[Prosthetic Conscience]

Europeans and East Asians are around 2-3% Neanderthal and light skin mutations were introduced after our ancestors interbred with Neanderthals, which made us distinct from Africans.

You have to distinguish between today Sub-Saharan-Africans and Africans that lived in North Africa. The Black Africans did not exist (in significant numbers) 1000 years ago. Africa was populated by Bushmen, Pigmeys and other tribes that were genicided by the Black Africans in recent times. There were no Black Africans in South Africa 300 years ago, white Europeans are de facto more indigenous to this region, than Black Africans, who spread to this region about 100 years ago.

If we add a zero to each of your figures, change "Sub-Saharan-Africans" to "South Africans", 'North Africa' to "West/Central Africa", and then get rid of the bits about "Black Africans not existing in significant numbers" and about white Europeans, this would have some relation to reality. It also depends on how much was an expansion of a culture, and how much was a migration of people. What you're groping for, with hopelessly wrong figures, is:

The Bantu expansion is the name for a postulated millennia-long series of migrations of speakers of the original proto-Bantu language group. The primary evidence for this expansion has been linguistic, namely that the languages spoken in Sub-Equatorial Africa are remarkably similar to each other. Attempts to trace the exact route of the expansion, to correlate it with archaeological evidence and genetic evidence, have not been conclusive; thus many aspects of the expansion remain in doubt or are highly contested. The Bantu traveled in two waves, the first across the Congo forest region.

The linguistic core of the Bantu family of languages, a branch of the Niger–Congo language family, was located in the adjoining region of Cameroon and Nigeria. From this core, expansion began about 3,000 years ago, with one stream going into East Africa, and other streams going south along the African coast of Gabon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Angola, or inland along the many south-to-north flowing rivers of the Congo River system. The expansion eventually reached South Africa, probably as early as AD 300.

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

[Pants-of-dog]

@ArtAllm

Your anti-Semitic conspiracy theories bore me.

[ArtAllm]

@ArtAllm

Your anti-Semitic conspiracy theories bore me.

You bore me with your silly fake terminology, like "anti-Semitic", and with your pro-Zionist shilling.

Not all Zionists are Jews, not all Jews are Zionists.... and Ashkenazi Jews are not Semites.

Black Ethiopian Jews are poor people, who were shipped to Israel and subject to a compulsive Depo-Provera-Sterilisation there. They have now the lowest fertility rate in Israel!

What to the native Semites of Palestine - I do not hate them, in fact, I sympathise with them, because they were replaced in their native land by migrants.

We, Europeans, are subject to the same process in out homelands: to some degree we are all Palestinians now, becoming a minority in our own countries, that are flooded by migrants.

White Ashkenazi Zionists (who have nothing to do with Semites) hate Semitic Palestinians, be they Muslims or Christians, and they do not love the non-White Semitic Jews, too.

So who are the real supremacists?

[Pants-of-dog]

Please see my previous post. Thank you.

[Heisenberg]

But, TEH JEEEEWWWWWSSS, @Pants-of-dog.

I'm amazed this thread still exists. I had expected to be in a mass grave by now, given the immense technological progress the world has made since 1945. If White Genocide was underway, we should all be dead already, no?

[Dave]

@Heisenberg,

Only if our enemies were Nazis. The mechanism of "white genocide" is to slowly reduce us to minority status in our own countries, which leads to the loss of political power. Our decreasing population share combined with sexual liberalism leads inevitably to miscegenation.

White genocide has already "succeeded" in Zimbabwe, and it appears to be picking up steam in South Africa where 20% of the white population has emigrated since losing control of their state.

The anti-white political party in the United States openly boasts that soon it will enjoy a monopoly on political power owing to the mass importation of non-white voters.

I don't really care for the term white genocide as it's hyperbolic and leads to unproductive lawyering about details.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Heisenberg,

Only if our enemies were Nazis. The mechanism of "white genocide" is to slowly reduce us to minority status in our own countries, which leads to the loss of political power. Our decreasing population share combined with sexual liberalism leads inevitably to miscegenation.

Most white countries will still have white majorities for the foreseeable future. Those that do not will still enjoy a plurality.

White genocide has already "succeeded" in Zimbabwe, and it appears to be picking up steam in South Africa where 20% of the white population has emigrated since losing control of their state.

What is happening in South Africa and Zimbabwe is a reaction to colonialism. It is not white genocide as you define it in the previous paragraph.

Besides, if white people leave of their own accord, is it really genocide in any meaningful sense?

The anti-white political party in the United States openly boasts that soon it will enjoy a monopoly on political power owing to the mass importation of non-white voters.

I don't really care for the term white genocide as it's hyperbolic and leads to unproductive lawyering about details.

You mean the Democrats? They are not anti-white so much as not as openly racist as the Republicans. If the Republicnas wanted to get more votes from people of colour, they should stop being openly racist.

[Dave]

Most white countries will not still have white majorities for the foreseeable future. Those that do not will still enjoy a plurality.

In other words, you agree that white population shares in these countries will diminish.

What is happening in South Africa and Zimbabwe is a reaction to colonialism. It is not white genocide as you define it in the previous paragraph.

