Napoleon Bonaparte Belonged To Haplogroup E1b1b1c1* (E-M34*)

[Nglund]

A previous paper on his mtDNA which was H. A previous study found that Hitler also belonged to haplogroup E1b1b. So, expect plenty of war and mayhem if a new European leader emerges with a haplogroup E1b1b chromosome -- and, yes, I'm joking.

Source. (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/01/napoleon-bonaparte-belonged-to.html)

Hahaha, Loki's gonna be proud of his haplogroup here :D

[Beorn]

So Napolean was also a Jew, just like Hitler. ROFLOMGLOL!!!!!!!!1111

[The Alchemist]

To be honest i never supported him, he was such an arrogant and boring character, i dislike him :cool:

[Loki]

I am somewhat different - E1b1b1a2 - part of M78 (E-V13). This is the one associated with ancient Greek expansion.

[Albion]

I wonder if there's a pattern with E1b1 and evil geniuses. ;)

[The Alchemist]

Napoleon is insufferable!!!!!! :D At least i can say my opinion about him, coz so many people glorify him as one of the best leader ever, but for me he's just a plain and unuseful character.

[Loki]

Napoleon made the same mistake as Hitler - by underestimating Russia.

Napoleon's Grande Armee (aided by Prussia and several other powers) of 450,000 was routed by only 200,000 Russians.

It seems America is making the same mistake - people never learn. :)

[The Alchemist]

These people lacked in humbleness, and they payed a right price for it :rolleyes:

[Flintlocke]

So he was Albanian.

[Mordid]

So he was Albanian.
*Ushtari mode on* Loki = ubermensch. *Ushtari mode off*

[Logan]

Napoleon made the same mistake as Hitler - by underestimating Russia.

Napoleon's Grande Armee (aided by Prussia and several other powers) of 450,000 was routed by only 200,000 Russians.

It seems America is making the same mistake - people never learn. :)

Hummm. I do not see it so. They would have surcomed to the Germans in in the second as in the first great twentieth century war, had it not been for American aid. Patton amongst others were more as you say, but were rejected. ;)

[Flintlocke]

More European territory than any other time conquered by the French. What a disgrace :rolleyes:

[Agrippa]

E1b1b1c1 is not "as European" as V-13, but could still be quite old in Europe, might have come with very ancient migrations, possibly the Phoenicians.

In any case, it doesn't prove, with any certainty and further analyses, Jewish ancestry.

Napoleon was like Hitler, not right in many respects, but for sure not worse than many of the contemporary leaders.

They simply tried to challenge the English-Plutocratic predominance and promote an alternative system, both being met by the resistance of almost all of the rest of Europe, incited by the British, and the British schemers and spies won the wars, also because the mistakes they made themselves, obviously.

[Unurautare]

Source. (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/01/napoleon-bonaparte-belonged-to.html)

Hahaha, Loki's gonna be proud of his haplogroup here :D

Another bs so the non-whites can wag their tails and the site can get publicity. :coffee:

[Logan]

E1b1b1c1 is not "as European" as V-13, but could still be quite old in Europe, might have come with very ancient migrations, possibly the Phoenicians.

In any case, it doesn't prove, with any certainty and further analyses, Jewish ancestry.

Napoleon was like Hitler, not right in many respects, but for sure not worse than many of the contemporary leaders.

They simply tried to challenge the English-Plutocratic predominance and promote an alternative system, both being met by the resistance of almost all of the rest of Europe, incited by the British, and the British schemers and spies won the wars, also because the mistakes they made themselves, obviously.

Perhaps, the mistake of trying to subjugate Europe. A possibility. I think the British and formal colonies were but a part.

[Peyrol]

Source. (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/01/napoleon-bonaparte-belonged-to.html)

Hahaha, Loki's gonna be proud of his haplogroup here :D

Napoleone was of tuscan heritage (maybe he had etrurian blood) , not surprising.

[Agrippa]

Perhaps, the mistake of trying to subjugate Europe. A possibility. I think the British and formal colonies were but a part.

The British schemers forced Napoleon to attack various nations and made up the wars - you can never ignore the polticial and "informal" networks in the background and the British were always very good at that, from their "relatively secure island"...

But to explain that to the full extend would mean a very long debate about Napoleonic history, too much... :thumb001:

[Logan]

The British schemers forced Napoleon to attack various nations and made up the wars - you can never ignore the polticial and "informal" networks in the background and the British were always very good at that, from their "relatively secure island"...

But to explain that to the full extend would mean a very long debate about Napoleonic history, too much... :thumb001:

Agreed. ;) We might well at that time begin with, 'The British schemers'. :D

[Joe McCarthy]

Napoleon made the same mistake as Hitler - by underestimating Russia.

Napoleon's Grande Armee (aided by Prussia and several other powers) of 450,000 was routed by only 200,000 Russians.

It seems America is making the same mistake - people never learn. :)

Needless to say, it's very hard to envision the US waging an aggressive war against Russia, but if it did it'd have much less ground to cover than Hitler, Napoleon, or even Charles XII and there'd be much less opportunity for Russia's real asset, General Winter, to kick in.

[Libertas]

Well, there's a site on the net which claims Napoleon was actually of Albanian origin!

LINK: www.illyrians.org/napoleon.html

[Peyrol]

Well, there's a site on the net which claims Napoleon was actually of Albanian origin!

LINK: www.illyrians.org/napoleon.html

There also some sites that claim for Marco Polo, Dante Alighieri and Cristoforo Colombo a croatian origin :laugh:

[Albion]

E1b1b1c1 is not "as European" as V-13, but could still be quite old in Europe, might have come with very ancient migrations, possibly the Phoenicians.

In any case, it doesn't prove, with any certainty and further analyses, Jewish ancestry.

Napoleon was like Hitler, not right in many respects, but for sure not worse than many of the contemporary leaders.

They simply tried to challenge the English-Plutocratic predominance and promote an alternative system, both being met by the resistance of almost all of the rest of Europe, incited by the British, and the British schemers and spies won the wars, also because the mistakes they made themselves, obviously.

Yeah, yeah... blame the Anglos like usual because they prevented some egoistic tyrant from bringing a continent under French rule.

I love this mindset - always backing the looser, the whole underdog camaraderie.

