French mainstream in shock after poll puts French Far-Right in Lead

[Soldier of Macedon]

It is wrong and hypocritical to use the terms 'christian' and 'white' as synonyms. If so-called 'non-whites' like the Apostle Paul didn't come from Asia to Macedonia and Europe, so-called 'whites' like Philosopher over here would still be praying to Jupiter and the rest of the polythetic gods.

I too, am for the preservation of European cultures and peoples, and I think each continent should do the same for themselves, but I would much rather implement a measure of adequate control where it concerns immigration rather than outright denial based on the colour of people's skin. Globalisation is inevitable, but that doesn't have to spell the death of 'nation-states' so long as the minorities respect the languages and cultures in the countries in which they live, and the majorities afford their minorities all of their human rights.

[Philosopher]

I pronounce myself happy to give an apology for my positions. To those who exam me I say thus:

There is no question that Europeans, to a large extent, are inflecting their own wounds by not marrying as frequently as they use to, beget children as heretofore were wont to, and not educating themselves as they ought to to maintain their civilization.

But the National Front addresses these, as do many so called "Right Wing" politicians; they understand that European populations are dwindling because of infrequent marriages, abortions, and children out of wedlock--however, this does not take away from the following facts:

Non-white immigrants to Europe (Arabs, North Africa, Turks, etc) tend to have many more children than whites; tend to maintain their cultural, religious, and linguistic customs in their new homeland; and tend to be less educated, albeit some of these are Doctors, lawyers, etc, and exhibit a greater proclivity to indigent lives.

Notwithstanding these, Islam is the greatest threat to Europe, since Muslims have no notion of Western values; Islam cuts asunder the world into a "house of Islam" and a "house of infidels"; the goal of all religious Muslims is to convert the world to Islam, by force or persuasion.

Europeans are gullible because they suffer Muslims to immigrate to their countries, retain their non-Western values, and the Muslims, seeing the laziness and insensate nature of the native population, use and abuse the system, like the Albanians did in Kosovo, little by little grow to the majority, and then use the tolerance of the Europeans against them by forcing Islam down their throats.

And I feel the same way about Jews as I do about Muslims, if not stronger.

However, no one is suggesting that "white" and "Christian" are synonymous; in fact, close to half of Lebanon are Christian, and Egypt, Syria, Palestine, etc have decent Christian populations.

St. Paul was born and raised in modern day southern Turkey; he was raised in a traditional "Greco-Roman World," and in the Jewish Pharisee religion; he was not European, but he certainly was Hebrew, and though a Semite, his appearance was more "white," than "non-white." Irrespective of this, St. Paul wasn't teaching Islam...

But this misses the point...

No one is suggesting that non-Europeans have nothing to contribute to the world; and no one is suggesting that Europeans should not pursue a policy of trade, education, or communicate with non-Europeans. And certainly this author isn't presuming to suggest that Europeans can't learn or have not learned in the past, from non-Europeans.

I'm all for that--I'm not, however, for mixed populations, mixed countries, and mixed religions, esp with a people and religion who are bent on wiping out whites, from their homeland.

If you want to learn about other cultures, languages, religions, etc, then travel and do some reading; heterogeneous populations only lead to trouble.

[Soldier of Macedon]

St. Paul was born and raised in modern day southern Turkey; he was raised in a traditional "Greco-Roman World," and in the Jewish Pharisee religion; he was not European, but he certainly was Hebrew, and though a Semite, his appearance was more "white," than "non-white." Irrespective of this, St. Paul wasn't teaching Islam...

So I guess ole Paul has a free ticket to Europe then? You're making up racial definitions as you go along to fit your own narrative and cover for a poor suggestion that cannot possibly be backed by any sort of logical thought. Just because Paul was "more white" (like you would know, because there are contemporary pictures of him, right?) than his relatives and neighbours.....you've got to be kidding me. I guess all of the Apostles must be 'white', lest your little theories come crumbling down.

However, no one is suggesting that "white" and "Christian" are synonymous....

Here's a reminder in case you forgot what you wrote yourself:

.....finally awakening to the reality that non-whites, non-Christians, in Europe, have been a disaster for our people and civilization.

