One may say: Europe for the Europeans, Africa for the Africans!

And this is what I in princip believe. Whites belong in Europe while African negroes belong in Africa.

Further we whites have waste to much money and resources to colonize Africa in the past. And it didn´t change the negro, not much.

On WN boards I have seen those proposing a kind of "recolonization" of Africa. One have to ask if this is really such a good idea? I also think that Africa is too hot for White people. Living in Africa will only degenerate White people. Yes look what happened to the entire Negro race after living there for thousands of years, before they were brought to the Americas. That said, Southern Africa is of course an exception, the nature and climate there is more close to the European.

However, say if Whites at some point in the future did eliminate the present population in Africa and thereafter replaced it with new White colonizers. These new white colonizers may, indeed after many thousands of years, themselves begin to get darker skin. Or what do you think?

I don't think this is just about the darker skin. We whites have an excellent affinity to adapt our surroundings to suit ourselves, and not the other way around, as you propose. Eliminating the negro race and replacing it with whites is the best course for not just us and the riches we will gain, but Africa herself. Niggers are terrible for the environment.

One may say: Europe for the Europeans, Africa for the Africans!

And this is what I in princip believe. Whites belong in Europe while African negroes belong in Africa.

Further we whites have waste to much money and resources to colonize Africa in the past. And it didn´t change the negro, not much.

On WN boards I have seen those proposing a kind of "recolonization" of Africa. One have to ask if this is really such a good idea? I also think that Africa is too hot for White people. Living in Africa will only degenerate White people. Yes look what happened to the entire Negro race after living there for thousands of years, before they were brought to the Americas. That said, Southern Africa is of course an exception, the nature and climate there is more close to the European.

However, say if Whites at some point in the future did eliminate the present population in Africa and thereafter replaced it with new White colonizers. These new white colonizers may, indeed after many thousands of years, themselves begin to get darker skin. Or what do you think?

After many thousands of years there will be another ice age, and everything north of the Mediterranean will be buried under miles of ice. Europeans will need to travel south to the Mediterranean, the near east, and north africa to survive. Then after many thousands of years the ice age will end, allowing Europeans to travel north back into Europe. This has happened many times, and will happen many more.

As far as africa, it's not like the africans are using it, so what's the harm.

I don't think this is just about the darker skin. We whites have an excellent affinity to adapt our surroundings to suit ourselves, and not the other way around, as you propose. Eliminating the negro race and replacing it with whites is the best course for not just us and the riches we will gain, but Africa herself. Niggers are terrible for the environment.


Yes is not just about skincolor. As the white race is a part of the wider caucasoid race. Caucasoids migrated to many parts of the world, in some regions affected by the natural environment, in tropical got darker skin. For example are the Indians/Dravidians of today the result of influence from the environment or did they got mixed with another negroid (like) race, resulting that they today are (in many cases) as dark as African nigs. However, they still retain some caucasoid-europid facial structure. I think our friend Coomar can tell...

But now back to Africa. Why must we have Africa? It seems that some people suffer from some sort of "obsession" of Africa or "afromania" wanting to dominate it. This argument is not directed at you specifically. As I said the enviroment is to hot for white people... Personally I believe that as the white race was formed in a cold or temperate climate. I think that whites evolve much better in such an environment.

When we now talking about elimination of the nigs in Africa. Having in mind that Dr Duke talks about the right of preservation, and not only the white race, all nations and races including the Africans/negroes. So do we agree with him or not?

I follow the mantra that if we are strong enough to take it, we should take it. If we are strong enough to exterminate all lesser races, we should. If we can make Africa suitable for whites to live there, we must.

"Caucasoids" living in India, I'm assuming you're referring to those stinking brown people I commonly see running convenience stores? There is no way in hell that I'd accept those subhumans are merely white people who have lived in hot climates. If there is a drop of white blood in them, it is completely saturated by non-white blood.

Yes is not just about skincolor. As the white race is a part of the wider caucasoid race. Caucasoids migrated to many parts of the world, in some regions affected by the natural environment, in tropical got darker skin. For example are the Indians/Dravidians of today the result of influence from the environment or did they got mixed with another negroid (like) race, resulting that they today are (in many cases) as dark as African nigs. However, they still retain some caucasoid-europid facial structure. I think our friend Coomar can tell...