Meanwhile in the real world most people would prefer at least some form of self government.
Domination by a single entity is more open to subversion than rule by many smaller entities, so your support for Napoleon is almost contradictory.
In simple terms it would be easier for Jews or other subversive elements to install puppets in the French Empire and its vassals than it would be for them to do so in many individual countries.

No doubt you'll claim that Britain was dominated by Jews whilst Napoleonic France wasn't, but history has taught us that they tend to be very mobile and move to whichever countries suit them best.
And what would suit your evil Jews better than a large, wealthy empire?
Whether there were resistance or not, the Jews would have arrived to run things sooner or latter with help from the shackles imposed by Napoleon.

Stop living by alternative histories and fantasies please. :coffee:

[Osweo]

Domination by a single entity is more open to subversion than rule by many smaller entities, so your support for Napoleon is almost contradictory.
In theory. But many are unable to get their heads round the subtle idea that lots of small 'sovereign' states are quite satisfactorily manipulable by means FAR more powerful than the good old fashioned bayonet or jackboot.


And what would suit your evil Jews better than a large, wealthy empire?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gm64b5bD8Og/R3avvbDWoKI/AAAAAAAAA_8/3HNEYYsOgsU/s400/medium_us_uk_shields.jpg
http://www.operatorchan.org/t/arch/src/t184867_Anglosphere.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_uFv4mPqYkgQ/SH14NrCilyI/AAAAAAAAASc/bX4_9qf2ePA/S1600-R/AnglosphereConsortFINbb.jpg

;)

(Honestly though, Agrippa isn't one of the crude Jew-baiters you characterise him as. He's pointed out the wider nature of the plutocratic elite many a time. I suppose he should stick to simpler soundbites, in this day and age of poor education, though. :( )

[Albion]

In theory. But many are unable to get their heads round the subtle idea that lots of small 'sovereign' states are quite satisfactorily manipulable by means FAR more powerful than the good old fashioned bayonet or jackboot.

Yes, that is what I was writing about above. What made you think I was talking about invasions?
A hierarchy with a relatively strong position of power at the top is more easy to manipulate because the authority is relatively centralised.

By its very nature the "Napoleonic Empire" passed power to the few. Basically any future ruler would be vulnerable to subversive influences and corruption. Why are Agrippa and yourself writing as if a stronger state equals an incorruptible entity?
If anything it makes it easier and more open to it. You gave an example yourself. I love this little game people play, they like to pretend that things would have been different. :lightbul:

You'll play on the old British phrase of 'Divide and conquer' when discussing small states compared to large ones, but this largely applies to warfare only.
If you divide nations politically what do you achieve? Instability quite often. This can be used to weaken a region or country but it also makes it harder to gain access to the polity of the individual countries as they splinter into lots of little factions.




http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gm64b5bD8Og/R3avvbDWoKI/AAAAAAAAA_8/3HNEYYsOgsU/s400/medium_us_uk_shields.jpg
http://www.operatorchan.org/t/arch/src/t184867_Anglosphere.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_uFv4mPqYkgQ/SH14NrCilyI/AAAAAAAAASc/bX4_9qf2ePA/S1600-R/AnglosphereConsortFINbb.jpg

;)

This is a good example. We all know there were at least a few dodgy things going on in the British Empire such as the Rothschilds and Africa and that the same tactics have been used in America.
But as of yet I'am waiting to hear why everyone seems to think that France is some beacon of unacceptability. Control in some form or another over the most powerful continent in the world would never have been a good idea, you may as well send an invitation to the "subversives" and welcome them in.

Thanks for the flag by the way.


(Honestly though, Agrippa isn't one of the crude Jew-baiters you characterise him as. He's pointed out the wider nature of the plutocratic elite many a time. I suppose he should stick to simpler soundbites, in this day and age of poor education, though. :( )

I think he is, doesn't anyone ever get sick of hearing about the damn Jews on here and other preservationist sites? It is quite obvious that there's many Jews in high places and many are crooks, but why do they have to be mentioned in every other topic?

Educate me Osweo, save me from this peanut of a brain o'mighty intellectual! :rolleyes:

As for poor education, well so far you've just recycled what Agrippa has said without showing any signs of really thinking it through. You've jumped to the conclusion that what has been written by myself must be the ravings of some poor, indoctrinated Anglophile.
I'am actually quite negative towards a great deal of things associated with your stereotypical Anglophiles and I don't like sheep mentalities.

Funny isn't it though? To downplay a counter argument you resort to baseless ridicule by speaking of poor education standards. This from someone who speaks of the plight of the working classes on other threads whilst showing himself to be some sort of elitist. Something about it seems wrong. ;)
But I agree, I felt unfulfilled when I was at school with the same tired curriculum repeated weekly like some broken record. In the end I probably learned more from reading in regards to some subjects than from the actual classes themselves.
I hate pretentiousness, there's already too many people up their own arses around here already.


In summary I believe that a lot of people on here would have us all swap one master for another - Nazis, Russophiles, Sinophiles and the rest. We can be "free" if we work with said blocs apparently, we won't be some lackey to the States. Oh how I wish I could be a dreamer like them.

[Joe McCarthy]

Kinda weird if you ask me that Napoleon, the guy that emancipated Jews (an act that got him called the anti-Christ by the Tsar), gets portrayed as the guy standing up to j00z. In the Britain of the day we had Jew haters like Lord Liverpool and Jews couldn't so much as hold seats in the Commons.

I guess though if you're a German butthurt about losing a couple of world wars bashing the Anglos is a kind of career. ;)

[Aces High]

Needless to say, it's very hard to envision the US waging an aggressive war against Russia, but if it did it'd have much less ground to cover than Hitler, Napoleon, or even Charles XII and there'd be much less opportunity for Russia's real asset, General Winter, to kick in.

The Taliban dont have a general winter to help them but they beat the shit out of the US and the coalition of the goyim....erm willing.

The Russian would beat you with a partisan war just like evryone else has done.

[Joe McCarthy]

The Taliban dont have a general winter to help them but they beat the shit out of the US and the coalition of the goyim....erm willing.

The Russian would beat you with a partisan war just like evryone else has done.

