Europe-then and now [SPLIT from Intro thread] [Archive] - The Apricity Forum: A European Cultural Community

Anthropos

10-28-2009, 11:29 AM

Hello. I was googling some info for a project and I suddenly found this forum, it looks interesting. I wasn't sure to join since I'm not European but then I saw a lot of members from the US and Canada so I said why not? I'm from Chile (Valdivia in the Los Rios region to be precise) and of full German ancestry (all my grandparents come from Germany). I don't have any identity crisis though: I am Chilean and I like here but I also like Europe a lot and if it wasn't for the European influence in my region I'm pretty sure it would be a slum like Bolivia or Peru. What I mean is Europe is a wonderful place and I would like it to remain as it is (or was?) and not become a slum place. In any case, Europe should influence other barbaric places in the world and make them better rather than the opposite.

I'm still not sure 100% what this place is about but I hope other members will help me sort it out :) Well that's all and I will be looking around to see if I learn some new things. Thanks.

Hallo, nice to see you. I am sure you can contribute with things that stay-at-home Europeans can't bring about, and that these contributions can be quite interesting. I do not however agree with your point of view of things, and since it concerns me, I feel I should explain why:

You think that Europe should remain as it is, whereas other civilisations have no right to govern themselves, but should be happy receivers of European help to make them "better"? What is this in one word? :rolleyes:

A similar question can be equally well put to relations between colonial powers, like the USA for instance, and the rest of the world. What right do colonials have to decide what Europeans should do? None, in my opinion.

Your ideas remind me of those of Wilhelm Friedrich Foerster (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Wilhelm_Foerster), as expressed in Weltpolitik und Weltgewissen (1919). That entry about him is worth a read. In short, his opinion was that German culture is superior and that as a consequence it is the absolute duty of Germans to spread it to the entire world.

Good relations I am all for, with as many civilisations as possible, European or non-European in origin. But each one has a natural right to govern herself without intervention.

Furthermore, it is my opinion that the European Union must be destroyed, in case of any doubt.

Tony

10-28-2009, 11:52 AM

European countries are living and therefore evolving realities, just like the Americas, and I don't see why Europe should stay freezed for ever like a boring museum, while the rest of the world is moving.
Istinct for surviving?:rolleyes:
By the way Europe has been "white" for millennia and it seems to me it wasn't like a museum for first , for second if you fail to notice it's only the Western world that is "moving" in the meaning of opening the borders , China Korea Japan India etc don't do that , like the majority of the world as well.

Sol Invictus

10-28-2009, 12:52 PM

If you haven't gathered already, Frankawi is pro-NWO. He thinks all the races should mix and turn into this great big melting pot where he can fuck all the black booty he wants. He doesn't believe in borders, he doesn't believe in Heritage, he doesn't believe in ancestry, he doesn't believe any of the things we hold dear because Europe is 'boring'.

btw, welcome.

Mesrine

10-28-2009, 08:29 PM

By the way Europe has been "white" for millennia

LOL, total anachronism. You use a relatively recent American social construct to designate the populations of old Europe.

and it seems to me it wasn't like a museum for first

I'm speaking of the present reality. Anachronism, again.

Anyway, I didn't say Europe is or was a museum, read my post again. I said

I don't see why Europe should stay freezed for ever like a boring museum, while the rest of the world is moving.

for second if you fail to notice it's only the Western world that is "moving" in the meaning of opening the borders , China Korea Japan India etc don't do that , like the majority of the world as well.

You totally missed the point, I wasn't speaking of open borders. If you think China and India are "not moving"(LMAO), I suggest you go on a trip there.

Anyway, you don't need extra-European immigrants to totally change Europe, internal migrations are more than enough.

If you haven't gathered already, Frankawi is pro-NWO.

What is NWO? New World Order? There always has been an order in the organization of the world, and it changes from time to time.

When we were born, the world order was bipolar (USA-USSR), then it changed drastically in the 1989-91 period, America being the only hyper power left. Now it's changing again, but more slowly, America is losing ground, while the BRIC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRIC) is rising. So what? You can still delude youself (again) thinking you can oppose this, if you want.

He thinks all the races should mix

You're thinking on a tribal and racial level, you're not aware of your limits, the fact that you're only an individual, responsible for his own acts, and nothing more.

My position is that people are free to reproduce with whoever they want, period. In the face of racialists.

and turn into this great big melting pot where he can fuck all the black booty he wants.

If humans are all homogeneized, there won't be black booties anymore, let's be logic. :D

He doesn't believe in borders

Totally wrong. I'm convinced that the nation-state (and its borders) should absolutely be preserved, because it's our best line of defense against the destructive effects of economic globalism.

he doesn't believe in Heritage

You neither. You claim to have French heritage, and you don't speak a god damn word of it.

Can you explain me what "believing in heritage" means exactly to you? Sounds like an empty slogan.

he doesn't believe in ancestry

Ancestry is the past, it's not us anymore. See above.

Can you explain me what "believing in ancestry" means exactly to you?

he doesn't believe any of the things we hold dear because Europe is 'boring'.

You believe in a whole load of bullshit, sorry if I don't follow you in your delusions. :shrug:

Tony

10-28-2009, 08:47 PM

Only an anti-European self-hating white like Al Frankawi could have ever thought that since Europe is not as multiracial as USA or any other third world country then is "freezed like a boring museum".

Mesrine

10-28-2009, 09:44 PM

Only an anti-European

What do you mean exactly by "pro/anti-European"?

Please quote the posts where I said I was "anti-European". If you don't have material to support your case, STFU.

self-hating white like Al Frankawi

That's quite the contrary, actually. I'm relatively happy to be French, Romance and European. It could have been much worse, frankly.

Again, please quote the posts were I said I was "self-hating".

could have ever thought that since Europe is not as multiracial as USA or any other third world country then is "freezed like a boring museum".

You're really monomaniac, Tony. You only have "race" in mind (like it was an important factor). Countries can change radically without changing colour at all.

Or perhaps you want to support the idea that 1960's Europe (pre-massive immigration) was absolutely the same than in the Middle Ages (let alone the Antiquity), just because it was exclusively "white"? :D

nohypocrisy

10-28-2009, 09:54 PM

Just a question out of curiosity: Where in Germany did your ancestors come from? :)

All of them come from Southern Germany. The Heilbronn-Franken area to be specific.

European countries are living and therefore evolving realities, just like the Americas, and I don't see why Europe should stay freezed for ever like a boring museum, while the rest of the world is moving.

Luckily, "Europe" was deeply influenced by more advanced civilisations, at the time it was barbaric.

I agree with you. But as persons do, countries can also change for good and for bad and I think Europe is going into the wrong direction. But that's just my opinion and I respect yours, after all this is a forum and we can all exchange points of view.

Hallo, nice to see you. I am sure you can contribute with things that stay-at-home Europeans can't bring about, and that these contributions can be quite interesting. I do not however agree with your point of view of things, and since it concerns me, I feel I should explain why:

Hello and thanks for the welcome. As I explained up there I respect everybody's POV and I'm here to debate and exchange ideas.

You think that Europe should remain as it is, whereas other civilisations have no right to govern themselves, but should be happy receivers of European help to make them "better"? What is this in one word? :rolleyes:

A similar question can be equally well put to relations between colonial powers, like the USA for instance, and the rest of the world. What right do colonials have to decide what Europeans should do? None, in my opinion.

