all 69 comments

[–]shilldetector 14 insightful - 4 fun14 insightful - 3 fun15 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Sir, this is an Arby's.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Obvious troll is obvious.

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 7 fun9 insightful - 6 fun10 insightful - 7 fun -  (9 children)

It's pretty weird to think about a pasty pale slav as poc, but hey, whatever, lets get these folk some reparations already.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

LOL

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

My husband was telling me last night about slavs from the former ussr countries are now poc.

https://www.coalitioncommunitiescolor.org/bridges-sla-ldp#

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

Wow what a bizarre group. Obviously the framing of themselves as POC is cynical because you can't get funding or any support if you're just a group of Whites advocating on your own behalf but still it's very strange.

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

Not necessarily cynical, a lot of the issues whites get blamed for like slavery and racism don't apply to us. I mean, we were slaves not slave owners. If you ever watched All in the Family, you can see it wasn't long ago we weren't considered the right kind of white people.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Well I'd think twice about getting my historical information from a show designed by a jew intended to lampoon a caricature of a white racist but to the point of course it's cynical and opportunistic. You cite the Slavic experience with slavery which is undeniable but what percentage of Americans has even one ancestor who owned slaves? 1 percent? Less? What percentage of whites in America are descended from indentured servants?

Hell there's a lot of money in the racial grievance racket so fair play to the crafty Slavs -- hate the game not the player. But it's still slimy and dishonest.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I think letting one group of white folk off the racial grievance train will be beneficial to everyone. Acknowledging we're not all responsible is a step in the right direction.

Now pay me reparations ;)

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

ahahah alright Ivan calm down. You are an oppressed BIPOC. Here's a shiny Kopeck don't spend it all at once.

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

Yeahh. The Coalition overall represents several races, but that's not exactly going to make anyone take slavs being represented there as poc seriously at all. It's still a little funny though.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

It's my ancestry. I'm going to have to start beginning my comments with "as a person of color."

[–]Richard_Parker 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I am by all accounts a Nazi sympathizer, an unabashed wehraboo, but am erudite enough to understand that Hitler was a tyrant, was not pan-European but a German nationalist who brutalized other European peoples. Oh and his military blunders went a long way to Germany losing the war. That is the tragedy of the fascist even national socialist cause.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

wehraboo

Ah, a man of culture. From one ww2 lover to another, what in your opinion was Germany's main mistake and what step could've led them to win the war?

My opinion is that Germany needed to begin total mobilization in 1940 or 41. By the time they mobilized fully in 1943, the war was already lost. Huge equipment surplus could've won the war in 1941-42 when it was still winnable

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

Pming you soon. Very short answer. Hitler first and foremost. Should have invaded Soviet Union as liberators, treat European Russians better (european Ukranians were at times brutalized, other times collaborated with). Not pressing at Dunkirk. Halifax almost prevailed even with Dunkirk. Will write more in pm later.

[–]NodeEco-Prussianist, and partial Georgia Guidestone Enthusiast 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Didn't he have pretty sound reasons for not approving of the people who were oppressing his fellow Germans?

Pulling his punches with the Brits in particular seems like it was so inappropriately non-brutal that it lost the war and resulted in millions of German deaths.

[–]Richard_Parker 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

How did everyday, European, gentile Ukranians, Russians, Czechs and others deserve such brutality?

If Hitler and Co had taken the proper tact, and went about the invasion of Russia as liberators, everyday Russians and Ukranians would have revolted and Germany would have won by Christmas.

That is not say Churchill and Co were any better. They were not. Just finished a book called German Voices that compiles interviews and letters from Germans who lived during the era. An officer the author describes as a true believer talked about how entrenched plutocracy kept Britain from making peace with Germany, and he is right. Does not make Hitler's many military blunders or moral outrages any less of a disaster.

[–]TheJamesRocket 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

entrenched plutocracy kept Britain from making peace with Germany, and he is right

Indeed. Hitler offered to sign an armistice with Britain on three separate occasions, each time after he had won a resounding victory. The first offer was after the fall of Poland. The second offer was after the fall of France and the Low countrys. The third offer was after the fall of Yugoslavia and Greece. Each time, the British rejected his peace offers.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

[–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Aryan

one of us

Try again. No one here believes in Nazi anthro-mythology that was discredited, even in it's own time

Go around correcting people IRL that Slavs actually aren't "white" and so shouldn't be subjected to media "white guilt" propaganda or "anti-discrimination" laws b/c they are so different.

