Don't let the video get to you too much. This is a good editorial regarding the situation:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...urope.html

The game is nearly up.

Excellent posts by Anabasis and Quintus.

Really put the puzzle pieces together for many that couldnt quite figure out the angles and the big picture.

I dont even want to imagine how much surveillance is gonna get ramped up in the coming years in Europe.

(11-15-2015 10:02 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(11-14-2015 06:02 PM)Samseau Wrote:  People don't understand, "White" people you see today are the result of a Christian breeding program implemented over 1700 years ago. Whites before Christianity were stupid, extremely violent and strong, and prone to incredible violence at the slightest provocation.

Whites today are so far removed from their barbarian past, they just do not realize the unbelievable importance God had in transforming them. It is a crime that this history is hidden from them.

Aristotle, Born: 384 BC; Socrates, Born: 470 BC

Cicero, Born 107 BC; Homer, 750 BCE

Aescylus, Born: 525 BC; Archimedes, Born: 287 BC

......

Seems legit.

As usual, best not let reality clash with a perfectly crazy theory.

You don't know your history. Most of those Greeks and Romans had disappeared in the Western half of the Roman Empire by 400 AD due to insufficient birthrates. Both the women and men were corrupted, with few caring about creating strong families. The men constantly seeking power and engaged in costly civil wars while the women were vapid and materialistic.

Well over 80% of the fresh population into Southern and Western Europe came from the Germanic Barbarians. We know this because the Latin language all but disappeared (as it's practitioners went extinct) and the only people who survived to chronicle it all were the Christian monks and scholars who also were the only literate ones, along with a small class of Latin Roman nobles.

Meanwhile, in the Eastern Roman Empire, Latin was already dying out to be replaced by Greek. The Greeks in Turkey would end up meeting an unfortunate fate and they too would die out due to plagues, invasion, and political corruption, while Western Europe made a comeback.

The barbarians who became the majority of Europe's ancestors were clannish to the extreme; I have read accounts where if one family so much as insulted another family, it would result in both families engaging in a brawl to the death. Things as simple as accidentally taking someone else's fork in a Tavern could result in the death of dozens. Inbreeding was rampant as trust between families was very low. Disease, malnutrition, birth death for mothers, defects, etc. was very common.

It was the Christian survivors of Rome who began the arduous process of converting the barbarians, and one of their major accomplishments was to break down the rigid clans whose patriarchs could dictate life and death of all it's members. Christians also taught these barbarians the rule of law and to hold individuals accountable rather than entire families guilty for the crime of just one member.

Finally, the Christians rounded up the many single children and bastard children of the last Romans, and intermarried them into the Germanic barbarian population.

Now, would Whites have survived without Christianity? Maybe. But I don't need to contest that. I just need to show that the vast majority of Europeans today came from the Christian practices of family and law, that Modern Europeans are successful hybrid creations between Germanic barbarians and the last Romans, and that it was the only real force for legal authority for nearly 1000 years in Western Europe after Western Rome's collapse whose traditions remained dominant well into the 20th century.

However, my personal opinion is that the Whites would have remained in the bronze age or close to it without Christianity. I infer this because the Byzantines encountered many different groups of White Alpine people's to the north of the Baltic sea as well as in the Balkans who were all pagan. Again, these Whites were extremely violent, illiterate, clannish, and brutish by any comparison to a White today or a Byzantine Greek back then. They were further behind on the evolutionary scale.

It wasn't until the Byzantines managed to convert these peoples around them did their ascent into a stronger civilization began. To support my thesis that Whites would not be anything today without Christianity, many of these same White groups (Russians, Hungarians, Slovakians, etc.) who converted ended up being the same White groups to resist Islam after they conquered the Byzantines in 1453 and keep them out of Europe. Just like the Crusades, without Christianity to unite the Whites they would have fallen separately to Islamic invasion, and there are many accounts to attest to this.

So, to recap, this isn't crazy history, this all happened and there is extensive research into this subject already. I learned about it after reading a book by Harvard professor called Family and Civilization by Carle C. Zimmerman (a Talmudic Jew, so we know it's not just some Christian apologist who wants to make his faith look good) who spoke fluent Latin and Greek and read quite literally thousands of ancient sources before concluding on the above thesis. This book was his life's achievement. Many, many writers back in ancient times talked about the birth dearth, as well as the Christians efforts to civilize the Germanic hordes.

Eventually, the Germanic barbarians stopped speaking their Gallic tongues but did not speak Latin either; the fusion between Gallic and Latin became what we know today as "Italian." By the time Dante wrote his Inferno in 1300, Italian had become the de facto language of the country and Dante's work is widely considered the first real Italian story to set the standard of the language.

Also, for those who are curious:

Spanish = Arab (from their Moorish rulers) + Latin
French = Latin + Nordics
Modern English = Old English + French

The evolution of languages can tell us what groups were reproducing and where.

