Colonialism: And Why It's Bad for Everyone

Colonialism is the destiny of the white man. We are the stewards of Creation, we are supposed to be taking care of the Earth - and that includes the other 'men' (if it is right to designate them as such). Long ago our distant ancestors gave them the various religions they still cling to today; Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, and the various other pagan faiths the world over. Near all of them talk about how they received revelation from white skinned and blue-eyed people. However, a certain sect of the white people went astray, they were the Jews. They mixed with the other 'men' despite God decreeing against it, and they became hateful and jealous.

The Christian British Empire was for the most part a parallel to these origin stories of old. White men came from a far off land and gave these people a better life, taught them a better way, gave them law, morality and security. Yes the corrupt Jews got in and caused massive damage, but the original goal was noble.

Do not be overcome with hatred for Creation brothers. We are its Stewards, we just need to purge the corruption.

Hi Chaim, how's life?

POO IN LOO

that's going to do that regardless. roach behavior is hardwired into the fabric of their being

kys

Attached: South_Africa.jpg (1920x1200 49.02 KB, 588.51K)

the whole world belongs to the white race and all non-whites should be exterminated off the face of the planet

Attached: Salisbury.jpg (1400x720 512.02 KB, 225.99K)

Expansion of land is good like in North America, Australia and they tried in South Africa. However you have to commit to it, make tiny colonies, move entire White families from Europe and completely eradicate the "natives". Spain and Portugal fucked up by just sprinkling little outposts, and having the conquistadors fuck and breed with their women.

But also exploitation colonies like India were bad, and honestly that sounds very kikey.

only because the British gave India more than they got. there is nothing wrong with exploiting the other races for profit, like we did with niggers during the slave trade

Another case in point for how white nationalists have been duped into becoming crypto-leftists

Colonialism of India was the worst thing to happen to the world. We lost all spiritual knowledge painstakingly cultivated through millenia.

Attached: 032-speed-of-light-india.png (649x415, 132.99K)

This poster is correct. The Raj period was among the greatest tragedies to befall the Aryan peoples, just as bad as when the demon-worshipping Jews, Christians, and Muslims burned the Library of Alexandria, and destroyed and defiled the European native faiths and their temples.

Now look at everyone suffering helplessly because they are trapped in the matrix and don't know to to escape (because they destroyed the only culture which knew how to do this).

Attached: 033-chakras.jpg (3000x3300, 1.31M)

Because the sons of the local elites and talented tenth ended up studying in European universities and ended up getting a head full of Marxism.

As funny as the poo-in-loo memes are it's worth noticing that the Eternal Anglo didn't give a single shit about the people he ruled and was more preoccupied wringing all the wealth out of the subcontinent he could.
Indology, comparative religious studies and much of linguistics were developed in Germany and Austria-Hungary.

You can't even leave the basement and conquer the living room, so stop LARPing you fat fuck.

Like you mean like the fellow niggers that enslaved them or the jews that brought them over on slave ships? Whites ended slavery worldwide because it was fucked up.

The left/right paradigm is a jewish control method. We're third positionist here.

nice ad hominem

no it wasn't, I don't care if non-whites suffer. they're just sacks of meat

(You)

That's a very jewish way of thinking.

I don't get this. So you're against the British ruling against the Dravidians? Just asking.

Colonialism isn't bad when you are genuinely making a colony of your own people. The United States have 250 million white people, a quarter of a million, Brazil has 90 million, Argentina has 38 million, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have tens of millions more.
Sure, 'colonising' brown people is a waste of time and sharing our technology is in fact detrimental to us, but I wouldn't exactly call subjugating foreigns 'colonising', that is conquering.
Genuine colonisation, ie offloading settlers in new lands where there is the space and resources for a large white population and society, and kicking out the pre-existing natives, is always a good thing.

Attached: 1531663763686.jpg (850x1070, 321.84K)

Reminder that the only thing the colonial powers did wrong was leave anyone alive in the lands they conquered.
We are going to reclaim all of our stolen land and exterminate all nonwhites, repopulating the land with whites. You cannot stop us.

Do you identify with pic related too?

