And if it stayed that way it could have become a normal way of governing. Being more inclusive is an easier way to become stronger as a group, if you guys adopted this you would do better and have a future. I know most of you feel something when you see a black man attacking liberals and standing up for Trump, why push him away from your cause just because most blacks vote Democrat? Let people like him join. People like Jesse Lee Peterson are an example to many blacks, why would we not want to have people like them at our side? Even gays should be allowed to join, you should have behavior standards of course so that you do not have to put up with pride parade hyper sexual gays but I see no reason why having a conservative gay man in your movement would be bad. You need numbers and excluding people is counterproductive. Besides, only the best would want to join so you wouldn't really have to worry about getting too many low quality people joining.
Fascism was originally not anti semitic or racist
Inclusivity is the death of civilization.
The Chinese have done well with it. White nationalism is multicultural by definition as well.
en.wikipedia.org
If you marry a chink you still can't work in China. It's almost impossible for a whitey to become a Chinese citizen.
>we should accept that liberated farm equipment equipment vote 96% democrat because not every nigger is a subhuman ape
It's inherently isolationist, tribalist, and militaristic. The racism is inevitable.
IM referring to the different nationalities that the Chinese have integrated into the nation of China. chinahush.com
What is the relevance of the German Revolution?
Do you have a good excuse for excluding people like Larry Elder? I never said to accept people who vote liberated but what is the reason to exclude black conservatives? Blacks used to vote less Democrat in the past I see no reason why it cant be reversed.
No, Mussolini only cared about recreating the Roman Empire. Rome allowed different ethnicities to be citizens even Jews like Josephus. He only adopted racist and anti semitic policies because of his relationship with Hitler. He cared about being Italian but that was more cultural to him than racial.
National Socialism != Fascism
It doesn't matter who they vote for. What matters is Blacks aren't our volk, and can't be allowed to live in our society or influence our politics.
But they're all of the same race. White nationalism is the same. Black nationalism is the same. People are trying to hop right into globalism without allowing for pan racialism to form.
its almost like if fascism was sabotaged by asosiation
yes, fascism isnt racist, antimulticultural, or xenophilic per se
in brazil a remnant of this premodern facism is still alive, the integralists
but everywhere else is death
Hitler copied Mussolini but he added a lot of things that were not a part of the original Fascist concept.
You do realize people said that about the Irish and the Italians in the past. White nationalism is flawed in its concept and needs to be gone for the betterment of our nation.
>IM referring to the different nationalities that the Chinese have integrated into the nation of China.
China's trying to turn everyone into Han Chinese for ages now.
NatSoc is a form of Fascism.
Pan-racialism is crypto-globalism.
Look at all those poor women and children.
there is absolutely no reason why facism couldnt be globalist
Explain how whites are the same race. You cant do it because its a social construct. Do you think Albanians are white, their IQ is 82 by the way.
No, Mussolini adopted many principles so it was destroyed because of him.
source
I think itd be hard to make fascism globalist. Really if Donald Trump became more authoritarian he would be extremely similar to Mussolini.
>You do realize people said that about the Irish and the Italians in the past.
No they didn't, the US census has always classified Irish and Italians as White. They discriminated against them because they were Catholic nothing more.
Yes, the US wanted immigrants to help create their new nation so they let in many people. This does not change the views of Benjamin Franklin when it came to the Germans or the discrimination of the Irish and Italians. And this idea that it was just because of the Catholic religion that they were discriminated against is just silly. In what anti Irish propaganda do you see that its because they are catholic. They anti Irish propaganda all show that they viewed them to be inferior.
Caucasoids. They clearly differ, but share very intertwined histories, cultures, religions, and languages. There are general groups which can be broken down further. For example:
White (European)
Slavic and it's many offshoots
Med and it's many offshoots
Celtic
French/Belgian
Germanic
Nords
and in these groups you have others that connect in a chain link.
For example: Germanic and Celtic are connected by the Anglos.
Celtic and Frankish are connected via Bretons/Anglos
Iberians and Celtics are connected by northern Iberians. Clearly they're not the abolsute same, but they're closely related and intertwined.
Another example would be that Baltics are a good mixture of different people. Lithuanians are germanic/nordic. Latvians are Germanic/Slavic(?not certain about this.)
Finns are Nordic/Slavic
Iranians are caucasoids though, so are Kurds. Your reasoning under that is very flimsy.
>In what anti Irish propaganda do you see that its because they are catholic.
They didn't need to, to them being Irish and Catholic were basically synonymous. Like Turks being Muslim.
Yeah they're under caucasoids. but aren't European. Other groups of caucasoids would be Levant and related sub groupings, Arabian, North African, Horn of Africa, Indian subcontinent, Persian/Central Asian Caucasoid. They've all subgroups within them, but white is synonymous with European. Caucasoid is a larger umbrella term.
Sounds like you dont have any proof of this. My hypothesis is that they thought the Irish were inferior to them and you think they just didnt like them being catholic. If you look at the propaganda you can see which one is more reasonable.
