Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 74

Thread: Nova Europa

  1. #1
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,249
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Nova Europa

    Arthur Kemp say's in an article on his blog that Europeans should create a homeland similar to that of Israel because 'The historical record is clear: those people who do not possess a territory in which they form the majority population, are doomed to extinction' And through immigration, this is only a matter of time in Ireland.

    Here are some of the points in how to achieve this:

    '4. The European Homeland: “Nova Europa”
    Working on the Herzl model, there are therefore four significant steps which have to be undertaken.

    4.1 A seminal work outlining the idea has to be published.
    This work must, like Der Judenstaat:

    4.1.1 Outline the reasons why a state is necessary (e.g. the threatened genocide of the European people; their moral right to survival, and so on).

    4.1.2 It must be phrased and delivered in such a way that it can be argued before any audience, anywhere, and justified as a plan which does not result in the infringement of the rights of any people on earth.
    In this way, accusations of “white supremacism” and the nonsense about wanting to be supreme rulers over others can be deflected.
    Also, because of the majority population nature of a homeland, racial segregation will not be necessary (for example there is no segregation in China—they don’t need it…)

    4.1.3 This work must also, like Der Judenstaat, call for the creation of a “European Company” to take charge of the financial and logistical backing of the enterprise. This will entail the setting up of a company with trusted directors, shareholders, etc.

    4.1.5 This work must then either map out, or at the very least, call for, proposals on where the European homeland should be.

    7. Conclusion
    The idea of a European homeland may sound far-fetched, but then again, so did the idea of a Jewish homeland sound farfetched when Herzl wrote his book. In fact, one of the wealthiest potential backers from who Herzl sought help, the Rothschilds, dismissed him out of hand.
    Rather than focusing on the nay-sayers, thoughtful activists will consider what the alternatives are.
    And realistic activists will have to agree: essentially there are no alternatives to geographic consolidation. The historical record is clear: those people who do not possess a territory in which they form the majority population, are doomed to extinction.
    The challenge is open. Will we have what it takes to survive, or will we perish?'

    The rest of the points are here:

    Arthur Kemp's Blog

    I think the points he raises here may hold allot of value. He is not calling for violence or oppression, just a right to self determination as the Maoris are fighting for in New Zealand and the Amerinds in the US. Why should European People be any different?
    Last edited by NewDawn1; 5th August 2013 at 09:26 AM.

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Member Sync's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    27,556
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Yeah I'm all for listening to the author of March of the Titans: a History of the White Race.
    I'm living in America, and in America, you're on your own. America's not a country. It's just a business. Now f***ing pay me.

  3. #3
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,249
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sync View Post
    Yeah I'm all for listening to the author of March of the Titans: a History of the White Race.
    Im glad. There is not much work done on it and at the end of the day, its just history.

  4. #4
    Politics.ie Royalty toxic avenger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    19,031
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    There's lots of room in Siberia. I'll pay your ticket...

  5. #5
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,249
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by walrusgumble View Post
    Our EU Treaties acknowledge and recongise and supports (well suppose to) the fact (not an idea) that each EU member state is a different one with different people, attitudes and cultures and this should be allowed to be embraced. The EU's purpose , or more to the point EEC, was suppose to be an economic community and no more. Granted, this has been expanded (with the support of member states, but maybe for all the wrong reasons ie jabs)

    Some European Countries told Brussels to feck off over the Constitution in 2003. Some harmless enough parts were the main target, yet, a good proportion of it was repeated in Lisbon, without the offending provisions of course. Countries, with probably the exception of some countries like Belgium (what was that Farage said about them.....?) still want their independence and nationality . Countries are suspicious of anything that looks like federalism and only join up on things when it suits them (understandable)

    In the past 20 years, with the evolution of this joke of EU Citizenship (the concept is not a joke but it's implications) is the ECJ / CJEU 's ability , despite clear refusal of not just the Member States (those who give EU and it's institutions powers) but the Commissions , to interpret the Treaties so liberally in areas such as Free Movement of People has caused problems.It has been done despite little evidence of support from the wording of the Treaties. Instead, the visions of Advocate Generals and Judges, who don't have to worry about costs and support infrastructure needed to deal with the new visitors. This comes in the area of when a person is still exercising their EU rights (ie work, self employed) even if out of 10 years in another State , one "exercised" their right only for a mere 2-3 years; rights to certain social welfare (I have no issue with someone who worked for most part but no fallen on hard times - temporarily) and family reunification, even to the point that it clearly assists Non EU people to evade otherwise lawful removal orders under national law (and national law won't save you from marrying AFTER the decision to remove, but before doing it)

    The real winners here are not always the EU person themselves (well I suppose they get some advantage) , but the Third Country national (they get exactly the same rights as the EU person when they get status - that is not exactly a problem, just it's the ease that they have in getting the status in the first place)

    Let me stress, that it's all fine and well if that relationship is (a) genuine , (b) was a long standing one before they came to the host country or at least before status was sought, (c) it lasts ; however, this is not always the case.

    My point, we are always going to attract non EU / Non Irish here. That is okay, we should not be afraid of this. What we should do however, and EU is completely lacking on leadership (they dictate alot here with immigration rules) on this due to namby pamby idea (often from the Courts, who to be fair to them, read the flowery words used in legislation written by the Commission and EU States - but they don't really really mean it) that EU is the open border and welcomes all (that is fine if that means only eu people and their non eu legally residing family, but that is not the case as it attracts opportunists) restrictions should be allowed to be made without nosy groups (often not the voice of majorities) ranting wacist etc.

