The Kalash Tribe of Pakistan

[Sohei]

Originally Posted by DaleRob22

I've got an Indian friend; He is gujarati and 100% Indian. He has fair skin and european features. Very unique looking.

Viking invasions

[DrSatanDracula]

Adren@line:

White people originate from Europe. They do not originate from America, which is a multicultural smorgasbord and has been since the inception of this country. If you (or anyone else for that matter) iare indeed some kind of nationalist, and if you care that much, then go back to where your ancestors came from.

America has never been a "multicultural smorgsasbord". It has, in fact, been historically majority white, minority black, and smaller minorities of other races. Furthermore, the individual ethnicities of the various European immigrants were held to a standard of assimilation. Thus the term "melting pot". It comes from ****lurgy. It is the part where the ****ls wholly dissolve into one another as part of the alloying process. This is not some loose mixture, like ice in water. This is a whole dissolution.

Furthermore, my ancestors conquered this land. If any other people wish to take it, they can buy it off us or take it from us.

Of course, most Americans don't know shit about their ancestral roots, the languages, the culture, and have lost all ties to the "motherland" and instead subscribe to American culture, which is largely artificial and corporate, and ultimately multi-cultural.

Most, but not I. I know quite a great deal about my ancestry, thank you very much.

Further, there is no "white culture". There is a clear difference between a German and a Greek, a Russian and a Spaniard. The Europeans by-far have never seen themselves as a unified race or people, and that is still true today.

I concur that white culture is a broad spectrum. Specifically, there are individual ethnicities. However, there is a notion of Western/white over culture, which is discussable. This has been the case since the Renaissance and earlier was the case during the Roman period.

[adren@line]

America has never been a "multicultural smorgsasbord". It has, in fact, been historically majority white, minority black, and smaller minorities of other races

Sure it has. There were initially more natives on the land than Europeans. Eventually, they were systematically slaughtered and their populations dwindled.

Now if you justify this through the whole "might makes right" philosophy, which you seem to do be mentioning the fact that the Europeans conquered the Americans, then you indeed do support mass-murder and if you are indeed that passionate about your nationalism, then you should join some radical right-wing group and take-up arms.

Furthermore, the individual ethnicities of the various European immigrants were held to a standard of assimilation. Thus the term "melting pot". It comes from ****lurgy. It is the part where the ****ls wholly dissolve into one another as part of the alloying process. This is not some loose mixture, like ice in water. This is a whole dissolution.

Whole dissolution is bad. I am all for immigrants adopting American culture but not at the expense of abandoning their own. There is a balance. One can take the good of American culture (which there is plenty of) and discard the bad. No one culture has it all, nor is any one culture perfect.

Otherwise, you should abandon any habit of eating Chinese, Japanese, Mexican, Indian, Persian, etc food, since food is indeed culture. "Complete dissolution" would entail Americans simply eating (largely crappy) American food like McDonalds.

If you do indeed eat anything else other than McDonalds (or American food in general), you are supporting this multiculturalism.

Furthermore, my ancestors conquered this land. If any other people wish to take it, they can buy it off us or take it from us.

Your ancestors were most probably illiterate farmers. They didnt conquer anything.

And there you go again with the "might makes right", which entails a complete absence of morality and a large presence of savagery.

I concur that white culture is a broad spectrum. Specifically, there are individual ethnicities. However, there is a notion of Western/white over culture, which is discussable. This has been the case since the Renaissance and earlier was the case during the Roman period.

No there isnt. If there was, then both the world wars would not had been fought. It was in-fact largely white-on-white violence. The Nazis and the Allied were both "white". If "white" did indeed mean anything, then where does one draw the line?

Turks are white, but arent considered European. Hell, most Iranians are white, as are many Afghanis, Pakistanis, and Indians (or at the least, Caucasoid). Why arent the Russians are friends? They are white as well.

So do you consider "white" to simply mean Judeo-Christian? Christianity itself is from the middle-east, invented by non-white Semites who looked more like Bedouin Arabs than Brad Pitt. That in-of-itself is an alien cultural influence into Europe.

So you see, "white" doesn't mean shit when it comes to practicality and real-world implementation. Its all fairy-tale, hypothetical bs.

