you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What makes someone Polish?

Being someone who is genetically Slavic and whose ancestors have a history of living in Poland, or more specifically beloning to the West-Slavic Polish ethnic group.

If a White French person migrated to Poland, would they be able to become Polish?

The Frenchman (and especially his children) would probably assimilate into Polish society very easily, since the French and the Polish are both genetically and phenotypically relatively similar (since they're both white) as well as because they have cultural similarities they don't share with non-European groups. But technically a Frenchman can never Polish, since that would require being genetically Polish (or at least Slavic).

However, a Frenchman would still be more Polish than a non-white person due to the relative genetic and cultural similarities between the French and the Polish, and I personally don't really mind if some Frenchmen immigrate to Poland or vice versa, since they're both white and since it doesn't happen often enough for it pose a serious threat to the genetic integrity of the French or the Polish (compared to, let's say, sub-Saharan African mass-immigration).

If they can, why can't a Turkish person who's lived in Poland their whole life,mastered the language,loves and engages with the culture and history etc?

Like a Frenchman, a Turk could theoretically also assimilate into Polish society, but this is less likely since Turks are genetically, culturally as well as phentypically much more distant from the Polish than the French are, and for the same reason Turks are even less Polish than the French. We aren't civic nationalists like you who lack racial and ethnic ingroup preference (which is a mental illness), so it makes no sense to accept anyone of any race into white countries just because they can speak the language, sing along with the national athem and refrain from committing crime.

I'm both an ethno-nationalist for my own ethnic group and country as well as a racial nationalist for my own race (white), like most people on this sub are, so non-white immigration is where I draw the line. You obviously don't go around telling black nationalists that if Ghanans allow a Nigerian to immigrate to Ghana, this would somehow morally oblige the Ghanans to also allow whites or Asians to immigrate to Ghana as long as they assimilate into Ghanan society, you and your ilk only say shit like this to white people because you're just anti-white.

.

What do you think about Africa's diversity? For example the massive difference between West and East African. Do you consider African to be one race?

If you agree that white Caucasians (Xanthochroi/Europeans), non-white Caucasians (Melanochroi/MENA), East Asian Monoloids (Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Tibetans, Mongolians, etc.), Amerindian Mongoloids, Inuits and Australoids (Australian Aboriginals and Dravidians) are all distinct races from each other, it would only logically follow that sub-Saharan Africans technically aren't one race (often lumped together as Negroids or black people, since depsite their vast genetic diversity they're phenotypically very similar anyways), but at the very least four races (Negroids/Congoids/West-Africans, Capoids, Pygmies and East-Africans) and pehaps even dozens of races.

This question was clearly meant to be a "gotcha", but it doesn't work on us, since most of us already acknowledge that sub-Saharan Africans are way too broad and genetically diverse to be considered one race. I would love there to be done more genetic research into exactly how many races sub-Saharan Africans have to be broken down to if you follow my earlier mentioned conventional racial classification system of non-Africans to its logical conclusion, but in the end it doesn't really matter whether there's only one race or a million races in Africa, what's very clear is that sub-Saharan Africans are as racially different from whites as it gets (one could argue they're even a different subspecies, especially since Caucasians and Mongoloids have ~2% Neanderthal admixture which sub-Saharan Africans lack whereas sub-Saharan Africans uniquely have up to 20% Homo Erectus admixture).

Is Indian one race? What race are people in Afghanistan?

South Asians are obviously a hybrid of Caucasians (part of which ancient Indo-Europeans, racially white) and Dravidians (racially Australoid). One could argue that being a mixed-race people makes South Asians an entirely new race of its own. South Asians aren't homogeneously mixed, but rather have varying proportions of Caucasian and Australoid admixture, with the nortwest and higher castes being more Caucasian (and thus lighter skinned) and the southeast and lower castes being more Dravidian (and thus darker skinned).

What race are people in Indonesia? What about in the Philippines?

I don't know much about Indonesia (or Southeast Asia in general), but far as I know, Indonesians are a hyrbid of Caucasians, Mongoloids and possibly Negritos. I know even less about the Philippines, but you can very clearly tell by looking at Filipinos that they at least have a large Mongoloid component.

.

If an Alt Right regime, say took over the UK, what would your general policy towards the non white populace who have lived there their whole lives? Would the regime seek mass deportations or would they show leniency? What would your policy be?

If it was up to me, no, non-whites already living in white countries wouldn't get deported, unless they're hostile to white people or commit crimes. Instead, I would implement a eugenics program that prohibits anyone with a low IQ, mental illness or other genetic defects from reproducing (which alone should already solve part of the problem of non-white populations living in white countries, since non-whites would be disportionately affected) and rewards the highest genetic quality people for having more children, I would implement a program that additionally rewards only white people for having more children to boost the white birthrate, and I if there were any non-white groups with problematically high birthrates I would impose additional restrictions on the amount of children they can have.

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

whereas sub-Saharan Africans uniquely have up to 20% Homo Erectus admixture

Studies find 2% to 19% so it's probably more like ~10.5% admixture on average. The archaic human hasn't been identified either.

http://www.sci-news.com/genetics/west-africans-dna-archaic-hominin-08123.html

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

The archaic human hasn't been identified either.

https://archive.is/yKVnL

Homo Erectus confirmed.