    If there was some belief that the EU was capable of dealing with the fears, (some genuinely in good faith, some just out of sheer racism) and allow some leeway to member states in certain aspects, then , there may not be this attitude some people have that they are been "invaded" by others against their will

    Look for instance France's decision to remove Roma Gypies from their country, or even closer to home, the late Brian Lenihan Jnr, removing people from the M50. While they might be EU Citizens themselves, (so probably unable to apply for asylum) their countries of origin are answerable to CJEU / ECJ and ECHR if their rights are breached in their home countries (let us not pretend that these people don't get a raw deal at home - but that is that countries problem) People went mad over this. What was the problem? THey were certainly not exercising their EU rights after 3 months, begging ain't working and neither is it self employment. Was it not legitimate to tell them that they must leave? Techincally yes, however, there is a provision, well done Commission, that you can't be deported on economic grounds, thus a grey matter
    Quote Originally Posted by walrusgumble View Post
    Our EU Treaties acknowledge and recongise and supports (well suppose to) the fact (not an idea) that each EU member state is a different one with different people, attitudes and cultures and this should be allowed to be embraced. The EU's purpose , or more to the point EEC, was suppose to be an economic community and no more. Granted, this has been expanded (with the support of member states, but maybe for all the wrong reasons ie jabs)

    Some European Countries told Brussels to feck off over the Constitution in 2003. Some harmless enough parts were the main target, yet, a good proportion of it was repeated in Lisbon, without the offending provisions of course. Countries, with probably the exception of some countries like Belgium (what was that Farage said about them.....?) still want their independence and nationality . Countries are suspicious of anything that looks like federalism and only join up on things when it suits them (understandable)

    In the past 20 years, with the evolution of this joke of EU Citizenship (the concept is not a joke but it's implications) is the ECJ / CJEU 's ability , despite clear refusal of not just the Member States (those who give EU and it's institutions powers) but the Commissions , to interpret the Treaties so liberally in areas such as Free Movement of People has caused problems.It has been done despite little evidence of support from the wording of the Treaties. Instead, the visions of Advocate Generals and Judges, who don't have to worry about costs and support infrastructure needed to deal with the new visitors. This comes in the area of when a person is still exercising their EU rights (ie work, self employed) even if out of 10 years in another State , one "exercised" their right only for a mere 2-3 years; rights to certain social welfare (I have no issue with someone who worked for most part but no fallen on hard times - temporarily) and family reunification, even to the point that it clearly assists Non EU people to evade otherwise lawful removal orders under national law (and national law won't save you from marrying AFTER the decision to remove, but before doing it)

    The real winners here are not always the EU person themselves (well I suppose they get some advantage) , but the Third Country national (they get exactly the same rights as the EU person when they get status - that is not exactly a problem, just it's the ease that they have in getting the status in the first place)

    Let me stress, that it's all fine and well if that relationship is (a) genuine , (b) was a long standing one before they came to the host country or at least before status was sought, (c) it lasts ; however, this is not always the case.

    My point, we are always going to attract non EU / Non Irish here. That is okay, we should not be afraid of this. What we should do however, and EU is completely lacking on leadership (they dictate alot here with immigration rules) on this due to namby pamby idea (often from the Courts, who to be fair to them, read the flowery words used in legislation written by the Commission and EU States - but they don't really really mean it) that EU is the open border and welcomes all (that is fine if that means only eu people and their non eu legally residing family, but that is not the case as it attracts opportunists) restrictions should be allowed to be made without nosy groups (often not the voice of majorities) ranting wacist etc.

    If there was some belief that the EU was capable of dealing with the fears, (some genuinely in good faith, some just out of sheer racism) and allow some leeway to member states in certain aspects, then , there may not be this attitude some people have that they are been "invaded" by others against their will

    Look for instance France's decision to remove Roma Gypies from their country, or even closer to home, the late Brian Lenihan Jnr, removing people from the M50. While they might be EU Citizens themselves, (so probably unable to apply for asylum) their countries of origin are answerable to CJEU / ECJ and ECHR if their rights are breached in their home countries (let us not pretend that these people don't get a raw deal at home - but that is that countries problem) People went mad over this. What was the problem? THey were certainly not exercising their EU rights after 3 months, begging ain't working and neither is it self employment. Was it not legitimate to tell them that they must leave? Techincally yes, however, there is a provision, well done Commission, that you can't be deported on economic grounds, thus a grey matter
    If you read the link on the OP Arthur Kemp explains how our Western Civilizations will fall like the Ancient Egyption civilization 'fell'. Hence why the present day Egyptions are simple called; Egyptions.

  6. #6
    Politics.ie Member florin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,360
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sync View Post
    Yeah I'm all for listening to the author of March of the Titans: a History of the White Race.
    Didn't the Titans all get killed or thrown into Tartatos by a younger, superior race of gods?

  7. #7
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,249
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by toxic avenger View Post
    There's lots of room in Siberia. I'll pay your ticket...
    I do not see Siberia as a good option personally. Although Herzl believed Argentina might have been a good option for Der Judenstaat. Seems a bit random to me!
    Please do explain though?

  8. #8
    Politics.ie Royalty toxic avenger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    19,031
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NewDawn1 View Post
    I do not see Siberia as a good option personally. Although Herzl believed Argentina might have been a good option for Der Judenstaat. Seems a bit random to me!
    Please do explain though?
    It's very white there. You'll love it...

  9. #9
    Politics.ie Member Mitsui2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Between Time and Timbuktu
    Posts
    33,205
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by florin View Post
    Didn't the Titans all get killed or thrown into Tartatos by a younger, superior race of gods?
    Bah! More bloody immigrants!

  10. #10
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,249
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by toxic avenger View Post
    It's very white there. You'll love it...
    Is this based on racial policies of Russia, or simply out of circumstances?
    Of course from your reading of the OP and its link I am sure you understand our right to self determination should not hinder our right to prosperity among other things? The geographic location is important not only due to the people that already live in any given area!

Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •