White Identity - Defining White

Whites are being subjected to conditions of life that are intended to cause their physical destruction. The evidence is in, this is happening (Ref 1). What happens now? Before any action can be taken or a solution can be made, White must clearly be defined to separate them from those who are the perpetrators and those who are not being targeted by the perpetrators.

The need for a clear and precise definition of White

According to Oxford dictionary White is defined as, “Belonging to or denoting a human group having light-coloured skin (chiefly used of peoples of European extraction)” (Ref 2). This definition does not clearly define White to positively be identified as their own particular group. The group that is known as White is not a certain skin pigmentation from Europe. Light colored skin is found in nonWhites. Because of the massive immigration into Europe anyone who is born there and has lighter skin than someone else is White by this definition. No one thinks White is pale skin. So this definition is not accurate to separate Whites as their own group. The perpetrators of this crime use this definition to justify their support and promotion of White Genocide. Here is a quote from social media when one of them is responding to a White Genocide post,

“Meh...

So what?

People are people. Those who think the amount of pigment in their skin makes them special are right though. It makes them a special kind of stupid.”

The definition of the US Census, ““White” refers to a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa” (Ref 3). As you can see this definition is not accurate either. This just counts the geographic location you are born in as White. This has been disputed for nonWhites. In 1997, a Black Egyptian immigrant was suing the US government for the right to identify with his genetic origin. CNN did an article on it. The

Attached: PhotoText.jpg (479x532, 114K)

Other urls found in this thread:

medium.com/@fdfc0b55f8d9/f72fafbf51bc
en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/white
census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-05.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiB0czI84XaAhWC0FMKHe5aCsUQFgggMAE&usg=AOvVaw0r0E96BwDHEbca_oIim0NU
cnn.com/US/9707/16/racial.suit/
nature.com/articles/nature25738
researchgate.net/publication/225035554_The_History_and_Geography_of_Human_Gene
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leuco_dye
youtube.com/watch?v=WoAX3SRZEV4
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

man is quoted showing he was upset how he could not participate in affirmative action benefits because of being legally White, “Definitely, I would've had more opportunity for advancement and even for hiring had I been considered black," he says. "I was prevented from applying and requesting positions and other benefits for minority person because I knew I was legally white." The article is also quoted explaining the problem with the definition of White. “One of the problems with the naturalization process, in Hefny's opinion, is that race is classified by geographic location and not ancestry. That's part of the immigration process his lawsuit hopes to change’ (Ref 4). This the exact problem. We are being targeted because of our genetic origin, not our geographic origin.

What is the genetic origin of Whites?

In a study published 21 February 2018 in Nature - International Journal of Science entitled, The Beaker phenomenon and the genomic transformation of northwest Europe, the genetic origin of Whites is explained (Ref 5). A series of burial sites dating back to 3900 - 1200 BCE were excavated and samples of DNA were taken from the bodies. After testing and comparing them with later samples the study shows that all modern day Whites descend from this group referred to as the beaker people.

We must look at how they are targeting us. They have been attacking our ability to have White children by force miscegenation through psychological warfare and extreme quilt being instill into White children so that when they get older they won't have children at all. Essentially they are attacking our genetics. Our genetic origin is the Beaker people we must define White with this origin and the mutations of that origin. In 1994, the research done by L.L. Cavalli-Sforza was published in the book entitled The History and Geography of Human Gene. In this research it shows all modern day Whites have a mutational

difference of 0-25 points between each other (Ref 6). This includes all Whites no matter the geographic location they are born in.

The Definition of White

White - A group of people with a 0-25 point mutational difference between each other, that have the ancestral genetic origin of the Bell Beaker People.

This is White. When someone says what is White your reply is this. This directly refers to the genetics of the White race. White genocide is the extermination of the people with a 0-25 point mutational difference between each other that have the ancestral genetic origin of the Bell Beaker People.