Attached: intelligent, nihilistic with a wicked sense of humor.png (500x518, 97.84K)

what delineates the two ideological approaches to "humanity", are the altruism of the White Caucasian of Euro-descent v. the Supremacy of the jew for which Whitey is being held to account. (((They're))) not getting out of this hole they've dug for themselves to easily. Eternity is a long time

Seriously, imagine if we all die in a big (((civil war))) soon. Give it 200 years. What do you think the people living in Hong Kong, Qatar, Beijing or South Africa are going to believe? I can near guarantee you it is "a long time ago these white beings with blue eyes and big beards came and taught us how to build great structures, which we have now forgotten. They gave us law and morality. They must have been the gods."

History repeats itself over and over. Do you not see the similarities to all the origin stories of every culture? If we lose the British and French will be remembered as these 'gods' who gave their people civilisation. Because essentially that is what happened. Right now they think they'll be able to keep it without us, and perhaps some of the chongs will. But the muds and africans? No way. They might hate us now but, assuming we lose, they'll be venerating our memory in a couple centuries.

Hopefully though we won't lose.

190 Million and dropping.
Castizos and High yellow mullattos aren't white. Only around 10-20 percent of the Brazilian population is actually white.
Far too high. Almost 10% of their population is semitic (various middle easterners and jews) and castizos are counted as white.
this thread is recycled, we just had it last month

I'm not sure to be honest. White people are aryans, just like indians. See . Aryans are meant to rule in the sense of guiding and administering over people for their spiritual success. But the britishers exploit, they don't guide. They use a conquered people to their own ends and basically leave them much worse off than if they had been left alone. The role of an aryan is much different from this. Also, Srila Prabhupada says in today's age of Kali Yuga everyone is born a shudra, so no one should be ruling another person on the basis of caste or race, since we have all degragaded.

Attached: 037-srila-prabhupada-redpill-quotes.png (1878x882, 267.56K)

Well we still have different variety of races on Earth. And pure Whites still exist, so there has been no degradation.

This is commie propaganda. The British gave a LOT to their colonies, more than any of the other Imperial nation. They had a similar style to Rome. There was FAR more than just making money going on; they were uplifting the people and giving them law, religion, education, medicine, technology, transport, security and a host of other things that in many cases are still remembered fondly today. They also were far more 'fair' than other whites in their dealings which is why in most instances where a people had a choice between which power they sided with; they chose the British.

Yeah there was were greedy bastards who cared for nothing but money. The majority of them were jews. There were jews in the Roman Empire too. And most of Imperial France was Jewish. And Belgium? … Back then the lands that are now Germany were the most Jewish area in the world. The corruption always seeps in; do not overlook all the good that was done just because jews managed to do some evil.

Colonialism was horrible in that it assumed all men could be lifted up and assimilated into the superior culture. This isn't the case and now we're paying for it. We should have just stayed in our states in Europe and worked on becoming autarkical. Either that or wholesale genocide, but this is a kike way of acting.

The only good, non-anglokiked form of colonisation is space colonisation.

The problem with the British was its tradition of parliamentarian and charter companies. This let the jews run horrible industries within the British empire. If the brits had a proper absolutist monarchy it wouldn't have been so evil.

Many of them didn't until (((someone))) told them it was.

Watch the video in this post - if you have the time. The British left India far worse off than before they came. The video addresses all the points you just made.

Attached: 038-flogging-of-punjabi-man-by-british-colonialist.jpg (357x238, 31.35K)

Yea, very trustworthy. The worst the British did was allow Ghandi to rise to power.

I know an anglokike when I see one.

It didn't. There is a reason we had 'apartheid' and 'jim crow laws' and all the rest. By the time the doctrine of 'equality' had actually become successful; the British Empire had already been at war with the kikes from the US and Russia for well over 2 centuries, and had been bankrupted by its suicidal efforts in WW2. It is wrong to think of the very end of the British Empire as how the Imperial nations initially approached colonialism.

The Monarchy was corrupt as well. The real issue is that corruption; the British still did better than most others because EVERYONE could be held accountable; of course it doesn't take long for those parasites renowned the world over for bribery and blackmail to start evading the law. Still, the very idea of 'common law' that was so uniquely British managed to find itself embedded in many nations around the world, even if the Empire that brought it to them had - at the time- not had such a virtue itself. Today many people believe that bankers and politicians should hang and not be 'above the law'; and this is a direct offshoot of the concept of 'common law' that the British spread around the world.

Some good information for you: people are only allowed to talk at Oxford if they push a narrative desirable to the jews. It's one of the more important tricks they use to keep relatively intelligent people on their side; the ol' 'appeal to authority' - "If people at Oxford believe this then I should too."

