Why is it that the white race should not have a homeland?


#241

[QUOTE=“Sauer, post: 2682804, member: 20472”]Let me know when you get your white nation going. I’ll know where not to book my next flight.[/QUOTE]
It’s like the liberals and donald trump. They think by moving to canada they make an anti trump statement, but in reality, we are just sitting here, thinking how beautiful it is that they are deporting themselves. It just makes it that easier to bar you from travel.


#242

I dunno about you, but I [I]like[/I] having different kinds of people around me. In fact, multiculturalism is part of what makes Norway what it is.
I grew up in Oslo and went to a school where there were quite a few people of foreign backgrounds, and I’m very glad I did. The school I go to now is 99% white, with my class being almost the only one with people of foreign backgrounds of the year. It’s incredibly boring to just have white people everywhere, and it serves no purpose. It doesn’t even have real benefits, because it excludes people who could’ve contributed to the economy, and homogeneous populations are more vulnerable to pandemics.
Sure, you can have a country with white majority (coughJapan) but why would that make anything better? The “white race” is spread over a ton of different cultures, all clearly incompatible with each other, and yet they all allow immigration to some degree. It’s got nothing to do with a single race, because race alone is a stupid thing to base a country off. Culture, ethnicity and history are important enough factors on their own. Heck, if you’d take two of the most similar nations in Europe, say Norway and Sweden, you would have a total rebellion if you tried to merge them into one “white homeland”, because culture and history especially go far beyond the concept of a race.

You’d only end up with as many “white homelands” as you currently have European and American countries, which if completely white as you want them, would remove a ridiculous amount of labour force.


#243

[QUOTE=“Spodershibe, post: 2682813, member: 34205”]I guess we shouldn’t have murder laws because the majority of people have no desire to murder too then[/QUOTE]

Well murder hurts people you know, and gays wearing leather doesn’t. If you don’t like seeing it, you don’t have to look at it.


#244

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#245

[QUOTE=“Spodershibe, post: 2682369, member: 34205”]I am new to this fourm, and I looked back in this fourm section and didn’t see any questions like this so I thought I would ask.

Every other race has a homeland where they are the majority and immigration of other races is extremely limited. In a lot of cases (Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc.) it’s entirely not allowed, and this is seen as OK.

My question is why is it that white countries have to experience multiculturalism and become diverse but no one else has to do this. Why can’t every race get their own homeland?

I also want to see what the general opinion on this topic is, so I created a poll.[/QUOTE]

‘Whites’ have nothing in common, it is just a skin tone. If you start talking about[I] ethnocultural [/I]homelands, then maybe i’ll take you seriously, but suggesting that all whites have some sort of common bond is absurd.


#246

[QUOTE=“out of touch, post: 2682833, member: 3521”]Theres a huge difference between erotic demonstration and murder.[/QUOTE]
The point is laws shouldn’t be made on whether or not people desire to do them, but rather if the act should be allowed or not. It doesn’t matter if most gays have no desire to dress in homoerotic outfits and stick their penises out for the whole world to see, we should still make a law preventing the small few who do want to do it from doing it.


#247

[QUOTE=“oli, post: 2682871, member: 579”]‘Whites’ have nothing in common, it is just a skin tone. If you start talking about[I] ethnocultural [/I]homelands, then maybe i’ll take you seriously, but suggesting that all whites have some sort of common bond is absurd.[/QUOTE]
While all whites are not all friends and the same people, whites are more similar than a white man and a black man, and share more of the same qualities. Race isn’t just a skin tone, that is a lie that the media tries to feed people these days so they can push for equality. Race involves physical and mental differences, and while mental isn’t proven, it has strong evidence to support it, and physical differences ARE proven, such as jaw size, muscle mass, and facial features such as hair, lips, eyes, ears, etc. So don’t go telling me that race is “just a skin tone”, because to say this is to ignore basic science.


#248

[QUOTE=“Alexandra the Great, post: 2682827, member: 2790”]I dunno about you, but I [I]like[/I] having different kinds of people around me. In fact, multiculturalism is part of what makes Norway what it is.
I grew up in Oslo and went to a school where there were quite a few people of foreign backgrounds, and I’m very glad I did. The school I go to now is 99% white, with my class being almost the only one with people of foreign backgrounds of the year. It’s incredibly boring to just have white people everywhere, and it serves no purpose. It doesn’t even have real benefits, because it excludes people who could’ve contributed to the economy, and homogeneous populations are more vulnerable to pandemics.
Sure, you can have a country with white majority (coughJapan) but why would that make anything better? The “white race” is spread over a ton of different cultures, all clearly incompatible with each other, and yet they all allow immigration to some degree. It’s got nothing to do with a single race, because race alone is a stupid thing to base a country off. Culture, ethnicity and history are important enough factors on their own. Heck, if you’d take two of the most similar nations in Europe, say Norway and Sweden, you would have a total rebellion if you tried to merge them into one “white homeland”, because culture and history especially go far beyond the concept of a race.