Your ideas remind me of those of Wilhelm Friedrich Foerster (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Wilhelm_Foerster), as expressed in Weltpolitik und Weltgewissen (1919). That entry about him is worth a read. In short, his opinion was that German culture is superior and that as a consequence it is the absolute duty of Germans to spread it to the entire world.

Good relations I am all for, with as many civilisations as possible, European or non-European in origin. But each one has a natural right to govern herself without intervention.

Furthermore, it is my opinion that the European Union must be destroyed, in case of any doubt.

I think there was a little misunderstanding. When I said Europe should influence other places I didn't mean by colonialism means, we have already seen how nefastous the results can be, for example the british experience in India (but I see nothing wrong with some colonial models like the one that took place in Hong Kong for example) I was talking about taking a cultural approach like building schools and cultural places under European jurisdicttion only instead of giving millions to those corrupt banana republic leaders who will only use it to build mansions or spend it on whores or guns.

Und danke für den link über Foerster. Ich kannte ihn nicht.

Anthropos

10-28-2009, 11:23 PM

I think there was a little misunderstanding. When I said Europe should influence other places I didn't mean by colonialism means, we have already seen how nefastous the results can be, for example the british experience in India (but I see nothing wrong with some colonial models like the one that took place in Hong Kong for example) I was talking about taking a cultural approach like building schools and cultural places under European jurisdicttion only instead of giving millions to those corrupt banana republic leaders who will only use it to build mansions or spend it on whores or guns.

Maybe I did, but if you are talking about Europeans building schools for so-called 'developing countries' I am totally against that. Differences of opinion do not bother me too much, but I want to make it clear that I don't agree with this idea of what Europeans should do.

Sol Invictus

10-29-2009, 03:46 AM

What is NWO? New World Order? There always has been an order in the organization of the world, and it changes from time to time.

Beyond the United Nations, there has never been a New World Order. George H.W Bush coined the term on September 11th 1991 to signify a change in the Global Financial policies of the world, and therefore, the social constructs of the world, as well all know it is the Banksters and the Military Industrial Complex that comes with it is what rules the world. Not since the Soviet Union, or Nazi Germany has anything come close to anything what the NWO stands for, yet, they are basically of the same principles.

America is losing ground, while the BRIC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRIC) is rising. So what? You can still delude youself (again) thinking you can oppose this, if you want.

America as we know it, as the founding fathers knew it, is essentially dead. America has persued an imperialistic policy on world matters, and that is why it is essential one of the main vehicles of expansion for the NWO, as is Britain.
I don't 'delude' myself into thinking anything. I know what is happening because I follow it. And I have mainstream news articles I have posted in hundreds, if not thousands of posts I have made here. All of which is documented fact. You are the one who is deluding yourself into thinking that it's not happening, while the rest of us are completely aware of it, and are fighting it.

You're thinking on a tribal and racial level, you're not aware of your limits, the fact that you're only an individual, responsible for his own acts. My position is that people are free to reproduce with whoever they want, period. In the face of racialists.

Yes. I base my life around a tribalistic and racial level because that is what the basic human instinct operates. If you feel people are free to reproduce with whom ever they like, than so be it. But you can't expect to be counted among the ranks of us who are against this sort of brainwashing. To us, identity is everything. The tribe, the homeland, our ancestors are everything. I am still trying to figure out what ideas that you hold dear that makes you somehow an eligible member of this board, besides Loki's willingness to allow all peoples to have their opinions heard on this board.

You neither. You claim to have French heritage, and you don't speak a god damn word of it.

You're wrong. I remember conversing with you once very briefly when you were a fresh member of this board. You asked me if "everyone here acts this way usually" and I replied to the affirmative. I was born and raised in Quebec. My first language learned was French, and I can speak it perfectly.

Can you explain me what "believing in heritage" means exactly to you? Sounds like an empty slogan.

Since you think ancestry and heritage is bullocks, I won't bother explaining it to you. But to that effect, I assumed you didn't believe that such things were of value or importance to us.

Ancestry is the past, it's not us anymore. See above.

Ancestry is everything. It is your past, present, and future. Everytime you look into the mirror, you see hundreds of generations of your kin look back in that reflection to you. If you don't see it that way, you are empty of such spiritual connection, and says much to your social conditioning.

You believe in a whole load of bullshit, sorry if I don't follow you in your delusions. :shrug:

I believe in facts, bub. If you have any issues concerning any of what I say, or post, then please feel free to discuss it appropriately. We can learn alot from eachother and the world around us by discussing about world matters. If you don't wish to, then I understand. But please elaborate in the appropriate topics of what you see as 'bullshit' and we can talk about it there.

Mesrine

10-29-2009, 04:16 AM

You are the one who is deluding yourself into thinking that it's not happening, while the rest of us are completely aware of it, and are fighting it.

You obviously haven't read my post, because I said a new world order was currently taking shape. But "NWO" is simply not what you think it is, and it's not even secret.

Anyway it's always rich to hear a paranoid mind like yours saying someone else is "deluding himself". :D

Yes. I base my life around a tribalistic and racial level because that is what the basic human instinct operates.

You just said that you base your life on retardation. :D

If you feel people are free to reproduce with whom ever they like, than so be it.

It's much more than a "feeling", it's a reality (just take a look outside even if it hurts), and a right.

To nail it, nature is allowing us to do so (I think most Apricians love "nature", right?), dunking a sort of big "in your face" to racialists.

But you can't expect to be counted among the ranks of us who are against this sort of brainwashing.

"Your" ranks are sparse, and they're progressively wiped out as we speak.

I am still trying to figure out what ideas that you hold dear that makes you somehow an eligible member of this board, besides Loki's willingness to allow all peoples to have their opinions heard on this board.

I think Loki is willing to let some reality enter this forum, to shake it a bit. Why don't you ask him directly? Are you afraid of that too?

You're wrong. I remember conversing with you once very briefly when you were a fresh member of this board. You asked me if "everyone here acts this way usually" and I replied to the affirmative. I was born and raised in Quebec. My first language learned was French, and I can speak it perfectly.

I'm right. I remember conversing with you about this subject in the shoutbox, and you weren't able to write a single word of French, despite frantically repeating that you were able to.

Since you think ancestry and heritage is bullocks, I won't bother explaining it to you.

Whatever your excuse to dodge a crucial question.

Ancestry is everything. It is your past, present, and future.

Ancestry is nothing, your (our) ancestors are shadows and dust.

Fixed. What drug are you taking?

Everytime I look into the mirror, I see hundreds of generations of my kin look back in that reflection to me.

If you don't see it that way, you are empty of such spiritual connection, and says much to your social conditioning.

I see it that way because I'm not a crazy white Amurikkan like you, living in a deep identity confusion (among other psychological troubles).

I believe in facts, bub. If you have any issues concerning any of what I say, or post, then please feel free to discuss it appropriately. We can learn alot from eachother and the world around us by discussing about world matters. If you don't wish to, then I understand. But please elaborate in the appropriate topics of what you see as 'bullshit' and we can talk about it there.

I was speaking of your fetish for "ancestry" and "race". Needless to discuss your conspirationist hysteria, there's simply way too much of it, and I don't care about what's happening to your country, to say the truth.

