 |
| Europe4ALL poster |
As you can see the poster says "We can all share the same star. Europe 4 All." The star is made up of the symbols of a wide variety of religions, including Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Taoism, Shintoism and Buddhism.
There are two things I'd say about the poster. The first is that the hammer and sickle, the symbol of Marxist communism, is included amongst the religious symbols. That suggests, as many of us have long supposed, that Marxism has the role for its adherents of a secular religion. It's interesting too that the EU feels so comfortable with Marxism that it would publicly display the hammer and sickle. Marxism imposed itself by revolutionary means and ruled through the use of show trials, labour camps and secret police. Does the EU really want to associate itself with such a discredited ideology?
The second thing to note is that the poster is not just calling for tolerance amongst religions. It is announcing that Europe is "for all". With a stroke of a pen, the idea of Europe being at least primarily for Europeans and European culture has been erased.
That means that we have Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians but Europe for everybody. That doesn't exactly strike me as a balanced and fair global outcome.
If you compare the poster being displayed by the European Union to the poster currently being promoted by the African Union the difference is striking:
The Africans are calmly asserting their identity, in contrast to the Europeans whose focus is more negatively on the deconstruction of their own unique identity and tradition.
I have seen this "EUROPE4ALL" thing mentioned on various right-wing blogs including Gates of Vienna, News From Atlantis and now this very blog Oz Conservative.
ReplyDeleteThe poster of the black, African man representing the African Union is perfectly reasonable for Africa, because it is representative of Africa's population.
An equivalent poster with a white man, especially one with pale skin, fair hair and light eyes representing Europe would not be seen as "politically correct". That's right, if you're white, your face is not "politically correct". It's not hip; it's not trendy. How's that for equality and justice?
I think the rise of using stick figures, cartoons, anthropomorphic animals and symbols instead of photographs of actual human beings in Western media, advertising, government documents and so on corresponds with a the rise of a "de-racialized" West. These symbols and representations are more neutral than racially unambiguous photographs.
So... Asia for Asians, Africa for Africans and Latin America for Latinos, but Europe for all?
ReplyDeleteAfrica for Africans, Asia for Asians, White countries for everybody?
ReplyDeleteReplace the word 'countries' with 'women' and you'll get a better idea of what the real agenda is.
Interesting Anonymous comment above me.
ReplyDelete"That means that we have Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians but Europe for everybody."
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly what it means.
And there is similar cultural and political pressure being applied to all White countries, and only White countries.
This is why I dispute the misconception that the "anti-racist" agenda is really about "mingling all the races" or "reshaping mankind": if you apply those two posters (one for the African Union and one for the European Union) as political agendas, which is what is happening, the Black race won't be wiped out of existence, their identity and place in the world is secure; but the White race must be erased, because chronic non-White mass immigration and forced integration, assimilation and ultimately, inevitably intermarriage guarantees it.
One race and one race only is targeted. The agenda is anti-White.
Most Europeans wouldn't know what most of those symbols that define a European "us" mean. And they shouldn't have to, because there is for example no reason why the Ahisma Hand of Jainism or a Hindu Trishula needs to be in Europe.
ReplyDeleteProgressivism is social suicide.
ReplyDelete"Progressivism is social suicide."
ReplyDeleteThat's true on a micro level. Feminism is about as helpful as poison. Sending the smartest girls to university to be indoctrinated into feminist man-hatred and to waste their most fertile years there is madness, and it can only lead to misery (as proven by the fact that women don't get happier as more money is spent making them be more "liberated") and dysgenic effects. The suffering of one generation buys the stupidity of the next. Progressivism many "great ideas" like that.
But on a macro scale "progressivism is social suicide" is mistaken or deceptive because the abstractness of the formula implies that it's the same for everyone, whereas in reality some people, White people, are the preferred targets of "progressive" movements, and other people, generally non-White people, are not the targets.
Progressivism has done a lot of harm in Africa because socialism doesn't work, but racially if you're Black, progressives have your back.
Q. Patrice is proud of his race and he is dedicated to ensure it has a great future. Is Patrice a laudable progressive or an evil racist?