Why does a reaction to colonialism mean that an event is not genocide? The Dutch population of Indonesia was "genocided" following Indonesian independence. This was also a reaction to colonialism.

Besides, if white people leave of their own accord, is it really genocide in any meaningful sense?

Certainly. White people can and do choose to commit suicide. It's quite clear for instance that voluntarily dismantling apartheid has been negative for most of South Africa's white population.

You mean the Democrats? They are not anti-white so much as not as openly racist as the Republicans. If the Republicnas wanted to get more votes from people of colour, they should stop being openly racist.

Yes, the Democrats are the anti-white party. Their party program explicitly supports colored mass immigration.

We do not want the votes of colored people. We in the alt right want to shift the party into an explicitly racist direction. Cuckservatives of course fantasize they can outbid the Democrats in competing for the colored vote. Good luck with that one Jeb.

[Pants-of-dog]

In other words, you agree that white population shares in these countries will diminish.

Sure, as long as we agree that your claim is incorrect for most white countries.

Why does a reaction to colonialism mean that an event is not genocide? The Dutch population of Indonesia was "genocided" following Indonesian independence. This was also a reaction to colonialism.

Sure, but Zimbabwe and SA are not genocides by any stretch of the imagination.

Certainly. White people can and do choose to commit suicide. It's quite clear for instance that voluntarily dismantling apartheid has been negative for most of South Africa's white population.

Using hyperbolic and emotional language like "suicide" does not magically mean that it is genocide when white people voluntarily move.

Yes, the Democrats are the anti-white party. Their party program explicitly supports colored mass immigration.

Please define "mass immigration". Thank you.

Also, defining immigration as genocide is as dumb as the OP.

We do not want the votes of colored people. We in the alt right want to shift the party into an explicitly racist direction.

Okay. Doom yourself to obscurity as demographics change. I have absolutely no problem with that.

Adios!

[Dave]

Sure, as long as we agree that your claim is incorrect for most white countries.

We would need then to define what "foreseeable future" means.

The United States is projected to turn non-white in the 2040s, and children under age five (if memory serves) are already majority non-white.

The projection for the United Kingdom is for the 2060s. In Canada the projection is for the 2050s. In more or less every white country west of Oder-Neisse line whites are projected to become a minority in this century.

Of course, projections into the future based on present trends are not necessarily accurate as any investor can tell you.

Sure, but Zimbabwe and SA are not genocides by any stretch of the imagination.

Why not, particularly in the case of Zimbabwe?

How do you define the term?

Using hyperbolic and emotional language like "suicide" does not magically mean that it is genocide when white people voluntarily move.

They are voluntarily moving in response to the collapse of conditions in their homelands. We can see this on a micro scale in metropolitan areas within countries suffering from "diversity" in which entire neighborhoods and cities are destroyed by the influx of black residents, leading the previous white inhabitants to "voluntarily" move.

Please define "mass immigration". Thank you.

Persistent immigration which alters the nation's demographics.

Also, defining immigration as genocide is as dumb as the OP.

By this logic your precious feathered Indians were not genocided by European immigration.

Okay. Doom yourself to obscurity as demographics change. I have absolutely no problem with that.

Adios!

We have no alternative. We either change the demographics in our favor, or we lose.

[Political Interest]

South Africa is a text book example of what happens to Europeans when they hold minority status. In South Africa none of the institutions are in the hands of the Europeans. They do not hold any real electoral power and the armed forces, as well as the police are also in the hands of the vast majority of the population. And yet I saw a video of an Anglo South African woman discussing how she and the other Europeans there had "white privilege". Even one of the leaders of the major political parties in South Africa has mentioned that the whites have "white privilege" in a situation where they comprise a minority of the population and do not control any government institutions, the media, police or military. The argument that whites still control South Africa because many of the businesses are white owned is inaccurate because political power always precedes economic power and more and more of South Afican businesses are black owned. Eventually all economic power there will be in black hands. Therefore on all counts black South Africans hold a greater amount of influence and long term potential influence in their country. How could anyone then say whites would still retain their privilege if they were to become a minority in Europe? And like any minority, what would stop them being at a disadvantage as a result of this position?

The white privilege theory does not have a solid basis. There is no empircal proof for it's existence and it is only because liberal Western countries allow such work to be published that this body of theory has managed to gain any influence. It is ultimately a dangerous, unsicentific and racist idea. If we were to publish academic journals discussing Jewish privilege we would find ourselves in serious trouble and it would look like something produced by a university in Nazi Germany. When I examined the work of Peggy McIntosh, including her list of markers of white privilege, I did not see anything that could be uniquely attributed to whites. All of her theory could apply to any country or state in which one ethnicity is predominant.

[Decky]

political power always precedes economic

Nonsense, it is the other way round. What world do you live in? The rich always end of controlling the political system in any nation where they are allowed to exist.

[Dave]

Nonsense, it is the other way round. What world do you live in? The rich always end of controlling the political system in any nation where they are allowed to exist.

This is only true in nation-states, and as you'll no doubt point out sometimes the rich have to make concessions when the working classes get particularly pitchforky.