Thus, when you see those ancient pictures of Socrates above, know that you are looking at a strain of White genes that almost went extinct before Christianity saved it to create the far more superior Whites out of barbarian stock.

(11-15-2015 04:31 PM)Marshallaw Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 04:22 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  All these other countries and leaders 'standing in solidarity' is just fucking pathetic and almost hilarious.

this is weakness and pussyness on another scale. Even that Asian kid in California who stabbed people over not having a girlfriend....sure he was a pussy, but he eventually snapped and became violent. what is it with French people to just lay there and take it?

The Frogs have pretty well been handed their asses on a plate ever since the Napoleonic era. WWI, bailed out by the Brits and Yanks. WWII again capitulated within a few weeks, Brits bailed at Dunkirk. Collaborated with the Krauts. Yanks again had to intervene along with the Russian front. Algeria, thrown out. Vietnam, Dian Bien Phu, over run.
They may think they can bomb ISIS into submission but I have a sneaking suspicion the Russians will have something to say on the subject.

They didn't get hammered in ww1, they ground out a brutal stalemate and it wasn't the brits or the yanks that stabbed Germany in the back.

WW2 was a war the russians won, nine out of ten german deaths were on the russian front. But 80% of men born in 1923 didn't see the end of the war, a generation destroyed.
In ww2, should the french have thrown away another generation of young men to make a point in they couldn't win?

Algeria, the army won the war but was stabbed in the back by liberals and Jews.

(11-15-2015 04:08 PM)philosophical_recovery Wrote:  What else can a disarmed, cucked populace do? They're going to keep being robbed to keep their invaders in comfort.

The survival instinct of the French nation will eventually overwhelm their cultural programming. The longer the period of time until that happens, the bloodier the eventual conflict will be, and the less likely their chances of success if they keep losing the demographic war. It is not important how many geriatrics France has, but what percentage of the young and vital are French and what percentage are Muslim.

It will take the 68ers dying off for there to be any hope of true political change, but by the time that happens what will the demographic situation be?

How will the ideological framework of France - i.e. radical progressive equality, liberal materialism, democracy, socialism - react to unending Islamic pressure over the next five, ten, and twenty years? Is the will to fight high enough among the young and healthy to overwhelm their material desires? Will the forces of the state seek to keep the status quo and suppress a budding Génération Identitaire movement in the face of Islamic violence?

I don't know, but until the values of the society change that have led to the present state of affairs, the future will not. No single terror attack will change it, the present tragedy included.

(11-15-2015 04:56 PM)tom Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 04:31 PM)Marshallaw Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 04:22 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  All these other countries and leaders 'standing in solidarity' is just fucking pathetic and almost hilarious.

this is weakness and pussyness on another scale. Even that Asian kid in California who stabbed people over not having a girlfriend....sure he was a pussy, but he eventually snapped and became violent. what is it with French people to just lay there and take it?

The Frogs have pretty well been handed their asses on a plate ever since the Napoleonic era. WWI, bailed out by the Brits and Yanks. WWII again capitulated within a few weeks, Brits bailed at Dunkirk. Collaborated with the Krauts. Yanks again had to intervene along with the Russian front. Algeria, thrown out. Vietnam, Dian Bien Phu, over run.
They may think they can bomb ISIS into submission but I have a sneaking suspicion the Russians will have something to say on the subject.

They didn't get hammered in ww1, they ground out a brutal stalemate and it wasn't the brits or the yanks that stabbed Germany in the back.

WW2 was a war the russians won, nine out of ten german deaths were on the russian front. But 80% of men born in 1923 didn't see the end of the war, a generation destroyed.
In ww2, should the french have thrown away another generation of young men to make a point in they couldn't win?

Algeria, the army won the war but was stabbed in the back by liberals and Jews.

If you paid attention to my post I never said they were "hammered" in WWI. Without the Brits and Yanks there would have been no "stalemate".
I agree the Russians took the brunt of WWII but the Yanks opening the second front liberated the French, the majority of whom collaborated.
As I said thrown out of Algeria and over run in Vietnam. Their record in contemporary confrontations is nothing to shout about. Their military contributions to the UN are nothing but shameful.

French fighters are hitting ISIS targets in Syria today, less than 48 hours after the terrorist attack. Its quite obvious they had the bombing runs all planned out before the attack in Paris occurred.

Watching Paris, one of European civilization's greatest treasures being desecrated by a group of bloodthirsty thugs, and the ensuing limp wristed response by the men of the west has left me angry and disappointed. I know many of you feel the same, and I think it's important we direct that anger in the right direction. Muslim extremism, perhaps Islam itself is not compatible with European values. We know that.