A. I cannot tell you the answer to that question until you tell me Patrice's race. If Patrice is White, he is a racist, his views are consistent with Nazism, and he should be put out of work and be ostracized; if Patrice is non-White he is a laudable progressive and he may be a culture hero like Muhammad Ali.
It makes a difference whether the system is out to do away with you and your kind or not.
The African Union poses zero threat to the Black racial character of Africa, and it is the successor to the Organization of African Unity, which was dedicated to the eradication of all forms of colonialism, specifically White rule in Southern Africa.
The European Union acts broadly in conformity with Wesley Clark's famous judgement that "There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states." and favors policies of mass non-White immigration and forced integration and assimilation that imply the wiping away of every nation in Europe.
"Progressives" are OK with both agendas: racial defense and self-assertion for non-Whites; racial and national destruction for Whites.
The problem is not "social suicide". The problem is White genocide.
Why is it that so many people actually have such a distaste for whites? If you look through history most of the advancement in society came either from whites or asian cultures; asia was more advanced early on and then whites were able to catch up on the other side in Europe.
ReplyDeleteLook at the western civilizations that were "oppressed" by whites, then look at Africa, they're still tribal over there for a lot of it. A liberal might say it's because the white man is oppressive while they conveniently ignore the children being enslaved to have sex with adults or taught to kill by the very race they protect. Hell, the blacks were the ones that sold the slaves to Americans in the first place, America doesn't have slaves anymore, but I will bet 5 bucks that there's still slavery over in Africa.
Here is a count, in descending order, of the various religious symbols - the exception being the European Union star and the Soviet hammer & sickle (unless they are religions now?)
ReplyDeleteTaoism - Yin & Yang = 6
USSR/Communism - Hammer & Sickle = 5
Israel/Judaism - Star of David = 5
Hinduism - Om = 5
Islam - Crescent Moon = 4
Buddhism - Dharma Wheel = 4
European Union - Star = 4
Hindu-Buddhist - Trishula = 3
Shinto - Torii = 3
Christianity - Cross = 3
I think what is more significant than the number of each symbol is the positioning of the symbols. Well one in particular.
ReplyDeleteThe hammer and sickle is the at the top and is above everything else. ie Communism is at the top of the EU.
Profound statement by the EU.
The next thing to note is that the next highest symbol is the Islamic crescent (or how you look at it it is side by side with the Christian cross)I don't think this is as significant though as the Symbol of Communism being at the pinnacle of the EU star.
"Why is it that so many people actually have such a distaste for whites?"
ReplyDeleteIt matters only that they do, and we have to take account of anti-White prejudice.
Take Peter Sutherland, a United Nations official who has advocated that the European Union should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states.
There is no suggestion that the African Union ought to undermine the homogeneity of its member states of course. Africa for the Africans, Asia for the Asians, White countries for everyone!
Peter Sutherland is anti-White, certainly to the extent of trying to break down all the nations of Europe, all of which are historically and originally White.
If he influences economic advice, you should be skeptical of that advice, because of his anti-White prejudice. Objectively, there is no evidence that mass non-White immigration is going to profit the European nations that accept it, and there's a lot of evidence to the contrary. He says that the Europeans need to do this to prosper because he has an agenda. And we need to know that a lot of other people have this agenda. We need to expose the anti-White agendas that are motivating their destructive advice.
But why does he have this agenda?
There was a time when I would have attached importance to his being a chairman of Goldman Sachs International. I would have said that that suggests Jewish influence and that he has adjusted to a milieu where historic grievances against gentile Europeans are unquestioned, where White Europeans are more likely to be seen as hostile, prejudiced, unwelcoming and violent (not only because of the Holocaust but because of anti-Jewish actions in the Middle Ages) and also as not too bright (for example with the false stereotype of the stupid Pole), and in need of being told what to do by smart people. So you tell these overly homogenous (and thus potentially threatening and anti-Jewish) people that for their own good their homogeneity needs to be undermined, and as far as possible you do an end-run around popular prejudice and you try to influence those who control these policies without much effective oversight.
But there's a lot of people who are anti-White that never worked at Goldman Sachs. Tom Hayden, for instance.
