1. All races have a right to be unique and different, to be themselves, and to love, value and be proud of what they are.
2. All races have a right to have their existence and identity recognized, respected and protected, to define, affirm and celebrate their existence and identity, and to promote their legitimate rights and interests.
3. All races have a right to racial life, a right to live, a right to exist as what they are and preserve what they are, a right to exist as a separate form of life, and a right to the conditions they require for continued life, existence and evolution.
4. All races have a right to independence and peaceful self-determination, to racial freedom and liberty, to separate development, to exclusive control of their own life and existence, their own future and destiny, free from domination, control or interference by other races.
5. All races have a right to their own living space or territory, to possession of their own racial homeland, to exist within secure borders, to have and hold their own country, separate from and exclusive of other races, as a condition required for both their continued life and independence.
6. All races have a right to self-government, to their own sovereign and fully independent government to govern their own country, their own life and existence, and determine their own future.
7. All races have a right to the affections and loyalties, love and care of their members, and this right takes precedence over any ideology -- or system of beliefs and values -- that would promote disaffection or alienation of loyalties, or censure racial love and caring.
8. All races have a right to exclusive control over the creation, upbringing, development and education of their own children, to control over their own reproduction -- the renewal of their racial life, the transmission of their genes and culture to successor generations -- free of interference by other races.
9. All races have a right to racial integrity, to exclusivity, reproductive isolation and geographic separation, to be free, safe and secure from the racially destructive effects of racial intermixture and replacement.
10. All races have a right to the material product of their own creation, and to use that product for their own benefit, free of any claim upon it by other races.
1. A FEW traits originate in one person not MOST traits
2. Give sources to that claim if they exist
Should I also give you a guide on how to wipe your ass?
3. IF is a big question and NOT proven
As the blue eyed trait that you see originiated in one person in the Black Sea region, they can assume that it's a White trait. The fact that White populations normally have it is ALSO a good indication.
And the fact that the countries you claim to have them, such as Iran and whatnot, had migrations FROM the Black Sea region and there is written records of Whites going to that area.
But, if you think that small, almost impossible chance is what happened, you go right on ahead and believe it!
One wonders. If they are so GOOD at "working their ass off" and "creating countries" why do they need OUTSIDE help? Hmm maybe because they are just a bunch of FAIL?
People keep slaves because people need a source of labour. Slaves are cheap because you would only buy or trade them and you wouldn't have to pay them.
It's easier to tell someone else to do work for you then to do it yourself.
You see, it wasn't viewed as morally wrong in any way back then to have slaves. To them, slaves weren't human, couldn't contribute anything to society, were property, and were savage beasts that needed a reason to live. With this in mind, they used them as work.
But, if you think all people that owned slaves were a bunch of fail, humans are just a large pile of fail, aren't they?
Actually theres a shitload of nonwhites in France these days. ALL from their former colonies: Algeria, Nigeria, all kinds of African colonies, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam.
Most of the nonwhites in Britain also come from their former colonies. Like India, Pakistan, Jamaica, etc...If they didn't go mess around there they wouldn't show up in England.
Just shows you: if you DON'T mess around in nonwhite countries they won't show up at your doorstep!
If they loved it so much they wouldn't go live someplace else. Scandinavia wasn't the most colonizing country in Europe. Most of it was from Britain (shitty weather, shitty kings) France (revolutions and shitty leaders), Spain (crazy kings and queens, inquisitions) and Netherlands (shitty weather, tiny country)
It wasn't that they hated their countries, but that their small stretches of land weren't enough.
1) Most traits originated in ONE person. If that ONE person was White, than it's a White trait and is only present in Whites and people with White ancestry.
Slaves were labor, how hard is it to understand WHY they needed slaves?
That's not necessarily true. Some Empires had slave dumps where they dumped all of their slaves for fear of them being in their own country. Take France for example, they dumped all their slaves in Haiti. It's now over 95% Negro. It, also, is the shittiest country in the West. Now, try to fuse that with France. Of course it would be worse, that's common sense.