You’d only end up with as many “white homelands” as you currently have European and American countries, which if completely white as you want them, would remove a ridiculous amount of labour force.[/QUOTE]
Europe, unlike America, was built by whites, and whites alone. Immigration to these countries is fairly recent, and all the infrastructure is already there. And I just generalize by saying “White”, but in fact, I do mean making many various closed border European countries for the various white cultures. While they are different and should be separated, they are far more compatible with each other, rather than, say the Africans culture. Also I support the idea of a multicultural state, just not in a country built by one race. Your essentially stealing the country from its inhabitants if you take a country built by one race and making it multicultural. America would be a good option for a multicultural state, but whites need to have the option to live in a country built by their ancestors with their culture like every other race does.


#249

[QUOTE=“Spodershibe, post: 2682879, member: 34205”]While all whites are not all friends and the same people, whites are more similar than a white man and a black man, and share more of the same qualities. Race isn’t just a skin tone, that is a lie that the media tries to feed people these days so they can push for equality. Race involves physical and mental differences, and while mental isn’t proven, it has strong evidence to support it, and physical differences ARE proven, such as jaw size, muscle mass, and facial features such as hair, lips, eyes, ears, etc. So don’t go telling me that race is “just a skin tone”, because to say this is to ignore basic science.[/QUOTE]

No, the differences you have mentioned occur in a broad spectrum across human populations, not in distinct racial categories. It is a folk taxonomy, and anyone who knows anything about race understands this. [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)[/URL]

Nonetheless, my argument was that individuals from the ‘white race’ have very little in common with each other in comparison to individuals from the same ethnic, cultural, historical, linguistic or social background. Ethnocultural nationalism would be an understandable position given your desire for unity, but arguing for a nation for all ‘whites’ is a bit ridiculous and unfounded. A Slavic individual from Russia with white skin probably has a lot more in common with a dark skinned Tatar or Kazakh living in the same area than a white-skinned individual living in Los Angeles.

Nations are formed by common histories, ethnicity, cultures, languages, traditions, religions etc, not by sharing a similar tone of skin. I think you are greatly exaggerating the extent to which white nationalists in, for example, the UK are going to want to share a ‘homeland’ with white nationalists from, for example, Romania.


#250

[QUOTE=“Spodershibe, post: 2682883, member: 34205”]Europe, unlike America, was built by whites, and whites alone.[/QUOTE]

Actually proto-Indo-Europeans had fairly dark skin in comparison to modern Europeans. If you want real European nationalism, go to the Basque region of Spain, but the rest of us are mostly descended from these darker-skinned barbaric nomads from the Pontic Steppe.


#251

[QUOTE=“oli, post: 2682886, member: 579”]Actually proto-Indo-Europeans had fairly dark skin in comparison to modern Europeans. If you want real European nationalism, go to the Basque region of Spain, but the rest of us are mostly descended from these darker-skinned barbaric nomads from the Pontic Steppe.[/QUOTE]
It’s called evolution. Europeans USED to be darker skinned, but due to where they lived, evolved to have lighter skin. Therefore, for the sake of simplicity, I am referring to these ancestors as whites.


#252

[QUOTE=“oli, post: 2682885, member: 579”]No, the differences you have mentioned occur in a broad spectrum across human populations, not in distinct racial categories. It is a folk taxonomy, and anyone who knows anything about race understands this. [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)[/URL]

Nonetheless, my argument was that individuals from the ‘white race’ have very little in common with each other in comparison to individuals from the same ethnic, cultural, historical, linguistic or social background. Ethnocultural nationalism would be an understandable position given your desire for unity, but arguing for a nation for all ‘whites’ is a bit ridiculous and unfounded. A Slavic individual from Russia with white skin probably has a lot more in common with a dark skinned Tatar or Kazakh living in the same area than a white-skinned individual living in Los Angeles.

Nations are formed by common histories, ethnicity, cultures, languages, traditions, religions etc, not by sharing a similar tone of skin. I think you are greatly exaggerating the extent to which white nationalists in, for example, the UK are going to want to share a ‘homeland’ with white nationalists from, for example, Romania.[/QUOTE]
It is not a “folk taxonomy”, it’s just not technically “race”, it’s ethnicity. Darker skinned people from the continent of Africa typically, due to this being more prominent in their genes than ours, have larger jaws. People from the eastern part of Asia and the islands off of it have narrower eyes, due to this being more prevalent in their genes. Just because race is not the correct word to use doesn’t mean it’s all some social construct and everyone is equal.