In conventional combat the Taliban was annihilated in weeks. They were essentially dormant even as a guerilla force until 2004-2006.

I guess if you call hit, run, hide in a cave, and lose far more than you kill kicking ass, the Taliban are some real asskickers though.

[Aces High]

In conventional combat the Taliban was annihilated in weeks.

No they werent...they went home to think things out and watch.

Then when they figured out how to beat the US they came back and took control.
They bent with the force and used it against you.

Conventional warfare is soooooooo yesterday.

[Joe McCarthy]

In summary I believe that a lot of people on here would have us all swap one master for another - Nazis, Russophiles, Sinophiles and the rest. We can be "free" if we work with said blocs apparently, we won't be some lackey to the States. Oh how I wish I could be a dreamer like them.

The anti-Americans are dangerously out of touch with reality. If the US is forsaken by Europe it'll be the end of Western Civilization and far from simply going away as they seem to assume, they'll have a highly pissed off America on their hands looking for friends elsewhere. The US has better bargaining chips than anyone and might just opt to divide the world with China in such a case. That's not something any of us should welcome.

[Aces High]

The anti-Americans

The anti Americans are your own politicians who do nothing about mass latino immigration and spend the hard earned taxpayers money to fight jew wars......which are in no way in the interests of the US.

[Agrippa]

You know the difference between Napoleon and the British Empire? The British Empire was, at that time, already corrupted and totally Plutocratic. Not from the top to the lowest level, but in its essence. Little changed afterwards, only some dynasties being replaced and some Jewish ones managed to get even more powerful, like the worst of them, the Rothschilds, which became rich by manipulating the British markets and essentially, helping the British to win the war as well.

That means to me, Napoleons France might have been corrupted too, yes, but it WAS NOT AT THAT TIME to the same degree, so if I have to choose between one power being already infected, the disease broke out and begins to weaken all its healthy parts, and another one which MIGHT BE infected at some later time, what do you think I will choose?

Also, I'm not all that fond of Napoleon in every respect, he made many mistakes himself and was not exactly "a friend of the Germans" with his policy. But he made a lot of good things too, and the French spread some forms of true progress as well, with his efforts, as destructive and painful they were.

As for the Plutocratic problem in detail, it is nice to have an illustration for French vs. British in this respect, because:

[It is necessary to] reduce, if not destroy, the tendency of Jewish people to practice a very great number of activities that are harmful to civilisation and to public order in society in all the countries of the world. It is necessary to stop the harm by preventing it; to prevent it it is necessary to change the Jews. [...] Once part of their youth will take its place in our armies, they will cease to have Jewish interests and sentiments; their interests and sentiments will be French.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_and_the_Jews

At least no multicultural crap, but while we can discuss about that, and like Osweo said, I'm truly no radical Anti-Semite of any sort, I go for specific problems rather, whether they are Jewish or not, this is even more important:


"When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes... Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain."
Napoleon Bonaparte, 1815

This attitude also explains why he both sold American territories and gained independence from the Plutocracy at the same time:

In 1803, instead of borrowing from the bank, Napoleon sold territory west of the Mississippi to the 3rd President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson for 3 million dollars in gold; a deal known as the Louisiana Purchase.



Four years later, with the main French army in Russia, Nathan Rothschild took charge of a bold plan to smuggle a shipment of gold through France to finance an attack from Spain by the Duke of Wellington.


With 74,000 French troops led by Napoleon, sizing up to meet 67,000 British and other European Troops 200 miles NE of Paris on June 18th 1815, it was a difficult one to call. Back in London, the real potential winner, Nathan Rothschild, was poised to strike in a bold plan to take control of the British stock market, the bond market, and possibly even the Bank of England.

Nathan, knowing that information is power, stationed his trusted agent named Rothworth near the battle field.

As soon as the battle was over Rothworth quickly returned to London, delivering the news to Rothschild 24 hours ahead of Wellington's courier.

A victory by Napoleon would have devastated Britain's financial system. Nathan stationed himself in his usual place next to an ancient pillar in the stock market.

This powerful man was not without observers as he hung his head, and began openly to sell huge numbers of British Government Bonds.

Reading this to mean that Napoleon must have won, everyone started to sell their British Bonds as well.

The bottom fell out of the market until you couldn't hardly give them away. Meanwhile Rothschild began to secretly buy up all the hugely devalued bonds at a fraction of what they were worth a few hours before.

In this way Nathan Rothschild captured more in one afternoon than the combined forces of Napoleon and Wellington had captured in their entire lifetime.


http://www.xat.org/xat/moneyhistory.html

If you like, question the source, but I know that many sources qualify those informations as true.

What a difference in comparison to the British Plutocracy, in which the control of the bankers became "the natural order of things" and they being even more praised than the best sons of the English aristocracy in the time to come...

[Logan]

A bit futher off topic. :D

It was the Roman Republic that made Rome, not the Empire began by Octavian. A choice of systems.

I'm not an historian, but I think there is in the question a correlation with this older civilization. Regardless of the system there are many problems which might be compaired and debated. I think the larger ones to be more important. Does not seem an unlike compairison to me.

Marcus Tullius Cicero might make some interesting contributions to this discussion. ;) Marcus Aurelius was singular as was Alfred the Great. Napoleon had little in common either.

[Curtis24]

So what was the old "invade Russia" thing about?

[Logan]

Napoleon made the same mistake as Hitler - by underestimating Russia.

Napoleon's Grande Armee (aided by Prussia and several other powers) of 450,000 was routed by only 200,000 Russians.

It seems America is making the same mistake - people never learn. :)


So what was the old "invade Russia" thing about?

An intended correlation between two Emperors, and a Republic. :D

[Agrippa]

So what was the old "invade Russia" thing about?

If you have the British island on the one hand and the Russian lands on the other, you are in a strategic grip, both from the military, as well as economical point of view.

And even if England and Russia were not always nice to each other, they were far enough away to ally up, more than once, against any potential continental power.

Now the British were "on their island" and had their fleet, which made them always a huge problem for continental powers, the same was true for Russia because of its huge size and climate.

So we talk about "powers at the fringes", which had a great "natural protection" and could profit from their position, as well available strategic position and ressources.

It is easy to see, that if this "fringe position" and "natural protection" wouldn't have been present, the course of history would have been completely different.