I distinctly recall you claiming in the past to be a Christian first above being a Macedonian, yet your statements now seem to indicate a shift in which you are fundamentally 'white'. Let me know when it changes again. You can't be truly Christian if you would deny another Christian because their skin is darker than yours. Perhaps you should take some time to think about your true stance rather than presenting arguments that alter with each post.

[Phoenix]

So I guess ole Paul has a free ticket to Europe then? You're making up racial definitions as you go along to fit your own narrative and cover for a poor suggestion that cannot possibly be backed by any sort of logical thought. Just because Paul was "more white" (like you would know, because there are contemporary pictures of him, right?) than his relatives and neighbours.....you've got to be kidding me. I guess all of the Apostles must be 'white', lest your little theories come crumbling down.

Here's a reminder in case you forgot what you wrote yourself:

I distinctly recall you claiming in the past to be a Christian first above being a Macedonian, yet your statements now seem to indicate a shift in which you are fundamentally 'white'. Let me know when it changes again. You can't be truly Christian if you would deny another Christian because their skin is darker than yours. Perhaps you should take some time to think about your true stance rather than presenting arguments that alter with each post.

I find that this 'Philosopher' guy HAARP's on a fair bit...

[Soldier of Macedon]

Hard not to notice. The strange thing is, this individual, who once went by another name at another forum, impressed me with some of his research regarding genetics and DNA. Clearly the concept of 'change' is all too familiar with him.

[Onur]

Philosopher, sorry to say that, cuz i know it will break your heart!!! but the truth is neither your formerly Jewish apostles nor the Jesus himself was white in your terms. It`s certain that the Jews of Jerusalem in 50 AD wasn't that different at all from today`s Palestinian Arabs in terms of appearance and skin color. So, the frescoes in your church telling you a lie and the nordic Jesus images in your head is a delusion.

I know, truth hurts, so you better continue to dream on.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Not all churches have frescoes with Jesus looking 'Nordic'.

[Philosopher]

So I guess ole Paul has a free ticket to Europe then?

I don’t know if it is a matter of intellectual dishonesty, inveterate hatred toward me, or just inability to grasp the meaning of words, syntax, and context. But I will try again…

Whether Paul was Black or White (he was probably an olive skinned Mediterranean person) is not wholly relevant. From a Christian perspective, all are called—all skin colors—to be the children of God through Jesus Christ. “This free ticket to Europe you speak of” makes no sense because:

1. Paul traveled to Europe; he did not immigrate there;
2. Paul was a Christian, not a Muslim;
3. I already wrote that Europeans can learn and have learned from non-Europeans;
4. I’m all for relations with non-Europeans (commerce, friendship, etc);
5. I’m all for people of non-European pedigree to travel and vacation in Europe; and I’m all for Europeans to travel and vacation in non-European lands;
6. I’m not for non-whites, non-Christians, to immigrate, to Europe.

You're making up racial definitions as you go along to fit your own narrative and cover for a poor suggestion that cannot possibly be backed by any sort of logical thought. Just because Paul was "more white" (like you would know, because there are contemporary pictures of him, right?) than his relatives and neighbours.....you've got to be kidding me. I guess all of the Apostles must be 'white', lest your little theories come crumbling down.

Paul being “more white,” or “less white,” has little to do with the subject. Even if Paul was black, and Jesus and the apostles were black, which they were not, but even if this is so, then:

1. All people—regardless of skin color—are offered the hope of salvation;
2. The apostles were not immigrants to Europe; merely travelers of Good News;
3. The apostles were Christian, not Muslim;
4. Even if the apostles were “black,” they still had a right, as do modern people, including Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, to travel to Europe, to introduce new concepts and ideas to Europe, do business with Europe, etc. But these having to do with our original discussion: Immigration to Europe from non-Whites, non-Christians, who are destroying the white heritage of Europe and the Christian heritage for the last two thousand years;
5. All countries and peoples have a right to self-preservation. Allowing unbridled immigration of a different skin color and different religion only weaken and destroy self-preservation.