It is important to remember that the East India company was largely kiked and that the conquest of India had far more to do with money-making than any of the other Imperial ventures; but the fact that to this very day the British are remembered fondly by many Indians, and the fact that the British areas of India are still excellent (at least relative to the rest of the nation) - should make you realise that it wasn't all bad.

That makes sense.

This is completely wrong. Indian textbooks are filled with the atrocities britishers committed while there. They praise the revolutionaries, even violent ones, who resisted British rule. Of course, Gandhi and his campaign to rid India of British Raj figures prominently in all of them. People view british rule with disgust. Examples : Jallianwala Bagh massacre, introducing state-regulated prostitution (indian girls taken from poor families forcibly to serve british barracks) and countless others.

Even jewgle doesn't try to hide this stuff.

Forgot to add, just because someone at Oxford is parroting a fact, doesn't make the fact false. In fact we should be wary of letting authorities coopt important truths and diminish them by the authority's endorsement.

You say these things like we should care about the plight of non-whites in the first place.

...

A nation of shopkeepers adopted the culture of a people of merchants.

the guy you are talking to is probably a pajeet

Reminder to report all paid shills.

Pick one.

Attached: 039-Britiain-Colonial-Crimes.jpg (300x266, 22.79K)

He probably wants to push them out, manifest destiny style, not rule over them.

I want to correct myself. _Some_ white people are Aryans, just as only some Indians are Aryans. Aryan means an ideal class of men, who can guide society. There are many strict qualifications for being an Aryan. In the past, only some species of white people and some species of Indians could meet it. Today, the descendents have degraded. Oh, and there are 400,000 species of human beings according to the vedas.

prabhupada.org.uk/sp_expose/com_evol.htm (good vedic redpill article on evolution)

Genocide? Then what is the difference between what jews and whites?

The history of the world is genocide. Various groups have been killing each other and taking each others land since time immemorial. That won't end until humanity goes extinct.
I also know you are moarpheous, and should fuck off.

This is what gets tiresome when talking about anything that the British or Americans have done. You people cite these individual occurrences which are, admittedly, horrific (although also remember that 1943 was in the middle of a war where ACTUAL BRITS were starving to death and having to burn their front doors to keep warm through the winter) and then just leave it at that. No one is denying that the British Empire did bad things. No one is denying that any Empire did bad things. There are people from every nation who are treacherous, selfish, greedy and quite simply put; evil. Yet the fact remains that by and large the effect of the British Empire on this world is objectively incredibly positive. They pulled myriad nations out of the mud and introduced them to a better way. Those British railways are still integral for day to day living in India. The schooling system has allowed many of them to achieve wages that would otherwise be unheard (and yes I agree that the whole economic system is screwed up but that's another argument). Their medicine removed life threatening diseases. Their engineering persists to this day and allows for those few places that still have it to have clean water, to not have floods, to not have sewage issues.

The rest of India is a festering crap hole, and it was so before hand. Brutal purges were common place. Literal thugs held power. The whole place was fractured and you had racial wars going on between about 12 different factions.

Genocide is only bad if you're at the receiving end of it. It's a natural part of life. That is human nature at its finest, and a consequence of living in a world with limited resources and space.

I see that you didn't watch the video which would refute all the 'positives' you are mentioning. I linked the video here -

...

roughly half of what, 330 million? that's ~165 million and dropping

4 years, and anons are still falling for it.
FOUR FUCKING YEARS.
People learned to avoid the Rachposter almost immediately after moving here, yet in the same amount of time hardly anyone has taken heed of the Angloposter, a similar filth that has infiltrated and contaminated the Zig Forums userbase for their own ideological gain.

I honestly don't know what I have to do at this point to get you fucking retards to learn how to spot his threads and avoid them. Either this board fills up with newfags much more frequently than I initially thought, or >90% of Zig Forums are just normalfaggot NPCs who couldn't spot a pattern to save their life.

This guy thrives on anti-White sentiment, his primary targets being the UK and Poland. His goal is to prop up Sweden and Germany as the "future" for the White man, saging any thread that brings attention to the "friendly" grenade attacks or anything critical of his precious Stasi titty mommy Merkel. Why do you think this board suddenly cares so much for the AfD these past 6 or so months? Almost no-one does, it's just him carefully bumping his threads to create and then maintain a false consensus. He knows every single trick to draw attention to his threads, bury others, and crucially, keep his alive for sometimes even months after the last natural posts dry up. All so the D&C can flow freely and gradually crack Zig Forums from within.