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

Honestly, I find the hair splitting antics of 'Russians/Italians/Spanish aren't white!' to be very funny. It reminds me of this comic.

[–][deleted]  (7 children)

[deleted]

    [–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    They're also the least prone to liberalism. In fact it's NW Europeans who could benefit from acting a bit more like the Slavs once in a while.

    [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Except that Poland is at the top of student testing.

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

    I think Bullmoose2001 is just trolling. Don't feed him and if he keeps it up I'll ban him.

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

    Many white Americans also act like niggers. What's your point?

    Also slavic IQ is nowhere close to African IQ unless it's a child that was born with lead exposure, hep c or fetal alcohol syndrome. So are you just debating in bad faith here? Are you just anti slavic? or just stirring shit??

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

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

      By "behavior" I'm talking about how Slavs are more violent than Germanics and Meds. Is that not true?

      I think both are capable of extreme violence and level headed well heeled civilizations. The slavics just appear more violent because they are still recovering from the Bolsheviks fucking up their shit. Russia and the slavic people were badly damaged by bolshivism, two world wars, Stalin and trying to make communism work. Even in the 90's they got fucked over by Jewish oligarchs that bought up a lot of the old infrastructure. I think it's going to take a few more generations for slavics to recover but they will. They are white.

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

      shut up Jew

      [–][deleted]  (13 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

        You didn't by any chance catch the debate between Keith woods (nationalist, isolationist) vs an anglo imperialist? The imperialist actually made some damn good arguments for international white imperium. I still lean with keith and the ethno nationalists but it's always worth keeping the option open for total world domination if 'they' won't leave us alone.

        [–][deleted]  (3 children)

        [deleted]

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

          [–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

          Keith Woods (and by extension also Slav Morality) really went mask-off in that debate. I already knew that Keith Woods has this kind of (stereotypically Irish) submissive third worldist sense of "nationalism", but I held him in much higher regard and didn't expect him to be nearly as crazy as he's shown himself to be in this debate.

          Whenever Keith Woods or Slav Morality opened their mouth, it literally sounded like an anti-white Jew or brown person was talking. They don't seem to have any racial ingroup preference, to the point where they accuse Nativist Concern (the Anglo) of lacking a moral compass for not wanting white people to get BTFO'd by the rest of the world, even though ingroup preference (just like a moral compass) are literally traits we've evolved to have since the dawn of time.

          Futhermore, near the end of the debate, Slav Morality brings up a very weird argument that in order to be pro-white, you're obligated to pick between the (supposedly mutually exclusive) ideas of white people as either gravitating towards their family and community (blood and soil) but with no will to power, or as conquerors but with no sense of connection to their homeland. This is a very disingenuous false dichotomy of him: In reality, both the blood and soil mindset and the conqueror mindset are just different expressions of the same underlying trait: ingroup preference, and usually rather tend to go hand in hand. He didn't back up this ridiculous argument either; the reason for why we'd have to either pick blood and soil nationalism or imperialism/colonialism and reject the other seemed to boil down to "because I say so".

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

          This is a very disingenuous false dichotomy of him: In reality, both the blood and soil mindset and the conqueror mindset are just different expressions of the same underlying trait: ingroup preference, and usually rather tend to go hand in hand.

          I wanted to scream this while listening to the debate. These two white traits are closely related. Although there are lots of people with high ingroup preference that don't exhibit either. It just seems to be a unique expression in whites.

          I'd go easy on Keith here. I don't think he was intentionally framing it this way. I just think he was trying to get the anglo imperialist to flush out his full views and by doing so Keith needed to over emphasize the blood and soil side. Keith has the brains on him that he could probably argue the imperial side just as effectively.

          He didn't back up this ridiculous argument either; the reason for why we'd have to either pick blood and soil nationalism or imperialism/colonialism and reject the other seemed to boil down to "because I say so".

          Agreed. I thought the anglo imperialists won that debate but again it was a friendly debate.

          The bottom line is that you really can't protect 'blood and soil' if you don't have some type of international presence, information network and projection of power. Blood and soil can only be preserved when there are constant new lands and new challenges to mold and shape the next generation of warrior explorers. That's another big reason the white race is struggling. We've lost our frontiers. We are no longer challenged. It's no coincidence the British people were at their healthiest and strongest as they were conquering the oceans and the Americans as they were conquering the west. You might enjoy reading about Fredrick Jackson Turner's Frontier Thesis.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontier_Thesis

          [–]TheJamesRocket 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

          Racially, its not so simple to classify the Russians. There were apparently many different ethnic groups back in the 15th century. And of course, some of them were admixed with the Mongols (who weren't banished until 1480).