References:

1. White Genocide - Evidence and How
medium.com/@fdfc0b55f8d9/f72fafbf51bc
2. Oxford Living Dictionary
en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/white
3. The White Population: 2010
2010 Census Briefs
census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-05.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiB0czI84XaAhWC0FMKHe5aCsUQFgggMAE&usg=AOvVaw0r0E96BwDHEbca_oIim0NU
4. Black or white? Egyptian immigrant fights for black classification
cnn.com/US/9707/16/racial.suit/
5. The Beaker phenomenon and the genomic transformation of northwest Europe
nature.com/articles/nature25738
6. The History and Geography of Human Gene
researchgate.net/publication/225035554_The_History_and_Geography_of_Human_Gene

bump

This is a good argument, but the term "White Genocide" scares away normies.

In my opinion, a euphemism like "White displacement" is better.

Attached: Need to Verify 2.jpg (720x869, 104K)

"Europhobia" or "Anti-occidentalism" is another example

Attached: WhiteFish.jpg (1024x512, 175K)

It is genocide. The Altright became a movement because of the term White Genocide. It has woken more people up than any talking point. The fact is we have the evidence and we get called racist for saying we want to live. That is the ultimate redpill

I think the old words "Leuco" or "Lox" used historically can be properly used nowadays to denote racial whiteness too.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leuco_dye
Lox meaning "blueish, translucent"
Leuco meaning "colourless, white"

Attached: 1521819807186.jpg (624x396, 76K)

That is literally the worse definition. The thread goes into detail why that is a bad definition

Whenever I browse shitlib or centre left sites, I only saw them mock the term.

You'd have to agree at the very least that it can only be an effective term if the notion of White people existing is acknowledged. Without Race Realism or European exceptionalism, there's no reason to care. So, don't bring out the big guns until you've got your foundation laid.

It's also far-fetched to assume that using that term helped us or the 'alt-right', whatever we take that to mean. Coinciding with that propaganda were many other causes for White racial consciousness, such as increased affirmative action, nonWhite mass immigration, etc.

It sounds slightly esoteric. It might work on more educated people. I mean, so is "occidental" but that has a lot of assonance and rhymes with "oriental", so it's easier to understand.

Attached: Not Sending Their Best.png (1580x746, 276K)

This is the foundation. There is not one White person who believes the White race doesn't exist. They know that instinctually. The problem we have is the definition for it is based off of land or skin pigmentation. Which is not White. White people are being exterminated. I waited for the so-called leadership who failed to define White but they even have done their best to squash the White Genocide movement. Anyone who doesn't get one board with this definition and movement is in direct opposition of saving Whites from extermination.

It is not far fetched at all I was there in the beginning. Altright became popular because they were using White Genocide. Spencer later denied White Genocide to brand something else like white displacement it didn't have the same impact. When you say White Genocide people say What? You have the ability to redpill them. If you can't redpill people using White genocide stats and numbers than you are the one with the problem. Leftist sites ban people who talk about White Genocide to keep the others from being redpilled

>White people don't believe White people exist

You'd be surprised. I don't think it's becoming as much of a problem, and I can casually mention "validity of IQ between groups" to people in my personal life, and they won't react emotionally. That being said for any propaganda effort, I'd start with Race Realism, then go on to WG. I mean, you can still use the term, you just need to use it opportunely. If they don't accept your definitions of 'White' or 'genocide', they won't listen.

>They say "What?"

That's the problem, they get scared. It isn't just lefties, I have friends who lean right, and who get nervous when the term comes up.

*I only see them mock the term.

Attached: Oh Lord (12).png (1026x768, 438K)

Like I have said I have success in redpilling people with White genocide. You do not have success in saying White pride. Genocide is happening and it will wake more people up. People like you are just either A. Weak at redpilling or B. The opposition trying to keep people from using the most successful redpill for White Awareness.

They only mock the term because their leaders have to mock it. I never seen anyone mock who wasn't AntiWhite.