Again, it wasn't a shithole
Circular reasoning. Tell me a trait that is present among whites and ONLY among whites. None of the traits you mentioned blond hair blue eye Rosy cheeks etc... are exclusive to whites. There is no such thing as a WHITE trait. As for orgin we don't know the origin and race of most of our ancestors. As Bud24 told you race was not something people cared about in ancient civilizations.
blond hair blue eye Rosy cheeks etc... are exclusive to whites.
There is no such thing as a WHITE trait.
As for orgin we don't know the origin and race of most of our ancestors. As Bud24 told you race was not something people cared about in ancient civilizations.
So? Still does not explain WHY they needed slaves in the first place. I like why you say "no" or "wrong" and then go talk about something completely unrelated.
2. Don't take up slaves if you don't want to mess up your or other ppl race. Slave owners loved to fuck their slaves and make lots of mixed babies.
3. Stay in your little shit hole and nothing bad can come to you.
A White trait is a trait that originated in WHITES.
The slave-owners children were sent to school, had jobs, and, sometimes, worked WITH the slaves.
I also like how you fall for my baits every time I say "inbreeding" or "Shitholes". Its way fun man.
The nonWhites in Scandinavia nowadays are almost all Asylum Seekers (and Lapps).
Conclusion:
1. Don't go colonize other countries if you are a race nationalist or you mess up their race and they mess up yours.
Why not? Because the 1/2 % of nonwhite in them? Ew!!!!
No what you say that the ONLY way to have what you call "white" traits is through white ancestry. Thats way extreme and plain false.
Just shows though they can't even reproduce fast enough to work their own land. They could do it back in the Middle Ages though. Guess they lost the touch by the 19th century. Too much inbreeding I guess.
Slaves didn't get an education and were born slaves-and died slaves.
And no, inbreeding doesn't really happen like you say it does. It's pretty rare nowadays and back then (except in Africa).
And they were right because if they did scandinavia would be retty nonwhite by now!
They simply have enough traits to be considered White, yet, in no way, are they "pure".
But, why did you say your friends have White traits with nonWhite ancestry? Haven't I been saying this the whole time?
I assume having a slave itself would be cheaper. There was also a large number of slaves due to the fact that Negroes reproduce more than Whites, another reason why they used them.
There was also a large number of slaves due to the fact that Negroes reproduce more than Whites, another reason why they used them.
Vikings went to the Americas, yes, but they didn't go, take a bunch of nonWhite slaves, and return to Scandinavia.
And after just 2 generations bam the pure whites can reappear.
Nope just showed you they DON'T disappear.
Ask the economists. That's some debate that was going on before you showed up and no one fully agrees.
I assume having a slave itself would be cheaper.
How do you know. If those "vikings" went all the way to South America as you claim.
It doesn't really since the genes do reappear.
You mean they wer not rich enough in Europe? You mean Europe was not enough of a paradise?
By the 19th century yeah. In the 1500s it was touch and go.
In the 1400's when Whites stepped ashore in central Africa, they had no written language. They didn't have the wheel. Their clothing was basic loincloths made from untreated animal skins. Their houses were made of mud and sticks.
If he reproduces with a WHITE, their child will have 75% White ancestry (again, an average).
You think that a White trait can't possibly exist if someone isn't 100% White?
But they didn't have to pay the slaves, did they? What would cost more, buying a slave or paying someone for their work?
What would cost more, buying a slave or paying someone for their work?
Of course they used slaves, but they didn't use nonWhite slaves.
That's why I don't advocate racial mixing, it destroys all races.
That's an assumption, not proof.
They wanted to discover the world and obtain riches.
And, as you know, it was A LOT more technologically advanced than the rest of the world.
And if those kids marry mixed kids or even white kids those genes WILL reappear.