But so every aspiring candidate for the continental domination had to fight the other strong European continental powers and those fringe powers too, which were so difficult to conquer, because of their position.

This, usually, overloaded the ressources of a single nation, as good as it was, as good as it was organised, sooner or later.

That way, the British schemers could keep Europe divided, which they couldn't conquer themselves, which they probably learned from the 100 years war already, I guess, but could, as a mercantile power and tip the scales...

So they could, by always intervening if something went against their interests, which became more and more identical with the Plutocratic interests, direct where Europe was heading too - from the fringe position.

And Russia was a helpful ally on many occasions - while they fought them too, if they crossed the line and could have become a fully integrated and more powerful continental power themselves - like in the Crimean Wars, in which the British intervened against the Russians and for the Ottoman Turks.

Anyway, you don't control the continent without Russia and Britain will always be a barb in your back, as long as they stand against you and scheme against you.

But since both failed on Britain (French at sea, Germans in the air), they tried to bring Russia down by getting a harder grip on the whole continent - and they had too as well, because the Eastern fringe power itself forced them to, by acting as a foe.


In 1811 Russian Staff developed a plan of offensive war, assuming a Russian assault on Warsaw and Danzig.

Napoleon himself said:

"Soldiers, the second war of Poland is started; the first finished in Tilsit. In Tilsit, Russia swore eternal alliance in France and war in England. It violates its oaths today. Russia is pulled by its fate; its destinies must be achieved! Does it thus believe us degenerated? Thus let us go ahead; let us pass Neman River, carry the war on its territory. The second war of Poland will be glorious with the French Armies like the first one."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_invasion_of_Russia#Causes

In the background, it was always England and the Anglo-Jewish Plutocracy, even then.

[Logan]

'British schemers.' Something particular to the British? :D

I think you refer more to certain elements within a society. They do exist in others. ;)

[Agrippa]

'British schemers.' Something particular to the British? :D

I think you refer more to certain elements within a society. They do exist in others. ;)

Actually, it is not just meant in a bad way only ;)

Because to put it simply, even if the British had worse technologies or military arms, they always had a great intelligence service and diplomacy, as well as transnational propaganda.

Strangely enough, how they failed so horribly in America, but in Europe, I can just point it out, they were always very good in such matters.

I mean when Germany had much better armies and greater forces, its intelligence was still - meagre.

Point is, the British always knew how important those aspects of a warfare or generally conflict are, they invested great ressources into it and had, with their "mercantile tradition" of a more false, dishonest, opportunistic and scheming mind of the chafferers, similar to the Jews, a completely different view on many issues than the still "more traditional" Europeans with their ideas of honour and glory, which couldn't be measured in money.

Yes, it is not specific to the English, but it is more specific for the English than for other nations North of the Alps in particular, where this "lying chafferer" was not exactly something well accepted...

This leads us back to the "special character of the English", also based on the Norman conquest and Calvinist influences, among other things. Compare:

Calvinists and Jews:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33066

Thread about this tendencies in Jews:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16079

Opinion of the British Empire:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21808

[Logan]

How about 'British Intelligence' instead? Made quite an impact in The Second World War. ;)

http://clutch.open.ac.uk/schools/emerson00/home.html

[Curtis24]

Interesting. I've heard it said, that the reason Europe has had so many frequent wars, is because of the geographic existence if Britain. Nobody could conquer Britain, so no power could unite Europe. Otherwise Europe would have been made into a giant empire long ago.

[Agrippa]

Interesting. I've heard it said, that the reason Europe has had so many frequent wars, is because of the geographic existence if Britain. Nobody could conquer Britain, so no power could unite Europe. Otherwise Europe would have been made into a giant empire long ago.

In my opinion, that's certainly true. And the British always knew, that to keep their own position, they had to keep Europe weak, to say it directly.

[Ushtari]

Good to see another Alboh übermenschen

[Logan]

In my opinion, that's certainly true. And the British always knew, that to keep their own position, they had to keep Europe weak, to say it directly.

So you accuse the British of being Bismarkian. :D I think it less planned, but much better put, in responce to aggression. Continential countries had their own particular agendas and rights as well.

[Agrippa]

So you accuse the British of being Bismarkian. :D I think it less planned, but much better put, in responce to aggression. Continential countries had their own particular agendas and rights as well.

Sure, but the British had more of a "continuity" in this respect, and influenced the course of history, in that way described, the most.

[Peyrol]

Interesting. I've heard it said, that the reason Europe has had so many frequent wars, is because of the geographic existence if Britain. Nobody could conquer Britain, so no power could unite Europe. Otherwise Europe would have been made into a giant empire long ago.

Non only for Britain...frequent wars happened for centuries also between italian states (Venice VS Lombardy/Milan, Piemont-Savoie VS Genoa, Florence VS Siena or Pisa, etc), between german states, Spain VS France, etc...

[Damião de Góis]

Napoleon is insufferable!!!!!! :D At least i can say my opinion about him, coz so many people glorify him as one of the best leader ever, but for me he's just a plain and unuseful character.

You can dislike him all you want, but to call him unuseful and not one of the beast leaders ever is kind of funny, since we're talking about a man who brought Europe on its knees, alone:

http://www.theotherside.co.uk/tm-heritage/images/map-nap-war1812.gif

[Peyrol]

You can dislike him all you want, but to call him unuseful and not one of the beast leaders ever is kind of funny, since we're talking about a man who brought Europe on its knees, alone:

http://www.theotherside.co.uk/tm-heritage/images/map-nap-war1812.gif


:D

O_v2wc_neIo

[Aces High]

Ahhhhh......perfidious albion.:cool:

[Logan]

Not expected from Portugal. :confused: Most French upon the Russian venture would disagree, amongst many others. ;)

[Peyrol]

Ahhhhh......perfidious albion.:cool:

"..Albione, la dea della Sterlina...s'ostina, vuol sempre aver ragione..." (citaz. Mussolini)

[Damião de Góis]

Not expected from Portugal. :confused: Most French upon the Russian venture would disagree, amongst many others. ;)

What do you mean? My opinion that Napoleon was a briliant military leader?