Here's a reminder in case you forgot what you wrote yourself:
Quote:
.....finally awakening to the reality that non-whites, non-Christians, in Europe, have been a disaster for our people and civilization.
I distinctly recall you claiming in the past to be a Christian first above being a Macedonian, yet your statements now seem to indicate a shift in which you are fundamentally 'white'. Let me know when it changes again. You can't be truly Christian if you would deny another Christian because their skin is darker than yours. Perhaps you should take some time to think about your true stance rather than presenting arguments that alter with each post.

I am a Christian above being any race or ethnicity. My statement is not a shift; who said anything about denying another Christian because their skin is darker than mine? Perhaps you should take some time and learn grammar, the meaning of words, and context.

My original statement that “non-whites, non-Christians, in Europe,” is not suggesting that “whites” and “Christians” are the same. This is just absurd. I’m a scholar in the fields of religion and politics. All I was suggesting was that “non-whites” and “non-Christians,” are a disaster to Europe. I was not conflating the two. It is pretty obvious. Moreover, I’m all for Christians and non-Christians, regardless of their skin color, to prosper and grow, but let them live in their own native countries and build up their own nations.

This is not unreasonable. Multi ethnic populations, multi-linguistic, and multi-religious societies only subvert states, not better them.

I find that this 'Philosopher' guy HAARP's on a fair bit...

I won’t dignify that with a response…

Philosopher, sorry to say that, cuz i know it will break your heart!!! but the truth is neither your formerly Jewish apostles nor the Jesus himself was white in your terms. It`s certain that the Jews of Jerusalem in 50 AD wasn't that different at all from today`s Palestinian Arabs in terms of appearance and skin color. So, the frescoes in your church telling you a lie and the nordic Jesus images in your head is a delusion.

I know, truth hurts, so you better continue to dream on.

Coming from Turkey, I take it you are a Muslim and are offended at my comments? You do realize that many persons in the Bible, including King David, the Forefather of Jesus, had a ruddy complexion, and therefore, had fair skin? The Bible states this plainly. Now, I’m not suggesting that Jesus and the apostles were “fair skinned,” no one knows that for sure, though the paintings of these figures have been consistent through time, and indicate that they were more “white,” than “non-white.” Even if the paintings are not 100% accurate, I doubt they were anything other than your typical olive skinned Mediterranean people. But when you consider the evidence of the Bible, you come to the conclusion that the people of Israel were Semitic, had varying shades of skin color, from fair skinned, to more olive skinned; they were not black.

Maybe you should do some honest research ere making a fool of yourself.

[osiris]

Philosopher do you believe non Europeans should be repatriated to their countries of origin

[Onur]

Coming from Turkey, I take it you are a Muslim and are offended at my comments?

No, i am not a muslim but the typical "White European christian nation" generalizations and stereotypes are killing me because it`s so baseless and pathetic even tough it`s widely believed by many.

Even if the paintings are not 100% accurate, I doubt they were anything other than your typical olive skinned Mediterranean people. But when you consider the evidence of the Bible, you come to the conclusion that the people of Israel were Semitic, had varying shades of skin color, from fair skinned, to more olive skinned; they were not black.

You called semitic and mediterranean immigrants in Europe as "non-white" in your previous post but you disqualify early christians from same area to call as "non-white" now. Whats the secret behind this? Believing christ automatically whitewashes people? Or believing Moses and Mohammad makes people "non-white"?


All in all, you so-called "white Europeans" should cut the crap about people`s skin color and religions and simply say that you are xenophobic and you don't wanna see foreigners walking in your streets.

Btw, as far as i know, typical western Europeans generally calls Balkan people as "gypsies of Europe". I don't know how you Macedonians can consider themselves as in same league with them. Maybe yes, if you are assimilated but if you don't deny your Macedonian identity, you will remain as "gypsies" in their eyes.

[Philosopher]

Philosopher do you believe non Europeans should be repatriated to their countries of origin

Complex question. Ideally, yes. Realistically, it won't happen. Immigration and immigrants are too deep seated in Europe and too integrated in society.

But recent headlines and elections in parts of Europe, including Germany, Austria, England, and Romania, among others, have suggested that some politicians and demographics have pronounced multiculturalism to be a "failure."

[Philosopher]

No, i am not a muslim but the typical "White European christian nation" generalizations and stereotypes are killing me because it`s so baseless and pathetic even tough it`s widely believed by many.

