The jews aren't White theory doesn't really have a strong basis to be honest

submitted by Salos60000Pragmatic European Nationalism from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 12 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

Our people don't have origins in India you utter retard. The White people whose culture appears to have emerged in the Steppes of what's now Ukraine who spoke proto Indo-European and conquered all the way from Northern India, parts of China, Persia and all the way West to Ireland were Whites and they form a major part of especially NW European ancestry. You're honestly too fucking stupid to even debate. You just babble and say weird random shit I'd expect from a 12 year old.

Jews are Jews. I don't give a fuck if they're 'brown', 'blue', 'green' or 'white' they are their own group with their own identity, religion and interests. That's all that matters. Mostly only morons debate this utterly meaningless question whether they're White or not.

Jews are Jews. I'd be as opposed to the Amish -- who are 100 percent of European origin -- if they acted the way Jews do. It is an irrelevant piece of tedium for philo-semites like you to obsess over.

Also spare me this fake sudden conversion to any hostility to Jews. You're such a slimy fucking liar.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 5 fun1 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 5 fun -  (9 children)

Why so hostile?

Anyhow, seems you missed this day in school:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Horde

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire

Most Europeans are mixed.

[–]outrageousboote 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Socks is back? Yes perhaps there is minute contribution from Mongol invasions in Eastern Europe like there is minute non-native ancestry everywhere around the world, but this doesn't mean that Europeans are some indistinct mongrels, let alone compared to other populations.

You are obviously trying to push a narrative, you are the same person who claimed that Mexicans were akin to Iberians and that admixture with natives was limited ignoring their obvious and phenotypically evident Amerindian ancestry, you never emphasize non-native or "mixed" ancestry in non-European groups.

Or maybe you are getting the Mongols confused with another people?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

To understand European mixed ethnicity, we need to appreciate the extent of human trafficking, rape, conquest, migration, &c especially between 150,000 BCE and 1700 around the Mediterranean and further north. Mixed race groups on the Iberian peninsula are an easy topic, as they were a combination of Arab, Berber, and other groups between the early eighth century and the late 15th century. Note also the mixing of groups that occurred during the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period . Mexicans are 70% - 90% mixed-race, many of whom have Iberian ancestry: https://www.quora.com/How-many-Mexicans-have-at-least-some-degree-of-Iberian-ancestry . An interesting part of Ukranian and Polish ancestry is the Khanate contribution in the 12th - 18th centuries. Scandinavians who traded (&c) along the Volga river and in the Mediterranean in the 8th-12th centuries also had Arab slaves and partners. Turkic groups spread throughout Eurasia, as conquerors and as slaves. There were Africans in Europe, for various reasons. Here's one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_degli_Sposi#/media/File:Andrea_Mantegna_-_Ceiling_Oculus_-_WGA14023.jpg

[–]outrageousboote 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I debunked this mixed claim weeks ago, and now you are reneging on the lack of admixture between natives and Iberian conquerors that you claimed originally and are yet again implying Europeans are heavily mixed while not making similar claims about any other group (with the exception of opportunistically reneging your Mexican claim).

I gave links which crush the conception of high levels of admixture with non-European groups to the point of being "mixed" among Europeans, using things like the migration period is irrelevant as the mixing was between the same continental racial group (a German-Swede mix is different from a Nigerian-German mix, a Korean-Chinese mix is different form a hapa).

Even after all the invasions, interactions etc. from non-European peoples Europe has faced admixture has stayed minor and Europeans distinct, so bringing this up does not prove anything.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

yet again implying Europeans are heavily mixed

I didn't say this. It seems your arguments (before and now) focus mainly on predominantly white vs predominantly non-white genes in Europeans. I'm not really addressing this. My main argument is that there is a mixture of ethnicities, albeit less in some and more in others, but naturally Europeans are predominantly white-skinned, and regarding the Semitic or Hebrew groups, one would have great difficulty showing that these people are any different from Medeterranean white-skinned groups, even while appreciating that some Semitic groups try to marry ONLY Semitic people.

[–]RichtoffLud 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Dude, you're confusing immigration with miscegenation, Europa has many ethnic groups? yes, but there was little miscegenation between these groups during the Middle Ages and until the Modern Age. But we now there is more nowadays, due to high forced immigration financing to White Countries.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

So you make assumptions about the migration and Khanate periods that are false, and now want to attach historical research that indicates "miscegenation" did not happen in Europe? Miscegenation is a THEORY, published ahead of the 1864 election in order to scare honkies into voting for a racist. It worked, and helped put in place a number of post-Civil-war racist segregation laws. Until recently I was not legally permitted in my state to marry a person of color (from any other part of the world). States repealed that law as late as the 1960s. Another modern concept is white nationalism. Yes, there were previous groups in Europe who arranged marriages within their own families, their own extended families, their own towns, and so on. But the main approach to selecting a partner was not the selection of skin color. There are no records of referring to the selection of a white man. There are records complementing a woman with nice white skin, but this is merely aesthetic, not about the MASTER RACE. Marrying someone with a different skin color would depend on their wealth, association with the family, or other circumstances. In many cases, women were raped by the invatinding groups from the East and elsethere. Women and children were also traded throughout Europe. The children of slaves were often mixed. Were Europeans predomantly white-skinned and round-eyed? Yes, in the West, but not in Eastern Europe, or in part of Central Europe, where some of these traits are partially mixed. Consider much of Iberia, North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean. Europeans have always been partially mixed, for many reasons.

[–]EuropeanAwakening14 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Lol. Race and skin color aren't synonyms. Skin color is a feature of Race. Would you say a brown Indian and a brown sub Sahara African are the same Race? No, you dishonest twit. It's an old game anti-Whites like you play that you NEVER apply to ANY other Race of people. And no, actual DNA analysis shows Europeans really aren't that mixed. This idea is pivotal to your narrative to justify European extermination via mass racial mixing and replacement. That's why you keep having to lie.

Miscegenation isn't a "theory". It is when two people from different racial groups breed. Croly coined the term miscegenation. He did not invent the concept. That goes back to the ancient Greeks and even further back than that.

Nice. So, it is OK to attack people for their race by calling them racist honkies? Cool. Good to know you only apply your hatred to White people.

[–]RichtoffLud 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I already get your operation mode. There is no way to compare a period of 100 years (Khanate) with concrete periods that already existed for more than a thousand years, and lasted for more than centuries afterward, Khanate period did not determine the people of Europe. Please, Miscegenation is a theory? this is ONE guy's opinion, because David Goodman Croly says that Miscegenation is a theory, believe without analyzing the facts is very partial.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I already get your operation mode.

There's no 'operation mode'.

There is no way to compare a period of 100 years (Khanate)

Several hundred years (why don't you know this?)

concrete periods that already existed for more than a thousand years, and lasted for more than centuries afterward,

This is not a discussion of history. Compare the Golden Horde with the Huns.

Khanate period did not determine the people of Europe.

That's not the issue. The issue is that these are periods with relatively mixed ethnicities, even if by a low margin.

Miscegenation is a theory?

Yes - for the reasons I mention, and it's unrelated to pre-modern history.