>>17419135

>The colonization of Africa, Asia, and Latin America is a path soaked in blood from the beginning of the west’s ascendancy to the present day.

Cool, now do the Mongol invasions.

And the Islamic invasions of Europe.

And the Bantu initiated genocides of others in Africa.

No unique crimes can be laid at the feet of Europeans, but many unique good deeds can be (like ending slavery).

Europeans easily the LEAST blood soaked conquerers in human history.

Look elsewhere for the worst of human kind, you do not find it amongst my people.

>>17419232

>They will let China take the fall to preserve their existence in Europe & The U.S.

You presume the leaders of Europe and USA don't want their own nations destroyed… but I cannot fathom how you could think this given their actions over the last 100 years.

They actively want the West destroyed, at the very least its people, its Whites, it explains all the inexplicable actions they have taken to harm the West, through the entire period, and why they have never taken any steps, at all, in that period, to defend the interests of the West.

China CAN win a war, they already - in alliance with Israel & the world's top Jews, got the whole Western world to inject poison to make the next generation sterile.

A people mentally sterilised (by mutlicultism, anti-Nazism, & anti-racism), and physically sterilised (by injection, additives in food and water), cannot successfully stand against any people, no matter what the condition of the others.

We have a tranny army for fucks sake!

The West is DONE, OVER, ALREADY LOST.

It was fought for in ww2, with the Germans fighting for the West, and the West, stupidly enough, fighting against the West, and for its enemies.

And we've been in the process of being destroyed ever since. These things take time you know. A ~6,000 year old civilisation does not snuff out over night.

Now, the West can be re-won, and re-established, but it will only be via civil war, the enemies are here, not thousands of miles distant.

No doubt China is on the side of our local enemies, not with us, but that still doesn't change the nature of the conflict we are in. Civil war against the enemies within, more than any war with outside.

>>17419326

Every person is a member of a group, and an individual.

And needs to be treated with regard to both respects.

MOST Jews, the vast majority.. 99+% are actively anti-White, in that they oppose the right of Whites to have societies by themselves. This alone justifies treating every Jew as if they are hostile and part of the anti-White Jewish mafia.

The very few Jews that actively support White Nationalism, and White Nationalism that stigmatises Jewish involvement, are the only one's who can past muster as not actually anti-White, and so be deserving of having their individual aspect considered above their group membership.

It may sound like a catch 22 and actually be one.. only a person prepared to back Whites enough, to deny their own people's right to White lands and space, is suitable to be accepted in White lands.

But on the other hand it is actually common sense, that only is hard for people to grasp (when every prior generation, for thousands of years would have grasped it intuitively), because people have been subjected to wall to wall anti-White enemy propaganda against White interests, and for Jewish interests, for the entire duration of their lives.

>>17419376

>I consider Jewish to be a subset group of White.

You may consider them as such, but they are not. Jews have unique ancestry not present in Whites.

Both are Caucasoid peoples. So are North Indians. So are North Africans. These groups are not White though.

Different culture, different heritage, different ancestry, different genetics… different people.

Where you see a pro-White person using the term White, for you to understand it correctly, translated into your own personal dialect, you should translate it as "non-Jewish White" then you will have the correct understanding of the word.

And regardless of how you wish to identity the Jewish group, or how they wish to identify themselves, it remains true they are NOT the heritage stock of the White nations they inhabit, and have been of uniformly bad impact on that stock.

So that stock is rightful to reject them.

It is genocidally racist to prohibit a people from rejecting the racial (cultural and religious) aliens amongst them.

Gates of Toledo..

Gates of Constantinople..

Hart-Celler Immigration Act..

All groups except Whites, routinely act in their own interests. Their interests though, are not the interests of the heritage stock of the places they are in.

Thusly it is madness of the heritage stock to have such people amongst them. No different to chickens being wise in rejecting snakes, and foxes from their laying boxes.

Think it through. It is innate for life to be programmed to serve its own interests.

Chickens to serve chicken interests.

Crocodiles to serve Crocodile interests.

Jews to serve Jewish interests.

Non-Jewish Whites to serve non-Jewish White interests.

It would be mad to expect crocodiles to serve the interests of chickens no?

So too with people.

But what RISK do a people take allowing a group, NOT THEM, to settle in amongst them, given that the natural inclination of the settling group will be to serve THEIR OWN interests, which ARE NOT, the interests of the group they are settling amongst?

ALL PEOPLES ALWAYS have known this, and so kept prohibitions against people "NOT THEM" settling amongst them, and being enfranchised and treated as equals.

Any group that did not live by this law, or were unable to, were replaced, dissolves, pushed under the others.

What is new, is only that a large number of Whites have been deeply programmed to reject this reality and fail to understand it and its implications. But only in the last 70 years, with the myth of the holocaust as a proximal cause, and the advent of television, and an anti-White ethnic group's mastery of it, and monopolisation of it, and other communication channels to embark on programming Whites to have a block when it comes to acting in their own interests, or even understanding what their rational interests are, or understanding that people opposed to them acting in their own interests, are carrying out THEIR OWN interests, AGAINST the interests of Whites, and should not be allowed to do so.

>>17419413

>An Italian person is genetically different than an Irish person, but they are both considered White.

If you map out the genomes of each of the major human groups, Jews appear in a range from half way toward the White groups (Irish, Italian, Norwegian etc), through to all the way to intersect the Middle Eastern groups.

That is, Jews range from half NW European/half North African/Middle Eastern, to fully North African/Middle Eastern.

Thus while Irish and Italian can be genetically separated, they still group together.

Jews, even Ashkenazi Jews, do not genetically group with NW European Whites.

NW European Whites are not a mixed group. Jews are. Mixed, at the very least, with North African and Middle Eastern stock, which pulls their genome, even those Jews with extensive European ancestry, away from the other White groups.

Which is as I said to you. You can personally have White mean anything you like in your own personal dictionary. But all that means is when you see "White" in a pro-White context, you need to do some extra translating to get it into the appropriate form in your own dialect, which would be non-Jewish White. Or non-North African, non Middle Eastern, non-Jewish, non-mixed, White.

Much easier just to accept that White, in its intended usage by others, excludes those groups no?

We have Caucasoid to accomplish what you wish with White.

We need a word that exclusively refers to "non Middle Eastern, non North African, non-Jewish, non-mixed people, of European ancestry". White seems the best stand-in. Aryan can also be used, but can cause some confusion re potential inclusion of Northern Indians, & Iranians etc.

"European" can cause confusion regarding whether one is counting mixed people, the European diaspora, "naturalised" citizens etc…

What word would you use to refer to the select group I mention that does not take infinite words to do so?