Maybe Peter Sutherland just watched too much television and picked up the tropes that Blond Guys are Evil and Whites are Acceptable Targets.
And now I think: who cares? The actions people like Peter Sutherland and Tom Hayden are taking are so much bigger than any motives they might have that it's really irrelevant to discuss their motives.
And, suppose that Peter Sutherland picked up certain attitudes from fellow workers, or from movies or a television show he liked, so what? That doesn't give him a pass. If you do something terrible, you can't just say, "I got this idea chatting with some people around the water cooler; it seemed like a good idea at the time." Nor can you say, "I don't know; these ideas were common in the mass media when I grew up, and I just accepted them like a lot of other people".
No matter how light your motives originally were, the consequences of your actions are still just as heavy.
Bottom line: anti-White is as anti-White does.
Thanks for the count, Interested Observer. You're right: there are only five Hammer and Sickles, though that symbol has the pinnacle position.
ReplyDeleteI think the Hammer and Sickle is an admission that Communism always was a religion, and the European Union Star suggests that some people would like the EU to become a religion too.
(If so, they are out of luck. I don't have much good to say about Muslim mass immigration, but it will certainly put paid to any dreams Brussels bureaucrats might have about their bureaucracy becoming religiously dominant in Europe the way Marxism was in the Soviet Bloc.)
I think the numbers are important. They don't describe Europe as it is or as it was; they are aspirational. And unless you think that people in the EU are hot for Taoism, Hinduism and Israel, the aspiration is for the crowding out of Christianity.
The Cross of Christ is the (equal) least common symbol, with three instances out of forty-two. (Was that an in-joke from a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy fan?) If Christianity falls to such numbers in the EU, with continuing mass immigration of the sort that would make the other symbols numerically predominant, it will be obliterated, and there goes the culture of every European nation.
If Christianity is taken as a proxy for Whiteness, then this numerical inferiority means the end for the Whites, certainly with compulsory integration and assimilation.
The idea of an organization to protect the peace and promote the interests of the European peoples is one of the best ideas that anyone has had. The practice and the culture of the EU is the opposite. It is for White genocide.
Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, White countries for everybody?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous Sunday, 21 October 2012 2:11:00 PM AEDT:
Replace the word 'countries' with 'women' and you'll get a better idea of what the real agenda is.
Elizabeth Smith: "Interesting Anonymous comment above me."
There's some of that, but it doesn't predominate.
When people really love something, they try to lay on a permanent supply. If what people really wanted was White women, they'd be trying to establish Whites-only areas where Whites would breed abundantly and provide a permanent supply of those much desired White women for the world. (Superfluous White men might be out of luck.) There's nothing like that. It's the opposite: mass immigration, compulsory integration and assimilation to wipe out the breed.
The ones who really want to lay on a permanent supply of White women are the White nationalists, who "gamers" accuse of worshipping the White goddess. The infamous 14 words go: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children." But there is another 14 words: "Because the beauty of the White Aryan woman must not perish from the earth."
Another indication that White women are loved mostly by White men is that White women who marry Black men are subjected to serious violence at vastly higher rates than they would be if they married White men. The boys who love their toys don't break them, they cherish them. The impulse to glory over the enemy and take his women apparently doesn't trigger the same sort of protective instinct.
I think some White women do assume unconsciously that racial conflict is at root rivalry, and that they are the ultimate prize. I that case, if more rival women are non-White (and presumably less attractive) White women can pick from the best of all races, so multi-racialism can only be good for them, and it's safe to advocate for it and vote for it, regardless of the interests of White men. I think that theory won't work out well.
Thanks for that response Daybreaker. Some phrases come to mind...
ReplyDelete"Ideals of purity create misogyny"
"The far-right seeks political control over biological evolution"
...
More women than men, probably, appreciate contemporary multi-ethnic society. It is particularly rare to find a young white woman who is opposed to it.
Thanks ladies.
ReplyDeleteanother aspect of the poster is that the Christian symbols only take up all a small percentage of the overall image.
ReplyDeleteTheis suggests that not only will Europeans have to tolerate sharing their homelands with other groups, but they must also although other groups to form the majority of the population.
Not even one SWASTIKA included for us hindus?
ReplyDelete