The Brexit disaster: Non European immigration to Britain has dramatically increased since Brexit

submitted by JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (27 children)

Every time Britain interfered with the continent it's been an unmitigated disaster. From Napoleon to Hitler. The eternal Anglo absolutely exists. It's not only Jews.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Countries jews controlled fucked with everyone

No shit, are all white people also Eternal Aryans too? By this logic yes and we must combat the Eternal Aryan. It's just stupid.

Intra-racial petty nationalism, not even once.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

Jews controlled Britain during the Hundred Years' War?

Intra-racial petty nationalism, not even once.

But Britain has been fomenting petty nationalism all over Europe for literally centuries. Napoleon was the pan-Europeanist, not Britain.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Since Cromwell and the formation of the empire ye

But Britain has been fomenting petty nationalism all over Europe for literally centuries. Napoleon was the pan-Europeanist, not Britain.

Yup, because Britain = jews. Just like America = jews. Blaming English or American people for this is what is retarded. As if we have some actual democracy where the will of the people is enacted or something... lol at that idea.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Blaming English or American people for this is what is retarded.

I never did that though. I blamed their elites, and no, centuries ago most of them weren't Jews. That's just coping.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Since when has jewish control meant jews are a majority of people in power? All it takes is for the empire to be serving international finance which it was.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

As much as I admire Napoleon's genius, he was a liberal. In the grand historical scheme of things, I think Metternich played a much more constructive role.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I just have to disagree. I don't see how he was a liberal. He was certainly progressive -- in the good sense -- but liberal? I don't like reactionaries like Metternich.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

He was a great proponent of egalitarianism and his conquests resulted in the spread of liberal systems like the Napoleonic code and a lot of wealth and power redistribution. If he had been successful, both the Prussians and the Russians, who were the most active rightist elements in the 19th and 20th centuries, would have lost their special qualities. It is very difficult to imagine any possible non-leftist, anti-bourgeois reaction in the event of a Napoleonic victory.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

non-leftist, anti-bourgeois reaction

I regard Bonapartism as one of those to be honest.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If you are referring to the Bonapartism of Napoleon I, I am not sure what it could have been a reaction against. Liberalism had a foothold only in France, where monarchy was the traditional form of government. Napoleon's system was something like an attempt at reconciling the two.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I am not sure what it could have been a reaction against.

The chaos of the French Revolution.

Napoleon's system was something like an attempt at reconciling the two.

Exactly. It was an attempt at synthesis, much like fascism was.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Britain's intervention against Napoleon was a good thing tho. It saved all of Europe from becoming one monolithic hegemony. It did the save against Louis XIV as well.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

Britain's intervention against Napoleon was a good thing tho.

No, it was a complete catastrophe, just like their intervention against Hitler.

It saved all of Europe from becoming one monolithic hegemony.

How on Earth is that a bad thing? That's exactly what we should want!

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

How on Earth is that a bad thing? That's exactly what we should want!

Same reason why American hegemony is a bad thing. State rot is inevitable. If one state controls the whole civilization, all are infected by its rot and taken down with it. Western Europe's success is in large part owed to the fact that it never became one blob, and always remained divided into multiple powerful polities: German states, England, France, Italian states, Holland, Sweden etc. This fierce competition averted civilizational rot and promoted fierce competition and innovation.

Ever since it fell under US hegemony since the end of ww2 has it fallen into rot and decay.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This logic is called historical determinism; it's the belief that a set of conditions will always lead to a fixed result. It was used by people like Marx, who claimed that the contradictions in the capitalistic regime would inevitably lead to his collapse, so communism was actually unavoidable. But history shows us that while those contradictions lead to semi-structural crises, the sistem itself is pretty much capable of managing them by various means - state dirigism, welfare, dictatorship and so on.

That's to say: it is possibly true that the absence of competition would lead to stagnation, but it's totally arbitrary to claim that the only way to achieve competition is fragment Europe in tiny states. Europe itself, of we exclude Russia (which is the case for the times being because they choose so) is a tiny portion of the world, both in terms of population and square km. There's plenty of people and cultures to compete with, and there are also non-conflictual challenges to achieve.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That's to say: it is possibly true that the absence of competition would lead to stagnation, but it's totally arbitrary to claim that the only way to achieve competition is fragment Europe in tiny states.

I never said Europe should be broken into statelets. I want a Europe of great powers, separate great powers. The country of Germany alone has a GDP larger than Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and SA combined. It has the technical know-how and industrial strength to build a military that can conquer all those nations by itself.