So, if he reproduces with ANOTHER nonwhite, that kid will have 1/4 White ancestry (on average).
One of my buds is white. He's got blond hair, blue eyes and they are round european. Guess what. His grandma is 100% asian. Actually fuck I know 2 guys like that. the other one it was his grandad that's asian and the grandkid ended up also blond hair blue eye!
If his Grandma is 100% Mongoloid, and, let's say his Grandpa is 100% White, they will produce a 50/50 child. If that 50/50 individual reproduces with a 100% White, they will, in turn, create a 75% White individual, definitely enough to show quite a few White traits.
Buying and importing slaves isn't exactly FREE. Try again.
Thats because they were in their own countries. But you wonder why they went to England and France and all those other countries to raid them and pillage them. And I bet they did bring back a few human live booty on their raids.
And the vast majority of them weren't Vikings or raiders, of course.
Oh good. Glad you don't think its just one-sided.
Must have been or else why did they leave it to go live some place else?
Of course Europe wasn't as rich and arable as Africa, the Earths most fertile land, but it wasn't a shit-hole.
If a White man and a Black woman have a kid, he will have 50% White genes and 50% Black genes. HALF of the white genes are lost forever.
They can, they would just rather use free labor.
The Scandinavian countries didn't have Negro slaves imported
Whites mess up races as much as nonWhites by mixing.
Europe was a shithole? I'd like a few reasons why.
And I say so what? Proves shit.
So Nigeria is as much a White country as Iceland?
Since the genes reappear. I say no. We can do this till the end of te world you know.
Well Neo-Nazi =/= communist last I checked.
Yep and again shows they CAN'T do LABOR in other countries on their own. Pretty "superior" if you ask me...
Hehe you tripped on that one eh? Laid out the trap and you fell right for it. Nice. Just shows you its onot a one way street.
Because they were UNHAPPY in their shithole?
I see that one RACE dominates a country, population-wise and government-wise.
Mixing destroys race.
What's her name?
I thought he said he was a Neo-Nazi. I'll ask.
Look up many racial idioms and words and they'll have nothing.
Labor.
Wait what???
So Whites mess up races, but nonWhites don't?
And Whites did it HISTORICALLY.
Why do they even LEAVE Europe? Is it that hard to figure out?
Why do they even LEAVE Europe?
I don't give color to countries. Only to flags.
It still does not "mess up" the race.
No one knows the %. But she has Maori ancestry.
Um no. Hes a lot of things but I can tell you he's not pro commie. He's a WN among other things.
No reference to any idiom relating to race here
As early as the 17th century slaves were brought in in by the Dutch from indonesia and madagascar. Then the Brits took over and brought in Indians. If Whites are SO GOOD at creating countries on their own why they ALWAYS NEED nonwhite slaves from somewhere else everywhere they go? Tell me that.
If Whites are SO GOOD at creating countries on their own why they ALWAYS NEED nonwhite slaves from somewhere else everywhere they go? Tell me that.
Africans were there first. But as usual the european newcomesrs decimated the population there. If Whites really wanted to help ALL races then why do whites always go to NONWHITE countries and areas and "MESS UP" with the races THERE?
If Whites really wanted to help ALL races then why do whites always go to NONWHITE countries and areas and "MESS UP" with the races THERE?
And Whites did it HISTORICALLY. Now guilt is spread around and we're treated like shit now.
What else would make it white?
If they didn't immigrate, the country would have less of a nonwhite influence and the whites would have a lesser chance of mixing.
I don't know, but mostly white I assume.
Kiri Te Kanawa was born Claire Mary Teresa Rawstron in Gisborne, on New Zealand's North Island. She has both Māori and European ancestry, but little is known about her birth parents as she was adopted as an infant by an Irish mother and a Māori father.