[MicroBrew]

^^^^^

DSD does indeed stand by might makes right doctrine, I got into enough arguments with him fall/winter last year on this.

to DSD
You mentioned you are an Odinist, but this country was not founded by Odinists so shouldn't you not be an Odinist?

[HeavyD99]

Originally Posted by DrSatanDracula

No one is calling the Yezidi a religion of peace.

It's just that Islam has gotten this bullshit moniker of being called "The Religion of Peace" when the actions of many Moslem religious groups has been anything but peaceful.

You act as if fundamentalists are just waiting to butcher every single non-Muslim on the planet given the chance, even those who do not threaten them.

How do you think the small Kalash tribe has been allowed to retain it's culture/religion and live in peace, when the millions of "fundamentalist" Pasthun Muslims surrounding them could very easily conquer them and force them to convert to Islam? Reason they haven't is because the Kalash pay them a small Jizya (tax which allows them to practice their religion in peace) by doing so they have a treaty of autonomy and protection with the Muslims and a non-aggression pact. Even the Pro-Taliban militants in the area (Waziristan, Swat Valley)respected this pact and did not attack them. The exact same treaty was established between the Taliban and the Afghan Sikh Community; which allowed the Sikhs to practice their own religion and even drink alcohol in the fundamentalist Muslim country.

From Wikipedia: "Thousands have converted to Islam, yet still live nearby in the Kalash villages and maintain their language and many aspects of their ancient culture. In fact, sheikhs, or converts to Islam, make up more than half of the total Kalasha-speaking population."[2]


So if many have converted to Islam and still live amongst their openly pagan neighbors and retain their culture; so it is foolish to think these were forced conversions. They converted by choice while retaining their culture and continuing to live under a treaty of autonomy, just like millions of Muslim converts around the world every year.


I'm not exactly saying there is complete peace,but it is wrong to assume that they're a persecuted minority just because they live amongst majority Muslim. It's one thing to dislike Islamic fundamentalists but to dehumanize all of them and put them in one group and say they have no concept of peace/tolerance is something else

[DrSatanDracula]

adren@line:

Sure it has. There were initially more natives on the land than Europeans. Eventually, they were systematically slaughtered and their populations dwindled.

Now if you justify this through the whole "might makes right" philosophy, which you seem to do be mentioning the fact that the Europeans conquered the Americans, then you indeed do support mass-murder and if you are indeed that passionate about your nationalism, then you should join some radical right-wing group and take-up arms.

In the discourse amongst nations, there is no higher arbiter than the sword. Accordingly, I see nothing wrong with "might makes right" when a state of nature exists.

There is no reason for me to take-up arms against anyone right now. So far, my country is still my country. When my country is under attack, I'll take up arms against the invaders. Just as I would hope you would as well.

Moreover, this nation never included those American Indians. American Indians have always been an extreme minority amongst us. Few have petitioned for citizenship or been accepted into our company as fellow citizens. Most retained an alien status according to their sovereign nations, which have been routinely given legal justification to reside in certain areas which are construed as land belonging to them. Today, several sub-countroes of Indian land live amongst us and I am fine with that. So long as their links remain tenuous to benefits and such.

Whole dissolution is bad. I am all for immigrants adopting American culture but not at the expense of abandoning their own. There is a balance. One can take the good of American culture (which there is plenty of) and discard the bad. No one culture has it all, nor is any one culture perfect.

Otherwise, you should abandon any habit of eating Chinese, Japanese, Mexican, Indian, Persian, etc food, since food is indeed culture. "Complete dissolution" would entail Americans simply eating (largely crappy) American food like McDonalds.

I am not particularly opposed to ethnic foods, but retaining an "identity" of "I am not fully American" is absurd. One cannot dispense with one's life experiences and one's background, but one can put "America first" and construe oneself primarily through that identity, which is what I mean by whole dissolution. My immigrant forebears did not say "I am still a German!" or "I am still an Irishman!" or "I am still a Swede!" or "I am still a Frenchman!" they adopted an America first policy.

To quote Teddy Roosevelt:

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism…. The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.

Your ancestors were most probably illiterate farmers. They didnt conquer anything.

And there you go again with the "might makes right", which entails a complete absence of morality and a large presence of savagery.

