• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.
  • To post you need to register an account and await approval. Click Here to sign up!

Which are the biggest threat to Europe - the Zionists or the Islamists

OP
OP
Tadhg Gaelach

Tadhg Gaelach

Legend
Political Irish
Donator
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
23,518
Likes
19,014
Points
313
#21
They were colonised, yes and if they weren't colonised by Europeans, they would have been colonised by the Chinese or Muslims as that was the name of the game back then. It's awful what happened but that is history.

I don't know of any case where the Muslims just exterminated a whole race and replaced them with foreign settlers. The Chinese either.
 

Kershaw

Legend
Political Irish
Joined
Oct 8, 2016
Messages
6,321
Likes
9,858
Points
313
#22
I don't know of any case where the Muslims just exterminated a whole race and replaced them with foreign settlers. The Chinese either.
Turkey, North Africa, Andalusia.
China was not always as big as it is now.
They missed out on the age of exploration because they were busy defending themselves.
They likely would have taken Australia, perhaps some of the Americas were it not for Europeans and the world might be a difference place.
It certainly was not out of benevolence that they did not.
 
OP
OP
Tadhg Gaelach

Tadhg Gaelach

Legend
Political Irish
Donator
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
23,518
Likes
19,014
Points
313
#23
Turkey, North Africa, Andalusia.
China was not always as big as it is now.
They missed out on the age of exploration because they were busy defending themselves.
They likely would have taken Australia, perhaps some of the Americas were it not for Europeans and the world might be a difference place.
It certainly was not out of benevolence that they did not.

No, not correct. Most of the populations of those countries converted to Islam. Not entirely by their own volition in many cases, but there was no genocide. Indeed, there were Christian communities in Anatolia \ Turkey right though the Ottoman Empire. The genocide of the Armenians was actually carried out by very Westernized Turks, such as Ataturk, during WW1. I'm afraid that exterminating whole populations is a particularly Roman idea (well, the Athenians did it too).
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Tadhg Gaelach

Tadhg Gaelach

Legend
Political Irish
Donator
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
23,518
Likes
19,014
Points
313
#24
Turkey, North Africa, Andalusia.
China was not always as big as it is now.
They missed out on the age of exploration because they were busy defending themselves.
They likely would have taken Australia, perhaps some of the Americas were it not for Europeans and the world might be a difference place.
It certainly was not out of benevolence that they did not.
As for China, while the state is based on the Han, the other races who lived around the Han still live there in very large numbers. They were not exterminated. There's no point in saying that if they had invaded Australia before the Brits did that they would have exterminated the local population too. That's like a rapist telling the judge that if he hadn't raped her - somebody else would have.
 

Kershaw

Legend
Political Irish
Joined
Oct 8, 2016
Messages
6,321
Likes
9,858
Points
313
#25
No, not correct. Most of the populations of those countries converted to Islam. Not entirely by their own volition in many cases, but there was no genocide. Indeed, there were Christian communities in Anatolia \ Turkey right though the Ottoman Empire. The genocide of the Armenians was actually carried out by very Westernized Turks, such as Ataturk, during WW1. I'm afraid that exterminating whole populations is a particularly Roman idea (well, the Athenians did it too).
The Turks you see in Turkey these days, were not always there. Islam wanted to conquer Europe too and tried.
I don't know that much about Chinese history but no doubt, they expanded into a lot of other people's lands.
The originally inhabited the far-east. Who knows how many they killed.
Everything was about territory back then. If you didn't take land, your enemies did.
It was survival of the strongest.
That's just the way it was.
If they hadn't gone into defensive mode and found Australia or America, no doubt they would have tried to take them.
The Muslims certainly would have. Perhaps there would be no natives left.
They were after all pagans and Islam affords no place for pagans.
To say the age of conquest is all Zionist related is really a stretch.
 
OP
OP
Tadhg Gaelach

Tadhg Gaelach

Legend
Political Irish
Donator
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
23,518
Likes
19,014
Points
313
#26
The Turks you see in Turkey these days, were not always there. Islam wanted to conquer Europe too and tried.
I don't know that much about Chinese history but no doubt, they expanded into a lot of other people's lands.
The originally inhabited the far-east. Who knows how many they killed.
Everything was about territory back then. If you didn't take land, your enemies did.
It was survival of the strongest.
That's just the way it was.
If they hadn't gone into defensive mode and found Australia or America, no doubt they would have tried to take them.
The Muslims certainly would have. Perhaps there would be no natives left.
They were after all pagans and Islam affords no place for pagans.
To say all the age of conquest is all Zionist related is really a stretch.