That's also why germans that migrated into the much colder climate of scandinavia became short, fat, slanteyed and darkskinned, just like the eskimos that live in similar climates.

http://www.alaska-in-pictures.com/data/media/21/inupiat-eskimo-girls-in-traditional-parkas_2119.jpg

http://www.scandasia.com/php/news_images/short_news_5794.gif

Virtually indistinguishable...

I follow the mantra that if we are strong enough to take it, we should take it. If we are strong enough to exterminate all lesser races, we should. If we can make Africa suitable for whites to live there, we must.

Yeah.. If we were strong enough we could do it. But say we did exterminate all the other races. All the non-whites were replaced by whites everywhere. But after many thousands of years still new races will evolve from these. I kind a believe in the Darwinist philosophy that every living thing evolves. But ok this process will take about thousands of years, and we wouldn´t be there to see it. However, our aims is that the white race should last forever. Ain´t that right?

"Caucasoids" living in India, I'm assuming you're referring to those stinking brown people I commonly see running convenience stores? There is no way in hell that I'd accept those subhumans are merely white people who have lived in hot climates. If there is a drop of white blood in them, it is completely saturated by non-white blood.

I´m not saying that Indians are white. I´m saying that they are caucasoids. They may have got their dark skin either thru´mixing with some earlier muds, or as the result by influence of the tropical environment. Personally, I believe that both alternatives are possible.

Having in mind that Dr Duke talks about the right of preservation, and not only the white race, all nations and races including the Africans/negroes. So do we agree with him or not?


But what do think about David Dukes ideas about the preservation of not just whites, but also all the other races and nations?

This is mentioned in a video you yourself posted in another thread. He mentions this in the end of the video.


YouTube - Race is More than Skin Color!

I agree that whites should take land from people who do nothing with it. Land belongs to the people that will farm it. That's why North America is ours, not the Indian's, because they wasted the land and just roamed around on it like a pack of wild animals. We took the land and used it productively.

Are you proposing that the heat and environment, while making us "darker" (I don't personally think this to be the case), would make us less intelligent, and take away from the white man's ability to invent and create? While an interesting idea, I don't think it to be the case. The only reason why whites evolved to have light skin was because dark skinned humans were dying in cold, northern Europe in such numbers that only the lightest children survived. From what I've witnessed, no white children are dying in any sizeable amount due to the heat and environment in Africa, thus natural selection is not as effective because of imported white technology. I'd put your mind to rest, Mr. North, in regards to extermination/colonization of Africa and focus on our cold, northern countries that are being filled up with Africans who are ironically using white technology to survive in our very back yards.

One may say: Europe for the Europeans, Africa for the Africans!

And this is what I in princip believe. Whites belong in Europe while African negroes belong in Africa.

Further we whites have waste to much money and resources to colonize Africa in the past. And it didn´t change the negro, not much.

On WN boards I have seen those proposing a kind of "recolonization" of Africa. One have to ask if this is really such a good idea? I also think that Africa is too hot for White people. Living in Africa will only degenerate White people. Yes look what happened to the entire Negro race after living there for thousands of years, before they were brought to the Americas. That said, Southern Africa is of course an exception, the nature and climate there is more close to the European.

However, say if Whites at some point in the future did eliminate the present population in Africa and thereafter replaced it with new White colonizers. These new white colonizers may, indeed after many thousands of years, themselves begin to get darker skin. Or what do you think?

Earth to William, you are asking people who cant even take their block back, what they would do with a whole continent. Does fantasy role play ever get old here?

That's also why germans that migrated into the much colder climate of scandinavia became short, fat, slanteyed and darkskinned, just like the eskimos that live in similar climates.

http://www.alaska-in-pictures.com/data/media/21/inupiat-eskimo-girls-in-traditional-parkas_2119.jpg

http://www.scandasia.com/php/news_images/short_news_5794.gif

Virtually indistinguishable...


Yes concerning the extreme North, close to the Arctic. People may evolve a shorter stature. However I´m not sure about darker skin. The Saami in the far North of Scandianvia are short, but not that darkskinned.


Regarding the Eskimos.. I think they migrated relatively recently in historical terms to their present homelands.

Yes concerning the extreme North, close to the Arctic. People may evolve a shorter stature. However I´m not sure about darker skin. The Saami in the far North of Scandianvia are short, but not that darkskinned.


