"Pan-Aryanism"

[Anima Eternae]

Well, I used to respect Diablo and his medicist mentality because he used to defend Southern Euros.

But it seems in the past year or so, he's stretched the "white" definition to include literally every single caucasoid group in Earth. He claims that Arabs and middle-easterners aren't distinguishable from Southern Euros. I think a more appropriate moniker would be the "pan-caucasoid" front.


http://www.ualm.org.au/images/street_22112003_2.jpg


:confused:

[Sinclair]

Does the "National" bit of PANF include making one great big nation?

If so, then that's insane.

[Anima Eternae]

It seems to emphasize that if you're "pan-aryan" (caucasoid), that's your ticket to share some type of worldwide unity.

For example, their belief is that Aussies shouldn't worry about the Lebanese Muslim Arabs flooding Australia because they are also 'pan-aryans' (caucasoid).

[Björn]

I often find it odd how the more radical ideologies will often become parodies of themselves by delving into un-european culture in search of authentic "aryan" civilization. Hindu nazi's for instance.

[raven]

Well, I used to respect Diablo and his medicist mentality because he used to defend Southern Euros.

But it seems in the past year or so, he's stretched the "white" definition to include literally every single caucasoid group in Earth. He claims that Arabs and middle-easterners aren't distinguishable from Southern Euros. I think a more appropriate moniker would be the "pan-caucasoid" front.


http://www.ualm.org.au/images/street_22112003_2.jpg


:confused:
Diablo is just trying to justify boning his persian girlfriend. If he wants to bone persians then all power to him. I'd do the same. Difference is I don't need to hang onto some pan-whiteness ideology. He doesn't need to create a fucking movement to try to justify being attracted to persian girls. I don't understand his logic. So because some arabs and middle-easterners can "look white" does that mean he should also accept jews as well (many of whom "look white" as well)? Diablo's theory is dodgy. We can't be accepting every caucasoid group. Pan-Europeanism in itself is way too ambitious.... there's always going to be a degree of friction between nords, alpines and meds for eg.

[Anima Eternae]

Maybe some racialist who bones an asian girl will deal with the cognitive dissonance by creating the "pan-not-negroid front". LOL.

:D

[raven]

Maybe some racialist who bones an asian girl will deal with the cognitive dissonance by creating the "pan-not-negroid front". LOL.

:D
That would get over real well... pratically every culture on the planet can't stand them. :D I'll have to check back on PANF. I gotta see what he's saying about the lebo muslims in Australia.

[Anima Eternae]

Well I was being a bit facetious.

His racial categorizations are too broad, and he completely ignores culture.

[raven]

Well I was being a bit facetious.

His racial categorizations are too broad, and he completely ignores culture.
Exacty. Islamic culture is totally incompatible with europe. The only exception would be if said muslim dropped the faith altogether and became an aethist/agnostic or something. Which is why I'm shocked that he doesnt have an anti-islam policy and he has many muslims on that forum who identify with "pan-aryanism"

[zenero]

Exacty. Islamic culture is totally incompatible with europe. The only exception would be if said muslim dropped the faith altogether and became an aethist/agnostic or something.Islamic Culture? Most of the Pan-Aryanist fucko's reject Islam. Most of the also live in country's like Sweden, Germany and some other country with welfare.

[raven]

Islamic Culture? Most of the Pan-Aryanist fucko's reject Islam. Most of the also live in country's like Sweden, Germany and some other country with welfare.
I admit that most do reject it but some still identify as muslim. There is no anti-islam stance in this movement.

[Anima Eternae]

Most of the also live in country's like Sweden, Germany and some other country with welfare.

Aha! Now it makes sense.

They're foreigners living in Northern Europe, so they use "pan-aryanism" to justify their living there. Very slick and disengenuous.

[zenero]

I admit that most do reject it but some still identify as muslim. There is no anti-islam stance in this movement.There's never a anti-Islamic stance on WN forums. Aryans and Wahabbists group up, lol.

[raven]

I just find it mind-boggling that Diablo was able to round up all those people for a movement that basically started with his wanting to justify boning persian chicks. He must be really good at bullshitting. That deserves praise. ;)

[Anima Eternae]

^ROFL.

It's not surprising. There's always a grey space between races, so if a "white nationalist" shags up with a girl in that area, he just can twist the rules so he's not ideologically inconsistent. :p

[Sinclair]

Wait... Now ideologies CAN be formed around sexual choices?

Shit, and I always thought National Fapitalism was just a joke!

FOLLOW THE LEFT-HAND PATH!

[OVERWATCH]

Pan-Aryanism denies the importance of the role of culture and religion in nationhood.

The reference of 'national' in their title would seem to suggest that PANF(Pan Aryan National Front) doctrine favours one 'Aryan'(rather: caucasoid) nation; although it doesn't.

Pan-Aryanism might usher the assimilation of non-Europid caucasoid immigrants.

Diablo, who has pretty much (re)defined Pan-Aryanism, is a pretty decent fellow; I remember it seemed like he was the only one on the numerous WN Yahoo groups who seemed to know anything about history or anthropology.

[Ixtab]

Well, I used to respect Diablo and his medicist mentality because he used to defend Southern Euros.

But it seems in the past year or so, he's stretched the "white" definition to include literally every single caucasoid group in Earth. He claims that Arabs and middle-easterners aren't distinguishable from Southern Euros. I think a more appropriate moniker would be the "pan-caucasoid" front.
:confused:What is wrong with this?

[Ixtab]

Exacty. Islamic culture is totally incompatible with europe. Christianity is just as much a Semitic cult as Islam. Hinduism is more "European" than either religion. I will post more about this later.

[Anima Eternae]

What is wrong with this?

It ignores subrace, culture, and religion.

[Ambrosio Spinola]

That is a bit taken over the top IMHO.

[Leif]

He claims that Arabs and middle-easterners aren't distinguishable from Southern Euros

Atleast he's honest. :p

[Jimbo Gomez]

Christianity is just as much a Semitic cult as Islam. Hinduism is more "European" than either religion. I will post more about this later.

Go wash your mouth. :mad:

[daisy]

caucasoid, pan aryan, etc... whatever they want to call them.
to me the people in the pic just look like a bunch of muded albinos with 100% jew blood breeded into them.

[Petr]

I just find it mind-boggling that Diablo was able to round up all those people for a movement that basically started with his wanting to justify boning persian chicks. He must be really good at bullshitting. That deserves praise. ;)
Yes, Diablo is a smooth-talking, natural-born salesman type, no doubt about it. He's a considerable personality, for better or worse.