Hey guys the people who hate us and want us dead are mocking us I guess we should just give up.

Thats you shill

Anyone got any good Freya pics?

Attached: BB306925-6B73-493B-9A13-44AA7CDD0BFC.jpg (563x909, 114K)

Also you misquoted me shill. I clearly said White people know race exist. They just don't have the distinct definition to say this is White.

Christianity is AntiWhite

There may not be much of a genetic difference but I still don't care overmuch about people who aren't part of my ethnic group. I see no reason whatever why I should be concerned about the welfare of, say, Swedes, simply on the grounds that there is some genetic and prehistoric relation between them and I.

Two siblings can have up to 4 point mutational difference with the same parents. Whites only have up to 25 points.

Whites and Blacks have a 2288 point difference. Culture is biological. Ethnicity is bs. No more Whites no more ethnicity

>"White Genocide" scares away normies.
Saying "it's okay to be White" scares away the normies.

It is genocide. Nothing is more powerful than the truth.

"White displacement", what is that? That's a politically correct term for ethnic cleansing. We are not going to get anywhere by playing politically correct language games to appease our enemies and tip toe around the politically correct indoctrination inside the psyches of our brethren.

>Whenever I browse shitlib or centre left sites, I only saw them mock the term.
And? They mock us for wanting to exist whatsoever. They mock us for objecting to genocide.

Are you going to allow mockery from the Left control what language you use, to prevent you from speaking the truth?

>Without Race Realism or European exceptionalism, there's no reason to care.
This is total nonsense. An ethnic or racial group does not need to prove it is superior by any arbitrary metric such as IQ to have a right to existence and self-determination, as well as a right to object to being the target of genocide.

What you are actually saying is that you think we should engage in arguments with the Left to try to convince (beg) them to let us exist, because we are "superior" by some measurement. This is pure cuckoldry.

Attached: genocide_actual_definition.jpg (1200x657, 157K)

>Misquoted

No, what I mean is that they literally don't think 'White people' is a valid concept. This is linked to the continuum fallacy because they think the continuum fallacy is a valid argument, but not necessarily.

You get rid of this, and that mental block falls away. Thereafter, you can hit them square in the face with 'White genocide' or 'Anti-White warfare' and they'll be forced to accept it.

When a Swede doesn't think White people exist, what he's going to think is that the Somalis coming into Sweden are just like Swedes 'on the inside'. He's not going to be convinced of the term 'White genocide' because he's just going to think that "it doesn't matter what skin colour we have in the future, we'll still be fundamentally Swedish".

Once he starts seeing Somalis as an innately different group, he'll start perceiving the world correctly.

Attached: Jefferson.png (1024x1024, 1.82M)

>White must clearly be defined to separate them from those who are the perpetrators and those who are not being targeted by the perpetrators.
Why? All jews will ever do is try to nitpick definitions. Why bother? Why not just support white people and white rights?

Here you go

Attached: Cluster.jpg (998x666, 72K)

Race realism = Importing nonWhites is tantamount to replacing Whites because nonWhites innately =/= Whites

European exceptionalism = there's something special about the West that can only be preserved by keeping out nonWhites.

>It's okay to be White scared normies

No, it didn't, that was the entire point. /Leftypol/ even tried to sabotage it by making the message about something that would scare normies, that being 'It's okay to gas kikes'. I know this because I made sure they didn't succeed, and I have proof of such.

Thanks, but I already knew this. I was just saying that normies might make this argument unaware of the genetic reality.

Attached: Memories.png (2768x1472, 1.19M)

Ethnicity isn't at all BS. "Whites" may cluster with one another when compared with extra-Europeans, but we are not identical, neither biologically nor culturally.

Which brings up the question: if culture is biological and the biological variation between different "white" ethnic groups is as negligible as you claim, how does one explain the massive diversity in European cultures?

