(Possibly controversial? Shouldn’t be.)
This is a great question I think a lot of us wrestle with: what does ‘european’ mean.
“EUROPE”: EUROPE IS A FEDERATION OF CIVILIZATIONS OF CLOSE GENETIC RELATIONS OF THE WESTERN INDO EUROPEANS across the northern hemisphere: The Circumpolar Civilization
Europea refers to the territory Between the Atlantic in Portugal and the Urals, and from the arctic to Sicily.
Siberia that territory east of the Urals to the pacific. The fact that Alaska, Canada and Greenland are isolated from Siberia is an artifact of political history. Greater european civilization effectively controls the northern hemisphere, south to the mediterranean, central asian deserts and mountain ranges of east asia.
EUROPE CONTAINS THESE CIVILIZATIONS:
Southern Route Shepherds
1 – OLD EUROPE (Southern Route Shepherds – black hair)
2 – SOUTHERN EUROPE (Catholic Europe below hajnal line)
Northern Route Cattle Raiders
3 – WESTERN EUROPE (Protestant Europe above hajnal line – anything bordering the north and baltic seas, including the baltics – brown hair and blonde hair)
4 – EASTERN EUROPE (slavic speaking non-russian europe – brown hair and blonde hair – modernized by german expansion.)
5 – RUSSIA (Russian speaking europe – not modernized by german commercial expansion) With regard to russia, the demographics at present suggest that as long as russia prevents asian immigration, that they will have effectively settled and conquered siberia, since the native population there is about the same as the native population in the north americas (tiny).
TEST OF “EUROPEAN”
My understanding of “European” requires:
1) European Territory
2) Culturally Christian: Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox
3) Genetically and Culturally New European (Aryan – northern migration path above the black sea via the european plain)
Genetically Old European (southern migration path via following the water ways).
I consider the territory old europe (it is)
I consider the people byzantine (old european) not new European (they are).
I consider the region a ‘torn civilization’ or (borderland) or ‘failed civilization’ once it was conquered by the muslims. (it is) It is weak for no reason other than Byzantium and the trade routes are occupied by the Turkish Muslims (previous northeast eurasians)
Or put it differently, I agree with the Russians that orthodox (byzantine) civilization was defeated and ‘ruined’ and that old Europe cannot be restored without aggressive intentional restoration. This is what the Russian thought leadership dreams of doing. My view is that if they can create rule of law then they can. Until they create rule of law not.
RUSSIAN ATTEMPTS AT RESTORATION
Had Russia constrained her expansion to orthodoxy rather than slavic countries, they would have probably succeeded in the great power game. By threatening germany they cost germans prussia but they set the stage for their failure. Both russia and germany lost, and the anglos and latins won. This was not a good thing since russia and germany are the fortress against the east.
The Arabs where effective in destroying eastern (Byzantine/Anatolian) Christendom which encircled the mediterranean, and threw north Africa, the levant, Anatolia and Persia into darkness ignorance and dysgenia. They justify this creation of impoverishing monopoly as ‘making us all the same’ which is precisely the OPPOSITE of what produces prosperity: markets, competition, differences. Most of islamic tradition takes advantage of self destructive intuitions (monopoly, empires, submission) and labels them goods when the counter-intuitive (markets, city and nation states, and agency) produce prosperity. What we want is not what is good for us. Just as wanting drugs is not good for us.
RELIGIOUS INCOMPATIBILITY BECAUSE OF NORMS AND LAWS
Religion = Law, so I do not agree with religious tolerance whatsoever. Cults and heresies are one thing. Competing religions are another. Religious competition is just low velocity warfare. Immigration of nonprofessionals more than single digits is just low velocity warfare.
If rituals differ this means nothing. If tradition, custom, norm and law differ, then this means everything.
My definition of ‘white’ is the same as my definition of ‘european’.
Things are defined not so much by what we say they are, but by what we say they are not.
No more excuses for the (((rentier))) immigrants.