SwordoftheVistula

10-29-2009, 05:38 AM

"Your" ranks are sparse, and they're progressively wiped out as we speak.

Try the reverse :thumb001:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-03-13-babybust_x.htm

What's the difference between Seattle and Salt Lake City? There are many differences, of course, but here's one you might not know. In Seattle, there are nearly 45% more dogs than children. In Salt Lake City, there are nearly 19% more kids than dogs.

This curious fact might at first seem trivial, but it reflects a much broader and little-noticed demographic trend that has deep implications for the future of global culture and politics. It's not that people in a progressive city such as Seattle are so much fonder of dogs than are people in a conservative city such as Salt Lake City. It's that progressives are so much less likely to have children.

It's a pattern found throughout the world, and it augers a far more conservative future — one in which patriarchy and other traditional values make a comeback, if only by default. Childlessness and small families are increasingly the norm today among progressive secularists. As a consequence, an increasing share of all children born into the world are descended from a share of the population whose conservative values have led them to raise large families.
Today, fertility correlates strongly with a wide range of political, cultural and religious attitudes. In the USA, for example, 47% of people who attend church weekly say their ideal family size is three or more children. By contrast, 27% of those who seldom attend church want that many kids.

In Utah, where more than two-thirds of residents are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 92 children are born each year for every 1,000 women, the highest fertility rate in the nation. By contrast Vermont — the first to embrace gay unions — has the nation's lowest rate, producing 51 children per 1,000 women.

Similarly, in Europe today, the people least likely to have children are those most likely to hold progressive views of the world. For instance, do you distrust the army and other institutions and are you prone to demonstrate against them? Then, according to polling data assembled by demographers Ron Lesthaeghe and Johan Surkyn, you are less likely to be married and have kids or ever to get married and have kids. Do you find soft drugs, homosexuality and euthanasia acceptable? Do you seldom, if ever, attend church? Europeans who answer affirmatively to such questions are far more likely to live alone or be in childless, cohabiting unions than are those who answer negatively.

This correlation between secularism, individualism and low fertility portends a vast change in modern societies. In the USA, for example, nearly 20% of women born in the late 1950s are reaching the end of their reproductive lives without having children. The greatly expanded childless segment of contemporary society, whose members are drawn disproportionately from the feminist and countercultural movements of the 1960s and '70s, will leave no genetic legacy. Nor will their emotional or psychological influence on the next generation compare with that of people who did raise children.

Single-child factor

Meanwhile, single-child families are prone to extinction. A single child replaces one of his or her parents, but not both. Consequently, a segment of society in which single-child families are the norm will decline in population by at least 50% per generation and quite quickly disappear. In the USA, the 17.4% of baby boomer women who had one child account for a mere 9.2% of kids produced by their generation. But among children of the baby boom, nearly a quarter descend from the mere 10% of baby boomer women who had four or more kids.

This dynamic helps explain the gradual drift of American culture toward religious fundamentalism and social conservatism. Among states that voted for President Bush in 2004, the average fertility rate is more than 11% higher than the rate of states for Sen. John Kerry.

It might also help to explain the popular resistance among rank-and-file Europeans to such crown jewels of secular liberalism as the European Union. It turns out that Europeans who are most likely to identify themselves as "world citizens" are also less likely to have children.
Rewriting history?

Why couldn't tomorrow's Americans and Europeans, even if they are disproportionately raised in patriarchal, religiously minded households, turn out to be another generation of '68? The key difference is that during the post-World War II era, nearly all segments of society married and had children. Some had more than others, but there was much more conformity in family size between the religious and the secular. Meanwhile, thanks mostly to improvements in social conditions, there is no longer much difference in survival rates for children born into large families and those who have few if any siblings.

Tomorrow's children, therefore, unlike members of the postwar baby boom generation, will be for the most part descendants of a comparatively narrow and culturally conservative segment of society. To be sure, some members of the rising generation may reject their parents' values, as often happens. But when they look for fellow secularists with whom to make common cause, they will find that most of their would-be fellow travelers were quite literally never born.

Many will celebrate these developments. Others will view them as the death of the Enlightenment. Either way, they will find themselves living through another great cycle of history.

Sol Invictus

10-29-2009, 06:05 AM

You obviously haven't read my post, because I said a new world order was currently taking shape. But "NWO" is simply not what you think it is, and it's not even secret.

No. I don't read your posts at all, actually. You showed me what kind of person you are in the chatbox, and I don't have any interest in you what-so-ever. Your way of thinking is hostile towards my own. You are my enemy, and not my friend. So I don't bother reading whatever garbage you contribute to this otherwise fine board.

Anyway it's always rich to hear a paranoid mind like yours saying someone else is "deluding himself". :D

Mmmhhmm. So what is it about me that's paranoid? I would like you to take the time to explain this to me without having to ad hominem attacks without any justification as to why. I've been called this many times before, so it's not like it hurts my feelings or anything, but at least people have at least had it in mind to actually articulate as to why they attack me thusly instead of assuming that I am to take it at face value and automatically figure out why it is I am "paranoid". Personally, I like to call it a "Heightened state of readiness, or awareness". But please, continue...

You just said that you base your life on retardation. :D

You are mistaken. I have not once used that word in my response to you. You must have me mistaken for some other dumbass who's willing to take time after a long day's work to actually respond to your posts.

It's much more than a "feeling", it's a reality (just take a look outside even if it hurts), and a right.

It's not a feeling when you know what it is that is going on around you. The only 'feeling' I get is anger after having recalled memories of my grandmother telling me stories of how it once was, and how privledged we are to live in such a fine country. Having grown into a man, and having taken an interest into the legacy I will leave my children when I am gone, I feel yet more anger as to what is going on around me, every single day when I drive into the city to work 8-16 hours a day. But you know what they say, Wissen ist Macht. Knowledge is power.

To nail it, nature is allowing us to do so (I think most Apricians love "nature", right?), dunking a sort of big "in your face" to racialists.

To "nail it" is a biological function that nature has given us to pass on our genes to the next generation. To us, our genes are our prized and priveledged possessions that we've inherited that we value so much to leave it completely intact to our sons and our daughters for generations to come. This is immortality. Whether or not you descide to nail whatever you want is up to you. It's not an 'in your face' to us at all. None of us will lose any sleep over you, I can assure you.

"Your" ranks are sparse, and they're progressively wiped out as we speak.

Our ranks are swelling, and are becoming more and more organized as time goes on.

I think Loki is willing to let some reality enter this forum, to shake it a bit. Why don't you ask him directly? Are you afraid of that too?

I doubt that Loki would actually endorse your exact lifestyle. Actually I am pretty sure he opposes it. But one thing about Loki is, is that he is always willing to let one's voice be heard, even if he is in disagreement. I don't have to ask Loki, nor do I want to, because I know what kind of person he is and what kind of heart the man has.

I'm right. I remember conversing with you about this subject in the shoutbox, and you weren't able to write a single word of French, despite frantically repeating that you were able to.

No, once again, you are mistaken. Before having that 'debate' over whether I can speak French or not, you asked me (in French) about the attitudes of the people you have enountered here. And I told you: "Yes". I have no desire to debate with you over my ability to speak French, since there are a great number of people on this forum who have seen and heard me speak French to them on more than one occasion. So like it or not, I am French. Get used to it.

