Contrasting views on political realism vs other

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Savorgnan

I'm perfectly sure, but I didn't wanted to make a longer sentence including other phenotypes like Noric, Baltid, Keltic-Nordid, Pontid, Brunn...
I'm not denying there are races, but not a Caucasian one, see above. Still, I don't see the relation you make between Europe and your so-called "white" race.

You are denying that any Europoid/Caucasoid/White race exists. What we call it is not the subject of attention. The problem with saying that is that it has been widely documented with cluster maps of genetic distance and similar things - there is a Europoid race - which is manifested in a spectrum of genetic distance and various physical and craniofacial traits - which is very genetically close.

Nevertheless, if you disagree, please elaborate your theory. I dont disagree that Europeans are descendants of Cro-Magnons and other such humans, but I dont understand your claim that phenotypes from physical anthropology represent races, and I've never heard of or read of any scholar in population/race genetics, genetic anthropology, archaeogenetics etc, propose a such theory.

I don't see the relation you make between Europe and your so-called "white" race. Please explain me this, and in case you have a White "Nationalist" agenda, please come clean about it.

I am not a white nationalist. But in some respects you might as well call me a white nationalist, because I agree with many of the essential points in its ideology, when it comes to content - such as racial separatism. I just dont base my views on "whiteness". The connotations of the ideology are another subject, and I dont associate with them because of their obvious negativity. Whiteness has historically been too fluid and vague to base nationalism on, in my opinion. Which is why white nationalism isnt optimal in any way, and I am not a WN.

Well, I'm interested in discussing. Are you? Did you ask to stop replying everytime someone disagree with you? It's a discussion forum, not an agreement one, so don't take offense. I have the right to contest your ideas, so as you. In our discussion, I only took on Pan-Europeanism. And I'm right when I'm saying that you are not nationalist, according to your posts (until now). But that's OK. Unlike you, I don't told you to stop posting because you have a different opinion than mine.

No, and I dont agree, but I dont think you talk nonsense either. You dont have any right to decide for me which ideologies I associate or agree with, and neither do I with you. I hope you keep posting, and since we're both interested in discussing, then thats something we can agree on.

If you took some of my short phrases for an agression, I assure you that it absolutely wasn't the case. Maybe it's my faith in my ideas that has shown. Or maybe it's because you've used the word "Europe" so often that I finally became a little bit irritated. By the word "Europe" of course, not by you. Shall I repeat this, once and for all? There are no ad personam attacks here in Stirpes, we don't tolerate them. Sorry to contradict you again, but my kind of nationalism is nevertheless somewhat essential. It's the traditional one. Your kind of "nationalism", if we can call it nationalism (I don't think we can), is a different concept involving Pan-Europeanism, wich is a domestic European form of internationalism, and range from a new Roman Empire to a new Carolingian empire. I don't disrespect that, not at all, you have the right to have this opinion. But in this case I want to point out the difference between true nationalism and other new ideologies that aren't (nationalist).

My form of nationalism, like I've said before, involves conserving individual nations and conserving their culture and tradition, while some "nationalists" want to dissolve them and create ethnic borders and divisions of Europe, which in my opinion is completely off. Also, I regard national identities important, all though I see them as just that - identities, not physical laws. But they are very important indeed, I dont think Europe or any of its countries have any chances of cultural survival if we dont incorporate nationality and national identity into the survival plan. There needs to be culture on some local-rather-than-remote plan, that people can identify with.

You are splitting hairs. Of course, total sovereignity is impossible, but at least we can still get back much of it. The point is to be the masters in our lands. You say that you want to keep the European nations, right? But most of Europeans think the same. This don't make you a nationalist. With your Pan-Europeanist system, we will keep our nations names, yes, but they will still be subject to some supra-national power. No, thanks. To simplify, to be nationalist is to want not only your country's survival, but also its liberty, its sovereignty.

Then you've misunderstood what I've been saying. I am not saying we should do away with the political power or the rule and liberty and sovereignty of individual countries, however, we should have a European union, where no single country rules over other countries, but where the European countries can work together to support a common agenda.

How can't we want all of that? I wholeheartedly agree, like everyone else in the forum.This degeneration has happened under the Brusselian rule. I still think that free European nations are much better suited for Europe's survival than a political and/or economical union.

I havent said I am a proponent of the Brusellian rule. I am not saying I advocate the current system, I am saying I advocate a system, which should be based on cooperation and have less authoritative content. I advocate European unity, not merging Europe.

