extent that it enables a common ethnic identification for +85% of the population, I do not believe race should be fetishized as such.

I don't know why nationalists should be expected to automatically support other nations' struggles. Although one may be ideologically sympathetic or one may be allied against a common Empire; the whole point of nationalism is that it, as a realistic ideology rather than a frivolous utopianism, recognizes the reality of self-interest.

1) they are not morally bankrupt douchebags, 2) the gov't would swoop down and bomb them to death.

These are also the reasons why whites don't do it and blacks don't do it and Latinos don't do it.

I would qualify 1) with the remark that Latin America and black American communities are, on average, astonishingly violent given their relatively low level of organization and lack of access to weapons of mass destruction. I believe 2) is partly accurate: they don't do it because they can't (in some cases non-Whites succeed however: Whites have been ethnically cleansed in Algeria and Rhodesia, leaving the locals to mismanage their own affairs and ruin the economy). But I also believe some don't do it because they know they're better off enjoying a Western civilization they would lose if Whites were ethnically cleansed (for example, the Blacks and Mulattoes in Martinique and Guadeloupe have been very eager to remain part of France for various pecuniary reasons, such as immigration possibilities, but also because they're so close to the horrors of Haiti under self-rule after the Haitians genocided European-Haitians).
Last edited by Ombrageux on 17 Sep 2014 17:27, edited 2 times in total.
#14465803
Ombrageux wrote:PoD - A lot of North American White Nationalists are secessionists and so are indeed quite willing to give up a substantial amount of territory to other peoples (whether they are the indigenous inhabitants of the continent, came here against their will as with descendants of black slaves or came here willingly specifically to enjoy the fruits of a Western civilization they themselves were unable to produce).


The logical inconsistency of everyone returning to their homeland except whites is obviously based on race and not some sort of practicality.

A foreseeable problem is that the new Latino, Black or Amerindian republics could end up being as dysfunctional as Haiti or Mexico are today (or most other postcolonial nations for that matter).


Since the European gov'ts who colonised these places deliberately dismantled local systems of governance, it is no surprise that local systems of governance cannot easily make everything perfect. However, it is still better than living under colonial rule.

And so, the inhabitants of these territories would not be content with their own sovereignty, but would for very rational reasons of self-interest seek (again) to settle in the new White Republic for the same reasons they are invading Western nations today. So White Nationalists would have to be pretty strict about the constitutional arrangements of the new Republic for their (currently fantastical) project to be viable and not be back to square one.


Considering how the racists in the US are the least productive of the entire diverse set of groups that make the US, I highly doubt White America will produce anything more than the populations who did most of the heavy work when it came to nation-building.

I have not read enough of the literature to say what those in the movement believe the ideal borders of the White Republic would be in North America. No doubt there are very diverse opinions. Personally I have no opinion on the question of racial nationalism or White Secession, but I do believe the American Empire is a menace to humanity in general, and to American citizens and Europeans in particular, and should be dismantled one way or another.


I find that as a white European, you often have opinions about how the Americas should work, and they almost always end up involving kicking people of colour off land that white people stole from indigenous people.

I don't know why nationalists should be expected to automatically support other nations' struggles. Although one may be ideologically sympathetic or one may be allied against a common Empire; the whole point of nationalism is that it, as a realistic ideology rather than a frivolous utopianism, recognizes the reality of self-interest.


I don't know why nationalists claim this either. You are correct that it contradicts their blatant self-interest. I think it is a way of making their racist ideology palatable to people who have grown up in a multicultural reality.
User avatar
By Ombrageux
#14465813
My God PoD, why do you even bother writing such obvious falsehoods about what others write? Is it because of extreme bad faith or because you simply don't understand?

For example:
The logical inconsistency of everyone returning to their homeland except whites is obviously based on race and not some sort of practicality.

If some White Nationalists are secessionists that means they are happy to let Latinos or Blacks run chunks of the United States, perhaps California and the other Reconquista states or indeed a part of Southern states for New Africa, and thus not sending these people back to Latin America proper or Africa.

You can blame Europeans all you like for others' failures but that will not improve their condition. Self-improvement comes from looking seriously into one's own flaws and not systematically blaming others.

These things said, there doesn't seem to be a single statement of value in your post, a rather sorry sight even by the poor standards of our exchanges.
#14465818
Ombrageux wrote:My God PoD, why do you even bother writing such obvious falsehoods about what others write? Is it because of extreme bad faith or because you simply don't understand?

For example:
    The logical inconsistency of everyone returning to their homeland except whites is obviously based on race and not some sort of practicality.
If some White Nationalists are secessionists that means they are happy to let Latinos or Blacks run chunks of the United States, perhaps California and the other Reconquista states or indeed a part of Southern states for New Africa, and thus not sending these people back to Latin America proper or Africa.