But who opened the door for them to come into our homes? Our "leaders" did, and they continue to do so. That is where all of your anger should be directed. I am not saying the terrorists are not culpable, for their actions, they are, or that Islamic extremism isn't a problem. But if they weren't recklessly encouraged to invade our homes, their actions would have never been possible in the first place. Please consider:

- There is no need to wipe out Muslims or turn their countries into "glass factories". As long as they're minding their business in their own countries, there is no reason to care. Europe became the preeminent culture of the world during a time while Islam was also expanding. The existence of Islamic countries is not necessarily an impediment to the development of other cultures as long as they remain isolated from each other.

- Shiite Muslims seem to be much less problematic than Salafist Muslims. Christians have lived in relative peace in Shiite countries, particularly in Syria and Lebanon. Syria, Iraq, and Iran are facing an existential threat from well-funded and well-armed Sunnis for decades. They have been fighting and dieing against the same people that are threatening our homes for much longer than we have.

- If Islam is such a brutal and terrible religion, then fine. Let the people who wish to adopt that culture deal with it. As long as it's not within your borders, why should we care?

Before I'm accused of being a "muslim apologist" or the like, let me be clear. I am against the immigration or residence of large populations of muslims who refuse to integrate in European countries. I do think the talk of wiping out Muslims is way over the top and missing the big picture of what the problem is though.

(11-15-2015 05:03 PM)Marshallaw Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 04:56 PM)tom Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 04:31 PM)Marshallaw Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 04:22 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  All these other countries and leaders 'standing in solidarity' is just fucking pathetic and almost hilarious.

this is weakness and pussyness on another scale. Even that Asian kid in California who stabbed people over not having a girlfriend....sure he was a pussy, but he eventually snapped and became violent. what is it with French people to just lay there and take it?

The Frogs have pretty well been handed their asses on a plate ever since the Napoleonic era. WWI, bailed out by the Brits and Yanks. WWII again capitulated within a few weeks, Brits bailed at Dunkirk. Collaborated with the Krauts. Yanks again had to intervene along with the Russian front. Algeria, thrown out. Vietnam, Dian Bien Phu, over run.
They may think they can bomb ISIS into submission but I have a sneaking suspicion the Russians will have something to say on the subject.

They didn't get hammered in ww1, they ground out a brutal stalemate and it wasn't the brits or the yanks that stabbed Germany in the back.

WW2 was a war the russians won, nine out of ten german deaths were on the russian front. But 80% of men born in 1923 didn't see the end of the war, a generation destroyed.
In ww2, should the french have thrown away another generation of young men to make a point in they couldn't win?

Algeria, the army won the war but was stabbed in the back by liberals and Jews.

If you paid attention to my post I never said they were "hammered" in WWI. Without the Brits and Yanks there would have been no "stalemate".
I agree the Russians took the brunt of WWII but the Yanks opening the second front liberated the French, the majority of whom collaborated.
As I said thrown out of Algeria and over run in Vietnam. Their record in contemporary confrontations is nothing to shout about. Their military contributions to the UN are nothing but shameful.

I'm curious about this. Surely the actual majority of French people were not collaborators, were they?

What is the truth behind French collaborators? Always been curious about that.

(11-15-2015 04:56 PM)tom Wrote:  They didn't get hammered in ww1, they ground out a brutal stalemate and it wasn't the brits or the yanks that stabbed Germany in the back.

WW2 was a war the russians won, nine out of ten german deaths were on the russian front. But 80% of men born in 1923 didn't see the end of the war, a generation destroyed.
In ww2, should the french have thrown away another generation of young men to make a point in they couldn't win?

Algeria, the army won the war but was stabbed in the back by liberals and Jews.

I remember reading something a while back about the French and WW2. They would have done much better if they actually gave a shit. But they were still tired from WWI. They had tons of equipment and men, I think the largest standing army in Europe. But the discipline and the heart wasn't there from the beggining. That is why they lost so quickly. The didn't last as long as the Poles and everyone makes fun of the Poles. Slight tangent, if you know anything about WW2, you will know the Poles did a shitload for the Allies only to be fucked at the beginning and at the end by the Allies, but I digress.

Here is a link with some discussion on why France lost WW2 and what they could have done. They were just beaten down and had no morale before the war even started. Poland gets attacked, they had time to prep up, but still didn't. No heart. Polish soliders/pilots who escaped to France ridiculed how shittily prepared the French were. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp...=�

And if France was so smart to save their precious men born in 1923, what great accomplishments did France propel post war? I have no ill will toward France, I have not experienced rudeness when I have traveled there because I tried to show respect and speak some French. But they don't come across as having a lot of will.

And don't forget that the Russians got a shitload of equipment and supplies from the US. Russia just had a lot of bodies. Honestly, the war was won by the US because of its incredible industrial output and the lack of conflict in its country because it was almost like a giant island. I bet if the Russians don't get the supplies from the US, they would have lost.