France, Italy, Britain...they are all heavy hitters. They can stand upright in the world and lead an independent existence without fusing into a blob that's ruled by distant technocrats in Brussels.

As for historical determinism, yes, my view might fall on that. What Marx posited was more on the line of technological determinism and it has a strong grain of truth to it. However, that's beside the point. Historical examples and cycles offer insight into human civilizations and their likely outcomes because societies' basic biology, incentives, and hierarchies have fundamentally remained unchanged over the last 3000 years.

Humans have the same lust, fear, desire for glory, devotion to religions, and desire for power today as they did in ancient Sumeria.

Marx's analysis was stupid and flawed because there was never any example of his theory in history. Never in history did the working class/proles/common man rise up, band into communes, overthrow the established society, and form a democratic class society formed of communes.

It's just nonsense that goes against the grain of human biology.

There are countless examples of civilizational cycles of genesis, expansion, apogee, consolidation, decay, and ruin in history. Rome, Greece, Arabs, Assyrians, Sumerians, Babylon, Persia, and countless others as has been demonstrated by writers like Caroll Quigley, Spengler, and John Glubb.

As Caroll Quigley demonstrated in Tragedy and Hope, a lead cause of Europe's success was that it never consolidated into one blob that had a brief apogee and collapsed into decadence. There were attempts like the Hundred Year's War, the 30 years war, the Napoleonic Wars, and the world wars. But it never succeeded until 1945.

And under American consolidation, Europe is now heading in the same direction Mediterranean civilization head under the consolidation of Rome: Ruin and complete destruction by foreigners.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Even if I accept the thesis, the point is that we need competition. But the competition is on the global stage, there's really no point in competing between Europeans.

Now, Germany is about 80millions people I think, Italy and France are both around 60 millions, Britain 67 millions. USA are 327 millions, China and India are both 1.4 billions people. There's no way for even Germany to facetank a big power: no matter how much they are good at building cars, they are simply too few. All Europe, which roughly half a billion people, can stand a chance.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Same reason why American hegemony is a bad thing. State rot is inevitable. If one state controls the whole civilization, all are infected by its rot and taken down with it.

This is a dead end logic, because assuming that you actually take its premises seriously, there is no justification for genuine political action. State rot will ruin everything in the end anyway, so why bother doing anything?

Western Europe's success is in large part owed to the fact that it never became one blob, and always remained divided into multiple powerful polities: German states, England, France, Italian states, Holland, Sweden etc. This fierce competition averted civilizational rot and promoted fierce competition and innovation.

It also resulted in the World Wars, which obliterated European power both at home and abroad.

Ever since it fell under US hegemony since the end of ww2 has it fallen into rot and decay.

It's also worth considering why American hegemony reached Europe in the first place - it is because there was no European hegemony.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This is a dead end logic, because assuming that you actually take its premises seriously, there is no justification for genuine political action. State rot will ruin everything in the end anyway, so why bother doing anything?

I never said that. Fight for your freedom, fight for the glory of your nation. Something like civilizational rot might be far down the line but you live in the here and now. Strong coherent nation-states generally don't undergo this type of civilizational collapse due to competitiveness and constant existential threats. This happens to great hegemonic empires which have no real threat to their heartland and no real need for innovation or competitiveness.

They can coast on the works of past generations and fall asleep on the steering wheel. As has happened with the US and the Boomer generation.

A strong but not all-powerful state like Germany, Japan, or France has to be alert at all times and have their shit together. They have times of trouble and blunders too, but they're generally short-lived and they recover quick and return stronger. Empires on the other hand have a tendency toward complete moral, genetic and cultural degradation over time. As we see with the US.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I never said that. Fight for your freedom, fight for the glory of your nation. Something like civilizational rot might be far down the line but you live in the here and now.

Just because you did not say it does not mean that it is not the obvious conclusion to the premises that you have given. Giving up on the future means accepting cynicism and nihilism in the present. Abstract slogans about freedom and glory mean nothing, especially in this situation.