Petr

[daisy]

natural-born salesman = jew

[Vindex]

For once he is right.





He claims that Arabs and middle-easterners aren't distinguishable from Southern Euros.
:confused:

[Anima Eternae]

Southern Euros are not the same as Arabs/Turks/Indians. :(

[Anima Eternae]

I think Diablo is a nice (if a bit quick to explode) guy; I just disagree with his cateogrization of middle easterners, desis, and North Africans as white.

[Starr]

one good thing I can say about Diablo is that he doesn't have the fucked up " stupid women are the enemy" mindset of way too many.

Not a shot, vlad.;)

[Petr]

one good thing I can say about Diablo is that he doesn't have the fucked up " stupid women are the enemy" mindset of way too many.
Yes, an important part of his smooth-talking act is a constant pandering to women and accusing his opponents of being "misogynist closet homos" :p

(Which accusation may often be correct. I'm no overtly-macho moron myself.)


Petr

[Banat]

Southern Euros are not the same as Arabs/Turks/Indians. :(

For the Turks it might be true. Far too many of them are of Southern European descent.

[raven]

For the Turks it might be true. Far too many of them are of Southern European descent.
Some have greek blood? The Greeks would find that very insulting. ;)

[raven]

one good thing I can say about Diablo is that he doesn't have the fucked up " stupid women are the enemy" mindset of way too many.

Not a shot, vlad.;)
Yes I noticed. There is rampant sexism in the movement. Women I guess are a easy target for them since they are more likely to as you said, not go against the grain and accept popular opinion. Many women in fact are "yes women"... even those liberal western "feminists." Some of the feminist types I think are cool. An old prof of mine is a self-proclaimed feminist and has 3 children (I think all boys) and is married to a guy. She is definately not some whiteman-hating bitch. And of course what's interesting is the feminist type usually seem to be only feminists when it comes to white men. When it comes to men of colour... you get the drill. :D

[Jimbo Gomez]

They give us crap because they know they get away with it. Simple as that.

[Banat]

Some have greek blood? The Greeks would find that very insulting. ;)

I think that Greeks find it insulting if someone mentions that *they* have Turkish blood.

Beside Greek blood, there's also a great ammount of South-Slavic (Serbian and Bulgarian), and some of Albanian too. Plus the blood of pre-Ottoman inhabitants of Asia Minor. I had that in mind.

Millions of Turks are of Souther-European descent (Balkans).

[raven]

I think that Greeks find it insulting if someone mentions that *they* have Turkish blood.

Beside Greek blood, there's also a great ammount of South-Slavic (Serbian and Bulgarian), and some of Albanian too. Plus the blood of pre-Ottoman inhabitants of Asia Minor. I had that in mind.

Millions of Turks are of Souther-European descent (Balkans).
Yeah I see what you mean. Here is a picture of Emre, a turkish footballer playing at New Castle. He isn't the "whitest" turk but he is an example that comes to mind instantly seeing that I'm a fan of the sport. Diablo would surely accept him into PANF. :p

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/10/Emre_NUFC_promophoto.jpg

[Starr]

Yes I noticed. There is rampant sexism in the movement. Women I guess are a easy target for them since they are more likely to as you said, not go against the grain and accept popular opinion. Many women in fact are "yes women"... even those liberal western "feminists." Some of the feminist types I think are cool. An old prof of mine is a self-proclaimed feminist and has 3 children (I think all boys) and is married to a guy. She is definately not some whiteman-hating bitch. And of course what's interesting is the feminist type usually seem to be only feminists when it comes to white men. When it comes to men of colour... you get the drill. :D


yes, they bitch endlessly about white men and all the terrible demeaning things they have to deal with in western society.:rolleyes: But you will never hear one word from them on black on white rape(something many of them have to know about if they are always concerning themselves with rape victims and similar shit, like they would have you believe). And when was the last time you heard anything out of them about women in Africa or parts of the Islamic world? Of course, being that all people and cultures are equal I suppose it would be racist for the feminists to speak about anything like that because then they would be admitting that they see something wrong and are "making a judgement" about these societies. And of course, white males are the root of all evil anyway.:222:

So I certainly don't have a problem with anyone bitching about feminism and about how so many woman are opposed to marriage and having a family,(and have bought into the idea that this=slavery,etc) much of what is said is completely true. What is irritating is the idea that women are childish imbeciles that have no other place, but in the home and need a man to control every aspect of their life, because they have no ability to think or make any kind of rational decisions on their own. I am sometimes left with the impression that some have about as much respect for the the white woman as they do niggers. And, of course female voters are responsible for fucking up everything in society and all white men are simply victims.(this among other things, making the white woman just as much the enemy as a nigger or a jew) All women need to agree with this, otherwise you are a jew indoctrinated feminist. this is bound to attract all kinds of white women to the movement.: But then again, i guess this thinking would indicate that women have no place in the movement outside of having babies for the guys.

For all the bitching they do about non-white cultures, they do seem to be in agreement with how the muds treat their women, and at least mud women know their place.:rolleyes:

Since this is way off topic, this is the last post I will make in this thread. sorry.:o

[Ambrosio Spinola]

Turks are as much "South European" as Haiti mulatos are white.

[Felix the Cat]

Feminists are just angry at the white jocks who snubbed them in high school

Bear that simple fact in mind, and much of their odd behavior becomes understandable

[raven]

yes, they bitch endlessly about white men and all the terrible demeaning things they have to deal with in western society.:rolleyes: But you will never hear one word from them on black on white rape(something many of them have to know about if they are always concerning themselves with rape victims and similar shit, like they would have you believe). And when was the last time you heard anything out of them about women in Africa or parts of the Islamic world? Of course, being that all people and cultures are equal I suppose it would be racist for the feminists to speak about anything like that because then they would be admitting that they see something wrong and are "making a judgement" about these societies. And of course, white males are the root of all evil anyway.:222:

So I certainly don't have a problem with anyone bitching about feminism and about how so many woman are opposed to marriage and having a family,(and have bought into the idea that this=slavery,etc) much of what is said is completely true. What is irritating is the idea that women are childish imbeciles that have no other place, but in the home and need a man to control every aspect of their life, because they have no ability to think or make any kind of rational decisions on their own. I am sometimes left with the impression that some have about as much respect for the the white woman as they do niggers. And, of course female voters are responsible for fucking up everything in society and all white men are simply victims.(this among other things, making the white woman just as much the enemy as a nigger or a jew) All women need to agree with this, otherwise you are a jew indoctrinated feminist. this is bound to attract all kinds of white women to the movement.: But then again, i guess this thinking would indicate that women have no place in the movement outside of having babies for the guys.