I've been posting this around on all the liberal muslim apologists facebook walls, with mixed results.

Quote:I think you might just be onto something here.


Anabasis on Hezbolah

Damned interesting post; don't suppose you have more information on this? If everything you claim is true and accurate it would drastically change my stance on Israel and Palestine.

I know it is very shocking considering how the Western media has been feeding us a steady diet of antagonism towards Hezbollah and Iran

They are not the enemy!

Don't get me wrong, Hezbollah is an Islamist & religious organization based on Shia Islam. But below are some excerpts from their constitution. Why wouldn't Arab Christians support them?

Main Principles

Quote:According to "The Hezballah Program" the principles of its ideology are:

-To expel Americans, the French and their allies definitely from Lebanon, putting an end to any colonialist entity on our land.
-To submit the phalanges to a just power and bring them all to justice for the crimes they have perpetrated against Muslims and Christians.
-To permit all the sons of our people to determine their future and to choose in all the liberty the form of government they desire.

On Christians

Quote:"We respect the Jewish religion just like we do Christianity.... The Jews have always lived among us. We have an issue with Israel's occupation of land.

On Jews

Quote:"Hezbollah has never been against religions. Hezbollah supports all religions, it supports interfaith dialogue, and it has no problem with any religion. Hezbollah considers Zionism to be the enemy, not the Jews as a people or a religion."

On Women's rights

Quote:"Hezbollah differs from many Islamic groups in our treatment of women. We believe women have the ability like men to participate in all parts of life.From its founding in the 1980s, Hezbollah women have headed education, medical and social service organizations. Most recently Hezbollah nominated several women to run in the Lebanese elections."

10 minute documentary : featuring interviews of Arab Christians and why they support Hezbollah. Also a featured is a short speech the leader of Hezbollah (Sayeed Nasrallah). A huge Lebanese Maronite Christian concert (50,000 people) in support of Hezbollah at the end too.





I hope this will change your views regarding the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict!

(11-15-2015 05:20 PM)RioNomad Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 05:03 PM)Marshallaw Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 04:56 PM)tom Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 04:31 PM)Marshallaw Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 04:22 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  All these other countries and leaders 'standing in solidarity' is just fucking pathetic and almost hilarious.

this is weakness and pussyness on another scale. Even that Asian kid in California who stabbed people over not having a girlfriend....sure he was a pussy, but he eventually snapped and became violent. what is it with French people to just lay there and take it?

The Frogs have pretty well been handed their asses on a plate ever since the Napoleonic era. WWI, bailed out by the Brits and Yanks. WWII again capitulated within a few weeks, Brits bailed at Dunkirk. Collaborated with the Krauts. Yanks again had to intervene along with the Russian front. Algeria, thrown out. Vietnam, Dian Bien Phu, over run.
They may think they can bomb ISIS into submission but I have a sneaking suspicion the Russians will have something to say on the subject.

They didn't get hammered in ww1, they ground out a brutal stalemate and it wasn't the brits or the yanks that stabbed Germany in the back.

WW2 was a war the russians won, nine out of ten german deaths were on the russian front. But 80% of men born in 1923 didn't see the end of the war, a generation destroyed.
In ww2, should the french have thrown away another generation of young men to make a point in they couldn't win?

Algeria, the army won the war but was stabbed in the back by liberals and Jews.

If you paid attention to my post I never said they were "hammered" in WWI. Without the Brits and Yanks there would have been no "stalemate".
I agree the Russians took the brunt of WWII but the Yanks opening the second front liberated the French, the majority of whom collaborated.
As I said thrown out of Algeria and over run in Vietnam. Their record in contemporary confrontations is nothing to shout about. Their military contributions to the UN are nothing but shameful.

I'm curious about this. Surely the actual majority of French people were not collaborators, were they?

What is the truth behind French collaborators? Always been curious about that.

There is a popular fallacy, among the historically illiterate, that the French are, and always have been, inept militarily.

OK, they got rolled over in 1940, but the British did too, Dunkirk was a retreat to avoid destruction at the hands of a far superior force. People forget that it took the whole world nearly 3 years to defeat Nazi Germany. They would have rolled anyone over in 1940, no one had technology or methods like them.

The French were instrumental in the creation of the United States. Their military input was decisive(Yorktown, 1781).

Especially among jingoistic English, there is this idea that the French like to surrender, which is ironic since the English and French have been fighting each other for 100s of years with no surrender. One of the most highly regarded military events in English history is Agincourt, which was one of the few English victories in a war that the French won.

So, very few French were collaborators in WW2. Many French people resisted German occupation in many different ways. For example, businessmen who owned factories made sure that components were made poorly if they were for the German war machine. There are countless other examples of French resistance in WW2. They are a strong people.