In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.

If your theory were true then Rhodesia would still be around today since whites had all the money.

And for that matter why don't the Chinese run Malaysia?

[Political Interest]

Nonsense, it is the other way round. What world do you live in? The rich always end of controlling the political system in any nation where they are allowed to exist.

You are a communist and you do not understand this?

There is a reason that communists want to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat.

And obviously the rich will be the ones who hold power. Economic power and political power are one in the same. The poor who take power after the collapse of the establishment will eventually end up becoming the richest ones in society. In Russia the leftist dissidents, many of whom were poor industrial workers would after several decades become wealthy party men driving Mercedes and having nice dachas.

In South Africa the former guerillas and ANC nationalists became the new political and economic elite.

[Decky]

If your theory were true then Rhodesia would still be around today since whites had all the money.

Rhodesia's collapse was not an internal thing, it happened due to the entire rest of world shunning it and destroying any legitimacy that government had in the eyes of its own people and all the worlds people. If it has been left to its own devices the whites would have merrily kept up the brutal oppression of blacks for a long time further.

And for that matter why don't the Chinese run Malaysia?

They already do don't they? They have all the money and run all the businesses, the Malaysians quite literally take orders from the Chinese on a daily basis (or more likely from a manager employed by a Chinaman).

[Political Interest]

They already do don't they? They have all the money and run all the businesses, the Malaysians quite literally take orders from the Chinese on a daily basis (or more likely from a manager employed by a Chinaman).

The Chinese in Indonesia and Malaysia are victims of discrimination. A few of them might have businesses but that does not allow them to choose who governs the country. There is a reason why UMNO is in government and not the DAP.

[Dave]

Rhodesia's collapse was not an internal thing, it happened due to the entire rest of world shunning it and destroying any legitimacy that government had in the eyes of its own people and all the worlds people. If it has been left to its own devices the whites would have merrily kept up the brutal oppression of blacks for a long time further.

Rhodesia wasn't South Africa--their system could hardly be called "brutal oppression". That said, fair enough.

The same is true of South Africa.

Rhodesia and South Africa were both induced into collapse by other white people who succumbed to insane negrophilia.

They already do don't they? They have all the money and run all the businesses, the Malaysians quite literally take orders from the Chinese on a daily basis (or more likely from a manager employed by a Chinaman).

The Malaysian state is run by Malays, and the Malaysian state actively takes measures to improve the economic and social position of Malays.

Of course Chinese end up running most businesses anyway since they're cleverer than Malays are on average. No doubt the Malays would accuse them of cheating and other nefarious crimes as well. Mohammed Mahathir stated his "New Malay" campaign was a failure and blasted Malays, his own people, as being lazy and dishonest.

[Decky]

No doubt the Malays would accuse them of cheating and other nefarious crimes as well. Mohammed Mahathir stated his "New Malay" campaign was a failure and blasted Malays, his own people, as being lazy and dishonest.

Doesn't that describe the vast majority of all people anyway?

[Dave]

@Decky,

I don't think I've ever met a lazy or dishonest Minnesotan, but generally yes.

[Pants-of-dog]

We would need then to define what "foreseeable future" means.

The United States is projected to turn non-white in the 2040s, and children under age five (if memory serves) are already majority non-white.

The projection for the United Kingdom is for the 2060s. In Canada the projection is for the 2050s. In more or less every white country west of Oder-Neisse line whites are projected to become a minority in this century.

Of course, projections into the future based on present trends are not necessarily accurate as any investor can tell you.

The UK projection does not say whites will be a minority by 2066. It says that ethnic Britons will be a minority, but many of the immigrant populations that make up the majority will also,be white. In other words, if you count the white immigrant population as white, whites will still be a majority.

Please provide evidence for the claim about Canada. This source says that Canada will still be two thirds white by 2031.

Again, even if these countries are white minority countires, ethnic locals will still have a plurality and will still enjoy a disproportionately large number of seats of power.

Why not, particularly in the case of Zimbabwe?

How do you define the term?

Tell you what, since you already defined white genocide and made the claim that Zimbabwe was undergoing genocide, why don't you explain how that works?

They are voluntarily moving in response to the collapse of conditions in their homelands. We can see this on a micro scale in metropolitan areas within countries suffering from "diversity" in which entire neighborhoods and cities are destroyed by the influx of black residents, leading the previous white inhabitants to "voluntarily" move.

Africa is the homelands of white people now? Lol.

Still, please explain how is is genocide.

Persistent immigration which alters the nation's demographics.

That is incredibly vague. A slow trickle of people from another country could then be defined as mass immigartion, even though it does not have any impact on the locals.

By this logic your precious feathered Indians were not genocided by European immigration.

They weren't. Immigration was and is not the problem for indigenous people. The oppression caused by colonialism could have happened with hardly any migration. If you think immigration was the problem, then you are incorrect,

We have no alternative. We either change the demographics in our favor, or we lose.

I doubt you will enjoy much luck.

----------------

As for the discussion about economic power and political power, neither one necessarily precedes the other. People tend to use power to get more power, so if a group has one, they will try to get the other, but other factors can interfere and often do.