I see where your misunderstanding is.

I should have said that white nationalists should all go back to Europe and leave all of the Americas to the indigenous people if they wanted to be logically consistent.

Their willingness to let other people have some of the Americas is based on the incorrect notion that it is their land, which it is not, according to the logic of nationalism.

You can blame Europeans all you like for others' failures but that will not improve their condition. Self-improvement comes from looking seriously into one's own flaws and not systematically blaming others.


You are correct. I can only show Europeans their own history. I cannot make them think about it or change their ways because of it.

These things said, there doesn't seem to be a single statement of value in your post, a rather sorry sight even by the poor standards of our exchanges.


Well, I hope I have swept away your confusion.

------------------------

EDIT:

Replying to Ombra's edit:

Ombrageux wrote:* To be precise, I believe genetic proximity is only desirable to the extent that it enables a common ethnic identification for +85% of the population, I do not believe race should be fetishized as such.


I think that the problems associated with ensuring such a level of ethnic purity would far outweigh any benefits.

I would qualify 1) with the remark that Latin America and black American communities are, on average, astonishingly violent given their relatively low level of organization and lack of access to weapons of mass destruction.


I don't care about your racist opinion. Like always, you will simply state it as if it were fact, not support it with evidence, ignore it when this is pointed out to you, and then complain that I write "obvious falsehoods".

If you want to make the claim that most indigenous people are actually morally bankrupt douchebags, please provide evidence for that claim.

I believe 2) is partly accurate: they don't do it because they can't (in some cases non-Whites succeed however: Whites have been ethnically cleansed in Algeria and Rhodesia, leaving the locals to mismanage their own affairs and ruin the economy).


Yes, in a few cases, blacks and others have aped European behaviour and ethnically cleansed whites out of their former colonies.

However, I was discussing the Americas, not Algeria or Rhodesia. The only ethnic cleansing of whites in the Americas would be the killing of Europeans in Haiti right after the slave revolt. Maybe we should not have kept slaves.

Ombrageux wrote:But I also believe some don't do it because they know they're better off enjoying a Western civilization they would lose if Whites were ethnically cleansed (for example, the Blacks and Mulattoes in Martinique and Guadeloupe have been very eager to remain part of France for various pecuniary reasons, such as immigration possibilities, but also because they're so close to the horrors of Haiti under self-rule after the Haitians genocided European-Haitians).


We are discussing indigenous peoples of the Americas.

Indigenous people of the Americas are probably not better off enjoying Western civilisation. I do not expect you to know that. Nor am I surprised to see that you are stating it as a fact. The reason I am not surprised is because most Europeans (and Americans of European descent) are ignorant of the history of indigenous America, and thus are unaware that the forcible assimilation of indigenous peoples into Western "civilisation" has been one of the most detrimental things that has ever happened to indigenous peoples.
User avatar
By Saeko
#14498775
pikachu wrote:We shall rename this thread - the Unperson club. The club of people who could have existed, but never did.


*raises glass of victory gin*

Cheers to that.
User avatar
By pikachu
#14498782
Maybe in time, if I'm not mistaken about the sacred rituals, it will become a Comrade Ogilvy club. A club formed exclusively by Comrade Ogilvy to debate policy with himself. Can't say I am against the idea, for Comrade Ogilvy really does deserve an honor for his sacrifices.

Btw what happened to Rei's fanclub? I can't see that thread any more.
User avatar
By Fasces
#14498784
I find it curious that none of these pan-nationalists seems to apply that standard consistently to the Americas.


The blood and soil ones might have that issue, sure - I take the view that whoever occupies the land now is the rightful owner, taking a page out of the homesteader rulebook, which makes all these "trouble" spots, such as Kosovo, Israel, or the former Iroquois Nation that is Now Buffalo, not an issue at all.
User avatar
By anarchist23
#14498825
This is another interesting list. It is the list of members of the proposed National Union Club.

slybaldguy wrote:Slybaldguy
Ombrageux
Stalker
Annatar1914
Cromwell
Akuma
JRS1
Istanbuller
Noemon
Pikachu
ArtAllm
Verv
Ethiopian Monarchist
Flaro
User avatar
By Quantum
#14498979
This union was certainly a sucess as three most prominent members were liquidated.
  • 1
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
EU-BREXIT

Three Years On: Still Divided Today marks […]

The Next UK PM everybody...

Lefties hound battered woman out of her home. […]

To be honest with you, I'm still at a loss as to w[…]

The take-away: Experts say that all warming over[…]