          [–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

          Yes that's the alleged history as taught in universities that also teach CRT. A history taught after the communists slaughtered tens of millions of Whites, outlawed their religion, changed their history, and so on.

          Meanwhile alt history tells a different story, although it is skeptical and bizzarre.

          In alt history there is no such thing as mongols.

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

          The Mongol occupation of Kievan Rus is not some recent historical confabulation. It has been known and accepted for centurys. Who says that it never happened?

          [–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

          Do you have a historical source for that? From before Napoleon, preferably.

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

          But you haven't answered the question. Is there someone who seriously questions that part of Russian history? If so, lets here some names.

          [–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          I'm not sharing names. But the reason I ask is because such sources don't exist.

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

          Alt history tells all sorts of things. Religious texts do the same.

          It's best to compare all evidence from all perspectives, rather than to latch onto any single view.

          [–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          I'm with you on that one.

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

          Fuck off Jew

          [–]proc0 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (27 children)

          Hitler didn't use that term, therefore your premise is already false. "white" actually means Anglo-saxon American, in the strictest historical definition.

          [–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (26 children)

          "white" actually means Anglo-saxon American, in the strictest historical definition.

          No it didn't. If you're talking about the American context alone -- it definitely never meant that in Australia -- it meant Europeans. The first immigration bill Congress ever passed limited migration to 'Free Whites of good character' and at the time there Europeans coming in from Britain and NW Europe so obviously White didn't just mean Anglo-Saxon or no one else but Anglo-Saxons would have been able to migrate.

          [–]proc0 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

          Well then that's Australian white. The origin of the American term comes from when the majority of people where of Anglo-saxon descent. The story told now is that it kept expanding to include Europeans, but I think that is a twisted version of history.

          The term was always used to mean the original Americans that arrived from England. Then society in America started taking steps towards being "color blind", so it did't matter and the term was not used as much, but now thanks to hateful people that term has been revived but not in its original form, and they lie about what happened. As an example, many Latin Americans would be considered white now, but definitely not a few decades ago. The reason is because now it is based on a combination of skin tone and politics.

          [–]EuropeanAwakening14 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

          Ok, first of all, thenoriginal.colonies consisted of English, Germans, Scots, Swedes, Irish, French, etc. They were all considered White and were allowed to immigrate under the 1790 immigration act which specified only Whites could immigrate. Race and skin color are not the same thing. Political beliefs do not determine race. It is a biological phenomenon.

          [–]proc0 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          thenoriginal.colonies ... 1790 immigration act

          At the point they weren't colonies anymore. I'm saying originally you had the Pilgrims and then people from England as the majority in the colonies, and then the war of indepence happened, and then other immigrants started coming over. At that point "whites" and "blacks" was very specific to whom it referred to. We speak English after all. Yes, there was immigration, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of immigrants started coming well after the founding of the country.

          Race and skin color are not the same thing. Political beliefs do not determine race. It is a biological phenomenon.

          I agree. I was saying this is what the current status quo is, thanks to the left, and woke-ism. People might deny it, because the terms are meant to be twisted and meant to confuse people. They have changed the definitions of the terms on purpose, so now it's not just your bioligical race, it's a combination of your skin color and your beliefs. It used to be you are Latino if your family comes from Latin America, but now if you don't align with the politics (and call yourself Latinx, which is a fucking disgrace), you are also white, especially if your skin is light. Same applies to other races. It's called "double speak". They use a term with wrong deifnitions on purpose. Normies get confused, grow afraid, and then just conform, because they're normies.

          [–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

          No it isn't. Did you even read my comment I wasn't talking about 'Australian white'.

          As an example, many Latin Americans would be considered white now, but definitely not a few decades ago. The reason is because now it is based on a combination of skin tone and politics.

          I don't even know what the hell you're talking about. There are many Latin Americans including many Cubans in America who are genuinely racially White -- I'm talking about biology here not social categorization -- but no one just becomes White because of their politics.

          Again this is the type of argument I usually here exclusively from leftists weirdos who think it's a gotcha and a refutal of the reality of race to note the slightly changing definitions over time. It's stupid and silly.