The majority were illiterate farmers. That being said, a good deal of my ancestors also contributed in taming the New World and blooding up the old.

My last name descends from the Normans, just to note.

No there isnt. If there was, then both the world wars would not had been fought. It was in-fact largely white-on-white violence. The Nazis and the Allied were both "white". If "white" did indeed mean anything, then where does one draw the line?

If we accept your belief that cultures and supercultures cannot have infighting, then we would have to speak of a complete absence of civil wars throughout history. It is clear and apparent that ethnic and cultural ties do not prevent wars from erupting. WWI and WWII do not refute a "white superculture" that comes from the Renaissance, when the idea of a European intellectual, artistic, religious, mercantile, and cultural exchange based on common racial and cultural ties. If anything, the fact that the leaders of all countries in WWI were part of the same family affirms this. The kaiser's grandmother was Queen Victoria and the Romanoffs were the cousins of the English crown!

Moreover, from a historic point of view, Europe has three origins: Greco-Romantic peoples, Celtic peoples, and Germanic peoples. All the nations of Europe, excepting those with Turkic admixture from the Ottomans, the Basques, and one or two other isolated indigenous groups, owe their existence to this.

Turks are white, but arent considered European. Hell, most Iranians are white, as are many Afghanis, Pakistanis, and Indians (or at the least, Caucasoid). Why arent the Russians are friends? They are white as well.

The Turks aren't white. They are Turkic. They are caucasoids (an antiquated term that is borderline offensive, but whatever). But they aren't "white".

Some Persians, some Afghanis, some Pakistanis, and some Indians are white. This...has been recognized for over a century and a half. I don't know where you've been, but this is...pretty well established.

Russia is also quite white. The reason for antagonism between Western Europe and Russia has always been one of isolation and political difference. Russia does not exist as part of European civilization because it was too far remote from the centers of Western Europe and after 1918 was behind the iron curtain. That being said, for many periods in history they were. Peter and Catherine the Great brought Russia into European civilization for quite a while. In fact, Russia was such until the Communist take over, then regressed back to pre-17th century isolation.

So do you consider "white" to simply mean Judeo-Christian? Christianity itself is from the middle-east, invented by non-white Semites who looked more like Bedouin Arabs than Brad Pitt. That in-of-itself is an alien cultural influence into Europe.

Not Judeo-Christian, no. The Jews are not white. They are semites.

I don't consider Christianity an outgrowth of white super culture. It isn't Greco-Roman, Germanic, or Celtic. It's a Judaic religion.

Moreover, I never said that European civilization has been isolated from all exterior forces. That's ridiculous. No culture in the world can exist in hermetic isolation, least of all the broad cultural category of white/European culture. That being said, the influence of Roman and Greek ways on Christianity is equally as pronounced on the Judaic. Thus the fact that James of Jerusalem is not held as great as the Greco-Jew Paul, or the Roman Pontiff Peter, and that all the Church Fathers were Greco-Romans.

[DrSatanDracula]

Microbrew:

You mentioned you are an Odinist, but this country was not founded by Odinists so shouldn't you not be an Odinist?

I am not an Odinist, although I am close. I am romantically a mytho-poetic European pagan of indescript association.

Practically speaking, I'm about as religious as the ancient philosophers.

As to how I reconcile this: Before Europe was Christian, Europe was pagan. My country (America) descends from Europe (and is an outgrowth of a European philosophical movement). As America was explicitly found on no religious tradition, wedded to the fact that all American founders had heathen forebears generations prior, I feel fine. That and even as a "pagan", I am culturally Christian, like everyone else in America. Even the Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, and everyone else is such. It's impossible to be anything but.

Specifically, as a New Yorker, I am culturally Irish-Catholic in many regards.

Would I prefer the old Gods to become the major points of worship? Yep.

[DrSatanDracula]

Heavyd99:

I am not affirming that Islam is a religion of ceaseless conquerors of all khafirs. But they are generally intolerant and living in a slavish state of dhimmitude is not exactly what I call "peace".

[Osman85]

lol @ white nationalism

how are u gonna be proud of something that u have no control over like race or nationality?

[DrSatanDracula]

I'm not a white nationalist. I am a nationalist.