For all the bitching they do about non-white cultures, they do seem to be in agreement with how the muds treat their women, and at least mud women know their place.:rolleyes:

Since this is way off topic, this is the last post I will make in this thread. sorry.:o
I guess we could always branch this off into another thread. But yeah its true, the people in the movement do have this bizarre notion that a woman's place is in the home. In the end they end up treating white women about as bad as negroes treat the women. The sexism is one of the many reasons that put me off about white nationalism. Obviously the birth rate these days is low and especially considering that non-white women have more children that is a concern. However these guys are crazy when they are talking about how white women should have litters of children.

They do know that labour is very painful for a woman right? My maternal grandmother gave birth to nine children... 2 of them died at birth, 1 died as an infant and she used to tell my mother about how much she hated having to go through all that labour just to satisfy her husband (my maternal grandfather). A lot of the people in the movement have this same mindset that they own women. Do they think that women back in the day thought it was fun to have all those kids? Heck no. Two to three kids is reasonable. The main problem is that non-whites are the ones who are breeding a lot.

[Petr]

For the Turks it might be true. Far too many of them are of Southern European descent.
It is true that by converting to Islam and/or intermarrying, great numbers of Christians in Asia Minor and the Balkan peninsula became effectively Turkified.

This is something that Armenians or Greeks don't like to talk about, since it adds an insult to their injury, but it nevertheless a verifiable historical phenomenon:

http://rbedrosian.com/Dft139t161.htm


140 The daughter of Kiwrike, king of the semi-autonomous northeastern Armenian state of Tashir-Joraget is one example. With great reluctance her father surrendered her to sultan Alp Arslan (in 1064/65)[Patmut'iwn Matt'eosi Urhayec'woy (The History of Matthew of Edessa (Jerusalem, 1869) pp. 174-75] hereafter MEd, also Juansher, p. 113. Another example may be Gohar khatun (d. 1118/19), wife of sultan Malik Shah's son, Isma'il (MEd, p. 427). It is clear from the testimony of Abu'l Fida that already by the mid-11th century, Armenian women (most probably Muslim Armenians, or Islamized slave-women) were being taken as brides by the now Turkicizing Caliphs of Baghdad, supreme chiefs of orthodox Muslims: l. Kat'r an-Nada (d. 1057/58), mother of Caliph al-Kayim (Nalbandyan trans. of Abu'l Fida, Arabakan aghbyurner, Erevan, 1965) p. 215 and n.20; 2. Arjivan, mother of Caliph Moktadi bi-Amr Allah Abu'l Kasim (d. 1094/95) p. 217 and n.26; 3. the mother of Caliph Mostadi bi-Amr Allah Abu Muhammad al-Hasan ibn Yusuf ibn Mostakid (d. 1180), p. 222 and n. 50. The fact that succession in the Caliphate tended to pass hereditarily from father to son meant that throughout the 11-12th centuries, many of the Caliphs were of some Armenian descent. However, it must be underlined that Armenian extraction did not necessarily mean that the individual identified with the Armenians, or even that he or she was aware of the relation.

...

142 Most notably Abu'l Fida, who specifically notes the Armenian descent of certain Caliphs as well as of prominent functionaries in Muslim governments. The Armenian literary historians are loathe to mention the reality (and of course the extent) of conversion. However, that intermarriage with Muslims was indeed becoming a problem is clear from certain articles in the so-called Penetential of Dawit' of Ganjak, C.J. F. Dowsett ed., (Louvain 1961) Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, vol. 216, Scriptores Armeniaci tomus 3. This work, which deals primarily with the degrees of penance necessary for various offenses was written at the beginning of the 12th century in or near Ganjak. Dr. Dowsett writes: "As the many passages in the Xratk' kanonakank' [Penitential] dealing with the relations between Christians and infidels (usually specified as Kurds) show, Dawit' lived his life in a time of troubles for his church and nation. The Christians were subject not only to the contamination of their food, vessels, and holy places by Muslims, and the misfortune of seeing Armenian women become their wives, mistresses or nurses: the church might clearly at any time be threatened by what Dawit' calls "hopeless tyrants" (ch. 37), and attacks on Christians were not unknown (ch. 59)".

...

144 Turks also intermarried with Greeks and Georgians. Greek sources style the offspring of such unions mixovarvaroi. "Though this phenomenon of intermarriage and the appearance of a new generation of mixovarvaroi is only briefly mentioned by the sources, one must assume that it was no rare or isolated occurrence. These mixovarvaroi suffered occasionally from a dichotomy of political sympathy and allegiance, but in the long run their appearance in Anatolia resulted in a process that favored the growth of the Muslim population at the expense of the Christian population, because Muslim society dominated politically and militarily. It is interesting, but unprofitable, to speculate about what would have happened to the Anatolian mixovarvaroi under different political circumstances" (DMH p. 176). Vryonis continues elsewhere: "There is every reason to suppose that intermarriage took place rather extensively from the very beginning of the Turkish occupation of Anatolia and for several centuries thereafter. Anna Comnena speaks of the offspring of such unions as mixovarvaroi, and the twelfth-century Balsamon refers to their curious practises. When the Greek historian Nicephorus Gregoras passed through Bithynia en route to Nicaea in the middle of the fourteenth century, just one generation after the conquest of Nicaea, he observed that the population consisted of Greeks, mixovarvaroi (Graeco-Turks), and Turks. Thus intermarriage of Muslim and Christians at every level of society played a very important role in the integration and absorption of the Greek Christian element into Muslim society" (DMH pp. 228-29). The Turkish-language equivalent of mixovarvaroi may have been ikdish, signifying a gelding or cross-bred animal, particularly a mule. See PT pp. 192-93.


Petr

[Banat]

It is true that by converting to Islam and/or intermarrying, great numbers of Christians in Asia Minor and the Balkan peninsula became effectively Turkified.

Mostly by converting to Islam, true.

It is necessary to understand that in the Ottoman Empire, all Moslems were called, and called themselves, - "Turks", regardless of their ethnic origin. There were also very little (or none at all) intermarriages in between Turks=Moslems, Orthodox Christians, Roman-Catholic Christians and the Jews that weren't followed by conversion of religion, which in 100% cases occured in one way only, because the laws forbid Moslems to convert to either Christianity or Judaism, but on the other hand supported and stimulated conversion to Islam of Christians and Jews.