He's my friend now? If he's really pro-communist
It's an idiom.
v.intr. To emit or lose blood. To be wounded, especially in battle. To feel sympathetic grief or anguish: My heart bleeds for the victims of the air crash. To exude a fluid such as sap. To pay out money, especially an exorbitant amount. To run together or be diffused, as dyes in wet cloth. To undergo or be subject to such a diffusion of color: The madras skirt bled when it was first washed. To show through a layer of paint, as a stain or resin in wood. To be printed so as to go off the edge or edges of a page after trimming. v.tr. To take or remove blood from. To extract sap or juice from. To draw liquid or gaseous contents from; drain. To draw off (liquid or gaseous matter) from a container. To obtain money from, especially by improper means. To drain of all valuable resources: "Politicians . . . never stop inventing illicit enterprises of government that bleed the national economy" (David A. Stockman). To cause (an illustration, for example) to bleed. To trim (a page, for example) so closely as to mutilate the printed or illustrative matter. n.
To run together or be diffused, as dyes in wet cloth. To undergo or be subject to such a diffusion of color: The madras skirt bled when it was first washed. To show through a layer of paint, as a stain or resin in wood. To be printed so as to go off the edge or edges of a page after trimming. v.tr.
To take or remove blood from. To extract sap or juice from.
To draw liquid or gaseous contents from; drain. To draw off (liquid or gaseous matter) from a container.
To obtain money from, especially by improper means. To drain of all valuable resources: "Politicians . . . never stop inventing illicit enterprises of government that bleed the national economy" (David A. Stockman).
To cause (an illustration, for example) to bleed. To trim (a page, for example) so closely as to mutilate the printed or illustrative matter. n.
Do you know how many were used and when?
Negroes immigrated into SA by escaping harsh SSA conditions.
South Africa contains some of the oldest archaeological sites in Africa. Extensive fossil remains at the Sterkfontein, Kromdraai and Makapansgat caves suggest that various australopithecines existed in South Africa from about three million years ago.[10] These were succeeded by various species of Homo, including Homo habilis, Homo erectus and modern humans, Homo sapiens. Settlements of Bantu-speaking peoples, who were iron-using agriculturists and herdsmen, were already present south of the Limpopo River by the fourth or fifth century (see Bantu expansion) displacing and absorbing the original KhoiSan speakers. They slowly moved south and the earliest ironworks in modern-day KwaZulu-Natal Province are believed to date from around 1050. The southernmost group was the Xhosa people, whose language incorporates certain linguistic traits from the earlier KhoiSan people, reaching the Fish River, in today's Eastern Cape Province. These Iron Age populations displaced earlier people, who often had hunter-gatherer societies, as they migrated.
They slowly moved south and the earliest ironworks in modern-day KwaZulu-Natal Province are believed to date from around 1050. The southernmost group was the Xhosa people, whose language incorporates certain linguistic traits from the earlier KhoiSan people, reaching the Fish River, in today's Eastern Cape Province. These Iron Age populations displaced earlier people, who often had hunter-gatherer societies, as they migrated.
Africans were there first. But as usual the european newcomesrs decimated the population there.
If Whites really wanted to help ALL races then why do whites always go to NONWHITE countries and areas and "MESS UP" with the races THERE? Why do they even LEAVE Europe?
Oh what makes them "white" is % of population... Right.
You mean the mere fact of immigrating "messes up" the race.
BTW what race is this woman?
Your frined ComminCanuck would have something to say about that.
Why do you pick my friends?
You said yourself it it is not exact and you did not agree with it but "they" used it.
No it's a good indication that I am not as obsessed as you.
It does NOT matter. They still were working as labor UNLIKE YOUR CLAIM that whites worked the place BY THEMSELVES.
And, also, after slavery was abolished, many Whites trekked further north. Then, the British came and made a real country out of it, while slavery was abolished.
Negroes immigrated into SA by escaping harsh SSA conditions. Now, they leech off of the SA government (actually, that was a few years ago, not SA is turning into a large shit-hole).