There was a point (which there arguably still is) where you could detect his fuckery from vocabulary and images/infographics alone. Shit like "anglokike", "eternal anglo", and "pooland". No-one on Zig Forums uses these terms unironically, except for him. And for some reason he gets a pass for it. Before the entire Zig Forums moderation team was ousted, I even got banned a couple of times calling his pathetic ass out.

Even here you can tell it's him; "Britisher" is a Germanism that doesn't exist in English. He's either a yid LARPing so hard as a German that he's almost forgot his JIDF teachings, or worryingly, an actual German that has bought so much into the E-Jew Agenda he genuinely feels the Jewish Empire spreading Cultural Marxism to the entirety of Europe by destroying their historic currencies and softly trampling their borders is in actuality the rise of the Fourth/return of the Third Reich.

He will not listen to reason. He will just insult you while he spends his life backseat moderating Zig Forums and holding bloodthirsty grudges over populations that have close to zero direct connections with the atrocities of the past, in exactly the same way these "white guilt" cucks work.

For future reference:
Do not speak to the Angloposter.
Sage Angloposter threads.
Hide Angloposter threads.
That is all.

Colonialism is a good thing fuck you marxist.

That's what I don't get. Like non-whites should care for their own while Whites should care for their own.

Again that just depends what kind of colonialism.
Taking land for ourselves even if it means pushing natives away? That's fine.
Putting effort into civilizing savages in the name of some lofty glorious ideals of ruling all peoples of the world? No, fuck that shit.

But if you keep pushing the natives farther away time and time again, conflict does ensue.

That's their problem. As long as it doesn't involve some shitty Conquistador mentality.

I guess nationalism for races doesn't work out in the long run. I love my own race, I just choose not to hate on others.

Nationalism for races DOES work. amerimutts are just dragging other European people down with their insecurity about their mutt blood.
amerimutts are the hollywood gnatzee larpers.

Attached: mutts and commies.png (500x500 89.5 KB, 305.75K)

Yes, colonialism is silly.
You should just wipe out the primitives and recolonize with Whites.

Thats the American way.

Hi, ban evading paid shill.

London is the birthplace of world jewry. The British empire was the first attempt at money-based semitic world domination. The US was the kikes leaving the monarchy behind altogether
The extend to which a monarchy can abuse power pales in comparison to how jewish-finance can. Anywhere you find elements of egalitarianism and parliamentarianism you find the jew. The only real form of government is a well-bred aristocracy.

I might be able to take the hoard of poo's here seriously if they had any solutions to their own problems other than blaming the brits for trying to civilize them.

Attached: original_swamp_beasts.png (650x366, 228.46K)

Eat shit, mutt.
The "ban" was less than 3 days. Because it is historcal fact, and imkikey doesnt have full control anymore.

Attached: Historical facts triggered nupol.png (1366x1487, 427.75K)

Its not about hate, necessarily, its about survival… Albeit, hatred tends to dervive from such contexts - you don't start out hating someone, you grow to hate them as the consequence of seeing them as a threat to your continued survival and/or prosperty.

Imagine yourself back in the context of nature.
Imagine you kill a deer, and a wolf or a bear or a cougar shows up.
Do you hate the animal? Does the animal hate you?
I would think 'no', in each case, at least not initially - granted, enough cultural exposure to such creatures, in a naturalistic setting, and you're probably going to start hating wolves, bears and/or cougars, because you recognize - as they see in you - the potential risk to your survival, your conflict over the resources needed to survive.

Does the general absence of emotional emnity towards one another result in the general absence of hostilities derived from desire - nay, NEED - for that food source, on behalf of yourself and the animal?
Of course not. Its not about hatred, its about survival.

Its works just fine, the flaw is in your assumption that it 'working out' equates to everyone getting to have their little nation and be left alone, even if they are IQ 67 savages that practice rape and cannibalism living on the largest deposits of rare-earth elements on the planet. And that's just not going to happen. Ever.
Nationalists would like it if something like that could happen, and in theory, transit into space would open things up a bit… But realistically speaking, who is going to be able to do such things? Who can make use of the rare-earth elements?
Basically, European Whites and East Asians.
So, barring MASSIVELY INTRUSIVE eugenics programs, these other peoples are not going to achieve such a state anytime soon as to be able to do these things… So what are they, at that scale? Dependents.