I also completely disagree with your nation state argument. If anything, the opposite relationship seems to be at play. France, Japan and Germany suffered an internal collapse as a result of the collapse of their imperial ambitions. The same applies to Britain, despite the fact that its empire was both powerful and an underdog when compared to the Americans and the Soviets. The Soviet Union also collapsed, despite being an underdog. I am willing to concede that hegemonic powers are more likely to become internally divided, but that is a result of a loss of political will - something which is equally possible both in an empire and in a nation state.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Great reply.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don't buy that for a second. The reason why American hegemony is rotting us is because it's completely dominated by Jews. American ideology has also always been quintessentially liberal, which is yet another reason for the rot. This perpetual pessimism about state power is libertarian nonsense, and it's also disempowering us. It's defeatist poison. State power is what we should seek to attain.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I never said Europe should be broken into statelets. I want a Europe of great powers, separate great powers. The country of Germany alone has a GDP larger than Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and SA combined. It has the technical know-how and industrial strength to build a military that can conquer all those nations by itself.

France, Italy, Britain...they are all heavy hitters. They can stand upright in the world and lead an independent existence without fusing into a blob that's ruled by distant technocrats in Brussels.

As for historical determinism, yes, my view might fall on that. What Marx posited was more on the line of technological determinism and it has a strong grain of truth to it. However, that's beside the point. Historical examples and cycles offer insight into human civilizations and their likely outcomes because societies' basic biology, incentives, and hierarchies have fundamentally remained unchanged over the last 3000 years.

Humans have the same lust, fear, desire for glory, devotion to religions, and desire for power today as they did in ancient Sumeria.

Marx's analysis was stupid and flawed because there was never any example of his theory in history. Never in history did the working class/proles/common man rise up, band into communes, overthrow the established society, and form a democratic class society formed of communes.

It's just nonsense that goes against the grain of human biology.

There are countless examples of civilizational cycles of genesis, expansion, apogee, consolidation, decay, and ruin in history. Rome, Greece, Arabs, Assyrians, Sumerians, Babylon, Persia, and countless others as has been demonstrated by writers like Caroll Quigley, Spengler, and John Glubb.

As Caroll Quigley demonstrated in Tragedy and Hope, a lead cause of Europe's success was that it never consolidated into one blob that had a brief apogee and collapsed into decadence. There were attempts like the Hundred Year's War, the 30 years war, the Napoleonic Wars, and the world wars. But it never succeeded until 1945.

And under American consolidation, Europe is now heading in the same direction Mediterranean civilization head under the consolidation of Rome: Ruin and complete destruction by foreigners.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I want a Europe of great powers, separate great powers

I don't. Now is the time for pan-European unity. If you unify all the countries you mentioned they would be even stronger. Obviously I'm talking about a Nietzschean union here, not the current globohomo one.

Humans have the same lust, fear, desire for glory, devotion to religions, and desire for power today as they did in ancient Sumeria.

I wish that was true.

Rome, Greece, Arabs, Assyrians, Sumerians, Babylon, Persia, and countless others as has been demonstrated by writers like Caroll Quigley, Spengler, and John Glubb.

None of them had negrolatry, twerking as "art", drag queen story hour, or trannies in government.

Anyway, I disagree that a Nazi hegemony would have led to the exact same rot and decay we see now. I also disagree with Carroll Quigley's thesis.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Ever since it fell under US hegemony since the end of ww2 has it fallen into rot and decay.

By the way, by this logic a Nazi hegemony would also have led to such rot decay. You can't possibly believe that.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

By the way, by this logic a Nazi hegemony would also have led to such rot decay

Of course, it would have. It happens to every civilization. The pace of ruin and collapse would have depended on who succeeded Hitler If Himmler succeeded him, there would've been some kind of civil war and North Koreanization of Europe over time. If Albert Speer or the Wehrmacht succeeded him, it might've existed for another 100 years but eventually, the same rot would afflict it as well. It happened to more hardcore societies like Rome and Sparta, it would've happened to them as well.

However, my belief is that if the Nazis won ww2 and conquered Russia, and subjugated Britain, it would've led to world-ending nuclear exchange down the line. The US would never accept peace and would arrange a permanent naval raiding policy against German shipping and as well occupy the middle east to deprive it of oil.

There might be some temporary truce by 1948, but eventually, both sides would hit each other with ICBMs. The US would initiate as its elite could never tolerate Nazism. It never happened in our timeline because the American elites had great sympathy for communism. Their view was that capitalism was a superior way to create the egalitarian, anti-racism, world hippy society. Communism was not the right way, but the commies had their hearts in the right place.

Against Nazis, they'd be fight to the death nuclear jihadis.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

North Koreanization of Europe over time.

Stop, my penis can only get so erect!

they'd be fight to the death nuclear jihadis

Press X to doubt.