There are very few racial Turks in Turkey. The Turks were a mongol tribe from what is now China. They didn't look much like what you now see as Turks. I'm afraid the population of Turkey hasn't changed very much since the days of the Byzantine empire. I don't deny for a second that the Muslims do try to invade everything they can, but we are talking about a very particular process - genocide and population replacement. The Caliphate did not do that.

Again, saying the Muslims would have exterminated the Native Australians has even less validity than saying the Chinese would have done it. The Muslims did conquer very backward areas like Indonesia, but they converted the locals rather than exterminate them.
 

The Potato Mystic

Legend
Political Irish
Joined
Mar 17, 2016
Messages
4,270
Likes
6,375
Points
263
Location
The land of the golden potato
#27
Exterminating people is capitalism essentially. The capitalist is interested in exploiting and extracting profit indefinitely and in a mechanised way It's indifferent to human dignity. It may appease human dignity in a meagre way so as to ensure his exploitation remains unhindered by politics but that's about it.

Whereas pre-capitalist societies, there was slaughter and looting but this would be quickly followed by a peace treaty and common-sense would prevail and life would generally resume as before. Whereas with capitalist conquest, the conquerer always has the loanshark insisting that he be paid back so conquered territories would be exploited in a harsh and zero-sum way. That's why there was such a high casualty rate when Spain conquered South America. It's an ethos that ultimately results in Hiroshima.

In any event, I think Zionism is at the right hand of globalism rather than synonymous with it. IInsofar as Muslims are concerned, their states are manufactured by the West, their holylands are subjugated by infidels and their masses are weaponised cannon fodder in attempts to shatter the West. Whereas the Israeli terror state gets boundless treasure on discount and on welfare and Zionist ethnointerests are respected by mandate of law. Muslims get a bit of coverage with some taboos, they have cash for some energetic lobbying but they don't enjoy even a fraction of special treatment accorded to Zionism.
 
OP
OP
Tadhg Gaelach

Tadhg Gaelach

Legend
Political Irish
Donator
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
23,518
Likes
19,014
Points
313
#28
Exterminating people is capitalism essentially. The capitalist is interested in exploiting and extracting profit indefinitely and in a mechanised way It's indifferent to human dignity. It may appease human dignity in a meagre way so as to ensure his exploitation remains unhindered by politics but that's about it.

Whereas pre-capitalist societies, there was slaughter and looting but this would be quickly followed by a peace treaty and common-sense would prevail and life would generally resume as before. Whereas with capitalist conquest, the conquerer always has the loanshark insisting that he be paid back so conquered territories would be exploited in a harsh and zero-sum way. That's why there was such a high casualty rate when Spain conquered South America. It's an ethos that ultimately results in Hiroshima.

In any event, I think Zionism is at the right hand of globalism rather than synonymous with it. IInsofar as Muslims are concerned, their states are manufactured by the West, their holylands are subjugated by infidels and their masses are weaponised cannon fodder in attempts to shatter the West. Whereas the Israeli terror state gets boundless treasure on discount and on welfare and Zionist ethnointerests are respected by mandate of law. Muslims get a bit of coverage with some taboos, they have cash for some energetic lobbying but they don't enjoy even a fraction of special treatment accorded to Zionism.


I certainly don't think the Jews invented Globalism. They got a taste of it during the Roman empire - and they liked the taste very much. If we are to look for the seeds of Globalism, I'd say it's more to be found in transnational and actually very tolerant and liberal empires like the Persian empire, or the Egyptians. The Jews were just North African desert nomads at this time, and certainly had no such ideas. But when the Jews emigrated out of Palestine and into the cities of the Roman empire, they already did have certain characteristics that allowed them to take to this milieu like fish to water. I have already done a thread on this question for anyone interested.