Originally Posted by Gonzalvus

I do not agree with you here. To me, linking christianism to zionism is out of proportions. The possibility of a big masonic influence in nowaday's world events has been widely studied and documented --there's more than enough reliable information on the subject.

By the way, notice how your ideas match up with those of freemasons:

-Internationalism.
-Rationalism.
-Atheism.
-Rabid anti-christianism.

Of course, I'm not acussing you of being a mason. But the aforementioned ideas have become a prevailing trend since the masons coup d'etat (1789), and are ever-present in the media and in modern thinkers, artists, etc, and thus we are all influenced by them, want it or not.

Actually, I didnt link Christianism to Zionism in that post.

First, please lets not make this thread about freemasonry.

But I will say that I am not an "internationalist", because internationalism is based on advocating a world government, and Freemasons are NOT atheists. They believe in some sort of god. Reliable information seems to be the problem with Freemasonry, theres so much bullshit out there.

[Savorgnan]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

You are denying that any Europoid/Caucasoid/White race exists. What we call it is not the subject of attention. The problem with saying that is that it has been widely documented with cluster maps of genetic distance and similar things - there is a Europoid race - which is manifested in a spectrum of genetic distance and various physical and craniofacial traits - which is very genetically close.

North-Africans, Levantines, Anatolians and Caucasians are also very close. And many North-Americasn and Argentinians are a perfect genetic match. That doesn't make them even one percent Europeans.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

Nevertheless, if you disagree, please elaborate your theory. I dont disagree that Europeans are descendants of Cro-Magnons and other such humans, but I dont understand your claim that phenotypes from physical anthropology represent races, and I've never heard of or read of any scholar in population/race genetics, genetic anthropology, archaeogenetics etc, propose a such theory.

I don't have any theory, I'm not racialist, and most of all, I don't think that race or phenotype are so relevant regarding ethnicity. Language, culture and religion are so much important.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

I am not a white nationalist. But in some respects you might as well call me a white nationalist, because I agree with many of the essential points in its ideology, when it comes to content - such as racial separatism. I just dont base my views on "whiteness". The connotations of the ideology are another subject, and I dont associate with them because of their obvious negativity. Whiteness has historically been too fluid and vague to base nationalism on, in my opinion. Which is why white nationalism isnt optimal in any way, and I am not a WN.

Well, if you say so, then the least that I can do is to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

No, and I dont agree, but I dont think you talk nonsense either. You dont have any right to decide for me which ideologies I associate or agree with, and neither do I with you. I hope you keep posting, and since we're both interested in discussing, then thats something we can agree on.

I don't pretend to decide for wich ideology you associate with. I based my negation of your nationalist claim on the definition of nationalism, because if we have two definitions for one word, that can only lead to misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

My form of nationalism, like I've said before, involves conserving individual nations and conserving their culture and tradition

Conserving nations is not quite nationalism, maybe it's rather patriotism?

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

while some "nationalists" want to dissolve them and create ethnic borders and divisions of Europe, which in my opinion is completely off.

I'm glad to hear you say that.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

Also, I regard national identities important, all though I see them as just that - identities, not physical laws.

We are not talking about physics here.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

But they are very important indeed, I dont think Europe or any of its countries have any chances of cultural survival if we dont incorporate nationality and national identity into the survival plan. There needs to be culture on some local-rather-than-remote plan, that people can identify with.

I think that free independant nations are still better suited for survival.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

Then you've misunderstood what I've been saying. I am not saying we should do away with the political power or the rule and liberty and sovereignty of individual countries, however, we should have a European union, where no single country rules over other countries, but where the European countries can work together to support a common agenda.

A confederation system then? Well, it's still a way better system than a federation, but not quite as good as the traditional "pre-EU" Europe. Just compare the greatness of our European nations before and after the treaty of Rome. We've been down the hill since. You still give away a large part of your sovereignity when you associate with other countries. After that, it's a matter of degree, you lose less autonomy in a confederation, much more in a federation, and in a "Euro-nation" you are simply dissolved. If we take nations as a vertical identity, then we have an horizontal one as Christianism. We don't need another thing than that.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

I havent said I am a proponent of the Brusellian rule. I am not saying I advocate the current system, I am saying I advocate a system, which should be based on cooperation and have less authoritative content. I advocate European unity, not merging Europe.

Cooperation is OK, but my fear is that if we take the habit of cooperating, we will gradualy loose the hability of take care of ourselves, and trigger another form of EU.