That's good for your soul...I'm guessing you're the product of a "liberal education"? Tell me, in Turkey, how mixed is the population?

You called semitic and mediterranean immigrants in Europe as "non-white" in your previous post but you disqualify early christians from same area to call as "non-white" now. Whats the secret behind this? Believing christ automatically whitewashes people? Or believing Moses and Mohammad makes people "non-white"?

Let me put it to you in a very easy form:

1. Muslims are people who practice Islam, it is an adherent of Islam.
2. There are white Europeans who convert to Islam; they remain "white." They don't cease being "white," since Islam is a religion and not a race. These people are very dangerous to Europe.
3. Semitic people, by very definition, are descendants of Shem; Europeans are descendants of Japeth; but both Shem and Japeth are brothers. All human beings, broadly speaking, are brothers and sisters.
4. The Christian missionaries in the First Century, whether John, Peter, James, Paul, etc were Semites.
5. There are "fair skinned" Semites; and there are "olive skinned" Semites. But they are still Semites, not European, whether Christian or Muslim.
6. Some regard people of European, North African, and South West Asian descent to be "Caucasians," and therefore under the umbrage of "White." Others regard only Europeans as true "white."
7. In my usage, when I speak of "non-whites," I mean people outside of Europe, even though there are people in the Middle East who may have "fairer skin" than some Europeans.

To clarify on my comment "non-whites, non Christians":

1. There are Europeans who are not Christian (some are atheists, some pagans, some Buddhists, some Muslims, some Hindus) they are still European and white.
2. There are some Europeans from Turkey, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Egypt, etc who are "fair skinned" and are "Christian," but still are not of white (European descent).
3. There are some Europeans from Turkey, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Egypt, etc who are "olive skinned" and are "Christian," but they still are not of white (European descent.)

This topic is about "non-whites," and "non-Christians," immigrating to Europe. To have both non-whites and "non-Christians," immigrating to Europe as a public policy is a monstrous failure.

All in all, you so-called "white Europeans" should cut the crap about people`s skin color and religions and simply say that you are xenophobic and you don't wanna see foreigners walking in your streets.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to have your fellow countrymen, neighbors, spouse, kids, family, friends, to be like yourself. We all identify with self. This builds strong nations; and strong morale in the country.

Btw, as far as i know, typical western Europeans generally calls Balkan people as "gypsies of Europe". I don't know how you Macedonians can consider themselves as in same league with them. Maybe yes, if you are assimilated but if you don't deny your Macedonian identity, you will remain as "gypsies" in their eyes.

It depends on who you speak to; most people in the Patriot Movement, in the Ethnic Consciousness Movement, regard all Europeans, regardless of location, to be White.

[Soldier of Macedon]

I don’t know if it is a matter of intellectual dishonesty, inveterate hatred toward me, or just inability to grasp the meaning of words, syntax, and context.

None of the above, it is just an objective observation about your chameleon-like character.

“This free ticket to Europe you speak of” makes no sense because:

1. Paul traveled to Europe; he did not immigrate there

But he spread a 'non-white' (or is it 'white' now?) faith to Europe. So it is OK to adopt a 'non-white' religion en masse across the continent, but not OK to accept the descendants of its progenitors?

I’m not for non-whites, non-Christians, to immigrate, to Europe.

Yep, you made that clear already 'white boy'.

Paul being “more white,” or “less white,” has little to do with the subject.

Yet you went to the trouble of providing a bogus racial description using exactly those words. Do you even read what you post?

Immigration to Europe from non-Whites, non-Christians, who are destroying the white heritage of Europe and the Christian heritage for the last two thousand years.

That Christian heritage comes from those 'non-whites', can't you see the racist hypocrisy in your own statements? You don't want them in your continent, yet you are happy to preach the religion which they gave to Europe (and consequently yourself) like you are a 'white' 'non-white' yourself? Or was it just 'white'? Lol.

My statement is not a shift; who said anything about denying another Christian because their skin is darker than mine?