So, yes, SA had nonwhites, but the country itself was created by whites. And no, nonwhites didn't "work their asses off" or even compared to whites as they weren't used as slaves or considered part of SA.
Sure. Then it interbreeds more and more and dies out.
Ah the American Renaissance. Another nice WN racist trash site. Nice nice.
What?
Describe it. Also what time frame are we talking about? How long did it it take for the"nordish genes" to appear?
Any OTHER source you got but raceandlackofreason.com ?
Now, if the blue eyes were of different texture or composition, or the red hair or blond hair were, there could be reasoning behind that.
But if it is, in any way, similar to the Whites, I doubt it's very possible for the 7-or-so alleles to mutate in the same way.
Red-colored hair exists in Neanderthals, yet is very different and not considered "red hair", but red colored hair.
Nope. Genetic variation and polygnic traits basically tells you that pheotypes come from a wide variety of genes and that this variety of genes come from a variety of sources. How does genes mix can lead to many phenotypes and cheractersitics that have MAY have nothing to do with what your ancestor may or may not be.
You're seriously spewing bullshit. You seem like you just learned what genes are composed of and can't seem to get anything right.
At least copy and paste so I can understand what the hell you're saying, or trying to say.
I am not trying to prove that this is NOT POSSIBLE, YOU do! so the burden of proof is on you.
Then why do try to separate from them? The more you micx with them the more the white genes will reappear!
If a country of ONLY Whites with ONLY White genes comes about, there will be NOTHING but white genes in existence inside of that country. If nonWhite genes are allowed inside in large numbers, they will become more common, something that defeats the whole purpose of a white nation.
If we let people that are, let's say, 20% White (that's how they get those white traits) and 80% nonWhite, the nonWhite genes will ALSO appear and be a burden.
Just because a bit of White genes exist in someone doesn't mean they're White, they just have White ancestry.
And the Jews need to go preserve themselves anyway.
But I make NO claim that nonwhite who have nordish traits MUST ALL have 1 ancestor who is white. You do. All I say is it is POSSIBLE that OTHER factors are involved.
Until you do that though I have no reason to believe your claim. It is PURE guesswork.
All life is a lie.
You may not be a human, that's not provable!
Moot....
Actually I don't make such claims. I only say it is POSSIBLE. In fact the only way to PROVE that NO single nonwhite can have nordish trait WITHOUT a white ancestor is to TEST ALL OF THEM. That is YOUR claim. YOU have to back that up.
And genetic testing is only so accurate. Sometimes, even having 0 nonwhite ancestors, they will claim you have some.
Let's say Mutation CAB2-Δ16(I'm just making up numbers/letters) gives immunity to Malaria. 95% of the people that have this mutation are of sub-Saharan African descent, 3% have Semitic descent, and 2% have Mediterranean descent.
Let's say some Saudi Arabian gets tested and the mutation appears in his DNA. They will classify that gene as 95% Negro, 3% Semite, and 2% white. This Saudi now has the claim of Negro genes on him and may not even have one Negro ancestor.
ALL you have is a few examples of people with nordish traits who DO have nordish ancestors. It does NOT PROVE this is true of ALL.
Just look at the previous page on this thread. How lazy can you be?
So we are back to color? I thought it was more than just color. I thought you were talking about traits and traits that can only be present among whites ASIDE from color.
I make no wild claims such as "No nonwhites can have nordish traits with they don't have white ancestry". I just present you with possibilities backed by SCIENTIFC facts which you want to deny or refute.
You can say the same of black then. No white can have african traits with theiy are not blacks". The problems is, aside from color, how do you defne those traits?
Heres a blond melanesian. Melanesia has been isolated for thousands of years. The probability that the ONLY reason she is blond is because of white ancestor is very very slim. Now how do you explain that?
I didn't know you considered that blond though...
456 users online 
223374 members 657 active today Advertise Here
456 users online 223374 members 657 active today Advertise Here
You have 1 new message.