Another example of the French psyche, is their willingness to protest against authority. For example the French farmers will drive tractors to Paris and dump manure outside political buildings as a protest. There are many more example of their refusal, as a nation, to accept things they don't like.

Also, the French Revolution was the genesis of nationalism, and while that has had some bad consequences(World Wars in the 20th century), I feel that nationalism will be how Europe can save itself again. I live in hope!!

(11-15-2015 05:53 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 05:20 PM)RioNomad Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 05:03 PM)Marshallaw Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 04:56 PM)tom Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 04:31 PM)Marshallaw Wrote:  The Frogs have pretty well been handed their asses on a plate ever since the Napoleonic era. WWI, bailed out by the Brits and Yanks. WWII again capitulated within a few weeks, Brits bailed at Dunkirk. Collaborated with the Krauts. Yanks again had to intervene along with the Russian front. Algeria, thrown out. Vietnam, Dian Bien Phu, over run.
They may think they can bomb ISIS into submission but I have a sneaking suspicion the Russians will have something to say on the subject.

They didn't get hammered in ww1, they ground out a brutal stalemate and it wasn't the brits or the yanks that stabbed Germany in the back.

WW2 was a war the russians won, nine out of ten german deaths were on the russian front. But 80% of men born in 1923 didn't see the end of the war, a generation destroyed.
In ww2, should the french have thrown away another generation of young men to make a point in they couldn't win?

Algeria, the army won the war but was stabbed in the back by liberals and Jews.

If you paid attention to my post I never said they were "hammered" in WWI. Without the Brits and Yanks there would have been no "stalemate".
I agree the Russians took the brunt of WWII but the Yanks opening the second front liberated the French, the majority of whom collaborated.
As I said thrown out of Algeria and over run in Vietnam. Their record in contemporary confrontations is nothing to shout about. Their military contributions to the UN are nothing but shameful.

I'm curious about this. Surely the actual majority of French people were not collaborators, were they?

What is the truth behind French collaborators? Always been curious about that.

There is a popular fallacy, among the historically illiterate, that the French are, and always have been, inept militarily.

Yes, the French were on the cutting edge militarily for a long time and let's not forget they were the ones who originally put forth the idea of mass nationalist mobilization which allowed them to fight off multiple european forces at once during the French Revolution. The idea of the French being cowards is really a thing pushed by the anglosphere (mostly American) after WW2. It's definitely not an accurate view when you look at a broader perspective.

France was a great nation for centuries. I was one of the first to comment after LiNUX mentioned the revolutionary war. They did great things for the USA. As an Americsn, there is a debt owed to the French. But to be objective, within the last 100 years France has slipped from the greatness it once had. Maybe this moment rallies them and France begins to ascend again.

Didn't say the French were cowards but if you read the history books, France didn't have its heart in WW2. Low morale.

At Dunkirk Poles were covering the retreat and the French tried to throw them under the bus. Like I said, we owe the French for the US origins (but also the Poles who played a key role), but they haven't been much these last 100 years.



From a book titled, "No Greater Ally: The Untold Story of Poland's Forces in World War II"

Samseu, I you have a point regarding Christianity both acting as a civilizing force and acting to unite the barbarians.

Where you are wrong in my opinion, is making it out like Christians somehow needed to civilize these savages.

The truth is that the so called Norse savages civilized themselves very quickly. The most famous are of course the Normanns, who within a single generation or two picked up Frankish customs and language. The capacity for culture and civilization was always there, however there is a reason the Romans did not proceed into Germania and that was because it was a wilderness of dense forest, unsuitable for cities.

The invading Goths, Vandals and other Norse groups were also quickly assimilated so effectively that no one in Spain or Morocco are aware they were ruled by blue eyed Norsemen.

Nordics were always pragmatic and had full intellectual capacity for civilization, they simply lived in areas that were impossible to irrigate and build metropolises in. It's not very different than how any rural population today is less sophisticated.

(11-15-2015 02:29 PM)RIslander Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 01:14 PM)ManAbout Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 10:02 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Shit's getting ready to go old-school.

(11-15-2015 12:52 AM)ManAbout Wrote:  

(11-14-2015 11:15 PM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  That and having the stupidity of the left being paraded around me is simply exhausting.

If it wasn't for the stupidity of the left you would still be in Vietnam.

Vietnam was a cut-and-dry case of you leftists ruining a country.

My comment had nothing to do with the Vietnam war. I don't know enough about it to comment.

It was about the irony of him being a Vietnamese immigrant living in France and lamenting about the stupidity of the left. If he is looking for the French Right to come and save him, he is in for a rude awakening. He is not one of them, and he never will be. His Asian features ensure that. He will be treated just like the other foreigners and immigrants in the country. He says that he loves France more than his own country. But, it's very much a one sided love affair. The only reason he is tolerated in France is because of those stupid leftists.