You claim to be a Christian above race and ethnicity, yet you keep spewing up these diatribes about 'white' preservation like you have been schooled by the racist morons at stormfront. If you were a true Christian, you would accept anybody, anywhere - based on their religion above their race and ethnicity, but clearly, being 'white' seems to be the one point you keep reverting to.

Perhaps you should take some time and learn grammar, the meaning of words, and context.

I know my grammar, thanks, perhaps you should start with basic vocabulary first.

My original statement that “non-whites, non-Christians, in Europe,” is not suggesting that “whites” and “Christians” are the same.

What is it suggesting? Are you now using two criterias? Which one is more important, the 'white' or 'Christian' aspect? I guess it depends on the topic, because on a semantic level you are a super-Christian, yet when it comes to Europe, you are 'white' first.

I’m a scholar in the fields of religion and politics.

One would think you would demonstrate a little more objectivity and balanced thought, if what you say is true.

All I was suggesting was that “non-whites” and “non-Christians,” are a disaster to Europe.

A generalised statement that would make people like Goebbels glee with envy. What, for arguments sake, should we do with our Roma populations in Europe, send them all back to the India and Pakistan?

This is not unreasonable. Multi ethnic populations, multi-linguistic, and multi-religious societies only subvert states, not better them.

I don't think it is a disaster if there are measures of adequate control in which the host nation of a country remains prevalent.

[Philosopher]

None of the above, it is just an objective observation about your chameleon-like character.

I’ve been nothing but consistent and firm as a rock in all of my postings. I do think that my complex, trenchant, treatise of the topic has you confused. So I will explain it yet again:

But he spread a 'non-white' (or is it 'white' now?) faith to Europe. So it is OK to adopt a 'non-white' religion en masse across the continent, but not OK to accept the descendants of its progenitors?

There are two flaws in your argument. First, Paul didn’t spread a “non-white” faith to Europe; nor did he spread a “white” faith across Europe. Paul spread a Divine Faith intended for all peoples of the earth; and God used people who were best fit to spread the gospel. The New Testament states “In Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek; neither Male nor Female.” In Christ, one’s sex or race means nothing—we are all children of God in Christ.

So whether Paul was “white,” or “black,” a “male” or a “female,” from a spiritual perspective, it matters nothing—since he was a vessel of God to spread a Divine Message. In the early Church, most of these men were Semites, because of the Old Covenant legacy; in more modern times, Christianity’s greatest exponents have been Europeans. But this neither makes the religion white or un-white; it merely means God is using all people of all racial and linguistic backgrounds to spread his Divine Oracle.

However, that same Bible tells us that God, the creator of humankind, separated the nations of the earth from each other. This was a divine pronouncement by God that nations ought to be separated from one another. Perhaps God is a racist too. Or peradventure, just perhaps, he is expressing a Divine Will.

But more than this, your argument is confounding two very different notions. What we are discussing is what is most advantageous for the prosperity, harmony, and stability of “nation states.” We are not talking celestial matters that state only whites are offered the hope of salvation; rather, we are discussing nation states that are very terrene. What are best for nation states are a homogenous people, language, culture, and religion.

Second, in regard to the descendants of its progenitors: Much of the Middle East is non-Christian, with the exception of Lebanon, whose Christian population does not call itself Arab but Phoenician. Muslims are not a people that should immigrate to Europe. Turks, etc have their own customs, language, dress code, religion, etc that are very different to Europeans. When these people immigrate to Europe, they change the complexity of society and will in time wipe out the European population. In the Middle East, Muslims and Christians hate each other and constantly are at war with one another.

Yet you went to the trouble of providing a bogus racial description using exactly those words. Do you even read what you post?

I read it. Apparently, you don’t pay attention to CONTEXT:

Paul being “more white,” or “less white,” has little to do with the subject.

Why? Because

Even if Paul was black, and Jesus and the apostles were black, which they were not, but even if this is so, then:

1. All people—regardless of skin color—are offered the hope of salvation;
2. The apostles were not immigrants to Europe; merely travelers of Good News;
3. The apostles were Christian, not Muslim;
4. Even if the apostles were “black,” they still had a right, as do modern people, including Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, to travel to Europe, to introduce new concepts and ideas to Europe, do business with Europe, etc. But these having to do with our original discussion: Immigration to Europe from non-Whites, non-Christians, who are destroying the white heritage of Europe and the Christian heritage for the last two thousand years;
5. All countries and peoples have a right to self-preservation. Allowing unbridled immigration of a different skin color and different religion only weaken and destroy self-preservation.