Regarding the Eskimos.. I think they migrated relatively recently in historical terms to their present homelands.

Put a bucket of water in your freezer next to your ice tray, see which one freezes faster. Small things freeze faster than large things of the same temperature, that's why polar bears are bigger than other bear types, why emperor penguins are larger than other penguins, why mammoths were so much bigger than elephants.

As far as the eskimos, the ice age ended at the same time around the world, around 12k years ago. That's when they moved from mongolia into alaska/canada, and on into south america. It's also the time when Europeans moved from the Mediterranean back into north and west Europe. So why don't we see that many blond hair, blue eyed eskimos?

If we had to live in Africa, we'd have plenty of A/C and stuff to where we won't degenerate into black people.

Yes concerning the extreme North, close to the Arctic. People may evolve a shorter stature. However I´m not sure about darker skin. The Saami in the far North of Scandianvia are short, but not that darkskinned.


Regarding the Eskimos.. I think they migrated relatively recently in historical terms to their present homelands.

The saami comes from asia, that is why they are short, ugly and retarded. Everybody who has been in contact with them here in sweden hates them. They are parasites. You see that typical retarded behaviour with indians too, and eskimos. Dumb people who don't see any future. They don't have that sence of planning like white people do. I don' believe that the weather can change the genetics of a person, it just doesn't seem logical.

The saami comes from asia, that is why they are short, ugly and retarded. Everybody who has been in contact with them here in sweden hates them. They are parasites. You see that typical retarded behaviour with indians too, and eskimos. Dumb people who don't see any future. They don't have that sence of planning like white people do. I don' believe that the weather can change the genetics of a person, it just doesn't seem logical.


Yes, the Saami probably comes from Asia. On the other hand there are claims that they are the original indigenous population of northern Scandinavia.

Don´t you find it umm. a bit shocking.. I mean nobody knows how many Swedes and other northern Europeans that may be mixed with, having Saami blood.

I do think climate and natural conditions have some influence on people, but I´m talking about evolution going on over thousands of years.

The saami comes from asia, that is why they are short, ugly and retarded. Everybody who has been in contact with them here in sweden hates them. They are parasites. You see that typical retarded behaviour with indians too, and eskimos. Dumb people who don't see any future. They don't have that sence of planning like white people do. I don' believe that the weather can change the genetics of a person, it just doesn't seem logical.

Hah! Once again, you reveal your stupidity, perhaps the consequence of studying under Spew.

As documented in The Western and Eastern Roots of the Saami—the Story of Genetic “Outliers” Told by Mitochondrial DNA and Y Chromosomes (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1181943/), 'The Saami are regarded as extreme genetic outliers among European populations. In this study, a high-resolution phylogenetic analysis of Saami genetic heritage was undertaken in a comprehensive context, through use of maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and paternally inherited Y-chromosomal variation. DNA variants present in the Saami were compared with those found in Europe and Siberia, through use of both new and previously published data from 445 Saami and 17,096 western Eurasian and Siberian mtDNA samples, as well as 127 Saami and 2,840 western Eurasian and Siberian Y-chromosome samples. It was shown that the “Saami motif” variant of mtDNA haplogroup U5b is present in a large area outside Scandinavia. A detailed phylogeographic analysis of one of the predominant Saami mtDNA haplogroups, U5b1b, which also includes the lineages of the “Saami motif,” was undertaken in 31 populations. The results indicate that the origin of U5b1b, as for the other predominant Saami haplogroup, V, is most likely in western, rather than eastern, Europe. Furthermore, an additional haplogroup (H1) spread among the Saami was virtually absent in 781 Samoyed and Ob-Ugric Siberians but was present in western and central European populations. The Y-chromosomal variety in the Saami is also consistent with their European ancestry. It suggests that the large genetic separation of the Saami from other Europeans is best explained by assuming that the Saami are descendants of a narrow, distinctive subset of Europeans. In particular, no evidence of a significant directional gene flow from extant aboriginal Siberian populations into the haploid gene pools of the Saami was found.'

The truth, of course, is that you buffoons assign "whiteness" based on your cultural perceptions rather than objective biological criteria.

As for the question, I hope that the interlopers are pushed out of their last strongholds, perhaps by Mugabe in Zimbabwe and perhaps by new blood, and certainly by Malema in South Africa! The only good colonialist is a dead colonialist!