But you mentioned caucasoids to define white people. So what do you mean when you say white, why for example are all the European people actually one people that we can call white?
You are very obviously being purposefully obtuse. It can easily be summed up as; all whites are Caucasoid, but not all Caucasoids are white.
>why for example are all the European people actually one people that we can call white?
Because we are genetically the same.
sciencenews.org
Let me clarify.
At the heirarchy of this is humanity.
Then the umbrella breaks off into her related races.
Caucasoid, negroid...
Then those races are broken down even further. European, Levant, North African...
Those even further. Slavic, Med, Germanic...
Those even further with Serbian, Croatian, Polish, Czech...
These are all intertwined in some way: Czechs are a good example a slavic and germanic mixed people. Poles similarly.
Basically what thhis user said. A square can be a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't always a square.
So its a social construct then. This is the issue with white nationalists, they cant ever really justify what they mean by white and why all Europeans are white.
That is so false. Europeans genetically plot distinctly from each other.
Are you genetically the same as your siblings?
You say they broke off even further into distinct nationality groups like Germany and Serbia. Why is it good that those people should mix but not all caucasoids?
No
>So its a social construct then
It's not a social construct, though. White is a termed adopted from the colour of our skin. This happens to be synonymous with Europeans.
>inb4 look at this syrian, he looks white!
There are always exceptions, but truthfully, generations ago the middle east and north africa happened to be A LOT lighter in complexion. They were corrupted by nubians and turkics which result in the middle eastern and north african populations today. Had they not been muddied, they would also be considered white.
>This is the issue with white nationalists, they cant ever really justify what they mean by white and why all Europeans are white.
Again, you're being purposefully obtuse in an attempt to keep your (lack of) argument afloat.
So you have more in common genetically with a person 10+ times removed from your family, than with your siblings?
>This is the issue with white nationalists, they cant ever really justify what they mean by white
Yes we can, if you are native to Europe you are White. If your ancestors have evolved in Europe your fucking White.
We arent arguing about genetic similarity we are discussing where the line is drawn of what we define white is.
Mutually beneficial and necessity (for Americans.) Genetically similar, culturally similar. Not all Caucasoids are European, and therefor are usually viewed as undesireable for Europeans. European is a wide term for many groups of people, I don't think that they should do away with their uniqueness, but I do think that eventually they will band together, just not in the failed EU.
Are you being intentional or truly cannot understand the point being made in these posts? Europeans are siblings in a sense. We have a distinct genetic grouping.
>The modern convention of theEurope-Asiaboundary (from south to north) follows the Aegean Sea, the Dardanelles-Sea of Marmora-Bosporus, the Black Sea, along the watershed of the Greater Caucasus, the northwestern portion of the Caspian Sea and along the Ural River and Ural Mountains.
If you are native to the region within these borders, you're White.
>It's not a social construct, though. White is a termed adopted from the colour of our skin. This happens to be synonymous with Europeans.
East Asians have very light skin though.
>Again, you're being purposefully obtuse in an attempt to keep your (lack of) argument afloat.
No, Im arguing against your point of view quite well, thats all. Its a known fact that white nationalist s have a hard time defining what they mean white is.
And that has already been answered for you multiple times, you just remain ignorant because you don't want to believe it so you're trying to be argumentative. White = European. From Ireland to Russia, and Iceland to Greece, they're white. If someone has non-white (see, non-European) DNA, then it depends on the amount of admixture whether they are still considered white or not. The only semblance of a point you have in your "durrr white nationalists can't define what is 'white'" argument, is the amount of admixture which eliminates a person from being denoted as white hasn't been decided on.
>Mutually beneficial and necessity (for Americans.) Genetically similar, culturally similar. Not all Caucasoids are European, and therefor are usually viewed as undesireable for Europeans. European is a wide term for many groups of people, I don't think that they should do away with their uniqueness, but I do think that eventually they will band together, just not in the failed EU.
This is an arbitrary reason
>Are you being intentional or truly cannot understand the point being made in these posts? Europeans are siblings in a sense. We have a distinct genetic grouping.
The thing is is that you could keep excluding more and more people. You havent really justified why you have drawn the line where you have, thus showing that it is arbitrary.
And why are we going with this definition?
Yeah but that is very arbitrary. Its basically white because you said so. Your argument is that whites are European and that they are white because they are more genetically similar than people from Asia or Africa. This does not explain why you have chosen these people as white. You could easily exclude certain European people that do not plot directly next to your group.
Genetic grouping and historical backing. How difficult is this for you to understand. Tried to make it relateable with a sibling analogy.
>You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink.
Historical backing, what is this? Are you referring to the many European wars that fellow whites waged against each other?
More so those that have a certain distinction yet are still definitively European such as the Basque people, Sardinian people, Hungarians.
For example guys, if you look at this genetic plot why is it that you have drawn the line that you have? Why do you not think it reasonable get rid of the Italians, Greeks,Portugese Slavs, Russians and Finns?