I'm not that sure about Greeks, but I know for sure that there are hundreds of thousand (millions?) Turks in Turkey that are of Slavic origin, being descendants of Moslems from Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Bulgaria, and also many of those that are of Albanian origin. Not to mench various displacements of Slavic population from Balkans to Asia Minor performed by Byzantine and Ottoman Empire throughout centuries, which too made certain effects in ethnic structure of Asia Minor.

Thus intermarriage of Muslim and Christians at every level of society played a very important role in the integration and absorption of the Greek Christian element into Muslim society.

Totally true, and something many fail to comprehend that it was not the other way around.

[Petr]

I'm not that sure about Greeks
Why not? After all, they were the first ones that the Turks conquered (in Asia Minor) and thus they had more time to absorb them than other Balkanese peoples.

The Turks are a true Borg collective: "you will be assimilated"


Petr

[Petr]

I picked this information from a tourist booklet written by a Turk - could about 1/4 of Turks qualify as White Europeans?

(Also notice how eagerly Turks like Kutlu distance themselves from Arabs and Blacks...)



From “101 Questions About Turkey and Their Answers” by Hakan Kutlu (First Edition, Kirikkale / February 2000)


pg. 62:

Question 75: What are the physical features and characteristics of Turks?


… Turks, except small minority in the SE, are NOT Arabs and loathe being mistaken for them…

48 % of Turks have light brown, 25 % have dark and 27 % fair complexion. Two thirds of Turks have straight hair.

Average height of a male is 1.72 m; female’s is 1,62 m.

Average weight of men is 71,6 kg (11.3 stones); female’s is 61,2 kg (9,6 stones)

Average foot size of men is 42 (9 in UK); for female it is 37 (4 in UK).

72 % have dark and 4 % have blue eyes. (That’s why children esp. with blue eyes are very much liked in Turkey.)

62 % of Turkish men have moustaches and 19 % have beards. (Piar-Gallup Poll, Hurriyet daily paper, June 10, 1999)

So hopefully you’ll tell your friends, workmates and relatives that Turks should not be mistaken for Arabs and rate of black people living in Turkey is maybe a ten in a million.

…


Petr

[Banat]

Why not? After all, they were the first ones that the Turks conquered (in Asia Minor) and thus they had more time to absorb them than other Balkanese peoples.

The Turks are a true Borg collective: "you will be assimilated"


Petr

No, I meant I wasn't that familiar with the situation in Greek ethnic areas, not that I had any doubts. Of course I believe the situation was similar. (The remarks mentioned are true, also).

[Banat]

I picked this information from a tourist booklet written by a Turk - could about a quarter of Turks qualify as White Europeans?

(Also notice how eagerly Turks like Kutlu distance themselves from Arabs and Blacks...)

So hopefully you you’ll tell your friends, workmates and relatives that Turks should not be mistaken for Arabs and rate of black people living in Turkey is maybe a ten in a million.

Yes. And thanks to the wonders of modern technology, everyone can see it himself by browsing though random Turkish web-sites and various photographs of Turkish men and women.

[Helios Panoptes]

They do know that labour is very painful for a woman right? My maternal grandmother gave birth to nine children... 2 of them died at birth, 1 died as an infant and she used to tell my mother about how much she hated having to go through all that labour just to satisfy her husband (my maternal grandfather). A lot of the people in the movement have this same mindset that they own women. Do they think that women back in the day thought it was fun to have all those kids?

"If a woman grows weary and, at last, dies from child bearing, it matters not. Let her die from bearing; she is there to do it." ~ Martin Luther

Let me say that no one thinks child labour to be fun, but that is nothing against it. Many things are not "fun," yet I wholeheartedly maintain that those who take them up are admirable. Going to war for a just cause is not fun, political revolution is not fun, and many other examples. The carrying out of noble deeds is seldom fun, at least in the short-term.

I am sometimes left with the impression that some have about as much respect for the the white woman as they do niggers.

I doubt this is so. Almost all of those you speak of will admit that women are necessary(as they should), as opposed to negroes, who they'd like to see extirpated and confined to Africa.

this is bound to attract all kinds of white women to the movement.: But then again, i guess this thinking would indicate that women have no place in the movement outside of having babies for the guys.

It's a conundrum. On the one hand, there is how women ought to live and on the other how to best attract them to "the movement," since they're corrupted now and must be pandered to.

For all the bitching they do about non-white cultures, they do seem to be in agreement with how the muds treat their women, and at least mud women know their place.

I must describe the above as mendacious. In an attempt to turn irrational, reactionary fools against themselves, you establish a link between unequal treatment of women and "muds," and we mustn't be like muds, right? In fact, though, the subordination of women in the Europe of yore is well-documented, though, not the same in all places, of course.

[OVERWATCH]

Yes. And thanks to the wonders of modern technology, everyone can see it himself by browsing though random Turkish web-sites and various photographs of Turkish men and women.

Turks:

http://www.gecce.org/
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=tulin%20sahin&sa=N&tab=wi

:hump:

[Starr]

[QUOTE=raven]I guess we could always branch this off into another thread. But yeah its true, the people in the movement do have this bizarre notion that a woman's place is in the home. In the end they end up treating white women about as bad as negroes treat the women. The sexism is one of the many reasons that put me off about white nationalism. Obviously the birth rate these days is low and especially considering that non-white women have more children that is a concern. However these guys are crazy when they are talking about how white women should have litters of children.

In a perfect society, the majority of women's place would be in the home, because that is what she herself would choose, but there has been and should be exceptions for women who choose other things and are capable. In some of their perfect fantasy worlds ALL women would do nothing but get pregnant every year, agree with everything her husband says and let him make all decisions alone about everything, because she would "realize" she is a brainless little fool, who is incapable of thinking on her own. Also currently for many women being a full time homemaker is not a realistic economic option. Which should be more than obvious and a very simple thing to understand, but yet........:rolleyes:

I doubt this is so. Almost all of those you speak of will admit that women are necessary(as they should), as opposed to negroes, who they'd like to see extirpated and confined to Africa.

Gee, I feel so much better knowing that I am simply needed because I have a uteris.:rolleyes: And speaking of niggers, a lot of people who brought nigger slaves here and "owned" them would have said they were needed to.