          [–]proc0 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          I am telling you what the reality of the status quo is, not my opinion on the matter.

          but no one just becomes White because of their politics.

          I agree.

          Again this is the type of argument I usually here exclusively from leftists weirdos

          Yes, I am basically explaining what they are saying. Just because I'm explaining something doesn't make it my argument, and I'm only doing so to make the point that they started making this change in definitions.

          There are many Latin Americans including many Cubans in America who are genuinely racially White

          I don't know about now, but a decade ago, I visited South America, and I'm also familiar with the culture, people don't think this way. Again, this might have changed now because of the Internet and lefties trying to change language, but not that long ago this concept didn't exist down there. Even light-skinned people in Latin America still considered themselves as Latinos or Latin American. The proof of this is that actual white people visiting Latin America are called "gringos". Nobody calls themselves "blanco", and if they do now, that's because of wokeness being exported around the world, but I doubt they do.

          [–][deleted]  (20 children)

          [deleted]

            [–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

            Yeah I thought the Franklin quotes would come up. They're odd and probably suggest a confusion on Franklin's own part or a misunderstanding of what he was trying to say. He was well travelled but where did he get the idea that Germans were 'tawny'? The fact remains that Franklin aside in a general sense the idea of who was White in America always meant broadly European. There was definitely Anglo chauvinism in America -- rightly so too! -- but this idea that they didn't consider non-Anglo Europeans White is really only an idea that postmodernist 'race is a social construct' types believe. The facts on the ground not the musings of Franklin prove that.

            but to say that originally the US wasn't founded as an Anglo-Saxon country, is wrong.

            Didn't argue it wasn't. That doesn't mean the people at the time didn't consider other Europeans as fellow Whites which is the entire point I'm trying to make.

            [–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

            Have you considered that maybe they were tawny?

            [–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

            Germans? One of the fairest of all European people? No I can't say I have considered the fact that a population could radically change in appearance in a little over 200 years. Have you considered that maybe Franklin was a major autist who was talking out of his ass? (He also said weird things about Swedes as well.)

            The whole context of the quote in question is him talking about his distaste for non-Anglo Europeans which strikes me as the same brand of ridiculous spergery as the OP is presenting.

            [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

            I agree with you. I think Franklin was talking out of his ass. He was just grasping at straws to separate the island anglo from the more continental and more rural Germanic anglo.

            One thing that might have brought about the 'tawney' description was the fact that Germans liked to harvest and exercise in the nude and generally soak up the sun when it wasn't winter. You can see some of this in German propaganda films.

            nsfw 1

            sfw 2

            nsfw 3

            I think a lot of Brits like Franklin got off on the fact they didn't have to farm and do physical labor anymore because they'd figured out how to get other people to do that through specialization and world commerce. It was like a brag. I see this from a lot of modern protestant pro capitalism whites as well that have an island anglo background. I suspicion that's why the Jew found England easier to take over ideologically. Germans on the other hand loved work and still do and for the most part don't find physical labor (that beautifies and conserves the land) degrading. Especially outdoor farming and building labor.

            White people do tan by the way. The whole 'mayo skin' 'burning skin' is a gas lighting technique to demoralize whites and make them feel inferior to blacks and browns. Most whites 'burn' because of seedoil consumption and sedentary indoor lifestyles.

            [–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

            Another possibility is that tawney jews called themselves germans, swedes etc

            I still think it is possible that we were darker just a few centuries ago, Evolution goes super quick, especially when there is a cultural push towards something.
            Also think of this, the population has completely exploded in the past 200 years alone with multiple genocides and wars. It is very possible that our current population is not a simple 1:1 scaling of the population 200 years ago. It's possible that as few as 5% of the population 200 years ago represent 90% of the population today and that white skin color was common in those 5%.

            We often project our own reality, thoughts and so on back onto the past, but we can't just do that.

            [–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

            You're just weirdly grasping at straws now. Romans over a thousand years ago described Germanic people as blue eyed, fair and blonde. This isn't a new occurrence and they didn't suddenly become dark 200 years ago only somehow to morph into a fair nation in the last 200 years or so. That's absurd.

            [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

            Another possibility is that tawney jews called themselves germans, swedes etc

            Good point but was there really a threat of 'tawney' Jews flooding into the country in 1790? If Franklin didn't want Jews you'd think he would have just said 'jews'. There was far easier to be nativist and to counter Jews at that point in history.

