Look dude while there are internal differences between white people, all of them pale in comparison to the differences between whites (Caucasoid) and oteh races.
Same goes for other races. While there are internal differences between people of the oriental (mongoloid) race, such as chinese/vietnamese/japanese/korean/whatever, they have much mor ein common than with other races
While there are internal differences betwen people of the black (negroid) race, they are closer to each othe rthan they are to different races.
As such I find the whole meds vs nords vs dinarids vs slavs vs whatever to be overall detrimental to caucasians (whites) as a whole, only dividing us and benefitting the globalists.
This


nothing wrong. he just comes off as one of those typical curries that try to get approval from whites. sorry I'm just so used to interacting with those types of curries on here I just assumed hes one of those
That applies to curry normies who shit on their own race but suck-up to Whites irl
If a Currycel praises a Whitecel for what he's done so what? Isn't this a supportive place?
true, but I still doubt my iq is lower than 100. most peoples iq falls within that range
depends on their ethnicity & race*
Exactly, race isn't just "muh skin tone" like normies say, it has a lot to do with your genetics & also phenotype
meh I would say you can just ignore those ethnics. alot of them are just baiting because they're bored. ill admit sometimes Im guilty of that as well
It's annoying because usually groups define themselves often
I also see it as them "white worshiping" since they will shit on Irish, Italians, Iberians, Slavs, and even the French at times but then praise Anglos, Germanics, etc.
no but contextually speaking 99% of the time those that say they're proud of being white also accompany it with hatred against non-whites.
Define the context of "hatred" here
like for example saying you're proud of your white heritage and that those without it should go back to their country,
I don't see this as "hatred" it's more of just wanting your country to be homogenous
"hatred" would be saying you're proud to be White & that all non-Whites deserve to be killed just 'cause & we should conquer the world(unless it's metaphor)
or saying it while carrying an apartheid flag.
Eh, I mean every regime is guilty of wrongdoing- I'd never fly the US flag for a variety of reasons & many of your ilk would albeit for some differing ones.
The current regime there also fucked up big time, since they confiscated land from Whites & then faced food issues
it's more about the context and it's always said in the context of hating non-whites, instilling a whites vs non-whites mindset rather than actual self-pride
I think "hatred" is seen differently here
ok imagine someone saying they're proud of being japanese and foreigners dont belong here vs they're proud of being yellow and non-yellow people dont belong here. which one would make more sense to you? yellow people aren't a tribe. japanese, koreans, and chinese are, but not yellows.
"yellow" would be a metaphor and is also incorrect usage, same for "white" since both are meaningless terms used to deconstruct race. "White" is just a skin-tone.
What we mean is native Europeans -people who had an ethnogenesis in Europe- should have a shared collective identity & a right to homogenous homelands. Ofc, ideally each country should remain its native population, but what we're also acknowledging is that a clear "White" or "European" race does exist, which science literally backs up & which many normies of our race are aware of to some degree.
and whites only became collective and created this pseudo-tribe
How is it a "pseudo tribe?"
This is where I get frustrated, since you then seem to acknowledge blacks, curries, etc. as a collective race, yet deny the validity of a "White race"when this is how we have chosen to define ourselves, and also considering that this is supported by modern science:
HHMI scientists have shown that previously unrecognized groups contributed to the genetic mix now present in most modern-day Europeans.
www.hhmi.org
As well as the fact that there's also this factor:
Blumenbach explored the biodiversity of humans mainly by comparing skull anatomy and skin color. His work included a description of sixty
human crania (skulls) published originally in fascicules as
Decas craniorum(Göttingen, 1790–1828). This was a founding work for other scientists in the field of
craniometry. He established a five-part naming system in 1795 to describe what he called
generis humani varietates quinae principes, species vero unica (five principal varieties of humankind, but one species). In his view, humans could be divided into varieties (only in his later work he adopted the term "races", which had been introduced by others) but he was aware that a clear separation was difficult:
Blumenbach's classification of the single human
species into five varieties (later called "
races") (1793/1795):
en.wikipedia.org
Here's also what the NSDAP says:
The text seems to categorize the
European races in descending orders in the Nazi racial hierarchy: the
Nordic (including the Phalic sub-race, a subgroup of the Nordic race),
Mediterranean,
Dinaric,
Alpine, and
East Baltic races.
[5]
en.wikipedia.org
So based on genetics & shared phenotypes+anthropological measurements yes, a European/White race exists & is a concept.
The concept has been around for a long time, first as "Caucasoid" and then "White" or "European" or "Aryan" was refined as one
en.wikipedia.org
once non-white immigrants were introduced to them. then all of a sudden the catholic irish vs slavs vs meds vs anglo-saxons war ended because they saw non-whites as the bigger threat.
Read this:
As even Prof. Roediger himself recognizes, naturalization laws throughout this period specified that citizenship was open to “free white persons,” and no one ever argued that “Guineas” and “Bohunks” were unqualified. Other races were. In 1922, the Supreme Court ruled that Japanese could not naturalize because they were not white. The next year, a subcontinental Indian came before the court, claiming he was “Caucasian,” and therefore eligible. In earlier cases, the court had sought expert testimony from anthropologists as to who was white, but in the Thind case, the justices ruled that it was simple common sense not to consider Indians white. New immigrants from Europe were unfailingly admitted to citizenship.