I just realised that this doesn't prove that I was the first person to screenshot /leftypol/ as I could have artificially inserted the name of the file, nevermind.

>This is White. When someone says what is White your reply is this.
Great thread OP.

I would also like to add that if you are in a debate with a Leftist who says to you "you can't define White, it's a social construct, what is White?" you can reply with:

White people are people of European descent who are not "people of color" or jews.

By saying this, you actually use the Left's own racial classifications (they have clearly defined who is a "person of color") and take the inverse of it to define what White is. The Left has already defined White on their own terms, so you can corner them with this if you need to.

The OP's precise genetic definition of who is White is far more precise, the above is just a debate tactic to use against Leftists.

OP, question, if a half-White person has their DNA tested will they still be only a 0 - 25 point mutational difference from another pure White person? Or will that mutational difference come up as greater?

>Diversity in European cultures

There isn't relative to the rest of the world.

Take religion for example, each area of Europe seems to have its own kind of church and sect of Christianity, and while this may seem to imply diversity, relative to how radically different Islam is to Christianity, in general, the differences aren't that large in the grand scheme of things.

"White" is a meaningless catch-all term. The reference is to cultures which originated from Caucasians of European descent. The reference is to those cultures that created the Western model.
Censuses have been changed so that those who once identified as 'Caucasian' are now given only the option of "White", skewing the identity to intentionally remove identifiable characteristics.

Attached: WE.jpg (703x703, 78K)

Religion is not a good example in my view by virtue of the centralised nature of the Catholic Church. Europeans across Western Europe - Catholics in other words - almost invariably belong to the Latin or Roman Rite, and consequently the difference is minimal and the cultural diversity is not expressed.

Where do find it is in things like cuisine, music, architecture, etc. And if you still maintain that there isn't much of a cultural difference between, say, a Portuguese and a Finn, then I can only question how well-traveled and informed you are.

Stop over thinking it faggots.

Have white kids and many of them, homeschool them to protect them from fucked up shit, teach them family comes first and make life a joy so they want kids too.

Fucking done. Whites don't breed and don't advocate for themselves because they are mostly pussies. They are not worth saving. Become yourself worth saving and worth something.

>Race realism
If you're defining it as "race exists", then yes of course that's important to get across before one can discuss the concept of genocide. Genocide cannot exist if there is no such thing as race or ethnicity. I usually take "race realism" to be the discussion of the relative inferiority of superiority of the different races based on various metrics such as IQ, which while true and important to understand, are not relevant to the discussion about whether or not a racial or ethnic group can object to being the target of genocide.

>European exceptionalism = there's something special about the West that can only be preserved by keeping out nonWhites.
You're not wrong, but where I disagree with you is that you are moving here into arguing for why there is an objectively good reason for why Whites should continue to exist, whereas what I'm trying to get across is that it would not matter if the West was "special" or not, we are still the target of genocide and we have to put an end to it.

You are ultimately saying: "genocide of Whites is wrong because we're special!" when in reality one does not need to be "special" to object to genocide.

I understand that you are perhaps discussing a scenario in which you are trying to convince a White person that they should care about the West being destroyed for objective reasons relating to the merit of the Western world, and that's fair, however I would argue that getting across to them that they are literally submitting to genocide is a far more psychologically powerful.

Arguing about the "specialness" of the West and its integral like to the White race can spiral you down all sorts of time wasting debates about history and "cultural relativism". At the end of the day genocide is clearly defined by international law

>it's okay to be White
>No, it didn't, that was the entire point.
I'll concede that you're right about this.

I will add that though "White genocide" may be a turn off to some normies, but it is a meme with a huge presence on the web, and thus the keywords will lead them to vast amount of truth on the subject (including race realism and European exceptionalism).