I see it that way because I'm not a crazy white Amurikkan like you, living in a deep identity confusion

No confusion about who or what I am, and I never have had one. You are a noob. You've known me from talking to me on a grand total of 3 occasions. So whatever opinions you have to say about me really doesn't matter, since you obviously know fuck-all about me.

among other psychological troubles).

Ok so you're a Psychiatrist now? What's my diagnosis, then, doc? And what have you come to this conclusion?

I was speaking of your fetish for "ancestry" and "race".

It's not a fetish to believe that who your ancestors were and your race are makes you unique and worthy of preservation.

Needless to discuss your conspirationist hysteria, there's simply way too much of it, and I don't care about what's happening to your country, to say the truth.

Pick just one thread and we can talk about it.

Otherwise I will disregard your ad hominems as baseless and irrelevant.

Mesrine

10-29-2009, 07:55 AM

Try the reverse :thumb001:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-03-13-babybust_x.htm

"Conservatives" = racial preservationists? LMAO

Mmmhhmm. So what is it about me that's paranoid? I would like you to take the time to explain this to me without having to ad hominem attacks without any justification as to why.

For example, this

Your way of thinking is hostile towards my own. You are my enemy, and not my friend.

Personally, I like to call it a "Heightened state of readiness, or awareness". But please, continue...

So you like euphemisms? It's commonly used by people who have difficulties facing reality. Continue this posology if it's helping you.

You are mistaken. I have not once used that word in my response to you. You must have me mistaken for some other dumbass who's willing to take time after a long day's work to actually respond to your posts.

No one is forcing you to answer my posts. I know you prefer to thank your buddies posts and shoot one liners in the "Obongo and the NWO did it!" style.

It's not a feeling when you know what it is that is going on around you. The only 'feeling' I get is anger after having recalled memories of my grandmother telling me stories of how it once was, and how privledged we are to live in such a fine country. Having grown into a man, and having taken an interest into the legacy I will leave my children when I am gone, I feel yet more anger as to what is going on around me, every single day when I drive into the city to work 8-16 hours a day. But you know what they say, Wissen ist Macht. Knowledge is power.

Indeed, and it's one of the favourite maxims (in its original Latin form, scientia potentia est) of people who really are in power, precisely because they know. So either you're ignorant, either this maxim is bullshit.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/IAO-logo.png

To "nail it" is a biological function that nature has given us to pass on our genes to the next generation.

Exactly. Black dick in white or black vagina = baby! :thumb001:

To us, our genes are our prized and priveledged possessions that we've inherited that we value so much to leave it completely intact to our sons and our daughters for generations to come.

Whatever the female, your genes will stay intact anyway, what are you talking about?

This is immortality. Whether or not you descide to nail whatever you want is up to you. It's not an 'in your face' to us at all. None of us will lose any sleep over you, I can assure you.

None of the vast majority of the mentally healthy people on this planet will lose any sleep over a racial "preservationist" nutjob, be assured of that.

BTW, mister "preservationist", do you have kids? :D

Our ranks are swelling, and are becoming more and more organized as time goes on.

Sure. Your last presidential election was a blatant proof of this trend.

http://i35.tinypic.com/oavkw8.jpg

I doubt that Loki would actually endorse your exact lifestyle. Actually I am pretty sure he opposes it. But one thing about Loki is, is that he is always willing to let one's voice be heard, even if he is in disagreement. I don't have to ask Loki, nor do I want to, because I know what kind of person he is and what kind of heart the man has.

Excuses, again. You're just too afraid to ask him.

No, once again, you are mistaken. Before having that 'debate' over whether I can speak French or not

There's no debate. You don't speak French, period.

I have no desire to debate with you over my ability to speak French, since (...)

...Since you don't speak French. As I said, there's no debate.

So like it or not, I am French. Get used to it.

You don't have the French nationality, therefore you're not French, get used to it. Not that it's that horrible, and it's not at all malediction to be American... except for some.

No confusion about who or what I am, and I never have had one. You are a noob. You've known me from talking to me on a grand total of 3 occasions. So whatever opinions you have to say about me really doesn't matter, since you obviously know fuck-all about me.

You answer long-ass posts, you obviously care.

Ok so you're a Psychiatrist now? What's my diagnosis, then, doc? And what have you come to this conclusion?

I'm not a psychiatrist, but I can advise you to seek help.

It's not a fetish to believe that who your ancestors were and your race are makes you unique and worthy of preservation.

You just perfectly described what idolatry is.

Pick just one thread and we can talk about it.

Otherwise I will disregard your ad hominems as baseless and irrelevant.

A single look at your thread (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/search.php?searchid=318264) posting history is the equivalent of a condemnation.

Ankoù

10-29-2009, 09:56 AM

I don't see why Europe should stay freezed for ever like a boring museum, while the rest of the world is moving.

You do not see because like many Parisians, you have no roots and you live in the most multicultural town of Europe, you can not defend something.
End of story.

Tony

10-29-2009, 11:21 AM

What do you mean exactly by "pro/anti-European"?
Advocating mass immigration?
ok I rephrase since you actually never said that openly...
advocating a soft approach about immigrants , comprised the foreign stock of those who were born in Europe?
to me that anti-European because it'll make Europe lose its peculiar racial make-up for ever and turn it into another India , for example.
And since we have an India already we don't need another one here.

Please quote the posts where I said I was "anti-European". If you don't have material to support your case, STFU.

Uh?:confused:
tell me if I'm wrong , I should call you just the way you call yourself??or the way you wish to be called?
or have I just to quote you on and on?
but that would be a monologue and not a dialogue...
by what you write here you give me a certain vibe and I will tell you , plain and simple , even if you can't stand it.

You're really monomaniac, Tony. You only have "race" in mind (like it was an important factor). Countries can change radically without changing colour at all.
Or perhaps you want to support the idea that 1960's Europe (pre-massive immigration) was absolutely the same than in the Middle Ages (let alone the Antiquity), just because it was exclusively "white"? :D

From what I've read and still read , from what I know about the biological inequality of races , for what I see happening in multiracial states like California , France etc
I truly believe and more and more with strenght believe , that racial homogeneity is a conditio sine qua non to guarantee European civilization to go on on its own path , multiracialism is an obstacle , like a stik in the wheel that impede the regular development of European civilization , multiracialism cause more de-evolution than e-volution.
That's what I believe in.

SuuT

10-29-2009, 11:51 AM

LOL, total anachronism. You use a relatively recent American social construct to designate the populations of old Europe.

:D The concept as it is (by and large) used today, arose in 17th century Europe. Indeed, the colour systems we know of today as pragmatic devices of ingroup-outgroup bias goes all the way back to 2nd century B.C. Greece - probably further).

Anyway, I think people tend to misunderstand you, Al. From what I gather, it's not that you don't care about race; it's that you can't force anyone else to, ergo it is a non-issue. Is that correct?

Mesrine

10-29-2009, 08:03 PM

You do not see because like many Parisians, you have no roots

You have no luck.

Maternal roots

http://www.ardeche.guideweb.com/ville/joannas/img/joannas1.jpg

Paternal roots

http://www.comunearba.it/admin/GetThumbnailImage.aspx?FileName=/public/meduna_colle.jpg

and you live in the most multicultural town of Europe, you can not defend something.