#253

[QUOTE=“Spodershibe, post: 2682891, member: 34205”]It is not a “folk taxonomy”, it’s just not technically “race”, it’s ethnicity. Darker skinned people from the continent of Africa typically, due to this being more prominent in their genes than ours, have larger jaws. People from the eastern part of Asia and the islands off of it have narrower eyes, due to this being more prevalent in their genes. Just because race is not the correct word to use doesn’t mean it’s all some social construct and everyone is equal.[/QUOTE]

Right, but these differences don’t justify human categorization into ‘races’, they only suggest human genetics vary based on geography, along with a myriad of other factors. Race is a social construct because it, as a categorization of human beings, does not refer to any genetically differentiated human populations with distinct biological or taxonomic significance, it is entirely arbitrary.

I also never said everyone was equal.

[QUOTE=“Spodershibe, post: 2682890, member: 34205”]It’s called evolution. Europeans USED to be darker skinned, but due to where they lived, evolved to have lighter skin. Therefore, for the sake of simplicity, I am referring to these ancestors as whites.[/QUOTE]

I’m just making the point that ‘skin colour’ does not matter, what you are referring to is a common [I]culture [/I]shared by people of a similar ethnic background. Terms like ‘white’ are basically meaningless when it comes to nationalism unless you are using a very crude and unscientific 19th century understanding of race.


#254

[QUOTE=“oli, post: 2682896, member: 579”]Right, but these differences don’t justify human categorization into ‘races’, they only suggest human genetics vary based on geography, along with a myriad of other factors. Race is a social construct because it, as a categorization of human beings, does not refer to any genetically differentiated human populations with distinct biological or taxonomic significance, it is entirely arbitrary.

I also never said everyone was equal.

I’m just making the point that ‘skin colour’ does not matter, what you are referring to is a common [I]culture [/I]shared by people of a similar ethnic background. Terms like ‘white’ are basically meaningless when it comes to nationalism unless you are using a very crude and unscientific 19th century understanding of race.[/QUOTE]
Call it whatever you want, but grouping people into geological locations, which groups together people who evolved together, which in turn groups people with similar genetic makeup, is pretty much “race”, at least for the purposes I use the word race for.

I would argue that skin color is a very good identifier of culture, and that culture reflects what the psychological similarities in that group result in if left to develop for thousands of years. As I see it, culture is basically a mirror image of race. And while whites are slightly different in culture, whites, even including the slavic people, evolved together in similar conditions and as a result, developed psychological and physical similarities to one another, which then resulted in similar cultures. White cultures are undeniably more similar to one another than say, a white groups culture to a black groups culture.


#255

[QUOTE=“Spodershibe, post: 2682878, member: 34205”]The point is laws shouldn’t be made on whether or not people desire to do them, but rather if the act should be allowed or not. It doesn’t matter if most gays have no desire to dress in homoerotic outfits and stick their penises out for the whole world to see, we should still make a law preventing the small few who do want to do it from doing it.[/QUOTE]

It’s not really harmful to anyone if they do that though, if you like seeing it then don’t look.


#256

That’s fine, you use it to refer to a socially constructed folk taxonomy, not a ‘scientific’ categorization of things. Doesn’t make the idea itself any less valid.

[QUOTE=“Spodershibe, post: 2682898, member: 34205”]As I see it, culture is basically a mirror image of race. And while whites are slightly different in culture, whites, even including the slavic people, evolved together in similar conditions and as a result, developed psychological and physical similarities to one another, which then resulted in similar cultures. White cultures are undeniably more similar to one another than say, a white groups culture to a black groups culture.[/QUOTE]

Skin tone a good[I] identifier[/I] of culture maybe, but they are still not the same thing. I just don’t see why ‘race’ is a valid argument for nationalism in itself, in fact the implications are obviously impractical and usually undesirable. At least ethnocultural nationalism makes a lot more sense.


#257

[QUOTE=“Sir Tarquin of Wessex, post: 2682901, member: 3246”]It’s not really harmful to anyone if they do that though, if you like seeing it then don’t look.[/QUOTE]
Streets are a public place, and decency should be followed in public places. It is disgusting and should not be allowed in public. It sure harms people a lot less if they don’t do it.


#258

[QUOTE=“oli, post: 2682902, member: 579”]That’s fine, you use it to refer to a socially constructed folk taxonomy, not a ‘scientific’ categorization of things. Doesn’t make the idea itself any less valid.[/QUOTE]
Larger jaws are not social constructs, and neither are narrower eyes


#259

[QUOTE=“Spodershibe, post: 2682904, member: 34205”]Larger jaws are not social constructs, and neither are narrower eyes[/QUOTE]

You’re not listening though:

[QUOTE=“oli, post: 2682896, member: 579”]these differences don’t justify human categorization into ‘races’, they only suggest human genetics vary based on geography, along with a myriad of other factors. Race is a social construct because it, as a categorization of human beings, does not refer to any genetically differentiated human populations with distinct biological or taxonomic significance, it is entirely arbitrary.[/QUOTE]


#260

[QUOTE=“Spodershibe, post: 2682903, member: 34205”] It sure harms people a lot less if they don’t do it.[/QUOTE]

You haven’t really explained how it does harm anyone.