The census bureau during this period counted new immigrants the same way. It classified the first generation and their children as “foreign-born white,” but counted the third generation simply as white. This reflected both scholarly and popular assumptions. As a 1932 study by Donald Young called American Minority People noted of the new immigrant, it was “dimly realized that in a few generations he will be absorbed into the total white population.” Young went on to say that the “white immigrant [is] patently handicapped by foreign language and tradition” but the “Negro now is looked on as more of a biological problem.”
The prominent sociologist Henry Pratt Fairchild (1880–1956), whom the author calls “racist” for his views of non-whites, took a haughty but different view of the southern or central European: “If he proves himself a man and . . . acquires wealth and cleans himself up — very well, we might receive him in a generation or two. But at present he is far beneath us and the burden of proof rests with him.” Unlettered aliens would have to prove they could become American, and as Prof. Roediger notes, even the Italians found that if they renounced their foreign habits they were accepted. By 1920, scholars were generally predicting that European ethnics would assimilate. They were making no such predictions about blacks
Race deniers get in a muddle again.
www.amren.com
and you argue like zionists do. nobodys denying your right to a homeland.
Many people do, in fact- including many here
you're just being denied the ability to decide who should be allowed to live in your land and who shouldn't based on genes.
Again, genes present a form of collective heritage how is it this hard to understand? There's even some genetic differences between European populations, which can be used as a marker for defining borders there even. For example, an Englishman is ofc somewhat genetically different in terms of measurement from let's say a German, so that can be differentiated.
As stated above, I also ideally want all White nations to be of their native stock or at least a very close one(ie, Irish people in Britain or North Italians with the French)
no other country besides kikeland does it.
Can you at least prove they do it? Afaik, for them it's more to do with being Jewish & yes that is genetic to some degree, but there's a big religious element
And also, how is all because they do it bad? This is a poor straw man youre making here, very disingenuous also since as proven, all of Europe & also North America+Australia are facing replacement
considering that western white countries hoarded all the wealth and tech and third world countries are prevented from progress due to neoliberal american imperialism, denying them the right to a better quality life is immoral at that point. if every country was 1st world and wealth/power was equally spread out, then youd have a point. but thats not the case and you know it
Can you at least cite something here? I've never denied that it does happen but you make it out to seem as if every White person is "in" on this plot to deny you guys, when I've explained these countries don't work in favor of us Whites or anyone who ins't a richfag
And how is it that China is catching up, as is a lot of Asia(not South Asia), and also a lot of MENA countries were well off before intervention? 
o. Im just being honest and saying that Im selfish
I hate to say this, but you admitting to being selfish is part of the reason things got how they did
Selfishness is a root cause of ills, and not just Inceldom but in general
As said before, I do agree with a lot of Socialist values- last time I checked selfishness is not one in an ideal socialist society. 
and if I were white, I wouldnt care about my morals and support whatever policies would benefit me at the moment.
You shouldn't just think in the moment, you should also think somewhat long-term as well & also reflect on the past to see what you can do, which should be the basis for morals imo, as well as acknowledging human nature.
just like how if I were a woman, I would support radical feminism
Can't argue here at all, foids have an insane in group loyalty
or if I were black, I would support BLM
Eh nah, I think I'd be better than that at least- it's funded by George Soros.
ok it just feels like you're feeling obligated to protect whites on here and take every trollish insult to whites on a personal level when you dont have to and it doesnt affect you
Yeah ok I do admit, I do overreact to stuff and/or take jokes the wrong way, but this is an issue I have as a whole with things in general.
generally because low-iq people tend to also be low inhib and dark triad, but they're low iq isn't the main reason and alot of incels here are low-iq as well
partially true, I was just stating how saying "x group is more intelligent than y group" isn't meant to be seen as supremacist since people can argue things from different perspectives
What I really believe is that races just have different ways of thinking if that makes sense, and IQ is just an indicator of this fact.
your non-race related threads are high quality though
Thank you, and you also cannot deny the fact that they don't get as much traction as many race threads do. I don't mean to sound conceited, but if people reacted to those ones better I'd ofc discuss race much less.
I do think race affects behavior to an extent, but that it can be tamed. I am aware that blacks have higher T and that does contribute towards their low inhib and violent behavior, but they shouldnt be defined by their genes is my point and they can still control themselves
Well, genetics determine a lot
This doesn't just apply to race, which is why I think you're confused here. I believe in genetic determinism for more or less everything in life to a degree. Personality? Yup, relates to genes. Focus & concentration? Related to genes. Athleticism? All in the genes ofc.
Now I do agree, they can be controlled or tamed in ways & gradually improved over time(selective breeding). However, I also think that due to differences manifesting in basic interactions with races, it is best for them to live separately, same goes along ethnic lines
I admittedly bait sometimes
It's hard to define, I consider bait as anything low-effort with the intent to cause an argument
I've also racebaited before myself, and a mod literally said once if they had to actually enforce it most users would end up banned/warned
but I avoid throwing ad hominens to not sound like a smug redditor. and there are alot of ethnics here that like baiting whites, like that ethniccel with the dog pfp.
Aka all he has done on here for years
Ah, but users like me are the issue?
and logic55 at first I found his points valid but nowadays his posts are all racebait and its obvious. I dont approve those people btw
Well thank you for that at least- he also always resorts to tangents or repeating his initial thesis/premise(ie, genes don't matter for anything) just in a different way
He's literally a Neo-Liberal by his own admission:
At least you ain't a Liberal. 