I can defend the French republic against regionalists like you. I mean, regionalists like you can still try to defend themselves against Paris. :D

Advocating mass immigration?

I've never advocated this, much more the opposite, for socio-economical reasons. Again, you accuse me without evidence.

ok I rephrase since you actually never said that openly...
advocating a soft approach about immigrants , comprised the foreign stock of those who were born in Europe?

Foreigners and citizens of recent foreign origin are two different things. We're not going to strip citizens of their nationality, we're not in the 40's anymore, wake up man.

Uh?:confused:
tell me if I'm wrong , I should call you just the way you call yourself??or the way you wish to be called?

I have an username, why don't call me by this name? Perhaps my username is a problem to you?

or have I just to quote you on and on?
but that would be a monologue and not a dialogue...

You accused me of positions I have never taken, that's why I ask you to support your accusations with some evidence (that you won't find).

You're having a dialogue with the strawmen you created ("he's pro-immigration, he's anti-European, he's Muslim, etc").

by what you write here you give me a certain vibe and I will tell you , plain and simple , even if you can't stand it.

I think it's you who can't stand my "vibe", even if you don't identified it correctly.

From what I've read and still read , from what I know about the biological inequality of races

Please expand on that.

for what I see happening in multiracial states like California , France etc

Ridiculous. The French state doesn't recognize any "race".

:D The concept as it is (by and large) used today, arose in 17th century Europe. Indeed, the colour systems we know of today as pragmatic devices of ingroup-outgroup bias goes all the way back to 2nd century B.C. Greece - probably further).

One-drop rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule), a Greek invention? Riiight. :lol00001:

Anyway, I think people tend to misunderstand you, Al. From what I gather, it's not that you don't care about race; it's that you can't force anyone else to, ergo it is a non-issue. Is that correct?

Let's put this in its pertinent form.

From what I gather, it's not that you care about race; it's that racialists can't force anyone else to, ergo it is a non-issue.

SuuT

10-29-2009, 08:25 PM

Despite your best efforts to extend a friendly inquiry to me SuuT, I'm afraid I have a cutural commitment to be a monumental ass dressed as a strawman. You see, my friend, I am equally committed to creating as much non-sensical dissonance in my posts as is humanly possible because - to be honest - I simply lack the intellectual endurance required to see my own ideas through to their logical conclusions.

That's alright, Al. Here's to you, mon ami:

ULjCSK0oOlI

Mesrine

10-29-2009, 08:28 PM

That's alright, Al. Here's to you, mon ami

Not my fault if one liners are more than enough to debunk your ridiculous inputs on this thread, New Worldlish mixture of inaccuracies, heavy anachronisms and basic confusion of subjects.

You admitted being confused about your ethnic identity (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10103).

Matritensis

10-29-2009, 08:32 PM

From what I gather, it's not that you care about race; it's that racialists can't force anyone else to, ergo it is a non-issue.

That's the truth behind 95% of misunderstandings and conflicts in this forum.

SuuT

10-30-2009, 10:52 AM

Not my fault if one liners are more than enough to debunk your ridiculous inputs on this thread, New Worldlish mixture of inaccuracies, heavy anachronisms and basic confusion of subjects.

The forum would be boring without you, Al. :) Or, I should say, absent a needed element.

You admitted being confused about your ethnic identity (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10103).

You've mistaken the 'without-ness' inherent to transcending the concept for confusion.

You seem like you might have some things to say about the so-called 'American' ethnicity. You ought to chime-in if you haven't already (I haven't checked the thread yet).

Loki

10-30-2009, 10:58 AM

I doubt that Loki would actually endorse your exact lifestyle. Actually I am pretty sure he opposes it. But one thing about Loki is, is that he is always willing to let one's voice be heard, even if he is in disagreement. I don't have to ask Loki, nor do I want to, because I know what kind of person he is and what kind of heart the man has.

:thumbs up

Ankoù

10-30-2009, 11:50 AM

You have no luck.

Maternal roots

Paternal roots

I know that but how many years did you live there ? It's clear that living in a multicultural city makes you different.

I can defend the French republic against regionalists like you. I mean, regionalists like you can still try to defend themselves against Paris. :D

The so-called "regionalists" are not really the problem. France becomes more in more African and Muslim, when non-euro migrants will be in majority, the Republic will fall.

nohypocrisy

10-30-2009, 02:36 PM

I know that but how many years did you live there ? It's clear that living in a multicultural city makes you different.

These days sadly, almost everybody lives in multicultural cities.

Sol Invictus

10-30-2009, 05:50 PM

The forum would be boring without you, Al. :) Or, I should say, absent a needed element.

Every village needs an idiot.

Anthropos

10-30-2009, 05:59 PM

nohypocrisy, why do you think that Europeans should build schools for so-called developing countries? I am against that, as I said, in part because there's nothing worthwhile in it for Europeans and in part because it's usually an excuse for Europeans to spread democracy and human rights, and I don't care for either.

nohypocrisy

10-30-2009, 09:44 PM

SwordoftheVistula

10-30-2009, 10:02 PM

Now, if you don't care about democracy and human rights then how would you like to live? In a state of anarchy or something similar?

I care about that here (Constitutional Rights and the Republic) and also in my ethnic homelands and similar countries...the rest of the world I don't, and representative government and individual rights may not be such a good thing for them anyways since those people are different from us.

Anthropos

10-30-2009, 10:05 PM

^^ Because I think it's a better approach than for example handing money without a particular goal. Now, if you don't care about democracy and human rights then how would you like to live? In a state of anarchy or something similar?

No. Definitely not. I just don't think that the modern Westerner has any right to impose his values on other civilisations, indeed I do not believe that the leaders of the West have any right to treat any of those that they lead as badly as they do, in- our outside of the West.

Do you think that Western civilisation is the only one that is good enough? Why do you think so?

nohypocrisy

10-30-2009, 11:04 PM

I care about that here (Constitutional Rights and the Republic) and also in my ethnic homelands and similar countries...the rest of the world I don't, and representative government and individual rights may not be such a good thing for them anyways since those people are different from us.

No. Definitely not. I just don't think that the modern Westerner has any right to impose his values on other civilisations, indeed I do not believe that the leaders of the West have any right to treat any of those that they lead as badly as they do, in- our outside of the West.

Good points gentlemen, I think the same. Actually, I think that giving tips and any kind of help to third world countries is a bad choice, it gives them a dependant mentality and makes everything worse but until the day that Western countries stop importing people comes, at least prepare the imported somewhat so they don't have that many problems adapting and most important, they won't be a pain in the ass to the host population.

Do you think that Western civilisation is the only one that is good enough? Why do you think so?

Exactly. Otherwise why do the rest of the world wants to reach Western Civilization? To take pictures?

Mesrine

10-30-2009, 11:19 PM

The forum would be boring without you, Al. :) Or, I should say, absent a needed element.

^ Glad you acknowledge reality checks are needed on this board.

You've mistaken the 'without-ness' inherent to transcending the concept for confusion.

Not really. At your age, you still live in an identity limbo.

You seem like you might have some things to say about the so-called 'American' ethnicity. You ought to chime-in if you haven't already (I haven't checked the thread yet).