[Joe McCarthy]

Napoleon was one of the greatest military men ever. No doubt. However, he had a lot of advantages. France was the strongest power on the Continent, he had unified command against squabbling, often disorganized opponents, and he was riding the wave of French Revolutionary dynamism.

[Logan]

What do you mean? My opinion that Napoleon was a briliant military leader?

He had his moments to be sure. :D No, more this bit to do with the Kingdom of Portugal:
http://img3.ranker.com/list_img/1/299087/full/a-list-of-the-napoleonic-wars-battles-involving-kingdom-of-portugal.jpg?version=1292516383000

http://www.napoleon-series.org/images/military/maps/Portuguese/NorthernPortugal.JPG


http://www.peninsularwar.org/penwar_e.htm

[Damião de Góis]

He had his moments to be sure. :D No, more this bit to do with the Kingdom of Portugal:


We got invaded because we turned down Napoleon's order to close all European ports to block England. Since we were supposed to be England's ally we didn't comply and provoked an invasion, which Spain took advantage and signed a treaty to divide Portugal between themselves and France. Once the french armies were in Spain, they decided to invade Spain as well :D

The peninsular war lasted for 7 years and in the middle of it Napoleon tried to invade Russia, as well as other european campaings. Maybe he underestimated a lot of people, but i don't take anything away from him as far as what he accomplished and how he made France rise.

[Albion]

Interesting. I've heard it said, that the reason Europe has had so many frequent wars, is because of the geographic existence if Britain. Nobody could conquer Britain, so no power could unite Europe. Otherwise Europe would have been made into a giant empire long ago.

Yeah... because no one ever resented being ruled by foreign powers and they were all ready to bend over whilst the French or Germans did whatever the hell they pleased.

:rolleyes2:

How long would French Empire had lasted had Russia and Britain been defeated? A century tops in my opinion.


There's no point even replying to what Agrippa has written, what was that Osweo said about him not being some Jewish baiting lunatic?

As Britain declines and perhaps breaks up we'll see how much "better" Europe will undoubtedly become.
I think the public opinion here is that we're sick of close involvement politically with that continent. In the coming decades there may be a swing towards some sort of isolationism, we can only hope.
The sooner we run our own affairs independent of them and leave the rest of Europe to do whatever the hell it wants the better.

[Agrippa]

As Britain declines and perhaps breaks up we'll see how much "better" Europe will undoubtedly become.

You know, if "Britain breaks up", it will be exactly because of the reasons I mentioned, in this and other threads.

At least the British did that to themselves, but unfortunately, they did the same harm to other Europeans as well and that's even worse.

[Albion]

You know, if "Britain breaks up", it will be exactly because of the reasons I mentioned, in this and other threads.

At least the British did that to themselves, but unfortunately, they did the same harm to other Europeans as well and that's even worse.

How is it harm? Don't you believe in Nation-states? Is it not better for each individual ethnicity to govern themselves than to be under the thumb of another?

[Gaztelu]

LOL

Napoleon Bonaparte=Neolithic Wog



Napoleon was one of the greatest military men ever. No doubt. However, he had a lot of advantages. France was the strongest power on the Continent, he had unified command against squabbling, often disorganized opponents, and he was riding the wave of French Revolutionary dynamism.

Fuck Napoleon.

His defeat at Waterloo was well deserved, and the his subsequent imprisonment at Saint Helena was too soft of a punishment for another French* ruler who posed a threat to my country's sovereignty.

He should have been thrown away to some isolated prison in the middle of Australia accompied with no one else but dingos and the hot Australian sun.



*Yes, I know he was a Corsican

[Logan]

You know, if "Britain breaks up", it will be exactly because of the reasons I mentioned, in this and other threads.

At least the British did that to themselves, but unfortunately, they did the same harm to other Europeans as well and that's even worse.

So in brief, what might you imagine the reasons to be?

And is there any sign of it occuring in the more recent unity that occured in Germany?

[Agrippa]

How is it harm? Don't you believe in Nation-states? Is it not better for each individual ethnicity to govern themselves than to be under the thumb of another?

Ethnicities are sociocultural unities, they are there for a purpose and their purpose is to make its members individually, as well as collectively, biologically and culturally successful, furthermore, additionally, helping the species to survive, to develop, to come on a higher level and to a more adaptive stage.

If nation states are better to achieve that, they are better, if they are not better to achieve that, they are worse, simple as that.

A corrupted nation state which achieves nothing, but only hampers good developments, is completely worthless, needs to be reformed, abandoned, substituted, whatever, but in any case it is no value in itself.

What I see is Europeans degenerating and coming under the rule of the corrupting Liberalcapitalism, under the alien or alienated political and spiritual leadership of the Plutocracy and their menials.

Now my main question is, how could that have been prevented and how could a better alternative succeeded, what would have changed the course of history to the better for our future, what would do so in the future.

That are the crucial questions. Whether that's X or Y, this or that model, I deal with that, but mainly for one reason: To analyse and evaluate it accordingly.

Who was better, the French or the British in this respect? Definitely the French at that time, no doubt about that.

But would a French victory have been better for Europeans and mankind? Hard to tell, we will never know. But at least I know one thing for sure: A British victory is for quite some time always a victory for the Plutocracy, so never something to be glad about.


So in brief, what might you imagine the reasons to be?


Cultural (memetic) and biological (genetic) degeneracy, largely caused by the Liberalcapitalist system, the Liberalist and Cultural Marxist ideologies, the mass immigration of non-integrable foreign elements and dysgenic trends inside of the British population, social injustice, poverty and dilapidation - as well, behind the scene, the Plutocratic Oligarchy and their highly dangerous and destructive rule.

[Logan]

I thought all nations were composed of different ethnicities. That problems occured through or because of differences. There is not now, nor ever was there a country any different within Europe.

One of the great things about Britain, which might be seen from even a small historical study, has been their ability to overcome cultural dispairities. To overcome, and to achieve something better than before.

Every form of government will habour similar and particular evils. Mankind little needs biological directions. How many millions of years did it get on well without any?

I suppose we must differ.

[Agrippa]

One of the great things about Britain, which might be seen from even a small historical study, has been their ability to overcome cultural dispairities. To overcome, and to achieve something better than before.

Actually, I can agree with that. But do you know what the English problem was? They made one thing better, but one other thing worse, EVERY FUCKING TIME!