Conflict ensures no matter what. Conflict will always ensue.
Conflict is the mechanism via which we threaten one anothers' existence, one anothers' survival. Our aim should be to minimize such conflicts where able, but in many cases, there is no real capacity for such limitation.
Life is a struggle, a competition, a contest.
Not everyone can win.

You wanna win, or you wanna lose? If my choices are to win or to lose, with no other information about the contest or its participants, generally speaking, I'm gonna wanna win.

A strawman. Why choose jews? You're pretending that its jews alone who utilize this tactic - its not. The jews have become skilled at it, it is their preferred mechanism for dealing with ANYONE or ANYTHING that inhibits them in ANY WAY…. But its not their tactic alone.

When you kill your enemies, you win.
That's been a tactic going back to the Pleistocene man, if not further, because it works.
A dead enemy can't threaten your survival any further, its just that simple.

I wonder what will happen next.

We are still above 50%,(around 55% currently) at least until the great boomer die off which will be happening shortly.

Back from your break, huh? I remember you got BTFO in the "American Blacks are based and you should ally with them" thread a couple months ago"

Whites can survive on their own.

Unlike the kikes we're pretty open about wanting to reduce and/or exterminate lesser extant human races.

If it wasn't for colonialism, the americas and the australias would still only be populated by native savages. Colonialism was about spreading the ideals and wisdom of a superior race upon the third world savage, and if they were incapable of submission genocide was to follow (as in the case of the red indian and the abo). It was the British lebensraum.

The fact that kikes subverted the ideal and became financially rich in the background is beside the point; kikes will subvert any system they possibly can if they are allowed access.

Actually, Frankfurt is the birthplace of world jewry, which makes sense when you consider the vast majority of jews in Europe lived in the east. From there, banker families spread to Paris, then London and finally New York.

Oh boy this will be interesting.
Good grief, where do I start?
No, Europe's Geo-Political structure causes infighting. Colonialism just takes it to a global scale.
WW1 was instigated with a political assassination in Austria-Hungary, a nation that had no large colonies.
WW2 Germany did not invade Poland because of "Polish Colonialism". Germany invaded Poland because Poland was killing off ethnic Germans.
Jewry doesn't fucking matter in Colonialism.
Jews have been doing sneaky shit to European economies long before the Naval Routes to India and the Americas were discovered.
Actually, that is the definition of Colonialism autismo.
It is a Nation state funding the conquest of foreign territories so that it can supplement supply constraints in the home nation.

China has been doing soft colonialism in Africa for a long time now, and as the US backs away from world trade, Europe will have to re-engage with colonialism as well if it's import markets are to remain secure. Basically everyone except the US will have to engage with colonialism this century since the US doesn't care about world trade anymore. The US navy won't be securing maritime trade anymore, so countries will need to build there own navies to grantee access to foreign oil or food stuffs. AKA Colonialism 2: Electric Boogaloo

Don't forget Vienna and Naples as well. The Rothschild family set up in England in 1798, at this point the British Empire was already in full swing with colonies established in North America, Australia, Africa, India and Asia. In 1799 the East India Company would step up their game and start to fund armies. Was it a coincidence that the year after the Rothschild family gained a foothold in Britain, that a Merchant group would suddenly have the funding to form a military contingent capable of conquering the entirety of India? Somehow I doubt it.

Anyway after this point you have all the atrocities that the so-called 'British Empire' did. In reality it was the East India Group, Cecil Rhodes and his jewish cohorts, and the jewish David Sassoon who would respectively commit horrors in India, abuse the Boer in Africa and enslave the Chinese to opium, and go on to brutally kill Chinamen for simply trying to save their brothers. The Monarchy at this point was kiked; the Americans hated the deviant German George I, and despite her good reputation; the Kraut whore Victoria would also send loyal sons of Britain to fight and die just so a kike could maintain his drug empire in Asia.

The jews did not have full control of Britain though. Parliament is to this very day still not 100% kiked, though it is pretty bad. For all the ills of democracy it does make it very difficult to silence ALL opposition; and there have been Britons campaigning to make the world a better place for an awful long time. Some no-good kike-collaborators too of course, but it's foolish to completely disregard one faction over the other.