First off, your original post was disrespectful to a fellow RVF poster.

Secondly, it is wrong. It is neither left nor right to accept productive immigrants from foreign countries who wish to assimilate to their new cultures, as the Vietnamese and other Asians are well known and respected for. The greatest societies in human history got there, in part, by welcoming the best and brightest from around the world. No reasonable right-wing party is going to have any problem with non-violent foreigners, in reasonable numbers, legally coming to study, work and produce.

The fact is, it is made extremely difficult and expensive for immigrants to come from a country such as Vietnam, whereas violent Muslims are welcomed en masse. This backass policy is the stupidity of the left.

Thanks RIslander. I didn't want to respond to the retarded original comment, but you said exactly what I wanted to say.

Any French-based RVF can attest that legal, educated immigrants have always been welcome in France even with right wing goverment. However we have to deal with a shit ton of paperwork and exhorbitant taxes whereas some stupid Muslims with below average IQ can just waltz in, talk shit and the government bow before them. His words "he was tolerated in France" gave me a good laugh though. If it wasn't for rich, well educated immigrants France's economy which is heavily based on tourism and luxury would collapse in a heartbeat.

If anything, it was much better for legal immigrants were during the rule of Sarkozy, the ex central left President and there's nothing in the extreme right agenda that would make it harder for us than what the left has already done.

Back on topic. I went out against today with my girl and the streets and parks were filled again. Talk to a few people and I keep getting amazed at how western civilizations have castrated humans.

What is the most basic instinctual reaction for any human or animal when their pack is threatened? Rage and fury and a thirst for revenge. Back in the day if you kill a man's family member he will hunt you down to the end of the earth. Hell if I lose any of my family in the incident I'd be sure to hunt down and kill every last one of the fuckers before I go down.



What's the reaction today? Fury and rage all replaced by grief and frustration and despair. People are just sad that their friends and family were killed. That it. Sad. Like they died peacefully from old age or something.

You know what people are telling me? "I just want everything to go back to normal so I can go to work or school"


That's it. That's the overwhelming sentiment I've felt. People just want to pretend that nothing ever happen, that their countrymen have been killed and terrorized, that their civilization is on the brink of collapse, so that they can "go back to work" Like, the 9-5 work then go out in the weekend miserable life. How can you have any kind of positive change if this is the kind of reaction you see.

This is not the same country that was founded by heroes like Charles Martel. He knew even before there was any Muslims in France, that he had to stopped them before they get here or we would now have a Muslim Europe. Guess his efforts have been in vain.

(11-15-2015 05:59 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  Yes, the French were on the cutting edge militarily for a long time and let's not forget they were the ones who originally put forth the idea of mass nationalist mobilization which allowed them to fight off multiple european forces at once during the French Revolution. The idea of the French being cowards is really a thing pushed by the anglosphere (mostly American) after WW2. It's definitely not an accurate view when you look at a broader perspective.

They've always been cutting-edge ideologically too. The French Revolution also was an official declaration of war against every monarchy on the planet.

Napoleon had some bad points but he ruled over a Europe that Merkel and Junckers are probably very envious of in terms of size and homogeneity of political practice. Nationalism is a double-edged weapon. It can liberate people from persecution and oppression, and also be used to subjugate unjustly or form totalitarian regimes.

Like all interesting things in human life it has to be used in moderation.

Many of the social and political practices that Napoleon established are still in use across Europe today, I can't go in to too much detail off the top of my head, but it is there if you want to research it. I think it was Caractus Potts, who mentioned about the SAP(?, the Pompiers?) in France, and how much of their formation is down to the influence of Napoleon and how he 'ran with the nationalist ball', so to speak.

It is an interesting topic of history, and one of which most of us today are the progeny. WW1 was, on a historical theoretical level, a consequence of nationalism and some of the moves that took place in the FR and under Napoleon.

It is nearly always necessary to get historical when we look at some of the terrible events that have taken place in our lifetimes, or post-WW2.

At the moment, Syria is a focal point for geo-political activities etc.. So maybe we should have a quick look at the history of Syria. Before 1913 there was no Syria, it was part of the Ottoman Empire and had been for centuries. as we know now, WW1 was a pivotal event in terms of how the global stage was made up.

Towards the end of WW1, and perhaps during the inter-war period, Syria was created as part of "The French Mandate"("This is for Syria" were ironic words, since France was instrumental in the creation of Syria(Sykes-Picot etc)), the British Mandate was the southern area of the Levant and the Holy Land. I'm not trying to be historically precise but basically the main winning powers of WW1 had final say over the area of one of their victims(the Ottoman Empire), and it could be argued solidly, that most of the problems we're experiencing there now, are a result of this.

None of this is obscure information, it's just overlooked, and relevant to today.