And those behind the scenes always sold the benefit with the harm done, as if it was a necessity, but that was not always the case, but just a strategy to sell the crap of the chafferers and asocial corrupted, alienated aristocracy to the betrayed public.

Now, after all they achieved, the good things being lost or downgraded again, or transferred to other nations, but all the crap, all the degeneracy they accumulated is still there and grows continuously!

This is not just a British problem, but part of the "Western disease", but nowhere it is that clear, nowhere it became that important and influential in its good and bad ways, with the latter destroying everything achieved on the longer run, than in England.

What's particularly despicable: Despite the obvious degeneracy and the harm done, to Europeans, to the world, but foremost the own people too, many Anglos still defend the causes for the sickness as their greatest achievements and would, I'm afraid, in many cases defend it even on the ruins of their people and culture.


Every form of government will habour similar and particular evils. Mankind little needs biological directions. How many millions of years did it get on well without any?

We need a plan and direction indeed, that's why we need to get rid of the sick structures and build up better ones for the future, including humane and modern Eugenic measures, population policy, a solidary social principle and so on...

[Logan]

Then we should work towards a solution to the 'One other thing' made worse. Despicableness and degeneracy granted. It abounds everywhere.

I do not think one can or should eugenic a human population.

[Osweo]

Yes, that is what I was writing about above. What made you think I was talking about invasions?
Er, nothing? :shrug:

A hierarchy with a relatively strong position of power at the top is more easy to manipulate because the authority is relatively centralised.
But apparent devolution or plurality of power in a complicated and mixed system is a cleverer tactic, and that's what we have in Britain and Europe now. The proles never figure out what's going on, then, and even when they do, it's hard to fight the Hydra.

By its very nature the "Napoleonic Empire" passed power to the few. Basically any future ruler would be vulnerable to subversive influences and corruption. Why are Agrippa and yourself writing as if a stronger state equals an incorruptible entity?
I haven't advocated any political programme in this thread, just made a few offhand comments and winks and nudges. Playing Devil's advocate, however, the difference with Napoleon, and the oligarchic money-making of Whiggish Britain, is that Bonapartism at least has some sort of ideology and vision to it, beyond the practical self-enrichment of the clique. 'La Gloire' or whatever, i don't know, I've never looked into French matters much, but there is a difference in feel, that MIGHT have provided for more resilience against the cancer.


If anything it makes it easier and more open to it. You gave an example yourself. I love this little game people play, they like to pretend that things would have been different. :lightbul:
I did nothing of the sort, as I said above. I didn't praise Boney. But I don't like the note of fatalism about it all you might seem to be giving off, here.

I think he is, doesn't anyone ever get sick of hearing about the damn Jews on here and other preservationist sites? It is quite obvious that there's many Jews in high places and many are crooks, but why do they have to be mentioned in every other topic?
Dunno, you brought em up. :shrug:

We are programmed to react to subversive talk with such crude characterisations. We need to recognise this, and free our minds.

As for poor education, well so far you've just recycled what Agrippa has said without showing any signs of really thinking it through. You've jumped to the conclusion that what has been written by myself must be the ravings of some poor, indoctrinated Anglophile.
When we write here, we have a history, and this is taken into account when replying to each other. Your own history in this regard seems to be a blind thanking of Joe, when all Joe ever seems to do is uphold the status quo. Which is killing us, of course.

If I seem to do the same with Agrippa, it is because more often than not, he articulates things that I have myself been thinking and suspecting, with a lot more substance than I myself could dredge up to back it up. In our awful times, shouldn't the discontented be supporting each other?

I'am actually quite negative towards a great deal of things associated with your stereotypical Anglophiles and I don't like sheep mentalities.
Please, show this side more in your posts.


Funny isn't it though? To downplay a counter argument you resort to baseless ridicule by speaking of poor education standards. This from someone who speaks of the plight of the working classes on other threads whilst showing himself to be some sort of elitist. Something about it seems wrong. ;)
But I agree, I felt unfulfilled when I was at school with the same tired curriculum repeated weekly like some broken record. In the end I probably learned more from reading in regards to some subjects than from the actual classes themselves.
I hate pretentiousness, there's already too many people up their own arses around here already.
Whatever. You're the one who did a knee-jerk anti-semite card thing.


and like Osweo said,
http://www.nearestplacetoheaven.co.uk/images/339px-Prince_of_Wales'_feathers_Badge_svg.png:D;)

[safinator]

I bet the next one the list of E haplogroup will be Mussolini.

[poiuytrewq0987]

I wonder how history might have differed if Napoleon chose to attack the Ottoman Empire and ignored Russia. Constantinople was then far more important than Moscow which was some city faraway in some cold wasteland. I think if Napoleon attacked the powerless Ottoman Empire that was by then, ruled by the Sultan's mother and close advisors than himself then Napoleon might have secured vital trade routes to the east. This would have allowed him to encircle and strangle Russia. Russia would eventually lose in a war of attrition.

On an additional note, I believe Napoleon being E3b of a slightly different variation is only more evidence of Macedonian superiority (hey if Albanians and Greeks can play this game, we can too! :D)

[Kernunnos]

Ethnicities are sociocultural unities, they are there for a purpose and their purpose is to make its members individually, as well as collectively, biologically and culturally successful, furthermore, additionally, helping the species to survive, to develop, to come on a higher level and to a more adaptive stage.

If nation states are better to achieve that, they are better, if they are not better to achieve that, they are worse, simple as that.

A corrupted nation state which achieves nothing, but only hampers good developments, is completely worthless, needs to be reformed, abandoned, substituted, whatever, but in any case it is no value in itself.

What I see is Europeans degenerating and coming under the rule of the corrupting Liberalcapitalism, under the alien or alienated political and spiritual leadership of the Plutocracy and their menials.

Now my main question is, how could that have been prevented and how could a better alternative succeeded, what would have changed the course of history to the better for our future, what would do so in the future.

That are the crucial questions. Whether that's X or Y, this or that model, I deal with that, but mainly for one reason: To analyse and evaluate it accordingly.

Who was better, the French or the British in this respect? Definitely the French at that time, no doubt about that.