>East Asians have very light skin though.
Apples and oranges. The reason they're not referred to as white is because the term white has origins in racialised slavery. The white man and the black man; the European and the (sub-Saharan) African. This term became associated with Europeans and our culture. You're trying very hard to convolute what has been said many times, but you're not succeeding.
>No, Im arguing against your point of view quite well, thats all. Its a known fact that white nationalist s have a hard time defining what they mean white is.
No, you're objectively not. It's not a fact, either, none of us have a hard time defining what white is. European = white.
How is it arbitrary? You're only saying that it's arbitrary because it doesn't line up with your views on race. You've had it outlined to your numerous times yet it's like talking to a broken record because you don't like it. There are clear lines drawn when it comes to genetic similarities, and it shows that Europeans (all ethnicities) are separate from other genetic groups. There are differences in European ethnicities, yes, but the differences between Europeans and other racial groups is stark and easily identifiable.
My brothers and I would fight all the time when we were younger, does that make not family?
Do you not get that your reasoning for defining white is arbitrary?
If gays shouldn't all be hung
Then the ones who aren't pedos better start turning on the ones who are.
This is actually the old argument why you shouldn't tolerate fags.
They will tolerate worse and keep the secret.
ar·bi·trar·y
[ˈärbəˌtrerē]
ADJECTIVE
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
You aren't using that word correctly and it's been made clear to you what white is, which is European, a genetic family that is related by blood and history.
>The reason they're not referred to as white is because the term white has origins in racialised slavery.
So its a social construct.
>No, you're objectively not. It's not a fact, either, none of us have a hard time defining what white is. European = white.
You dont realize that your definition for white is arbitrary. Thats why you are doing poorly.
>How is it arbitrary?
Because you could draw the line on who is white anywhere. Its like you think all white people genetically plot together. They dont.
No. You're not following the argument at all, read through the thread first.
Ok but the fighting the Europeans did was a little bit different than that. Many people were killed. I dont think you killed your brother.
White nationalism is a Judeo-American meme.
You racially confused mutts classify every race that isn't East Asian or sub saharan African as "white".
Ethno European Nationalism is the real cause. Pan Europeanism is the political goal.
>You aren't using that word correctly and it's been made clear to you what white is, which is European, a genetic family that is related by blood and history.
See the words personal whim, thats how Im using it. If you dont understand that you could draw the line anywhere, you havent looked at the genetics of Europeans.
>So its a social construct
The name is socially constructed, but there are very obvious genetic differences between Whites (European Caucasoids) and Blacks (Negroids).
Genetic similarities and historical precedent is a clear reason as to what constitutes European.
Im not arguing against that premise. Their are differences between Italians and Germans.
Again, this is where the sibling analogy comes in. You're not genetically the same as you brother nor sister, but you share a common heritage (genetically similar) and familial background (history together).
Read this again.
?So its a social construct.
When a white is synonymous with European, it's not a social construct. Every time you see the word 'white' to refer to culture or people, you can replace it with European. To say that describing a people and their culture as 'white' is a social construct, you would have to believe that describing someone or their culture as European is a social construct.
>You dont realize that your definition for white is arbitrary. Thats why you are doing poorly.
How is it arbitrary? There's a clearly defined requisite for white is white, and that is ethnically European. If you can try to revive your argument, go ahead.
>Because you could draw the line on who is white anywhere. Its like you think all white people genetically plot together. They dont.
So do they plot amongst other racial groups? The clusters of European ethnic groups are still separate from other racial groups and closer to each other (when accounting for muslim and african invasions and rapes). Prove me wrong.
>Their are differences between Italians and Germans.
And?
This. I just want europe to survive.
>Implying white nationalism isn't ethno European nationalism
American mutts (the verifiable 56%ers, not the 90+%ers) are useful idiots. Ethnic Europeans need to recognise each other as family before we can delve deeper into pan Europeanism. And since white = European, then white nationalism = European nationalism.
Remember, no more brother wars and no more falling for kike tricks and D&C threads (like this one, of which OP is a kike).
“White” can only make sense in an American political context.
>He's never heard of white Australia immigration policy
Yeah that too
I think he was moreso a newfag that wanted to debate. 31 posts. Even though he had a circular argument.
It's been used to refer to ethnic Europeans for decades, so there's nothing wrong with using it. Leftists have been trying to dismantle any semblance of white (European) camaraderie. Their latest attempts involve abolishing the word 'white' to describe Europeans, while still using it themselves to generalise us.
It's a D&C tactic. Anytime someone says something about enjoying white culture such as music or art, you inevitably have someone chime in and say something like "ummm there is no white culture! There's German culture, Italian culture, etc. but no such thing as white culture!". While Blacks, Spics, Asians, Dunecoons are happy to have their cultures encompassed within a greater group as it promotes solidarity.
Doubt he was even a newfag, probably just a /leftypol/ faggot doing something faggoty. Just see these cyclical arguments far too often and have realised they're essentially a D&C tactic. They really don't want us unifying under one banner.