Me expressing the position that Paul “was more white,” than not, is a historical fact, and was only intended as such.

That Christian heritage comes from those 'non-whites', can't you see the racist hypocrisy in your own statements? You don't want them in your continent, yet you are happy to preach the religion which they gave to Europe (and consequently yourself) like you are a 'white' 'non-white' yourself? Or was it just 'white'? Lol.

The Christian heritage comes from God alone who used sundry races and sexes to spread the message of the gospel. In Christ, the messengers are neither male nor female; neither Jew nor Greek. The modern day people of the Middle East are largely Muslim, not in Christ, with a vastly different perspective on God, humanity, civilization, culture, customs, dress, etc. The original preachers of Christ were not like this, so there is a strong disconnect in your argument. It is not racist or hypocritical to accept a theology spread by Middle Eastern persons two thousand years ago in Europe and now to reject modern day Muslim Middle Eastern immigrants.

This is like saying “since most of the world’s oil comes from Middle Eastern states, we Europeans should not use it.” What a joke…

You claim to be a Christian above race and ethnicity, yet you keep spewing up these diatribes about 'white' preservation like you have been schooled by the racist morons at stormfront. If you were a true Christian, you would accept anybody, anywhere - based on their religion above their race and ethnicity, but clearly, being 'white' seems to be the one point you keep reverting to.

The problems with you argument, which are many, is that you are conflating two very different concepts. Racism has no part in Christianity; I made that perfectly clear. If you choose to believe this, then I will have to conclude you are not mature enough or intelligent enough to have an adult discourse.

It would be hypocritical of me if I said that Christianity is only for Europeans, and the hope of salvation is only for white Europeans; this is repugnant to the teachings of Christianity and, hypocritical, because Jesus Christ and the early Christians were not European.

What we are discussing is what is most advantageous to the prosperity, harmony, and stability of nation states. We are not discussing the Body of Christ. We are discussing immigration that is rapidly changing the complexity of European society. Non-Christians and generally non-whites do not share European values; there is a strong disconnect between the two and is now being more recognized by politicians and the populace in Europe.

They recognize that these people do not wish to integrate into European society, values, culture, and beliefs. They recognize that these immigrants have no respect for tolerance, freedom of speech, or freedom for women. People in Europe want to preserve their heritage; people in Italy want Italy to remain Italian and Catholic; people in Greece want their heritage to remain Greek and Orthodox; people are starting to recognize that this immigration wave from non-whites and non-Christians is rapidly destroying their countries, culture, values, and the physical make up of their people.

What is it suggesting? Are you now using two criterias? Which one is more important, the 'white' or 'Christian' aspect? I guess it depends on the topic, because on a semantic level you are a super-Christian, yet when it comes to Europe, you are 'white' first.

It is not “now” two criteria. It’s always been two—hence “non-white, non-Christian,” meaning TWO, not ONE. The answer to your question: In Europe, there are two distinct answers.

1) Some Europeans, including people of the Enlightenment era, regard Christianity as a “non-white” religion, like your previous comments suggested, and that Christianity has a “Jewish” (Semitic) nascence and therefore, is hated or disliked. These people regard the issue of race to be above all else, including religion.
2) Other Europeans have a more balanced view point. They would prefer that the continent be “white” and “Christian” but recognize that this may not be possible. So if immigration is allowed, it should favor people who are Christian and have a more white appearance. These people are generally those on the Christian conservative persuasion.

My position is this: Nations (ethnicities) were separated by God because that is how he intended it to be; I recognize that in Christ, all ethnicities and sexes are called to the hope of salvation. But nation states are different. India has every reason (from their perspective) to repel Christian missionaries in India because they want India to remain Hindu; and they have every right as a nation to want to maintain their people as Hindi; Israel has a every right to repel Christian missionaries because they want their people to remain in the Jewish religion; and they want their population to remain Jewish. For this reason, it is illegal in Israel for a Jew to marry a non-Jew. This is how nations survive and thrive, not by allowing immigrants to intermix and wipe out the existing population.

