New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

"Europe is for Europeans"

We have almost 7 billion people living on a shared space, this thing called the earth and there is going to be overlap as populations grow.

I think the sooner that people start looking at us as the human race instead of distinct nations is when the world will improve.

Think of it like this.

The Earth is the Starship Enterprise and humanity is its crew.
Diversity Echoes a Prehistoric Horror

The human race contains distinct species, which are evolving at different rates and are descended from distinct primate species. That is a reality-based explanation. Multiculturalist theory is a weapon of the enemies of human progress; it is subhuman. Think of it like that, not as some childish and escapist Trekkie cartoon show.
 

Emily

NSDAP Kanzler
From family to clan to tribe to people to state. This is the warp of civilization. Common origin, history, heritage, and destiny define a people. A land exists to hold its own people; a state to allow them to live their unique way of life. Those not members of the family, tribe, clan, people have no ties to the land and no proprietorship in the state.

What sense is there in the idea that citizenship in a nation -- created by a people of common origin, history, heritage, culture, language -- be handed to those who reside on its land, regardless of how they got there, regardless of who they are? A country is the home of its people. From time immemorial, this has been so; the country was the home of a particular people. The citizens were of the same race, culture, language -- of common blood & shared history. This is normal, natural, and reasonable.

Anything else is perverse.

A family needs a place to live, so it acquires a house. The house belongs to that family and to no one else. So it is with the extended family -- the nation; one family/nation owns the land. Strangers who arrive do not become co-owners of the land simply by dwelling there, do not & cannot become members of the family just by living among it. The land and nation are not theirs. They have or ought to have their own, where they belong (in every sense of the word).
 

BobbyT

Governor
From family to clan to tribe to people to state. This is the warp of civilization. Common origin, history, heritage, and destiny define a people. A land exists to hold its own people; a state to allow them to live their unique way of life. Those not members of the family, tribe, clan, people have no ties to the land and no proprietorship in the state.

What sense is there in the idea that citizenship in a nation -- created by a people of common origin, history, heritage, culture, language -- be handed to those who reside on its land, regardless of how they got there, regardless of who they are? A country is the home of its people. From time immemorial, this has been so; the country was the home of a particular people. The citizens were of the same race, culture, language -- of common blood & shared history. This is normal, natural, and reasonable.

Anything else is perverse.

A family needs a place to live, so it acquires a house. The house belongs to that family and to no one else. So it is with the extended family -- the nation; one family/nation owns the land. Strangers who arrive do not become co-owners of the land simply by dwelling there, do not & cannot become members of the family just by living among it. The land and nation are not theirs. They have or ought to have their own, where they belong (in every sense of the word).
History and prehistory are full of migrants, invaders, wanderers, traders, explorers, and other 'strangers' to every land. So it has always been, so it will always be. A "people" doesn't own the land, individuals inhabit spaces until they move to inhabit other spaces. There are few people who are "pure" anything; we nearly all have DNA of people from 'other' places.
 
Says a wise man, regarding immigration into Europe:

"A limited number is OK. But the whole of Europe will eventually become Muslim country - impossible. Or African country, also impossible. Europe is for Europeans. They themselves, I think are better in their own land. Better to keep Europe for Europeans...

Each country has its own culture, language, way of life, and it is better for people to live in their own country. That is my view."

Is he right? And does this apply to the United States, as well?
The Dalai Lama -

 
They should have thought about that before colonizing the rest of the world. Instead they made Muslims and Africans their subjects. Now those actions are coming home to roost, you could say.
Take a moment to think about that and who it is exactly who is suffering for the mass immigration in Europe? Is it those same bodies who ran Empire? Or is it those peoples who mined the coal, make steel, iron foundry workers, factory workers and the like - people who suffered here at the hands of those same ruling classes as ran Empire - people who shed blood sweat and tears to gain here a decent civil life --- now erased by this mass influx of cheap labour.
 
National boundaries are a good thing. They preserve what people with a common culture have created and allows them to decide what "diversity" is good and what "diversity" is bad and to behave accordingly as they desire on the matter.
The only guarantee of freedom is nationhood.
 
We have almost 7 billion people living on a shared space, this thing called the earth and there is going to be overlap as populations grow.

I think the sooner that people start looking at us as the human race instead of distinct nations is when the world will improve.

Think of it like this.

The Earth is the Starship Enterprise and humanity is its crew.
Bull shit - the Planet needs desperately a renewed respect for each other and each other's nations but not a mass influx into liberal countries of uncultured peoples demanding they back up and into a brutal form of a 7th century dogma to accommodate them or that peoples who came from serfdom themselves, centuries ago, and fought and died for a decent civil life should move over for them who did not, in their own lands, fight for such but want a bite of their pie anyway - no matter that each slice becomes smaller for each new economic migrant - it is riches in their own land where they take their slice with them.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
They should have thought about that before colonizing the rest of the world. Instead they made Muslims and Africans their subjects. Now those actions are coming home to roost, you could say.
Which is why self loathing lefties like you welcome the hoard...
 
History and prehistory are full of migrants, invaders, wanderers, traders, explorers, and other 'strangers' to every land. So it has always been, so it will always be. A "people" doesn't own the land, individuals inhabit spaces until they move to inhabit other spaces. There are few people who are "pure" anything; we nearly all have DNA of people from 'other' places.
It is the mass of the mass immigration which is the problem not the migration not immigration - the mass.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
History and prehistory are full of migrants, invaders, wanderers, traders, explorers, and other 'strangers' to every land. So it has always been, so it will always be. A "people" doesn't own the land, individuals inhabit spaces until they move to inhabit other spaces. There are few people who are "pure" anything; we nearly all have DNA of people from 'other' places.
So you don't subscribe to the notion that the "white man" stole the USA from the Native Americans?
 

EatTheRich

President
National boundaries are a good thing. They preserve what people with a common culture have created and allows them to decide what "diversity" is good and what "diversity" is bad and to behave accordingly as they desire on the matter.
They protect statism and class privilege, and fuel discrimination and war.
 
Top