I think if Arabs are white, then so are Jews.
But in fact, I think neither should count as white.
US Border Crisis
- Thread starter Let God Arise
- Start date
-
- Tags
- immigration
But in fact, I think neither should count as white.
Excuse me, I read that wrong, I thought MENA meant "Middle East" and "North America," which would include Latinos. 100% there are many millions of Hispanics who are basically Spanish descendants. I realize now MENA means "North Africa," which would meant the tweet is also wrong - the White stat includes Hispanics of which there are many Hispanics descended from Spanish European.
As for Whites from the Middle East, they exist, but probably less than 5% of the total pop of the ME. Many of the Whites from the ME, which are almost always Christian, have migrated to America or Europe in the past century.
So even if we take out MENA from the census, it's still going to be around 70% White is my guess. MENA Whites are too small a sample to make a big impact on the census. If the argument is that we have too many Spanish Hispanics, then of course there's no argument they have dominated immigration for the past 50 years. But still it makes little sense to call many of them non-White.
A better argument than splitting hairs over what "White" is, is just to say there's been too much immigration.
As for Whites from the Middle East, they exist, but probably less than 5% of the total pop of the ME. Many of the Whites from the ME, which are almost always Christian, have migrated to America or Europe in the past century.
So even if we take out MENA from the census, it's still going to be around 70% White is my guess. MENA Whites are too small a sample to make a big impact on the census. If the argument is that we have too many Spanish Hispanics, then of course there's no argument they have dominated immigration for the past 50 years. But still it makes little sense to call many of them non-White.
A better argument than splitting hairs over what "White" is, is just to say there's been too much immigration.
Nobody in the picture below is white- if you think that, then neither are you. This is how Jews looked like when you encountered them in Poland before the war. When only people like these, or darker are left to breed in this world, the white race will have died:
That said, there's no shortage of Jew-like looking people in Poland. After they had died, I unwittingly found out these two actors had Jewish mothers, which explained why they'd always looked suspicious to me:
Krzysztof Kowalewski
Dorota Kaminska, Krzysztof Kowalewski, and Wiktor Zborowski in Misja specjalna (1987)www.imdb.com
This is why the whole white identity thing is dumb. People can't even agree on what white is. And even if they could agree people don't care about this stuff. A Serbian living in Italy may as well be an Egyptian as far as an Italian is concerned because they see themselves as being Italian and if they are white it's merely incidental to that.
The girl in the back left looks White to me - but the other 4 are olive skinned Caucasians. She looks like many Italian women.
If you think Black hair and brown eyes aren't White, then that would mean the Romans weren't White, since a majority of Romans had such features. And if you think Romans weren't White, then you're the one with the definition problem.
White skin, and certain physiognomic features in the skull (non-sloping forehead, wider face, square jaw, smaller but well-defined nose, round eyes), are the features of a White, and the differences of hair/eye color only need to be there in potential, but not practice. That is, the potential for blue or blonde must be there, but it doesn't need to be present.
All of these things are the markers of the White recessive genome.
Start by having more babies.
I hate to spam the thread any more.
Romans were not as white as let's say mainland Europeans. I don't think those in that picture carry the recessive genes characteristic to Europeans.
White adjacent, nonwhite Indian kids in the US speak white English, unlike blacks, or many mestizos. I can see the point.
It's a spectrum- maybe if hair color and skin tone are mixed into one, we could see what the distribution curve and its position over that spectrum are. The Vandal tribes started out in what is now Poland and ended up in N.Africa, by the way of Iberia, a lot of mixing has been going on.
I had a Slavic neopagan explain to me how Jews are not Semites, but in fact Caucasians- Khazars, and look like Chechens- pale, paper white skin with raven black hair. I don't care they're all aliens to me. I never liked the term Caucasian, they mostly look out of place in Europe. Roosh once had an article on his website, by some white man who wrote it was an asset looking like an exotic commodity in the country of Georgia, and many commenters took offense. It's a spectrum and you must look at the dominant type. A few years ago some drunk Pole attacked two Armenians mistaking them for refugees, one of them knocked him out. A similar story involving a Georgian is here. Now there are problems with Georgian gangs in Poland, these guys look mostly like this:
From a wanted poster:
You wrote about Stalin in a different thread, he looked right at home in the company of Beria and Yezhov. I don't know exactly what he looked like, probably like Roosh, very much like from the Caucasus:
An Armenian minister:
These Caucasians cannot be considered white:
Khalidov, a Chechen MMA fighter with a Polish passport:
Some Albanian criminals in England, a darker type:
Kashpirovsky, a Russian Jew, charlatan and energy healer, (they give themselves those artificial last names with non Russian, Polish suffixes- Russia got most of them after partitioning Poland late in the XVIII century):
The very alien looking Nimoy:
I imagine Europeans to look like members of this glee club from somewhere on the Baltic coast:
This is the look I expect to dominate:
A Russian kid, skater from the US:
Or this girl, whose video was suggested to me by Rumble when I watched a Trump rally:
How are you sure this is the starting point?
Ensure that your lineage continues, no matter what You want to do later.
The future belongs to those who show up
Neither of these explain why having more babies is the STARTING point.
Your children will carry on Your lineage, even if something was to happen to You.
Does not answer the original question.
It does.
Change in anything begins at the lowest level, the individual/family. You want to change demographics have kids. Change at the local, regional, and national levels follows.
Gen 1:27-28
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 And God blessed them. And God said to them,
“Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
No, it doesn’t.
Is having children the only single thing to do? That’s it? Like nothing else at all? Or are there other factors involved here contributing? Quick answer, there are. What you’re suggesting is that unless someone has children they have no place in discussing any of the other factors involved, which is nonsense.
There are other ways of changing demographics besides having more kids.
where is race mentioned in this? It’s not.
Last edited:
Securing the continuity of Your bloodline, of Your people, is the first step before You do anything else. Because all Your actions will be meaningless if Your line ends with You.
Nope. Everyone has a place in a discussion, but actions trump words.
As it currently stands whites are having kids but below replacement rate. There are factors to why so could addressing those factors first before having a family possibly be a smart idea? Fixing the system which causes low birth rates will allow people to have more kids as a result of the natural flow of life.