Ok, so I guess I lied about the other post being my last one on the subject in this thread.:o

If a woman grows weary and, at last, dies from child bearing, it matters not. Let her die from bearing; she is there to do it." ~ Martin Luther


I would love being married to a guy who wouldn't give a rat's ass if I died as long as I was able to give him a couple of kids, first. this idiotic comment also suggests that a child does not even need a mother in their life for any other purpose but to give birth to them. Great family family values from such a respected Christian historical figure.:rolleyes:

I must describe the above as mendacious. In an attempt to turn irrational, reactionary fools against themselves, you establish a link between unequal treatment of women and "muds," and we mustn't be like muds, right?

Attempting to drastically change someone's opinions is, for the most part, pointless. I only brought it up because it makes me want to puke to hear someone in one breath say they care so much about their race,(which hello, includes white women) while at the same time they think no more highly of their women than the average, beyond primitive, African nigger does of theirs.

My maternal grandmother gave birth to nine children.

My grandmother gave birth to eight kids and was a stay at home mother who was into all of her "female duties" But a little mute mouse in a corner she was not.:222:

[Helios Panoptes]

Gee, I feel so much better knowing that I am simply needed because I have a uteris. And speaking of niggers, a lot of people who brought nigger slaves here and "owned" them would have said they were needed to.

One may be useful, the other is absolutely necessary.

I would love being married to a guy who wouldn't give a rat's ass if I died as long as I was able to give him a couple of kids, first. this idiotic comment also suggests that a child does not even need a mother in their life for any other purpose but to give birth to them. Great family family values from such a respected Christian historical figure.

You have misinterpreted the quote. It doesn't say that women ought to die during child birth. In fact, Martin Luther states elsewhere that it is a woman's duty, in addition to having the children, to care for them. The point of his comment is that it is a woman's function to bear children and she ought to do it, in spite of the hardship and risk.

Attempting to drastically change someone's opinions is, for the most part, pointless. I only brought it up because it makes me want to puke to hear someone in one breath say they care so much about their race,(which hello, includes white women) while at the same time they think no more highly of their women than the average, beyond primitive, African nigger does of their

As I indicated, you are somewhat confused, as treating women as subordinate to males is not exclusively practiced by Africans. Far from it, in fact, as European civilization has prospered while holding women to be inferior(why not compare to them? So, it follows that the comparison of your opponents to dreaded "muds" is merely a tactic to disparage those you disagree with for personal reasons.

[diabloblanco]

Well, I used to respect Diablo and his medicist mentality because he used to defend Southern Euros.

But it seems in the past year or so, he's stretched the "white" definition to include literally every single caucasoid group in Earth. He claims that Arabs and middle-easterners aren't distinguishable from Southern Euros. I think a more appropriate moniker would be the "pan-caucasoid" front.


http://www.ualm.org.au/images/street_22112003_2.jpg


:confused:

Not even remotely true, and what more my views have not changed since the very beginning. I have asserted that SOME Middle Easterners are not distinguishable from Europeans, or if distinguishable not in any fashion that brings them beyond the phenotypic characteristics of our race
After all there is probably more difference between the Atlantid Englishwoman Victoria Adams and the Norse Englishwoman Naomi Watts than there is between the typical White Iranian and the typical Southern Italian
I would scarcely ever call PA "Pan Caucasiod", were that the case I would be compelled to accept Dravids without Congoid tribal admixture, all Semites, etc

At all events it would prove instructive to actually view PANFs definition of who is in our ingroup:

Fundamentals of Pan Aryanism

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the central premise of Pan Aryanism regarding racial definition:

An individual aboriginal to Europe, North Africa, the Middle East and Central/West Asia who is Caucasoid descened in whole or overwhelmingly from the following Caucassdoid subraces, or any combibation thereof, Indo-European (Aryan) Old European, Ural Altaic Caucasoid, or Hametic (Basically confined in modern times to Berbers.) irrespective of nationality, religion or modern geographical location.

Given that position Pan Aryanism believes that all racial White sunder that definition are part of out community and must be preserved along with its European core

However

!(1) We do not believe that all of the modern day population of India, Iran, Turkey, the Middle East,North Africa Central Asia o, West Asia or Latin America are White

(2) We do believe that under the above standards the following parts of the above areas have White majorities, Iran, Turkey Lebanoin, Syria,the Caucasus and Southern Latin America, plus Costa Rica. White minorities in widely varying degrees exist elsewhere in these areas.

(3) We do not believe in combining the White nations into a superstate, or erasing national or subracial differences between Whites.

(4)We do not believe that any White nation is obliged to accept even White immigrants from these areas, though in the New World at least it might be helpful to do so

(5) We do not believe that any individual White should in any manner be impeded from associating dating or reproducing with only his own nationality or subrace, but we also insist that no 2 racial Whites in love with each other be forcibly seperated, or that the White children produced from such unions shoud ever be treated as anything other than honored and respected members of our community

(6) We believe that no racial White presently in any White homeland should be forcibly removed from that homeland, although this does not impeded that homeland from restricting further entry of any immigrants, even White ones

(7) We discourage any religion incompatable with White survival, and urge Whites confessing such a religion to either convert or strive for a racialist reformation of their creed. However, in the last analysis, we support religious freedom.


Whats more, we must emphatically DO NOT advocate a White superstate, in any manner whatever. WE DO enmcourage and look foward to a worldwide alliance of all racial Whites in defense of our racial identity, irrespective of nationality, subrace, religion or even extraracial political affiliation

Would you like to learn more and judge for yourself? Than check this out:

http://www.panf.info

[diabloblanco]

It seems to emphasize that if you're "pan-aryan" (caucasoid), that's your ticket to share some type of worldwide unity.

For example, their belief is that Aussies shouldn't worry about the Lebanese Muslim Arabs flooding Australia because they are also 'pan-aryans' (caucasoid).

In reality thev right to control immigration is by its very definition an inherent aspect of national sovreignity. That being said, is it prudent for a New World settler sate like Australia, thinly populated and sunject to an East Asian invasion (no offense, but its a fact) and even invasion by Dravids and now Black Africans, to limit White immigration from wherever? Not unless it has a death wish
Of course that does not mean you take all comers, and I suspect that more than a few of thiose "Lebs" were Nubian and Sudanese mongrels posing as refugees with false papers
Even if they look like Alexander the Great, if they are going to engage in rape, than they deserve an appointment with the gallows polls

[diabloblanco]

Well I was being a bit facetious.

His racial categorizations are too broad, and he completely ignores culture.