A generalised statement that would make people like Goebbels glee with envy. What, for arguments sake, should we do with our Roma populations in Europe, send them all back to the India and Pakistan?

I answered this already. Ideally, Europe should encourage as much as possible a homogenous nation.

I don't think it is a disaster if there are measures of adequate control in which the host nation of a country remains prevalent.

What percentage do you consider to be “adequate control”?

[Soldier of Macedon]

I’ve been nothing but consistent and firm as a rock in all of my postings.

As you have clearly demonstrated on this thread, consistency can hardly be considered one of your virtues.

I do think that my complex, trenchant, treatise of the topic has you confused.

There's no confusion on my part, and I have no issues with keeping up with your ever-altering rainbow variety of arguments. I just don't agree with most of them.

There are two flaws in your argument.

I was not the one trying to argue a point, it was you. And you have failed in that regard, miserably. You should stay away from racial discussions and stick to religion, and least you've some knowledge in that field.

First, Paul didn’t spread a “non-white” faith to Europe; nor did he spread a “white” faith across Europe. Paul spread a Divine Faith......

Spin it however you want if that's what makes you feel all tingly inside, but at the end of the day, the progenitors of that faith, were, according to your own definitions, 'non-whites'. You are a hypocrite that preaches this faith on the one hand but rejects the descendants of its progenitors on the other.

..........in regard to the descendants of its progenitors: Much of the Middle East is non-Christian, with the exception of Lebanon, whose Christian population does not call itself Arab but Phoenician. Muslims are not a people that should immigrate to Europe.

Give me a break, I grew up with plenty of Lebanese fellows, never have I heard of them say they are 'Phoenicians'. Again, you are hinting at this 'christian = white' garbage. Are you now identifying Lebanese Christians as 'whites'? What about their Lebanese Muslim neighbours, some of who look more 'white' than some of the Christians? Do you even know what point you're trying to make? Give clear purpose to your words.

However, that same Bible tells us that God, the creator of humankind, separated the nations of the earth from each other. This was a divine pronouncement by God that nations ought to be separated from one another. Perhaps God is a racist too.

Or perhaps that is your racist interpretation. Where in the Bible does it say that "nations ought to be separated from one another" in the manner that you are suggesting, and where does God distinguish between 'white' and 'black', like you do?

Me expressing the position that Paul “was more white,” than not, is a historical fact, and was only intended as such.

Ok, back to square 1...baby steps now. Define "more white"? Confirm this "historical fact" - are there any contemporary pictures of Paul?

It is not racist or hypocritical to accept a theology spread by Middle Eastern persons two thousand years ago in Europe and now to reject modern day Muslim Middle Eastern immigrants.

What is the difference with Middle Eastern persons spreading a continuation of Abrahamic theology in Europe today? I doubt the ancients equated religion with race, as you do. To be frank, it's not that I entirely disagree with some of the points you're making, but your whole reasoning for making them is flawed. I too want Europe to remain a Christian majority continent, but I don't subscribe to these 'white', 'more white', etc theories you're trying to push forth, when I know Turks and Arabs that are more 'white' by skin colour than some Europeans. With each post you sound more and more like some Nazi, and that is not what Macedonians are about.

This is like saying “since most of the world’s oil comes from Middle Eastern states, we Europeans should not use it.” What a joke…

Is that how you read it? If so, it was a good joke (your analogy, that is).

Non-Christians and generally non-whites do not share European values.....

Stop it, seriously, I don't have to make you look like a stormfront trooper, you seem to revel in the role. Your whole post is riddled with racist overtones, it truly is embarrassing and pathetic. You can't even define what 'white' is, yet you include some people from Asia as 'more white' so it can fit into your own 'idea' of Europe.

What percentage do you consider to be “adequate control”?

75-80% majority of the host nation in each state.

I answered this already. Ideally, Europe should encourage as much as possible a homogenous nation.

That is not an answer, so I will ask you again. What should Europe do with its 'non-white' Roma population? What about the 'white' but non-Christian Albanians and Bosnians, what to do with them? What are you suggesting we encourage them to do, migrate?