(11-15-2015 06:34 PM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 02:29 PM)RIslander Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 01:14 PM)ManAbout Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 10:02 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Shit's getting ready to go old-school.

(11-15-2015 12:52 AM)ManAbout Wrote:  If it wasn't for the stupidity of the left you would still be in Vietnam.

Vietnam was a cut-and-dry case of you leftists ruining a country.

My comment had nothing to do with the Vietnam war. I don't know enough about it to comment.

It was about the irony of him being a Vietnamese immigrant living in France and lamenting about the stupidity of the left. If he is looking for the French Right to come and save him, he is in for a rude awakening. He is not one of them, and he never will be. His Asian features ensure that. He will be treated just like the other foreigners and immigrants in the country. He says that he loves France more than his own country. But, it's very much a one sided love affair. The only reason he is tolerated in France is because of those stupid leftists.

First off, your original post was disrespectful to a fellow RVF poster.

Secondly, it is wrong. It is neither left nor right to accept productive immigrants from foreign countries who wish to assimilate to their new cultures, as the Vietnamese and other Asians are well known and respected for. The greatest societies in human history got there, in part, by welcoming the best and brightest from around the world. No reasonable right-wing party is going to have any problem with non-violent foreigners, in reasonable numbers, legally coming to study, work and produce.

The fact is, it is made extremely difficult and expensive for immigrants to come from a country such as Vietnam, whereas violent Muslims are welcomed en masse. This backass policy is the stupidity of the left.

Thanks RIslander. I didn't want to respond to the retarded original comment, but you said exactly what I wanted to say.

Any French-based RVF can attest that legal, educated immigrants have always been welcome in France even with right wing goverment. However we have to deal with a shit ton of paperwork and exhorbitant taxes whereas some stupid Muslims with below average IQ can just waltz in, talk shit and the government bow before them. His words "he was tolerated in France" gave me a good laugh though. If it wasn't for rich, well educated immigrants France's economy which is heavily based on tourism and luxury would collapse in a heartbeat.

If anything, it was much better for legal immigrants were during the rule of Sarkozy, the ex central left President and there's nothing in the extreme right agenda that would make it harder for us than what the left has already done.

Back on topic. I went out against today with my girl and the streets and parks were filled again. Talk to a few people and I keep getting amazed at how western civilizations have castrated humans.

What is the most basic instinctual reaction for any human or animal when their pack is threatened? Rage and fury and a thirst for revenge. Back in the day if you kill a man's family member he will hunt you down to the end of the earth. Hell if I lose any of my family in the incident I'd be sure to hunt down and kill every last one of the fuckers before I go down.

What's the reaction today? Fury and rage all replaced by grief and frustration and despair. People are just sad that their friends and family were killed. That it. Sad. Like they died peacefully from old age or something.

You know what people are telling me? "I just want everything to go back to normal so I can go to work or school"


That's it. That's the overwhelming sentiment I've felt. People just want to pretend that nothing ever happen, that their countrymen have been killed and terrorized, that their civilization is on the brink of collapse, so that they can "go back to work" Like, the 9-5 work then go out in the weekend miserable life. How can you have any kind of positive change if this is the kind of reaction you see.

That's what two generations of feminist-inspired emasculation looks like. Now ask the question: Could one imagine the same reaction in Budapest or Warsaw if the same terrorist atrocity had occurred there?

(11-15-2015 06:28 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  Samseu, I you have a point regarding Christianity both acting as a civilizing force and acting to unite the barbarians.

Where you are wrong in my opinion, is making it out like Christians somehow needed to civilize these savages.

The truth is that the so called Norse savages civilized themselves very quickly. The most famous are of course the Normanns, who within a single generation or two picked up Frankish customs and language. The capacity for culture and civilization was always there, however there is a reason the Romans did not proceed into Germania and that was because it was a wilderness of dense forest, unsuitable for cities.

The invading Goths, Vandals and other Norse groups were also quickly assimilated so effectively that no one in Spain or Morocco are aware they were ruled by blue eyed Norsemen.

Nordics were always pragmatic and had full intellectual capacity for civilization, they simply lived in areas that were impossible to irrigate and build metropolises in. It's not very different than how any rural population today is less sophisticated.

Nice conjecture. Do you have any evidence to support your thesis? Can you find any historical example of barbarian Whites rising to greatness without Christianity?

I can't. The most disturbing fact of history is that we only have 2500 years of accurate history, the rest is inferred from archaeology and DNA testing.

Yet, we know humans have been around for over 200K years. Yet written history covers less than 1% of it. And of the history we have, it all comes from our Christian fathers.

This supports the idea that before Christianity, humanity in all of it's existence failed to ever achieve anything of permanence and lasting impact. That our history only goes back as far as Christians have preserved it, strongly indicates Whites have never achieved anything significant before Christianity and clearly owe who they are to God.