Because race is a biological concept. Logically, you diont define a biological concept by non-biological criterion. Culture is a product of rather than a characteristic of race
Making this observation does not mean you think that culture is not important. It only means that you think logically.
Popular and convemntional thinking is full of all sorts of leaps of faith and fallicies. Our real problem in the end is not "Jews" or even Blacks, its that we dont know how to think
THe old AA proverb "Its not your drinking, its your stinking thinking", applies with a vengence

[diabloblanco]

Diablo is just trying to justify boning his persian girlfriend. If he wants to bone persians then all power to him. I'd do the same. Difference is I don't need to hang onto some pan-whiteness ideology. He doesn't need to create a fucking movement to try to justify being attracted to persian girls. I don't understand his logic. So because some arabs and middle-easterners can "look white" does that mean he should also accept jews as well (many of whom "look white" as well)? Diablo's theory is dodgy. We can't be accepting every caucasoid group. Pan-Europeanism in itself is way too ambitious.... there's always going to be a degree of friction between nords, alpines and meds for eg.

My ideas far anteceded her, and you know that. I think any normal white man would be attracted to these White women

http://www.panf.info/upload/showthread.php?t=3783&highlight=White+Iranian+women

I don't understand his logic. So because some arabs and middle-easterners can "look white" does that mean he should also accept jews as well (many of whom "look white" as well)?

Ok so some Swedes can look White does that also mean we should accept Jews as well (many of whom look "White") Do you see where this is leading?
Its really the same paranoia as the Jews have. Push hundreds of millionns of racial Whites into the brown pool so we dont have to call some Jews White...Thats madness
Do Iranians etc have the recird that the Jewish establishment has???????

[diabloblanco]

Diablo is just trying to justify boning his persian girlfriend. If he wants to bone persians then all power to him. I'd do the same. Difference is I don't need to hang onto some pan-whiteness ideology. He doesn't need to create a fucking movement to try to justify being attracted to persian girls. I don't understand his logic. So because some arabs and middle-easterners can "look white" does that mean he should also accept jews as well (many of whom "look white" as well)? Diablo's theory is dodgy. We can't be accepting every caucasoid group. Pan-Europeanism in itself is way too ambitious.... there's always going to be a degree of friction between nords, alpines and meds for eg.
That said, I do respect you Raven. You are one of my rare critics that has the balls to actually register on PANF and debate me

[Ambrosio Spinola]

Welcome Diabloblanco :D

[diabloblanco]

Exacty. Islamic culture is totally incompatible with europe. The only exception would be if said muslim dropped the faith altogether and became an aethist/agnostic or something. Which is why I'm shocked that he doesnt have an anti-islam policy and he has many muslims on that forum who identify with "pan-aryanism"
Modern European culture is toitally incompatible with Europe. Sir, Im an AMERICAN. I follow the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and decline to impose a religious test at pANF. WE are a racialist organizzzzation, not a religious one
That said some Iranians, Amazigh, Turks, etc on PANF despise Islam even more than you
On the other hand, yes we do have a growing number of WN Moslems. Likewise you have Christians, Pagans that hate Christianity, etc. Blood is all that matters to us, for all proceeds from that

[Kodos]

I guess we could always branch this off into another thread. But yeah its true, the people in the movement do have this bizarre notion that a woman's place is in the home. In the end they end up treating white women about as bad as negroes treat the women. The sexism is one of the many reasons that put me off about white nationalism.

Yeah lets be un pc about racial diffrences but pc about sex diffrences, women haven't really invented much more then black men now have they and their entry into the labor force has been as disruptive as all the post 1965 immigrants.

[diabloblanco]

Welcome Diabloblanco :D

Thank you Brother! SPQR1488!. Im pleased you have the Phora back up. Feel free to promote it on PANF anytime

[Kodos]

Modern European culture is toitally incompatible with Europe. Sir, Im an AMERICAN. I follow the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and decline to impose a religious test at pANF. WE are a racialist organizzzzation, not a religious one
That said some Iranians, Amazigh, Turks, etc on PANF despise Islam even more than you
On the other hand, yes we do have a growing number of WN Moslems. Likewise you have Christians, Pagans that hate Christianity, etc. Blood is all that matters to us, for all proceeds from that

Iranians in the US almost universally hate Islam, the idea of tolerating muslims is fucking crazy though.

[diabloblanco]

Yeah I see what you mean. Here is a picture of Emre, a turkish footballer playing at New Castle. He isn't the "whitest" turk but he is an example that comes to mind instantly seeing that I'm a fan of the sport. Diablo would surely accept him into PANF. :p

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/10/Emre_NUFC_promophoto.jpg

Not sure, the pic is too fuzzy to tell. Id need a better look at the hair texture
Judging borderline Dravidic admixture is very, very tricky, possibly impossible from a pic in some cases

[Kodos]

And, of course female voters are responsible for fucking up everything in society

Switzerland went downhill much slower then the rest of Europe and you know why Starr, because women weren't allowed to vote until 1972.

Unless your name is Elizabeth Tudor, by the Grace of God Queen of England Scotland Ireland "and France", if your a woman you probably should stay away from politics.

[diabloblanco]

And, of course female voters are responsible for fucking up everything in society

Switzerland went downhill much slower then the rest of Europe and you know why Starr, because women weren't allowed to vote until 1972.

Unless your name is Elizabeth Tudor, by the Grace of God Queen of England Scotland Ireland "and France", if your a woman you probably should stay away from politics.

Not at all, it was a consequence of a weak central government and relative independence from NWO banking elites, they had their native financiers
Also a populace fully armed with automatic weapons did not hurt

[diabloblanco]

Iranians in the US almost universally hate Islam, the idea of tolerating muslims is fucking crazy though.

The alternative is the abolition of the First Amendment. That would mean that you me and Fade would all be in an NWO Gulag for hate speech
You are right though about US Iranians, and its also true about most Iranians in Scandanavia and Germany as well, though the Mullahas have loads of spies in Germany

[Helios Panoptes]

I guess we could always branch this off into another thread. But yeah its true, the people in the movement do have this bizarre notion that a woman's place is in the home. In the end they end up treating white women about as bad as negroes treat the women. The sexism is one of the many reasons that put me off about white nationalism.

Yeah lets be un pc about racial diffrences but pc about sex diffrences, women haven't really invented much more then black men now have they and their entry into the labor force has been as disruptive as all the post 1965 immigrants.