But would a French victory have been better for Europeans and mankind? Hard to tell, we will never know. But at least I know one thing for sure: A British victory is for quite some time always a victory for the Plutocracy, so never something to be glad about.



Cultural (memetic) and biological (genetic) degeneracy, largely caused by the Liberalcapitalist system, the Liberalist and Cultural Marxist ideologies, the mass immigration of non-integrable foreign elements and dysgenic trends inside of the British population, social injustice, poverty and dilapidation - as well, behind the scene, the Plutocratic Oligarchy and their highly dangerous and destructive rule.

A French victory would have meant the victory of cultural jacobinism all over Europe. A super bureaucratic empire denying the rights of any ethnicity much in the way the EUCCCP does today, but with more tyrannical means.

Furthermore the rapacity of Napoleonic regimes in seizing artwork and money from conquered states would have meant that all subject ethnicities would have been deprived of their heritage under any sense in favour of the sole Paris. France would have shone while the rest of the vanquished europe would have been in chains.

[Ouistreham]

A French victory would have meant the victory of cultural jacobinism all over Europe. A super bureaucratic empire denying the rights of any ethnicity, gadda, gadda...

Fortunately Napoleon lost and since then every village in Europe uses its local dialect as sole official and written language.

What, they don't?


Furthermore the rapacity of Napoleonic regimes in seizing artwork and money from conquered states would have meant that all subject ethnicities would have been deprived of their heritage under any sense in favour of the sole Paris. France would have shone while the rest of the vanquished europe would have been in chains.

Public museums were originally a French idea. Prior to this nobody was aware that old paintings hidden in churches were of any value.

And hadn't the French occupation authority ordered to build a façade to Milan Cathedral, which was made within a couple of years, the magnificent Duomo wouldn't probably be completed yet!

[Kernunnos]

Fortunately Napoleon lost and since then every village in Europe uses its local dialect as sole official and written language.

What, they don't?



Public museums were originally a French idea. Prior to this nobody was aware that old paintings hidden in churches were of any value.

And hadn't the French occupation authority ordered to build a façade to Milan Cathedral, which was made within a couple of years, the magnificent Duomo wouldn't probably be completed yet!

Looting the entire paeninsula of artwork is the real story of Napoleon's occupation.

In Venice he looted the town, burned the magnificent, historical bucintoro ship, stole a lot of money ... his soldiers were occupying stables with horses.

in the sole Italy the insurrection of the local populations were massive, costing roughly 200.000 victims.

[Albion]

I did nothing of the sort, as I said above. I didn't praise Boney. But I don't like the note of fatalism about it all you might seem to be giving off, here.

I like to be as realistic as possible about what I think the alternatives would have been.


Dunno, you brought em up. :shrug:

I know what Agrippa was hinting at as he always does.


We are programmed to react to subversive talk with such crude characterisations. We need to recognise this, and free our minds.

Indeed, which is why I highlighted what Agrippa was thinking even if he didn't literally write "the Jews" that time.
Subtleties of language are enough to provoke thoughts in people without a key element even being said. That is one example of subversion.


When we write here, we have a history, and this is taken into account when replying to each other. Your own history in this regard seems to be a blind thanking of Joe, when all Joe ever seems to do is uphold the status quo. Which is killing us, of course.

Oh for f....... Why is it that the English seem to think I'm some sort of brown nose to McCarthy? When he is wrong or I disagree I let him know, don't worry.
Joe writes a lot of BS sometimes which I generally ignore, some of it can be quite patronising to other nationalities such as our own or some crackpot theory. I rarely reply to such, but I can show examples.
He also writes a few good posts, even if he is wrong on a few levels he at least seems to think about things before posting and can sometimes go into quite some detail.

What I dislike here is posts with a lack of thought, I'm quite analytical and I hate short posts on trivial matters.
I tend to follow a few members, all very different and all generally thinkers - Civis Batavi, McCarthy (the contrast!) and yourself. Two lefties and a conservative. There are others too, but those three spring to mind.

Some people seem to have gotten the wrong end of the stick when I posted a few things about the Anglosphere. America isn't the sole component and it doesn't have to entail any love of it, I use Anglosphere to refer to the relation of the ethnicities. I dropped it because it appears that there's been some misunderstanding about it.


If I seem to do the same with Agrippa, it is because more often than not, he articulates things that I have myself been thinking and suspecting, with a lot more substance than I myself could dredge up to back it up.

Some people are very direct I suppose. I don't disagree with him in totality, for example I agree with him that free market capitalism and the cowboys speculating on everything are ruining our societies.
But I disagree with his petty attacks against the state as if it were under the continuous rule by his Judeo-capitalists or whatever he'd call them since its inception.

Agrippa verges on insulting our ethnicities directly, but it is only ever one native ethnicity he insults and that is the English. His mind doesn't seem to give a fuck about the huge, disproportionate role played by the other ethnicities, instead it is always the evil English up to their no-good tricks.
He acts as if rotten capitalism only exists in England and America, that nothing ever happened involving a certain Dutch Republic nor any other country - ever. Whilst we're at it he conveniently forgets about how the Jews of Central Europe who latter spread to the rest of Europe came to be in finance.
Most of the important Jewish families have their roots in Germany and Poland.
That is not all, but it shall suffice for now. Agrippa can read this and try and refute me all he wants, but he has a thinly veiled hatred of Anglos in general that I can hardly be pleased about.
Agrippa isn't only on here, he's on plenty of other sites as well Osweo. I haven't based this view of him on a few posts alone. I've seen him at it for years, he's easy enough to spot.


In our awful times, shouldn't the discontented be supporting each other?

Yes, we should. I don't think the discontented in Britain will find much solace in his company though.


Please, show this side more in your posts.

I do, nobody seems to notice though. Preconceptions and all that. To you I'm an Amerophile for example and some die-hard capitalist.


Whatever. You're the one who did a knee-jerk anti-semite card thing.

Like I said, I've seen his posts and I know what follows and so do you.