Okay, SuuT, I'll give my two cents about this issue, even if I strictly don't care.

I know that but how many years did you live there ? It's clear that living in a multicultural city makes you different.

I can't escape my French education. :shrug:

The so-called "regionalists" are not really the problem. France becomes more in more African and Muslim, when non-euro migrants will be in majority, the Republic will fall.

Not a chance. You think of immigrants (they're not anymore, BTW, they have the nationality) like if they were a united force. If you had a clue about the Arabo-Muslim world, you'd see that "Islam" and united are two very different ideas.

Every village needs an idiot.

Chillax, no one wants to replace you in this duty. You did a great job in the past year.

Anthropos

10-30-2009, 11:28 PM

Good points gentlemen, I think the same. Actually, I think that giving tips and any kind of help to third world countries is a bad choice, it gives them a dependant mentality and makes everything worse but until the day that Western countries stop importing people comes, at least prepare the imported somewhat so they don't have that many problems adapting and most important, they won't be a pain in the ass to the host population.

I was just curious and wanted to have the debate. We disagree on what I consider to be important points. Without the intention to import there wouldn't be any need to prepare the import. The import is not some kind of natural disaster dropping down on us. Some things, like the schooling of strangers that we were just debating, and their nearing themselves to us, are so intermingled phenomena that I find it impossible to deny that they must be a part of one and the same plan. If that wasn't so, our government officials could simply refuse to have them.

Exactly. Otherwise why do the rest of the world wants to reach Western Civilization? To take pictures?

There have been for very long now non-Western but nevertheless civilised regimes that oppose directly any Western-styled democracy and human rights exactly on grounds that those are means to an end for the (culturally and/or politically) imperialistic West. In other words, the fact that they are progressing, economically as well as in other ways, does not necessarily imply that they want to become Westernised, and it is fairly clear that many of them don't want that.

But what is it that constitutes the West then, in your opinion? Just a higher standard of living, seen from a purely quantitative point of view i.e., or is there anything else? Do you really think that the non-Western world is nothing but a chaos?

Ankoù

10-30-2009, 11:43 PM

Not a chance. You think of immigrants (they're not anymore, BTW, they have the nationality) like if they were a united force.

I do not think they are united but even between north-africans and sub-saharians you see an unity against "white" people. Unconsciously, they take their revenge together on the past.

http://www.racismeantiblanc.bizland.com/opinions/jeunes_colonsCPE.jpg

http://www.racismeantiblanc.bizland.com/images/bidon02/bid80tabasseurs2.jpg

http://www.racismeantiblanc.bizland.com/images/bidon02/bid80racines04.jpg

Mesrine

10-30-2009, 11:51 PM

I do not think they are united but even between north-africans and sub-saharians you see an unity against "white" people. Unconsciously, they take their revenge together on the past.

That's your interpretation of things. Though I can admit there's still some truth in what you said, I mostly see is an imitation of American cheap sub-proletarian "ghetto" subculture. Don't forget the people on the pics you posted are mostly inconscient 20 year olds, let's not make too definitive conclusions about it.

Ankoù

10-31-2009, 12:20 AM

Don't forget the people on the pics you posted are mostly inconscient 20 year olds, let's not make too definitive conclusions about it.

It is not because Europeans (specially the French since it's a taboo) have no racial consciousness that it is the case for them.

Loxias

10-31-2009, 12:20 AM

Would you still say that if you were the one getting bashed there? "forgive *OUCH* them they *OUCGH* are inconscient 20 *OUCH* years old"

SwordoftheVistula

10-31-2009, 12:30 AM

I mostly see is an imitation of American cheap sub-proletarian "ghetto" subculture.

Of course the Africans in France emulate the Africans in America...it appeals to their innate nature

Mesrine

10-31-2009, 12:31 AM

It is not because Europeans (specially the French since it's a taboo) have no racial consciousness that it is the case for them.

You mistake a social class conscience for a racial one. I see sub-proletarians beating the crap out of little bourgeois.

Would you still say that if you were the one getting bashed there? "forgive *OUCH* them they *OUCGH* are inconscient 20 *OUCH* years old"

Little bourgeous living in the inner cities happen to be mostly "white", sub-proletarians living in the banlieues happen to be mostly Maghrebian and SSA. You mistake a secondary element for the primary one.

Loddfafner

10-31-2009, 12:53 AM

You mistake a social class conscience for a racial one. I see sub-proletarians beating the crap out of little bourgeois.

Little bourgeous living in the inner cities happen to be mostly "white", sub-proletarians living in the banlieues happen to be mostly Maghrebian and SSA. You mistake a secondary element for the primary one.

Maybe so, but do you respect the petit bourgeois as fellow humans and citoyens with the right to express their concerns and organize mutual protection? Or do you take a line akin to what Valery Solanis, Andy Warhol's would-be assassin, said of males in her SCUM (society to cut up men) Manifesto -- that we only have the right to repeat "we are worms" over and over again?

Mesrine

10-31-2009, 12:58 AM

Maybe so, but do you respect the petit bourgeois as fellow humans and citoyens with the right to express their concerns and organize mutual protection?

Of course, this goes without saying.

SwordoftheVistula

10-31-2009, 01:03 AM

You mistake a social class conscience for a racial one. I see sub-proletarians beating the crap out of little bourgeois.

Got any evidence of that? All the evidence compiled heretofore on this forum points in the opposite direction, and even mainstream commentators refer to it as a 'cultural background' distinction rather than social class.

Mesrine

10-31-2009, 01:06 AM

Got any evidence of that?

Of course. The guys you see on pics, beating the "whiteys", are indeed sub-proletarians from the suburbs. While the guys on the floor are sons of the little bourgeoisie for the most part.

On the other hand, what is your evidence that this was exclusively racially-motivated?

All the evidence compiled heretofore on this forum

You have zero evidence. Excuse me if I know a bit more than you what's going on in my city.

and even mainstream commentators

You believe "mainstream commentators" now?

refer to it as a 'cultural background' distinction rather than social class.

Only the neoconnish part of the mainstream media referred to such nonsense, certainly not serious journalists, sociologists and intellectuals.

Loddfafner

10-31-2009, 01:17 AM

Mesrine

10-31-2009, 01:25 AM

Is this class analysis a sufficient explanation?

It's mostly accurate. But I don't deny there are other things involved too, including some secondary ethno-identitarian ones, for the simple fact the country is more communautarized than before.

But let's not stigmatize millions of people for the delinquant acts of a bunch of thugs from the ghetto.

If so, does it excuse the actions?

Absolutely not. The individuals who committed these actions should be trialed and condemned.

SwordoftheVistula

10-31-2009, 01:28 AM

Of course. The guys you see on pics, beating the "whiteys", are indeed sub-proletarians from the suburbs. While the guys on the floor are sons of the little bourgeoisie for the most part.

And how do we know that? Sounds like you are 'racially profiling' them as 'sub-proletarians from the suburbs' and racially profiling the victims as 'sons of the little bourgeoisie' :D

You have zero evidence..

There's a search function on the forum, so we don't have to repeat ourselves. If you can't figure out to work it, here's some stuff to pore over:

http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.pdf

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx

http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/050424_freakonomics.htm

On the other hand, throughout 800+ posts we have yet to see you produce a single source to back up any of your bluster.