I will also add that "White genocide" scares our enemies far more than it does normies, because it's true.

the part about changing the term from genocide to displacement misses the point of referring to Caucasians of European descent as "White"

There's also language. As an English speaker, I can understand around 30% of Spanish adjectives, for example. Additionally, words like "Honey moon", among others, are present in every European language, and associated with that is a similar practice of wedding across Europeans.

We can also compare things like corruption, GDP per capita, IQ, HDI, etc., and the across Europe there is a large degree of consistency.

>Whites should exist, period.

I agree with this sentiment, just as Japanese, Arabs, and all other peoples should continue to exist. This is a powerful argument because it's humanitarian, which is hard to object to, but European exceptionalism is another good argument, so both should be used, if possible. I'm not too committed to arguing for one in favour of the other, they're both strong cases.

Yeah, look, I don't even think the term is factually false, it is a good descriptor, it's just that people aren't always rational and can get emotional.

Building up those priors is important. Another way to get around emotion is to be subtle. One question I've given my close friends is "If you wanted to genocide Whites, and had large institutional power, what would you be doing now that isn't currently being done?" You're getting them to question it themselves.

Attached: Konrad_Witz_Sabobai_And_Benaiah 1435.jpg (645x1024, 242K)

>Bell Beaker
But Corded Ware is literally Nordic phenotype.

The term "white" is for americans who has mixed ancestry and doesn't want to say American because that includes blacks etc.
It's irrelevant in Europe.

Attached: OK-pia-kjærsgaard.png (620x372, 480K)

so we're actually fries

The thing you have to understand is that commie kikes got to where they are now by both spreading their core ideology - to us, this is things like "white genocide" - whilst maintaining a softer, entryist public face. To us, that would be inspiring explicit white identity. One of the most powerful things I do with my friends is make simple comments like, "Because I'm white", or, "well, I'm white, so I don't do that". Build a white consciousness that exists outside of "lel we are evil oppressors"

I wouldn't exactly call corruption, GDP, IQ, elements of European culture. Corruption is more or less a human universal as far as I can tell.

Regarding the language question, that's probably because English has an absurd amount of loanwords. I would assume, but I'm no expert in this, that English trumps virtually all other languages in Europe in this respect. It might indicate that English, from a linguistic point of view, has a close[r] relationship to Spanish and other Romance languages, but is this evidence of a white identity? Do you understand 30% of Basque or Finnish adjectives as well? What about Greek or Polish? If it was ~30% across the board, you may have a point but as it stands I'm not seeing anything to substantiate the idea that ethnicity and culture are minor details when viewed next to the picture of whiteness.

>European exceptionalism is another good argument, so both should be used, if possible.
I guess what it comes down to is using your best judgement to redpill people on a case-by-case basis, being tactful enough to not turn them off. I've had good success redpilling people simply by striking terror into their hearts over the reality of genocide (and it is that fear survival instinct that we must ultimately aim to cultivate in people to foment a true revolution).

I guess I just disagree with you that one needs to first convince someone that Whites are "superior" in any way to redpill them on White genocide (your use of the word "priors"). It's not true in my experience, but I won't argue that one necessarily needs to come before the other, depending on the individual you are redpilling.

Where I really disagree with you is in modifying our language to appease the Left (avoid mocking from Leftists as you described), i.e. being politically correct.

You are however not alone in thinking that the term "White genocide" has itself been either tarnished or overplayed in some manner. You might be interested in reading some of Ricard Duchesne's material; he refers to White genocide in Canada as "the ethnocide of Euro-Canadians". His website is www.EuroCanadian.ca, and he recently released a book about the ethnocide of Euro-Canadians called 'Canada in Decay':

youtube.com/watch?v=WoAX3SRZEV4

Attached: wotan.jpg (468x535, 133K)

I agree, that doesn't contradict anything I said.

White nationalism is a flawed Ideology here in the states and its dying. The only true way to remain white, within your people is to move back to your ethnic homeland. Go with your last name. If you have a german last name, immigrate to germany etc etc.
We are being replaced, and its considered a virtue by normies. Time to come back to the fatherland.