The political landscape in ALL of Europe was the same at this time. The unification of Germany itself required collaboration with an awful lot of yids. The point to remember is that before jews became involved in any meaningful way; the British had already staked a claim on near every continent on the planet. Imperialism need not be connected to jewry or globalism, and indeed was not for a long time. And whilst somewhat true that making money was a strong motivator for colonialism; it is entirely wrong to think it was JUST about that. There was a very powerful and well-funded missionary aspect to a lot of the colonial endeavours; in fact most colonies would only be set up after missionaries from the various European powers had gone out to spread the word of God. There was also a very genuine, even if a little naive, belief in the idea of 'the white man's burden'. With great wealth and power comes a desire to help one's fellow man; you can see this in how many middle class families give to charity and organise events. Sure some are kikes who just want the prestige, but having grown up in a Christian community I think it would be idiotic to denounce the charity-work of all the people that I knew as a mere desire for recognition; there were many good people, and I've no doubt that such caring white people exist all throughout Europe, America and Australia. Naive and perhaps even stupid, but their hearts are a in a compassionate place and they genuinely wanted to help; so I find it easy to believe that such noble motivations would also be found in the hearts of many of the Imperialists.

I hope you're right and that I'm just blind. Regardless I think it is still right to address the arguments when they rear their head; 8/pol/ is now big enough that simply ignoring the opposition is not wholly effective; there are often new people from plebbit or 4chan, and even commies seeking to spy on us; and these people could profit from having answers instead of us simply ignoring the fools.

Good one bud

Actually the East India Company had been raising armies and fighting wars since the 1740's, as all of the colonial powers fought amongst themselves to exploit and gain control of India. And don't forget the Rothschilds always funded both sides of every war - to them it didn't matter who won, as they won either way.

I don't think you understand much about the Opium Wars, either. Kikes profited as kikes always do from commerce, but Britain was atually very reluctant to send an army to conquer China, with the vote only just passing in Parliament. Britain accepted the Chinese demand to end the Opium trade, but they wanted compensation for the goods that had been seized and destroyed by the Chinese. The Chinese refused, as well as forcefully evicting all westerners from China, and it was typical Chinese belligerence that led to the outbreak of war. Exactly the same thing happened with America and Japan 10 years later; except Japan was smart enough to learn from the Chinese example. Also it was suspected the Qing moral concern for its citizens was a highly dubious one, and they were only aggrieved because they had lost the huge trade surplus they previously enjoyed with the West as the chinks loved opium so damn much.

With marginal success. At that point in time India was split between many powers. Something changed, and do also remember that India is HUGE. Our maps do not do justice to just how big of an undertaking this was, or how much money must have been involved. With all of that said I have no proof, just speculation so feel free to dismiss it.

The entirety of the opium trade was owned by the Sassoon family, a jewish family, who gained exclusive rights to the trade of opium in Asia by the appointment of the (((government))). Sassoon would go on to pay both the kraut whore and certain members of parliament to keep his position of dominance, and would be the agitator giving bribes to ensure that the British went to war several times so that he could hold his position as 'Rothschild of the East'. According to the 1944 Jewish Encyclopedia: "He employed only jews in his business…" Everything to do with opium was to do, first and foremost, with the profits of the jews.

My point really is that most of the bad things that Imperial nations are accused of were actually done by a very small number of jews, and where things got worse it was due to the direct funding and sponsoring by these same jews. Not all Europeans are innocent, plenty of traitors should be executed; but you can have Imperialism without jews, and when you do have that it seems to be a far more beneficial thing than leaving the subhumans to their own devices.

We are unrecognisable from a moral perspective today, but the truth is that a long way back we are related. Genetics proves this to be the case. The Biblical account that all the white people came from Adam and Noah also would indicate this, with Noah's son Shem becoming the father of the people who would inhabit Babylon (and from Ur, in Babylon, Abraham would go on to eventually inhabit Palestine and all the lands that we today consider 'Semitic' - of Shem). Egypt was of Ham's descendants, and Greece was of Japheth's descendants; all were brothers, and all were Caucasians (coming literally from the Caucasian mountains; Mount Ararat being one of them and being the place where Noah's ark landed).

As vile and evil as the jews are, they are related to us. That's probably why they have been so successful in their despicable schemes.

Jesus christ, not this stupid Christian identity shit again.

Again, post your genetical proof.