Mesrine

10-31-2009, 01:31 AM

And how do we know that?

Very simple: by living near where it happened.

Al-Frankawi: check

SwordoftheVistula (who doesn't live anyway near the Vistula, BTW): *bump*

Sounds like you are 'racially profiling' them as 'sub-proletarians from the suburbs' and racially profiling the victims as 'sons of the little bourgeoisie' :D

"Sociologically profiling" would be more accurate. You're monomaniac. :D

There's a search function on the forum, so we don't have to repeat ourselves. If you can't figure out to work it, here's some stuff to pore over

^ You missed the point. This forum's threads are not a valid source of information, get fucking real.

On the other hand, throughout 800+ posts we have yet to see you produce a single source to back up any of your bluster.

I did, you just won't listen. BTW, you never backed up any of your delirious claims.

SwordoftheVistula

10-31-2009, 01:35 AM

This forum's threads are not a valid source of information, get fucking real.

Many of them post links to valuable sources of information. Absolutely zero of your posts do.

Mesrine

10-31-2009, 01:37 AM

Many of them post links to valuable sources of information.

No they don't.

Absolutely zero of your posts do.

Yes, but you don't read French.

Loxias

10-31-2009, 01:38 AM

From my experience :
I personally never got attacked, and never had any trouble, because I don't dress with expensive clothes, and yeah, I don't look like a bourgeois wanker like most inner Paris high schoolers do.
But the fact is, they would never attack a black or maghrebi rich kid (unless they know he is a Jew), and in these situation you will often hear racially charged insults coming from them "dirty frenchman" "dirty white" "dirty babtou" (babtou is a reward form of toubab which means white guy in arabic).
While I think it's mainly an expression of class difference, it does take racial attributes, and the worst side is that some people are pushing them into it telling them they are only avenging colonisation (Indigènes de la République, Kemi Seba...) and are using them to demonstrate their view that France needs more multiculturalism for this to stop.

Mesrine

10-31-2009, 01:48 AM

While I think it's mainly an expression of class difference

Glad you acknowledge it.

it does take racial attributes

I acknowledge it. I'm not naive.

and the worst side is that some people are pushing them into it telling them they are only avenging colonisation (Indigènes de la République, Kemi Seba...)

The indigènes de la République are representing nothing outside of themselves, whatever they say. Kemi Seba evolved considerably in the last years (like Dieudonné, in a way), he stopped attacking "white" French. I think his ideas are still under construction, don't forget he's a young man.

and are using them to demonstrate their view that France needs more multiculturalism for this to stop.

Good. Now you'll need to go one step further and have to ask another question: who has interest in promoting communautarism, and the division of what once was the national community? Certainly not the people who constitute these so-called communities.

Loxias

10-31-2009, 01:52 AM

Good. Now you'll need to go one step further and have to ask another question: who has interest in promoting communautarism, and the division of what once was the national community? Certainly not the people who constitute these so-called communities.

<stormfront>The Jews!!!</stormfront>
<conspiracy theorist>masonic illuminati and reptilians!!!</conspiracy theorist>

TBH, I have no idea...

Mesrine

10-31-2009, 01:56 AM

<stormfront>The Jews!!!</stormfront>
<conspiracy theorist>masonic illuminati and reptilians!!!</conspiracy theorist>

TBH, I have no idea...

I'm not sure either, but most likely people who want to weaken nation-states, in order to favour ultra-liberal globalism (le monde de la marchandise). And please, no "Jews" or "Masons", let's be serious. ;)

Anthropos

10-31-2009, 09:42 AM

Now you'll need to go one step further and have to ask another question: who has interest in promoting communautarism, and the division of what once was the national community? Certainly not the people who constitute these so-called communities.

I assume that it is communitarianism that you are talking about. No way am I advocating that such a thing should be launched at the expence of tax payers for the sake of 'common good' or anything like that, but there are several things to consider, in my opinion. For one, the fact that the organisation of European peoples were certainly more communitarian than national during most of their history: Nationalism is but a recent trend. Second, we have the combined effects of modernity and denationalisation to deal with. The enthusiasm about nationhood is weak - with the majority it is entirely lost - and where it is growing, it is not under the wings of tradition. What we see is not unlike that time when "the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." (Alas!) I think that alternative, informal and apolitical strategies can be used, and that a greater potential for a restored civilisation lies exactly there.

Loxias

10-31-2009, 09:45 AM

Very good analysis, Anthropos. But what are those informal apolitical strategies you propose?

Anthropos

10-31-2009, 10:45 AM

Very good analysis, Anthropos. But what are those informal apolitical strategies you propose?

I don't propose anything in particular, really. I think that it comes down to actually trying to think local and act local, although not by way of appealing to the local 'authorities' or any other bureau that is likely to turn your initiative into shit. If you can form some kind of group and stick together with it, I think that's great, and when speaking of forming a group, I am again thinking in informal terms, and not of an official group. One of the main obstacles is the modern mentality, individualism and the idea that one has enough of one's own problems as well as of one's own assets and 'rights', and the idea that staying like that one has open doors everywhere. I don't think that this type of society is going to last. It's already showing, and it's showing also in a lower quality of life, by which I am not just intending the current crisis and the 'standard of living', but even more so the truly qualitative aspects of life. We have lost a great deal of community, and I don't think that the state is going to give it back to us. I just don't think that the national organisation of life is capable of that. It may sound self-evident, but looking around I see that it is not. So many people put their trust in a political organisation of some kind (whether the prevailing order or something else), and most of those who don't are simply individuals who 'don't care'.

Loxias

10-31-2009, 11:08 AM

So, again, what should those team do? Do you think of groups of people dedicated to protecting others for instance?

Anthropos

10-31-2009, 11:20 AM

So, again, what should those team do? Do you think of groups of people dedicated to protecting others for instance?

That is part of it, yes. Also, it would be great if the 'group' or network, or whatever to call it, is big and prosperous enough to help provide opportunities for work etc. The possibilities are really unlimited, given that you do not register your group and its activities anywhere. The idea is something like an extension of a well functioning family background, although I do not intend that such a background is necessary for someone to be a part of the network.

Loddfafner

10-31-2009, 03:45 PM

Who has interest in promoting communautarism, and the division of what once was the national community? Certainly not the people who constitute these so-called communities.

Are your referring to the argument that racial and ethnic conflicts are deliberately fostered by the ruling class in order to prevent them from uniting against the system that exploits them? There is some data to support that. I've seen, but can't find at the moment, a study that found a correlation between regions with low wages and high levels of racial polarization in the US. In some states, prison administration encourages racially-based gangs so that the inmates are too caught up in each other's drama to bother the guards. I recall an article about how a pork-processing factory in North Carolina very blatantly pitted whites, blacks, and mexicans against each other in order to stop efforts at unionization.

But consider that there may be other and better explanations for all of those cases. And consider that maybe antiracism has become a much more effective tool in demobilizing the working class. I recall a recent study of how people in multiracial neighborhoods withdraw like turtles from community activity. Criminalization of white European identities reduces the capacity of communities to maintain the kind of solidarity that makes a long-term strike effective.