 

SwordOfStCatherine

Legend
Political Irish
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
6,021
Likes
7,123
Points
313
#29
It cannot be denied that there are some Jews who bear an ancestral grudge against the historically Christian peoples of the West and/or have seen the breaking down of homogeneity in the societies of our peoples as good for the Jews. I think the ones without the grudge are beginning to rethink that now. However I suspect that the main driving force behind what we are seeing is straight forward myopic capitalist greed. Another thing is that I'm not sure that when the likes of Toland or Emily Davison looks at a Gothic Cathedral or reads a page from Dante or Malory that they feel anymore connection to it than a Jew would, in fact on an aesthetic level the Jew might well be capable of more aesthetic appreciation than they.
 
OP
OP
Tadhg Gaelach

Tadhg Gaelach

Legend
Political Irish
Donator
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
23,518
Likes
19,014
Points
313
#30
It cannot be denied that there are some Jews who bear an ancestral grudge against the historically Christian peoples of the West and/or have seen the breaking down of homogeneity in the societies of our peoples as good for the Jews. I think the ones without the grudge are beginning to rethink that now. However I suspect that the main driving force behind what we are seeing is straight forward myopic capitalist greed. Another thing is that I'm not sure that when the likes of Toland or Emily Davison looks at a Gothic Cathedral or reads a page from Dante or Malory that they feel anymore connection to it than a Jew would, in fact on an aesthetic level the Jew might well be capable of more aesthetic appreciation than they.

It's not even about a grudge. The Jew will never assimilate to the European - and I don't blame him for that. But for the Jew to prosper in Europe, the Europeans have to stop recognising each other as Europeans. Because as long as we see ourselves as Europeans, we must see the Jew as alien. And as long as we do that, we may repeat history and banish the Jew from among us - particularly when we see his enormous wealth gained at our expense. For that reason alone, the Jew must destroy Europe as European. Europe must become as an international airport, where nobody recognises anybody as their own. But the Jew will always recognise his own - that is his strength. In this, the Jews have natural allies in the non-European immigrants arriving off the boats - for they too wish Europeans from recognising each other. Unlike the Jew however, they do not have control over the media, the money supply, the educational system and the politicians. The role of the new arriving immigrants is as foot soldiers in the Jewish plan - which is also their plan.
 

SwordOfStCatherine

Legend
Political Irish
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
6,021
Likes
7,123
Points
313
#31
By sheer weight of numbers Muslims could well be considered a great threat in France. However the amount of power and influence Zionism despite always biting the hand that feeds it (during the Falklands War the Zionist entity supplied massive help to the Argentinians for example) in the UK State and media (witness how quickly they destroyed your man's career over a throw away comment) is staggering. However mouth pieces for Jewish power such as Melanie Philips (a really loathsome woman in my opinion) have begun to speak sharply against mass immigration mainly because I think they are starting to see it as "bad for the Jews" (Polish attitudes towards Jews are on average a lot less friendly than English ones let us remember).
 

SwordOfStCatherine

Legend
Political Irish
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
6,021
Likes
7,123
Points
313
#32
It's not even about a grudge. The Jew will never assimilate to the European - and I don't blame him for that. But for the Jew to prosper in Europe, the Europeans have to stop recognising each other as Europeans. Because as long as we see ourselves as Europeans, we must see the Jew as alien. And as long as we do that, we may repeat history and banish the Jew from among us - particularly when we see his enormous wealth gained at our expense. For that reason alone, the Jew must destroy Europe as European. Europe must become as an international airport, where nobody recognises anybody as their own. But the Jew will always recognise his own - that is his strength. In this, the Jews have natural allies in the non-European immigrants arriving off the boats - for they too wish Europeans from recognising each other. Unlike the Jew however, they do not have control over the media, the money supply, the educational system and the politicians. The role of the new arriving immigrants is as foot soldiers in the Jewish plan - which is also their plan.
I don't think that the Jewish problem is solvable by any human power because fundamentally it has metaphysical roots. What really worries me though is that more and more Europeans are taking on three of the biggest features my mum in law associates with Jews- rootless cosmopolitanism, moral nihilism (which is unjust of her- even when Jews have that towards the out group they seldom have it towards the in group) and a fixated capitalist greed- I can point out some characters on P.ie who have all these traits. I know you have your act together but we need as a people to do so and than these others would be far less problematic.
 