What an absurd statement it is that you've italicized. As if it is cruel to state that a woman's place is that of the mother. In truth, it is benevolent to women and society itself. The refusal to place people in appropriate positions is to create a chaotic society, in which no one will be fulfilled. Women must be mothers - this is the reasonable arrangement. The independent woman is a a prostitute. The mother is a pillar of her people.

[Damavand]

Let me say that no one thinks child labour to be fun, but that is nothing against it.it's intense, it's painful, but it can indeed be enjoyable. for this we can thank endorphins and the sense of accomplishment at bringing new life into the world, etc. pleasure and pain often go hand in hand. think of marathon running, fighting or weight lifting, they can be very painful and exhausting and also pleasurable.

that said i think the bonuses of having children can start to falter after about 3 or 4 kids, because the body will often just fall apart. it may still bring pleasure and the sense of accomplishment but those are hard to enjoy if one is dead... also what good is a mother for her children if she is not alive for them?

the fertility rate in my country (syria ) is about 3.5 per woman last time i checked, and it's been dropping some. i would say 2-3 to be an optimal rate.
Many things are not "fun," yet I wholeheartedly maintain that those who take them up are admirable. Going to war for a just cause is not fun, political revolution is not fun, and many other examples.i disagree. war and revolution are like childbearing in that they can bring both pleasure and pain. a soldier may enjoy the adventure and the thrill of killing the enemy, though of course the same soldier will probably not enjoy a situation of taking bullets through the spine and dying slowly as a cripple, helpless to help comrades... the politician, general and commander will often enjoy having power, strategizing, planning, crushing the enemy and the glory of victory... while a humiliating loss is not likely to be enjoyed. many soldiers, etc. really do what they do for the adventure, sense of accomplishment, the joy of killing the enemy and the glory of serving their nation... in many cases the pay is not good at all, and often far from the only motivation. The carrying out of noble deeds is seldom fun, at least in the short-term.depends very much on the deeds and the individual. I must describe the above as mendacious. In an attempt to turn irrational, reactionary fools against themselves, you establish a link between unequal treatment of women and "muds," and we mustn't be like muds, right? In fact, though, the subordination of women in the Europe of yore is well-documented, though, not the same in all places, of course.the feminist understanding of "patriarchy" is very weak because it ignores complexities. the same is true for many people who oppose feminism, and yet share many of the same assumptions. it is not common for the women as a whole to be subjugated in any society, no matter how "patriarchal" -- there are always women with significant power. to believe otherwise is a delusion developed out of paranoia, ideology, etc.

in what society are all women treated the same? ask a princess or general's wife in any society if she feels subjugated :) in my country we are stereotyped as subjugators of women, and while some women are abused by their husbands, etc, like anywhere, there are other women here who are adept at having their husbands do their bidding. there are women who own important businesses, such as the wife of our leader who was recently at a big conference for mid-east women in business. there are likewise women who subjugate one another. every society is more complicated than women in general just submitting to men. even where that appears to be the case, look closer, and you will see it is not only men who are calling shots. and indeed, that many men have little more status than dogs, while there are women who live in luxury.

[ironweed]

And, of course female voters are responsible for fucking up everything in society

Switzerland went downhill much slower then the rest of Europe and you know why Starr, because women weren't allowed to vote until 1972.

LOL. Gotta give rep out for something like that! (Even when I don't necessarily agree with it.)


Unless your name is Elizabeth Tudor, by the Grace of God Queen of England Scotland Ireland "and France", if your a woman you probably should stay away from politics.

Not even Victoria? :p

[Helios Panoptes]

it's intense, it's painful, but it can indeed be enjoyable. for this we can thank endorphins and the sense of accomplishment at bringing new life into the world, etc. pleasure and pain often go hand in hand. think of marathon running, fighting or weight lifting, they can be very painful and exhausting and also pleasurable.

What you need to ask yourself to determine if it is pleasurable in itself is to separate the event from its effects. Would a woman choose to bear a child for the sake of it alone, if not for the result of new life to cherish and cultivate? I say the answer is "no."

that said i think the bonuses of having children can start to falter after about 3 or 4 kids, because the body will often just fall apart. it may still bring pleasure and the sense of accomplishment but those are hard to enjoy if one is dead... also what good is a mother for her children if she is not alive for them?

It depends upon particular births. Humans, like other primates, are k-selected, meaning that they birth few children and devote a lot of effort to caring for them. As such, the mother is necessary. By the mother, I mean the biological one. The bond between a mother and her child is irrational, and is not based upon the particular characteristics of the child. A foster mother likely wouldn't have the same level of attachment. However, I'd like to see studies showing that "the body falls apart" after 3-4 births.

the fertility rate in my country (syria ) is about 3.5 per woman last time i checked, and it's been dropping some. i would say 2-3 to be an optimal rate.

I don't think there's an optimal rate until an equillibrium is established. If a state is overpopulated at present, it should have fewer births per woman than a state that is underpopulated. Furthermore, a simple average isn't enough in many places. Dysgenic people tend to breed like rabbits. ;)

i disagree. war and revolution are like childbearing in that they can bring both pleasure and pain. a soldier may enjoy the adventure and the thrill of killing the enemy, though of course the same soldier will probably not enjoy a situation of taking bullets through the spine and dying slowly as a cripple, helpless to help comrades... the politician, general and commander will often enjoy having power, strategizing, planning, crushing the enemy and the glory of victory... while a humiliating loss is not likely to be enjoyed. many soldiers, etc. really do what they do for the adventure, sense of accomplishment, the joy of killing the enemy and the glory of serving their nation... in many cases the pay is not good at all, and often far from the only motivation.

We need to bracket the activities. Would a person engage in revolutionary activities if not for revolutionary ends? Is the act itself pleasurable or is the the result(hopefully) the good, which gives impetus to the action? Strategizing is not enjoyable when it has no goal or not a desired one, at least. A man strategizes to gain power, but take away the gaining of power, and he's likely to lose interest. The pleasure is contingent upon an end(winning the battle, gaining power, bettering the nation, etc.). I see your point that it is possible for some to take pleasure in the act of killing itself, irrespective of the results, though.

the feminist understanding of "patriarchy" is very weak because it ignores complexities. the same is true for many people who oppose feminism, and yet share many of the same assumptions. it is not common for the women as a whole to be subjugated in any society, no matter how "patriarchal" -- there are always women with significant power. to believe otherwise is a delusion developed out of paranoia, ideology, etc.

I agree, it is not common for women to be subjugated. I deny that traditional social roles are subjugation, anymore than a man having to fulfill his social obligations qualifies as subjugation.