            Also think of this, the population has completely exploded in the past 200 years alone with multiple genocides and wars

            The non white population you mean. Whites have been on a steady decline the last 80 years or so. You'd think the genocide and wars would have kept the world wide pop more manageable but alas it has not.

            It is very possible that our current population is not a simple 1:1 scaling of the population 200 years ago.

            Obviously.

            It's possible that as few as 5% of the population 200 years ago represent 90% of the population today and that white skin color was common in those 5%.

            I'm not really sure exactly what you are saying here. These numbers are pretty clearly tracked historically. It's hasn't changed that drastically but yes there have been demographic shifts.

            We often project our own reality, thoughts and so on back onto the past, but we can't just do that.

            This is true.

            Side note check out the comment I just left in the Hart Cellar thread. It's very related to our conversation.

            https://saidit.net/s/debatealtright/comments/81vh/a_misconception_i_see_on_the_alt_right_about_the/ty9x?context=3

            [–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

            The non white population you mean. Whites have been on a steady decline the last 80 years or so. You'd think the genocide and wars would have kept the world wide pop more manageable but alas it has not.

            The white population has exploded. Denmark went from like 0.5-1 million to 5-6 million. It's possible that say a subset, say 50k out of the 500k exploded to 4 million, while the other 450k exploded to 1-2 million danes. Everyone danish, just slightly different phenotypes, temperament, morals, height, musculature, eyes, immune system etc.

            This is of course conjecture, nothing proven or even substantiated by any evidence.

            I'm not really sure exactly what you are saying here. These numbers are pretty clearly tracked historically. It's hasn't changed that drastically but yes there have been demographic shifts.

            Its gradual. I remember when I first saw American television and people called themselves "white" lol. They were like muds. I realized that everything is relative and now I don't see it anymore because I've become used to it.

            [–][deleted]  (2 children)

            [deleted]

              [–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

              Palatinate is in Southern Germany, those were the Germans he was complaining about in Pennsylvania, Southern Germany is a lot less Germanic than Northern Germany and England,

              Who knows maybe he was just resentful about the Hessian involvement in the War Of Independence and that prejudiced his views.

              I just mentioned Benjamin Franklin's view to reinforce my point as how America was originally build to be an England without Kings, and make no mistake, efforts to keep that way existed for until very recently,

              I'm glad they failed at that and the project became more expansive. I think it was better more as a pan-European experiment rather than a continental wide New England.

              Funnily enough to counter your point and Franklin's jaundiced opinions I think in the census the highest level of self-identified ancestry in America today is those awful swarthy Germans he so despised. I could be wrong and will look that up but I'm pretty sure it's true.

              [–]EuropeanAwakening14 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

              Except those populations were allowed to immigrate to the US under the 1790 immigration act and laters laws which specified only Whites could immigrate.

              [–][deleted]  (1 child)

              [deleted]

                [–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                Yes and he's clearly just wrong. See my other comment as this has already come up. Franklin was clearly talking out of his ass or hadn't actually ever really encountered many people from the places in Europe he describes as 'swarthy'. He was a sperg sperging out.

                Also his comments don't amount to the entirety of racial views in America at the time. They weren't policy they're his own private opinions and they're silly. White always meant to most Americans European and just because Franklin and many others did not want to be swamped in a sea of German immigrants and Germanized does not mean they weren't White. White people frequently have problems with other White people it doesn't mean they stop being White.

                [–]NodeEco-Prussianist, and partial Georgia Guidestone Enthusiast 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

                There's a school of thought that people who choose to wear Adidas are revealing themselves as non-whites.

                But what are the Russians and Poles doing in particular, while pretending to be Neo-Nazis, that's against their interests?

                [–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

                I'm sure Adi Dassler was a committed National Socialist. Or maybe his brother?

                Either way I won't have this Adidas bashing on the DR! Peak German aesthetic. Simple, stylish and clean.

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

                Both were Nazis, Rudolf (Puma founder) was more dedicated than Adolf though

                [–]NodeEco-Prussianist, and partial Georgia Guidestone Enthusiast 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

                I don't know of any brand that screams 'low class' louder than Adidas. Seriously, it's the look favored by dindus in the Congo, and wannabe thugs in the sketchy parts of eastern Europe.

                Looks like I might have misread your sarcasm?

                [–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                Yeah obviously kidding but I still do like Adidas even if thugs wear it.