I forgot also that a large part of my concern regarding using European exceptionalism as an argument for why we should object to the genocide of our race is that it can stray into the territory of arguing for why you "deserve" to exist, which is just pathetic.

That isn't necessarily what one is doing if one is trying to redpill a White person on why we should care about mass immigration destroying us, but if you are using that in an argument with a Leftist then that is in effect what you are doing.

>move back to your ethnic homeland
Go fuck yourself. My blood has been in this land for centuries and I and my family are not going anywhere.

White people clearly define for the reason I gave but also their goal is use Ideology to get people to believe Whites don't exist. Having a legitimate definition prevents that.

As has mine. But this country will be majority brown in 20 years. What then? And when Our children have children, it will keep getting smaller and smaller.
Blue eyes used to be in 40 percent of the population, now only 8 percent has them.

If a person has to much admixture that person will have more than just a 25 mutational difference.

>But this country will be majority brown in 20 years. What then?
Many European countries will be majority brown by 2050. What then?

Run away to Antarctica? Fly to the moon?

I hope you do leave, we don't need cowards like you. You'll just end up getting shot for desertion.

>If a person has to much admixture that person will have more than just a 25 mutational difference.
Do you know how much admixture is required to put it beyond 25 points? If someone was 1/4 black or asian, would they be over 25 points?

Well, maybe corruption per se isn't European or non-European, but the kind of attitudes that lead towards corruption may be European in origin.

You may have variation, for example, concepts like 'trasformismo' would imply more corruption in Italy then, say, Britain, but Britain and Italy, in terms of corruption, are much more similar than, say, the Congo, or Japan.

>English has more loanwords

And what do you think this tells you? European ethnicities have a lot of overlap in areas like language because they form a mesh of influence with one another.

Shakespeare is also a good example. In his plays, sex is usually used to rile up the audience (commoners), and keep them interested in the play. However, in "Othello", it is used for tension. Othello, a moor, is constantly asked if he has consummated his marriage with Desdemona, a Venetian woman, and it is a point of tension because that is the point from which the races have mixed and cannot be unmixed. The fact that Englishmen at the time would have been stressed out by the prospect of a Venetian mixing with a moor is evidence of the fact that there was an implicit White association between the English and Venetians at the time. Otherwise it'd be like watching a play about an Indian mixing with a Han Chinese - why would you care if some Indo-Chinese mutt was made, it's just another foreigner - except it wasn't for Englishmen.

Maybe I'm just connecting dots, but it does seem like there is a vague European identity.

Attached: Flag of Most Serene Republic of Venice.png (2000x1000, 740K)

> Having a legitimate definition prevents that.
Is there a tangible public doubt for "PoC"?

Is there even a "legitimate definition" of "PoC"?

Anything, literally anything can be deconstructed and doubted and delegitimized. Fucking Derrida made an entire philosophy out of it. Getting tripped up trying to make some ironclad "definition of white" that doesn't matter anyway and jews will pick apart nonetheless is a pointless waste of time. There's a reason the opposition constantly brings up "what is white?" and it's not because we don't have a good definition, it's because trying to muddle identity in a semantics debate that's turtles all the way down stops us from talking about what matters.

Okay naziboi,
I bet your just JDIF from tel aviv anyhow

ALL americans are non white and deserve death.

Attached: Amrikike.gif (200x150, 2.84M)

The Fryan people are found in all Whites not just blue eyed blonde pastie ones.
If you click the link to the study that dna was compared to all Whites south and north. Since than immigration has become worse. This map I am posting shows everywhere our ancestors were in Europe. They were a giant Nation. The only one that ever truly united Europe. It ended in 1600 BCE.

Attached: 887c61c651a36c3a0824af8e8ca4bd65.jpg (523x529, 67K)

this desu nuke us please

Failed Maori rugby player detected.