[LightInDarkness]

Something tells me that this is my haplogroup as well seeing as I have not so distant French ancestry :D

[Osweo]

Indeed, which is why I highlighted what Agrippa was thinking even if he didn't literally write "the Jews" that time.
You have been mentally hobbled. The type of programming involved causes you to zoom in on the bits that aren't flattering to the Jews, and harp on about that, as though it were a mortal sin. The Jews are not above criticism, as a people, and nor are we. You're ready enough to treat the Russians in as dismissive a way as you imply Agrippa is doing of the Jews. Of course, the Russkies are a PERMITTED target. ;)

Subtleties of language are enough to provoke thoughts in people without a key element even being said. That is one example of subversion.
I see nothing underhand in Agrippa. It's all laid out as plain as day, with full comprehensivity.

He also writes a few good posts, even if he is wrong on a few levels he at least seems to think about things before posting and can sometimes go into quite some detail.
But Joe's with the Establishment. All the thinking behind his ideas has already been done. We're programmed to slide into the same habits of thought ourselves. This is the subtle subversion I'm talking about. It's easy for a moderately intelligent individual to make Joe posts. There's no 'thinking out of the box' involved at all.

What I dislike here is posts with a lack of thought, I'm quite analytical and I hate short posts on trivial matters.
I tend to follow a few members, all very different and all generally thinkers - Civis Batavi, McCarthy (the contrast!) and yourself. Two lefties and a conservative. There are others too, but those three spring to mind.
What a troika! :D Imagine us locked on a small boat together? :clap:

Agrippa verges on insulting our ethnicities directly, but it is only ever one native ethnicity he insults and that is the English. His mind doesn't seem to give a fuck about the huge, disproportionate role played by the other ethnicities, instead it is always the evil English up to their no-good tricks.
He's not talking about us ineffectual powerless proles who actually make up the body of our nation!

He's talking about the rulers. And look at what happened with our elite. There were internal struggles before the present canny lot got in. See the defeat of the Jacobite Tories for an example of a might have been. 1688, our 'Glorious Revolution', is the key event, near enough.

And we're concerned with the present and recent past, and the City of London is the centre of it. It was elsewhere in other times, but it's moved around, and we happen to be the most direct host at the moment, so of course our state gets the bigger part of the rap!

Agrippa can read this and try and refute me all he wants, but he has a thinly veiled hatred of Anglos in general that I can hardly be pleased about.

You take it too personally, and identify yourself too much with a system that doesn't give a fuck for you or your family, or your ethnic groups welfare as a whole. :shrug:

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by Osweo
But Joe's with the Establishment. All the thinking behind his ideas has already been done. We're programmed to slide into the same habits of thought ourselves. This is the subtle subversion I'm talking about. It's easy for a moderately intelligent individual to make Joe posts. There's no 'thinking out of the box' involved at all.


My views are only relatively establishmentarian in international relations. They also happen to be the most pro-preservation though of the choices before us. The wretched preferences of the politically fringe find no worse expression than in the realm of geopolitics. The sheer absurdity of people who claim to want to save white people, or whatever, and then support regimes like North Korea or Iran is fortunately more funny than it is dangerous, but highlights the irrelevance of such sorts.

[Sturmgewehr]

I am somewhat different - E1b1b1a2 - part of M78 (E-V13). This is the one associated with ancient Greek expansion.

in Central Europe and Northern Europe maybe but in the Balkans it is associated with the Neolithic Migrations that happened 10 000 - 15 000 Years ago.

[Catrau]

F**k Napoleon!!!

[Albion]

You have been mentally hobbled. The type of programming involved causes you to zoom in on the bits that aren't flattering to the Jews, and harp on about that, as though it were a mortal sin. The Jews are not above criticism, as a people, and nor are we. You're ready enough to treat the Russians in as dismissive a way as you imply Agrippa is doing of the Jews. Of course, the Russkies are a PERMITTED target. ;)

Rubbish, I don't like Jews being here in the same way that I don't like Muslims or any other non-Europeans being here too.
I just grow tired of these theories that somehow we in the Anglosphere must be scheming away with them simply because they've moved here and are prominent in banking.
Well tell me a country in the West where that isn't the case? They moved here from Central Europe in the first place after they were originally expelled, some people blame Cromwell but I blame Central European states for putting them into positions of power through pushing them into banking in the first place.

This is not about sticking up for Jews or opposing them, it is about these silly little theories that more often than not link us to them, us evil bloody plotters that we are. :rolleyes2:

Do you not see why I don't like the guy yet?

Russians are no different from Americans in my thinking, I will write whatever the hell I feel like. If I disagree with a policy of their state I shall say, if I agree then I shall write as such. There is no animosity towards Russians here, I just happen to dislike their politics and you're reading more into this than there really is.

The fact that you're all too ready to criticize America whilst dismissing me for criticizing Russia really makes me think you are not quite so neutral and unbiased as you like to portray yourself.
Stop targeting me on Russia for god sake, you won't convert me. I'll develop a positive view about it if I see what I perceive as positive developments.



I see nothing underhand in Agrippa. It's all laid out as plain as day, with full comprehensivity.

But Joe's with the Establishment. All the thinking behind his ideas has already been done. We're programmed to slide into the same habits of thought ourselves. This is the subtle subversion I'm talking about. It's easy for a moderately intelligent individual to make Joe posts. There's no 'thinking out of the box' involved at all.

I know Joe is of the "patriotic conservative" sort but have you read some of the posts on Apricity? I visit it to read interesting posts, not all these little flame wars.


What a troika! :D Imagine us locked on a small boat together? :clap:

Well that is about as good as it gets I'm afraid. I can imagine it, McCarthy would be like Bligh and you and Civis would be in Pitcairn by now. :D I'm not sure about me, but I can guess what you'd say.


He's not talking about us ineffectual powerless proles who actually make up the body of our nation!

I know, but he generalises all too easily. This is about my nation being portrayed as the bad guy when it is only the ruling classes and when the same is true of most of Western Europe.
As a socialist you should understand this Osweo, why the hell are we to sit back whilst our decent working class people are portrayed as a nation of evil schemers?


You take it too personally, and identify yourself too much with a system that doesn't give a fuck for you or your family, or your ethnic groups welfare as a whole. :shrug:

I know all about the system. I've read all about it, including some of the stuff which would be on Agrippa's reading list.
Rather than generalised talk that such and such a nation is bad we must instead actually target the very people who cause it. This class of people tends to be very international and transcends borders easily so it is a folly to say that a nations are responsible.