In effect, working classes of different ethnicities compete with each other. If the bourgeoisie becomes dissatisfied with its indigenous working class, they can replace it with another from Africa or Turkey or Mexico. Now you not only have a class system, but a racially-marked caste structure. Is that the outcome you desire?

Meanwhile, you can smugly dismiss the cultural effects of the desperation of the now redundant old working class as markers of "white trash". Is that the proper attitude for a progressive, enlightened individual?

Mesrine

10-31-2009, 08:03 PM

Are your referring to the argument that racial and ethnic conflicts are deliberately fostered by the ruling class in order to prevent them from uniting against the system that exploits them? There is some data to support that. I've seen, but can't find at the moment, a study that found a correlation between regions with low wages and high levels of racial polarization in the US. In some states, prison administration encourages racially-based gangs so that the inmates are too caught up in each other's drama to bother the guards. I recall an article about how a pork-processing factory in North Carolina very blatantly pitted whites, blacks, and mexicans against each other in order to stop efforts at unionization.

You perfectly got my point.

Criminalization of white European identities reduces the capacity of communities to maintain the kind of solidarity that makes a long-term strike effective.

I certainly don't want to criminalize it, but don't count on me to encourage communautarism (especially of ethno-racial nature), it totally goes against my values.

In effect, working classes of different ethnicities compete with each other. If the bourgeoisie becomes dissatisfied with its indigenous working class, they can replace it with another from Africa or Turkey or Mexico. Now you not only have a class system, but a racially-marked caste structure. Is that the outcome you desire?

Certainly not, and I never advocated mass immigration (that's why I always ask people who accuse me to quote me on that, because I never said it). For socio-economical reasons, I even oppose it.

But now that the generation of grandsons of those immigrants (who came with brooms and screwdrivers, and not swords and axes, invited by the capitalist right), are a sizeable reality of our countries, I chose to face reality, like the majority of my compatriots, luckily.

Meanwhile, you can smugly dismiss the cultural effects of the desperation of the now redundant old working class as markers of "white trash".

I only dismiss nonsensical "let's strip them of the nationality, let's kick them out, Reconquista!" talk. Only a tiny minority calls for this anyway, the vast majority is much more down to earth.

No one wants to do a Reconquista, and better so, I doubt the result would the one that was expected.

Is that the proper attitude for a progressive, enlightened individual?

A progressive individual can't support the chimeric positions of some extremists. The vast majority of the old working class you were talking about certainly doesn't support it either, and only wants a good job, and to live in peace.

Loddfafner

10-31-2009, 08:22 PM

I never advocated mass immigration (that's why I always ask people who accuse me to quote me on that, because I never said it). For socio-economical reasons, I even oppose it.

What are those socio-economic reasons, and what form and effect can opposition to mass immigration have?

The vast majority of the old working class you were talking about certainly doesn't support it either, and only wants a good job, and to live in peace.

What if the labor market has been flooded? What if they can't live in peace because, in the only neighborhood they can afford thanks to the competition for labor, their kids bikes keep getting stolen, and by pure coincidence, he thieves happen to be Moroccan?

Mesrine

10-31-2009, 08:37 PM

What are those socio-economic reasons

The protection of national worker's rights and standards of living. But it's too late, massive immigration took place in the 60-70's, this is not pertinent anymore. Today's immigration (in France) is at 95% the result of family reunification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_reunification), wich is nonsensical.

and what form and effect can opposition to mass immigration have?

Voting massively for a party that will freeze family reunification once elected? But we're not heading this way, the people who decide for this country don't want this.

What if the labor market has been flooded?

Mostly by clandestine immigrants in the last years. There's no massive legal working imigration these days in my country.

What if they can't live in peace because, in the only neighborhood they can afford thanks to the competition for labor, their kids bikes keep getting stolen, and by pure coincidence, he thieves happen to be Moroccan?

Except delinquants, criminals, and a part of the suburbian youth, everyone wants the return of the order of law. Very few people actually enjoy living in such conditions, believe me.

Loddfafner

10-31-2009, 09:37 PM

Mostly by clandestine immigrants in the last years. There's no massive legal working imigration these days in my country.

Perhaps in France the major wave of legal, extra-continental immigration was a few decades ago but I understand the situation in Britain is different in that a wave of such immigration is recent and ongoing, and those most economically vulnerable now must live in an increasingly hostile environment.

As for clandestine immigration, surely your view is not so limited to the legal and overt? Much of the clandestine immigration is aided and abetted by employers with the cooperation of governments. Employers especially like illegals because their legal vulnerability makes them more docile and willing to put up with whatever shit the employers throw at them. The government only needs to make an occasional bust to keep up appearances.

In America, Tyson foods, a major producer of packaged chicken bits, was caught importing Mexicans to places like Iowa in large numbers. They were charged but their lawyers saved them with technicalities. Democratic leaders like immigration because they expect the newcomers to vote for them, while Republicans like it because they can milk white resentment for votes.

Mesrine

10-31-2009, 09:41 PM

Perhaps in France the major wave of legal, extra-continental immigration was a few decades ago but I understand the situation in Britain is different in that a wave of such immigration is recent and ongoing, and those most economically vulnerable now must live in an increasingly hostile environment.

True.

As for clandestine immigration, surely your view is not so limited to the legal and overt? Much of the clandestine immigration is aided and abetted by employers with the cooperation of governments. Employers especially like illegals because their legal vulnerability makes them more docile and willing to put up with whatever shit the employers throw at them. The government only needs to make an occasional bust to keep up appearances.

Totally agreed. The French gvt as ridiculously low and symbolic goal number of expulsion of clandestines: 25 000 per year. A drop in the bucket, and the gvt doesn't even manage to reach it.

Ankoù

11-01-2009, 09:31 AM

You mistake a social class conscience for a racial one. I see sub-proletarians beating the crap out of little bourgeois.

My grand-parents were sailors, miners and farmers. Very hard work to gain less than bourgeois and they never attacked bourgeois.
The letists always had found excuses to hide the racial/ethnic fact.

Luern

11-01-2009, 05:51 PM

You mistake a social class conscience for a racial one. I see sub-proletarians beating the crap out of little bourgeois.

I can see anything revolves around a social warfare scheme for you. And still you say you are not a communist.

The perfect victim in France is between 14 and 24 years old (French and male). When you know that youngsters use the same "dress codes", you have to wonder how those blacks and Arabs spot the "little bourgeois" from a distance. Take the Techno parade in Paris, people looked alike there. What looks more similar to a Technohead than another one?

Indeed, what makes those Arabs and Blacks so sure their victims are well-off? How do you think they choose their victims? Maybe the fact they are simply "whites" is enough, hmm?

Plus, your so called "sub-proletarians" refer to their victims as "whites", or various derogatory terms for "white", or simply French, not as bourgeois.

Little bourgeous living in the inner cities happen to be mostly "white", sub-proletarians living in the banlieues happen to be mostly Maghrebian and SSA. You mistake a secondary element for the primary one.

Come on now. The 70's are well over. How many of them are actually workers? How many of them work in a factory? How many of them know what production line work is? How many of them even work? How many of them come from genuine "proletarian" families?

The cause of it is not social. Those populations are not poor. Those boys we see on the pics are not in rags. They do not have to struggle to eat and survive. Their living condition in France is a thousand time superior to the one of their fellows living in Africa.