That "irrelevancy" is the reason Europeans are so quick to bed and interbreed with shitskins, since being white is 'irrelevant".

It doesn't matter if there is one. We need one for us. It is our people that is facing extermination. We have to have a definition that fits with who we are on the physical level. Going on instinct alone is not the way to win this Ideological war.

Come over and try, emu boy.

>Muh Optics

Fuck off, they’re all Lemmings. They dont actually care what we have to say until we’re the only ones capible of providing them their comfort.

I'm not denying the concept of Europe from either a cultural or biological perspective. What I'm denying is this claim that the cultural and biological relationship is sufficient such that people like me should be convinced to take interest in the welfare of others. I don't care what happens to Ukrainians for much the same reason that I don't care what happens to Iranians or the Chinese; the fact that Ukrainians are said to be closer to me on some cultural or biological sliding scale doesn't really impress me.

And this is precisely the point you articulated in your Indian and Han Chinese analogy. I wouldn't care, just like I don't care when I see that some Englishwoman living on a counsel estate has a negro baby. She's not my blood, nor are the English my blood, and their misfortunes are not my concern.

>ALL Americans
someone in a 3rd world country said im black, whoa how will we ever recover?

Attached: 1484897608220.jpg (617x932, 76K)

And other things that triggered nignogs say.
Inshallah it will all be over soon.
Mutts cant into geographic.

Attached: 4646.jpg (740x444, 82K)

In Europe people say Danes, French, italian vs foreigners. Not skin color vs skin color.
We have an identity.
And americans interbreed more than Europe.

America is literally china level of shit.

Attached: IMG_20180205_171127_240.jpg (538x519, 54K)

We actually don't we just don't have children. All those brown skins are first and second immigrants

more. do you understand that word?

People getting a job is not assimilating to culture. Environment is the clay a race uses to express himself. Without Whites there is no modern civilization.

These small differences can be explained by the small differences in points of genetic distance, while the major differences between Whitez and Black Africans is equated to the 2,288 point difference.

Now people bring up that certain immigrants from different racial backgrounds assimilate to our culture. But the information presented in this article would say otherwise. So do they assimilate? The answer is no. What you see is immigrants who learn to survive in a different genepool/culture. What they do is learn how to push certain buttons to make a living. Anyone can learn how to operate a machine or drive a car. But when it comes to a foreign culture you cannot learn why you must follow the social norms of that culture. We also see this when more of the same immigrants come. They start to build their own communities. This proves if they did assimilate or it was possible there would be no foreign communities if it was nurture over nature. But it is nature over nurture. As soon as a people of the same genepool aka race come together they will start building a society that reflects their race. This simple truth back by genetic research shows Race is the Cornerstone of Culture.

What's your point? Do you think I want negroes living in my home country? Not only do I not want negroes living there, but I also don't want my "fellow whites" living there, either. This guy has the right idea

Per capita? Don't thinks we are 54.7 percent here in the states I believe Whites are 90 a lot if the places.

Well the truth is you as a individual don't matter. Either you get over ran by nonWhites or Whites make a comeback you don't to have rights over the majority.

White is light skinned-Caucasians. This does not include the Ashkenazis, the Iranians, or whatever else bullshit you want to try to tack on there because muh melanin. Italians and Greeks barely make the cut as it is.

Attached: 1504034824445.jpg (468x398, 13K)

If I have no say, then you have even less as far as my ethnic group is concerned, being the foreigner that you are.

American "whites" needs to get their shit together and clean their house. If you don't want to live with certain people then do something about it.
Create your own culture and people.
If your a quarter this and a quarter than then you don't have a home in Europe.
Denmark is for Danes
England is for English
America is for people with white skin color..
really?

There is three things that divide people.
1. Primal needs like food and shelter
2. Racial differences
3. Ideology

Which one do you think is dividing Whites?

Whites are only 7% of the worlds population. When someone calls you a minority it should anger you.

It should anger you.