For a direct response, you seem to be confusing a prescription with a description. I am not arguing that there have been societies in which women as a whole lacked "significant power." My point is quite simple; it is that society benefits when women, in general, are groomed as mothers, not individualists.

[Starr]

It depends on exactly how you define "independent" but can a woman not be a homemaker and mother and also be independent?

My grandmother was the perfect happy homemaker(far from a feminist) with 8 kids who did and was perfectly happy with all of her womanly duties, while at the same time she basically ruled her family with an iron fist.:222:

[Helios Panoptes]

It depends on exactly how you define "independent" but can a woman not be a homemaker and mother and also be independent?


You're right that it depends on "independence." The mother can be independent financially, of course. For clarification, I meant that the mother's primary concern is not her own happiness, but the welfare of her offspring. Individualist/collectivist is a clearer way to state the distinction than independent/dependent.

[Petr]

Not even remotely true, and what more my views have not changed since the very beginning.
Diablo, you remind me of someone else. :p

(Sorry, a Phora inside-joke)


Petr

[Jimbo Gomez]

Diablo, you remind me of someone else. :p

(Sorry, a Phora inside-joke)


Petr


Who are you and what have you done with our Petr? :p

[Petr]

Of course that does not mean you take all comers, and I suspect that more than a few of thiose "Lebs" were Nubian and Sudanese mongrels posing as refugees with false papers
Oh yes, your patented Dravida ex Machina excuse. :p Like when every time some Turkish or Kurdish immigrant commits a murder or rape in Europe you suspect that some mysterious Dravidians (how the heck did they get to Asia Minor?) might have done it instead of those oh-so-noble Turkish Aryans.


Petr

[infoterror]

But it seems in the past year or so, he's stretched the "white" definition to include literally every single caucasoid group in Earth. He claims that Arabs and middle-easterners aren't distinguishable from Southern Euros. I think a more appropriate moniker would be the "pan-caucasoid" front.

You're correct. The term "Aryan" is overused and abused (although probably not as much by Hitler as thought, considering the Aryan make up of the SS, excluding Himmler ;) ).

I prefer to be a pan-Nationalist. Race is less important than ethnocultural group, because whatever the grouping that produced Germans, they're now their own people and mixing them with Slavs would be a total failure.

[Daniel Shays]

I support Pan-Aryanism as a political tool to keep Iran, North Africa, and India in a European (read Germanic) sphere of influence.

North Africans will serve as great allies against Congoids in a two front racewar.

[Damavand]

What you need to ask yourself to determine if it is pleasurable in itself is to separate the event from its effects. Would a woman choose to bear a child for the sake of it alone, if not for the result of new life to cherish and cultivate? I say the answer is "no."there are women who do things like this for pleasure...
http://www.geocities.com/akramjfr/piercings.jpg

maybe having a child is just beyond the pale though... :p
However, I'd like to see studies showing that "the body falls apart" after 3-4 births.i admit that statement was based on my personal experience and knowledge from life. i'm sure it varies according to the woman, that is just the rough average from what i've seen.
We need to bracket the activities. Would a person engage in revolutionary activities if not for revolutionary ends?yes. look at all the bored kids breaking macdonalds windows, etc. there are plenty who have real revolutionary goals, but there are also plenty who just get a rush from engaging in rebellion. of course, it is often a combination of both. look at all the people on forums like these who clearly enjoy discussing in detail their ideas for revolution. Is the act itself pleasurable or is the the result(hopefully) the good, which gives impetus to the action? sometimes one or the other, and sometimes both. Strategizing is not enjoyable when it has no goal or not a desired one, at least. A man strategizes to gain power, but take away the gaining of power, and he's likely to lose interest. The pleasure is contingent upon an end(winning the battle, gaining power, bettering the nation, etc.).well, simply look at the popularity of strategy games from simple ones like chess to far more complicated wargames. these can get every complicated and detailed, and there are people who clearly enjoy participating. there are generals who enjoy plotting battle almost as much as winning. once again, it's often a combination of both the action and the goal. see, getting pleasure from one's duty is a good thing! i agree with you that hedonism is not the right path, pleasure should not be number one. however when we can get pleasure from doing what is right for our people, that can only bring strength. being joyous in what one does is often an advantage. this is why morale, for example, is such an important variable on the battlefield. so, imo, happiness is great when it does not conflict with doing what is best for one's nation.

[Dr. No]

Wait... Now ideologies CAN be formed around sexual choices?

Does that mean I can fuck sheep and still call myself a White Nationalist?

[Anima Eternae]

Does that mean I can fuck sheep and still call myself a White Nationalist?

Why couldn't you?

[Damavand]

There's never a anti-Islamic stance on WN forums. Aryans and Wahabbists group up, lol.i doubt that. i'm a muslim, and i don't even like wahabbists very much...

[diabloblanco]

Exacty. Islamic culture is totally incompatible with europe. The only exception would be if said muslim dropped the faith altogether and became an aethist/agnostic or something. Which is why I'm shocked that he doesnt have an anti-islam policy and he has many muslims on that forum who identify with "pan-aryanism"
The great majority of Iranian, Amzaigh, Turkish and Levantine WNs do not accept Islamic culture, and the few who do subordinate it to race.
PANF is not a religious organization.We take no position on any religion save that it be either natural law based or capable of reformation in such a context. We actually think that in this regard, there is much wisdom in the Bhuddist approach of seeking one truth through many paths, to coin an analogy All of us of course have religions or opinions on religion, but all of us also have something else too, and it.....well need I say more?
The only religions which would be utterly incompatable with PA would either be secular humanist ones like Unitarianism, or the Moonies or the Jehovahas Witnesses, and likely some of the agressively interracialist Pentacostalist movements. This being the case since all these groups declare any sort of racial or even national alligence as profoundly evil.
Of course Fundy Islam would obviously not be compatible with PA, but then neither would "Kill the Xtians" Paganism, or Kill the Pagans CI or Christian witchburnery

[Fade the Butcher]

You believe North Africans are white?

[Fade the Butcher]

i doubt that. i'm a muslim, and i don't even like wahabbists very much...

Feel free to browse the Mohammed Image Archive at tNP.

http://nordish.net/blog/?page_id=32

[diabloblanco]

You believe North Africans are white?

They are Caucasoid. I do not believe that the majority of them are White in the sense that they would be compatible with Indo-Europeans. A minority, among the Amazigh, and to a far lesser degree Levantines, would be White