Thank you for explaining to Poche what his favorite passage from Mit Brennender Sorge actually says. He pins a good deal of his hopes for the success of his rhetoric on poor reading comprehension in other posters. That may work in a place like CAF, but it doesn't cut it around here. I hope he retires soon so that his position can be filled by a more competent shill.

As to your claim that "White Nationalism" is a form of multiculturalism, well, yes and no. It is true, as E Michael Jones is wont to frequently point out, that "White People" is a novel ethnic category, with none of the historical and traditional legitimacy of ethnic identities like French, German, Polish, Italian, etc. But, EMJ fails to take into account what you do in your last sentence: in "melting pot" (a phrase that comes from a Jєωιѕн play, by the way) countries, the particular national ethnic identity of one's ancestors fades with each passing generation. How many third generation Italian Americans or Polish Americans make every day, fluent use of their ancestral tongues? None that I've ever met - They're all English speaking Americans who have, at best, a passing familiarity with the language of the old country.

EMJ has repeatedly asserted that, after three generations in America (and presumably, places like Canada and Australia), the ethnic identity disappears completely and is replaced by the religious identity. This is a completely gratuitous assertion that I've never seen him give any reasonable explanation for. We're not Jєωs. We're Catholics. Our religious identity may be intimately tied into our ethnic identities (the more intimately tied they are, the better and healthier the nation), but they are still distinct categories. The ethnic identity does not just "disappear," nor does a different category step in to pick up the slack after three generations.

So where does that put European Americans? Many of us - probably most of us - are made up of two or more distinct ethnic stocks of European ancestry. My own children, for example, boast Irish, Maltese, Italian, Greek, English, Scottish, Welsh and French ancestry. How does one express that myriad background as an identity? At what point do they just become "Americans?" And what does it mean to be an American? Our Khazar overlords would have us believe that the magic dirt of America makes a Bangladeshi, a Korean, a Bantu, etc. members of the same "nation" as my children, despite common sense recoiling from such a ridiculous assertion.



I posit that, in limiting the granting of American citizenship to "white persons" in the 1790 Immigration and Naturalization Act, the Founding Fathers displayed a cognizance of the fundamental need to establish in the new country the Aristotelean brotherly love - philia - vital to its unity as a nation, and did so by restricting the pool for potential Americans to "white persons" - Europeans.

In my opinion, this was a very wise decision. The proof of that pudding is in the tasting. Sub-Saharan Africans have been in this country for four hundred years, yet are far less assimilated and integrated into the fabric of American society than European groups (Italians, let's say) who have been here only 1/4 of that time. Why? Again, it's common sense (which is now beaten out of us for being "racist" - but our grandparents understood it): Europeans - "white people" - look more or less alike, think more or less alike, have more or less compatible temperaments, and, being sons and daughters of Christendom, have the same overall cultural grounding and outlook. In establishing America as a Pan-European nation, the Founders cast the net as widely as possible to a group that allowed for as much diversity as possible while still having enough overall commonality to make a nation work.

But including starkly different groups - Africans, Asians, even "Native Americans" - does not work (the "Native" tribes certainly know this, thus why they retain their own national identities, distinct from the American one, despite being "Native" "Americans"). "White guilt" (a diabolical ape of Catholic guilt) has been a crippling, silencing albatross around our necks for too long. We will either unite as sons and daughters of Christendom (the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan's greatest fear), or else we will continue into the morass of deracination, atomization, and miscegenation until we are no more.

It is from Pope Pius XI. It is a clear condemnation of racial hegemony.

What you should do is accept the fact that the Cherokee people have more right to this land than you do.

Thank you for explaining to Poche what his favorite passage from Mit Brennender Sorge actually says. He pins a good deal of his hopes for the success of his rhetoric on poor reading comprehension in other posters. That may work in a place like CAF, but it doesn't cut it around here. I hope he retires soon so that his position can be filled by a more competent shill.

As to your claim that "White Nationalism" is a form of multiculturalism, well, yes and no. It is true, as E Michael Jones is wont to frequently point out, that "White People" is a novel ethnic category, with none of the historical and traditional legitimacy of ethnic identities like French, German, Polish, Italian, etc. But, EMJ fails to take into account what you do in your last sentence: in "melting pot" (a phrase that comes from a Jєωιѕн play, by the way) countries, the particular national ethnic identity of one's ancestors fades with each passing generation. How many third generation Italian Americans or Polish Americans make every day, fluent use of their ancestral tongues? None that I've ever met - They're all English speaking Americans who have, at best, a passing familiarity with the language of the old country.

EMJ has repeatedly asserted that, after three generations in America (and presumably, places like Canada and Australia), the ethnic identity disappears completely and is replaced by the religious identity. This is a completely gratuitous assertion that I've never seen him give any reasonable explanation for. We're not Jєωs. We're Catholics. Our religious identity may be intimately tied into our ethnic identities (the more intimately tied they are, the better and healthier the nation), but they are still distinct categories. The ethnic identity does not just "disappear," nor does a different category step in to pick up the slack after three generations.

So where does that put European Americans? Many of us - probably most of us - are made up of two or more distinct ethnic stocks of European ancestry. My own children, for example, boast Irish, Maltese, Italian, Greek, English, Scottish, Welsh and French ancestry. How does one express that myriad background as an identity? At what point do they just become "Americans?" And what does it mean to be an American? Our Khazar overlords would have us believe that the magic dirt of America makes a Bangladeshi, a Korean, a Bantu, etc. members of the same "nation" as my children, despite common sense recoiling from such a ridiculous assertion.



I posit that, in limiting the granting of American citizenship to "white persons" in the 1790 Immigration and Naturalization Act, the Founding Fathers displayed a cognizance of the fundamental need to establish in the new country the Aristotelean brotherly love - philia - vital to its unity as a nation, and did so by restricting the pool for potential Americans to "white persons" - Europeans.

In my opinion, this was a very wise decision. The proof of that pudding is in the tasting. Sub-Saharan Africans have been in this country for four hundred years, yet are far less assimilated and integrated into the fabric of American society than European groups (Italians, let's say) who have been here only 1/4 of that time. Why? Again, it's common sense (which is now beaten out of us for being "racist" - but our grandparents understood it): Europeans - "white people" - look more or less alike, think more or less alike, have more or less compatible temperaments, and, being sons and daughters of Christendom, have the same overall cultural grounding and outlook. In establishing America as a Pan-European nation, the Founders cast the net as widely as possible to a group that allowed for as much diversity as possible while still having enough overall commonality to make a nation work.

But including starkly different groups - Africans, Asians, even "Native Americans" - does not work (the "Native" tribes certainly know this, thus why they retain their own national identities, distinct from the American one, despite being "Native" "Americans"). "White guilt" (a diabolical ape of Catholic guilt) has been a crippling, silencing albatross around our necks for too long. We will either unite as sons and daughters of Christendom (the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan's greatest fear), or else we will continue into the morass of deracination, atomization, and miscegenation until we are no more.

Racial hegemony like the red race having more right to American land than the white race, right?
Right, Poche?

That would only be a portion of what was stolen from them.

Given the Gaussian IQ-curves you recommended elsewhere, you should grant American citizenship based on IQ tests. But you yourself know that that would not resolve any problem. The problem of the U.S. and the western world is not the fault of low IQ whites or blacks or whatever colour. It is the fault of the Jєωιѕн-masonic class predominantly super-saharan.

You said so, remember?

Red Indians have more right to American soil than Europeans do, right?

So white people have more right to European soil than the Africans and Asians and Arabs currently living there?

Yes or no?