OP
OP
Tadhg Gaelach

Tadhg Gaelach

Legend
Political Irish
Donator
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
23,518
Likes
19,014
Points
313
#35
I don't think that the Jewish problem is solvable by any human power because fundamentally it has metaphysical roots. What really worries me though is that more and more Europeans are taking on three of the biggest features my mum in law associates with Jews- rootless cosmopolitanism, moral nihilism (which is unjust of her- even when Jews have that towards the out group they seldom have it towards the in group) and a fixated capitalist greed- I can point out some characters on P.ie who have all these traits. I know you have your act together but we need as a people to do so and than these others would be far less problematic.

Yes, as Marx wrote in "On the Jewish Question," the Christians have now become Jews.
 

Dublin 4

Legend
Political Irish
Donator
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
14,914
Likes
11,713
Points
313
#36
I sincerely doubt that is the logic.
I'd be more worried if you had sussed them out already.

I've no doubt that you will- I'd be worried that you'll put the dirt out there too soon.

Please don't.

Usually Non Zio focused Patriots think the likes of TG & Myself are good guys but a bit eccentric about the Zios in a funny, harmless way.

Then the Non Zio focused Patriots find out the truth & go ballistic.
 

TheWexfordInn

Respected Member
Political Irish
Donator
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
1,768
Likes
1,843
Points
163
#37
The biggest threat to Europe is that the kids dont want to reproduce anymore.

This is Lauren Southern having a vox-pop in London last weekend. Nearly every young woman she asks says she would prefer to have a pet dog than a child and would prefer to get a Netflix subscription to getting married.

Meanwhile the Muslims are reproducing at a rate of 5.1 kids per couple.


After that experiment she made a quite funny sarcastic video of how great it is to be a single childless woman

 
OP
OP
Tadhg Gaelach

Tadhg Gaelach

Legend
Political Irish
Donator
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
23,518
Likes
19,014
Points
313
#38
The biggest threat to Europe is that the kids dont want to reproduce anymore.

This is Lauren Southern having a vox-pop in London last weekend. Nearly every young woman she asks says she would prefer to have a pet dog than a child and would prefer to get a Netflix subscription to getting married.

Meanwhile the Muslims are reproducing at a rate of 5.1 kids per couple.


After that experiment she made a quite funny sarcastic video of how great it is to be a single childless woman



Yes, but you have to put this into context. Western women are generally not willing to bring children into the world without a home - and the price of housing is far outside the range of most young people. Of course, mass immigration has made it possible for the landowners and bankers to drive home prices through the roof. It's really no use blaming the young women, you have to blame Capitalism.
 

TheWexfordInn

Respected Member
Political Irish
Donator
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
1,768
Likes
1,843
Points
163
#39
Yes, but you have to put this into context. Western women are generally not willing to bring children into the world without a home - and the price of housing is far outside the range of most young people. Of course, mass immigration has made it possible for the landowners and bankers to drive home prices through the roof. It's really no use blaming the young women, you have to blame Capitalism.
Certainly house prices is a factor. And we saw yesterday in the UK budget that the inability of First Time Buyers to get on the property ladder was an issue but the one factor they steadfastly refused to mention was immigration numbers being responsible for demand exceeding supply.

Still though there is a separate issue that young (particularly White) women are being propagandised to think that getting married/having kids and rearing them is undesirable, that it's much more liberating for them to spend their day at work and then go out boozing in the evening rather than submitting to all that patriarchy/getting married/having kids stuff.
 
OP
OP
Tadhg Gaelach

Tadhg Gaelach

Legend
Political Irish
Donator
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
23,518
Likes
19,014
Points
313
#40
Certainly house prices is a factor. And we saw yesterday in the UK budget that the inability of First Time Buyers to get on the property ladder was an issue but the one factor they steadfastly refused to mention was immigration numbers being responsible for demand exceeding supply.

Still though there is a separate issue that young (particularly White) women are being propagandised to think that getting married/having kids and rearing them is undesirable, that it's much more liberating for them to spend their day at work and then go out boozing in the evening rather than submitting to all that patriarchy/getting married/having kids stuff.

Yes, I agree that's true, but the two things go together. If it was really possible to get a decent home and a decent husband in their late teens or early 20s, it would be very difficult to convince women that boozing, fucking around and having abortions is a more desirable lifestyle.