(11-15-2015 05:53 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 05:20 PM)RioNomad Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 05:03 PM)Marshallaw Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 04:56 PM)tom Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 04:31 PM)Marshallaw Wrote:  The Frogs have pretty well been handed their asses on a plate ever since the Napoleonic era. WWI, bailed out by the Brits and Yanks. WWII again capitulated within a few weeks, Brits bailed at Dunkirk. Collaborated with the Krauts. Yanks again had to intervene along with the Russian front. Algeria, thrown out. Vietnam, Dian Bien Phu, over run.
They may think they can bomb ISIS into submission but I have a sneaking suspicion the Russians will have something to say on the subject.

They didn't get hammered in ww1, they ground out a brutal stalemate and it wasn't the brits or the yanks that stabbed Germany in the back.

WW2 was a war the russians won, nine out of ten german deaths were on the russian front. But 80% of men born in 1923 didn't see the end of the war, a generation destroyed.
In ww2, should the french have thrown away another generation of young men to make a point in they couldn't win?

Algeria, the army won the war but was stabbed in the back by liberals and Jews.

If you paid attention to my post I never said they were "hammered" in WWI. Without the Brits and Yanks there would have been no "stalemate".
I agree the Russians took the brunt of WWII but the Yanks opening the second front liberated the French, the majority of whom collaborated.
As I said thrown out of Algeria and over run in Vietnam. Their record in contemporary confrontations is nothing to shout about. Their military contributions to the UN are nothing but shameful.

I'm curious about this. Surely the actual majority of French people were not collaborators, were they?

What is the truth behind French collaborators? Always been curious about that.

There is a popular fallacy, among the historically illiterate, that the French are, and always have been, inept militarily.

OK, they got rolled over in 1940, but the British did too, Dunkirk was a retreat to avoid destruction at the hands of a far superior force. People forget that it took the whole world nearly 3 years to defeat Nazi Germany. They would have rolled anyone over in 1940, no one had technology or methods like them.

The French were instrumental in the creation of the United States. Their military input was decisive(Yorktown, 1781).

Especially among jingoistic English, there is this idea that the French like to surrender, which is ironic since the English and French have been fighting each other for 100s of years with no surrender. One of the most highly regarded military events in English history is Agincourt, which was one of the few English victories in a war that the French won.

So, very few French were collaborators in WW2. Many French people resisted German occupation in many different ways. For example, businessmen who owned factories made sure that components were made poorly if they were for the German war machine. There are countless other examples of French resistance in WW2. They are a strong people.

Another example of the French psyche, is their willingness to protest against authority. For example the French farmers will drive tractors to Paris and dump manure outside political buildings as a protest. There are many more example of their refusal, as a nation, to accept things they don't like.

Also, the French Revolution was the genesis of nationalism, and while that has had some bad consequences(World Wars in the 20th century), I feel that nationalism will be how Europe can save itself again. I live in hope!!

The sad reality is that the French would have been better off conquored by Nazi's than betrayed by their current elites to open warfare and genocide on the civilian population like they are today.

(11-15-2015 06:34 PM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  You know what people are telling me? "I just want everything to go back to normal so I can go to work or school"


That's it. That's the overwhelming sentiment I've felt. People just want to pretend that nothing ever happen, that their countrymen have been killed and terrorized, that their civilization is on the brink of collapse, so that they can "go back to work" Like, the 9-5 work then go out in the weekend miserable life. How can you have any kind of positive change if this is the kind of reaction you see.

This is exactly what I thought would happen. Most people are rationalizing that if they do nothing they will get another 6 months of peace and life continues with a coffee in the morning and TV at night.

The only way this would change is if there was way more attacks. I mean like next weekend the same thing happen again, and then another mass killing a few weeks after that. Then you would see some shit go down.

Quote:What's the reaction today? Fury and rage all replaced by grief and frustration and despair. People are just sad that their friends and family were killed. That it. Sad. Like they died peacefully from old age or something.

And that in a nutshell is why France is doomed, where is the anger? They are scared, they don't want to fight for their freedom. The are the children brought up easy....

I think the terrorists are very strategic about how often they attack. They realize that if there was a new attack every week that people would get fed up and fight back quite quickly. Therefore they space out their attacks to terrorize the populace while also minimalizing the chance of people actually fighting back.

(11-15-2015 06:47 PM)Samseau Wrote:  The sad reality is that the French would have been better off conquored by Nazi's than betrayed by their current elites to open warfare and genocide on the civilian population like they are today.

That is the ironic thing about the current situation. The current situation is a regime that controls Europe, made up of un-elected bureaucrats, many of whom previously held pre-eminent corporate postions, have sovereignty over most of Europe, control economies of nations. Hitler would be in a rage that he hadn't done it himself, it's even directed from Berlin.