I'll let an user better versed in genetics give you the nitty-gritty, but it's commonly accepted that there are/were Caucasians living in North Africa and the Middle/Nearer-East. If you've heard otherwise please share the information as I would be very interested, but other than jews hating us and saying that they aren't 'white'; there is no evidence that they are actually something else (though many of them are mixed race at this point). An obvious evidence of Caucasians inhabiting North Africa and the Near/Middle East is the fact that there are still some 'pure whites' living in these regions who were presumably the original people, before they were overrun with the Arabs (Arab literally means 'mixed' or 'to mix'; they muddied their race by mixing with the negroes of Africa, and then would violently rape and defile the Cucasians in North Africa and the Nearer/Middle East; just as they attempted to defile our people in Europe until they were stopped).

Jews controlled around half of the opium trade, not all of it. I imagine similar numbers would be found in many trades, particularly the dirty ones such as slavery. Regardless, the Opium Wars were not started by this Sassoon Jew. The second Opium War was kickstarted by an impertinent Chinese official who seized a British ship, and I already explained the background around the first.

The point I am making is that causation does not imply correlation in regards to colonialism and jewry. Jews will exploit any system, be it Capitalism, Communism, Feudalism or whatever else given half a chance. It's why they have been expelled time and time again throughout history from countries.

Colonialism is merely the natural volition of a race to subjugate weaker ones when in a position of power. We can see the opposite in effect now as whites have become weak and divided. And yes, Jews are profiteering from it more than ever.

Again, I ask for actual genetics proof, not your speculation.

Arabs and the jews are the very same kind actually, what "white" you find in the Middle east are remnant of christian crusaders and greek from Alexander the Great conquest.

If it was disputed I might be more inclined to dig into the haplogroups, but it's not.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race

Do you want me to find you some pictures of white-skinned people living in Syria, Egypt and Iraq as further evidence that these 'Caucasians' were 'white'?

Again, this is the misnomer because back then people thought the european origin was in mount Caucasus, never mind that all kind of semite, central asian also originate from there.

Man:

You can find actual white in fucking Africa too, as remnant of colonizer.

It doesn't matter what his race is. What matters is any objective facts he presents.

Which I'm asking for, the genetic proof that jews are related to white.

I misunderstood you, sorry.

So if you do not believe the accounts of the ancient Greeks, Romans, etc. regarding the descriptions of the peoples inhabiting Egypt, Palestine, Persia, etc.; why do you believe the accounts of the Franks and Arabs regarding the Crusades? And you are aware that it is not just a 'few' people in Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan/Syria/Palestine/Egypt/Morroco/India/etc who clearly have a significant amount of 'white' mixed into them, right? Using historical accounts and some logic, it would appear that these people were mostly white before they were muddied by successive invasions of non-whites.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_IJ

There's your genetic evidence.

I believe all of them, except the times in Frank are the most recent, and makes the most sense of why there are still "pure whites" there.
Again, I would say so. In fact, please provide statistics on how big the "white" population in those countries are compared to the arabs.
Which again requires genetic proof.

Both of the primary branches of haplogroup IJ – I-M170 and J-M304 – are found among modern populations of the Caucasus, Anatolia, and Southwest Asia. This tends to suggest that Haplogroup IJ branched from IJK in West Asia and/or the Middle East.
Thus that Hapologroup is the semitic/turkic gene, and not the aryan ones, since it weakens in you know, Europe.

Kek.

Seems to me that you're just wrong though.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I-M253#Britain

So I1 and I2 seem to account for most of Europe today. J is Middle-East, Persia, and North Africa. All come from IJ.

… I think its fair to ask for you to give me some evidence for your ideas now. I'm open to new information but everything I've heard and read seems to indicate that whites, distantly related to Europeans today, inhabited North Africa and West Asia before they were largely mixed or displaced by Arabs who themselves had mixed with what we might call Sub-Saharan Africans - which darkened them somewhat.

How am I wrong?
You are quoting Haplogroup I-M253, when we were talking about haplogroup IJ.

Earlier research into Y-DNA had instead focused on haplogroup R1 (M173): the most populous lineage among living European males; R1 was also believed to have emerged ~ 40,000 BP in Central Asia.[27][28] However, it is now estimated that R1 emerged substantially more recently: a 2008 study dated the most recent common ancestor of haplogroup IJ to 38,500 and haplogroup R1 to 18,000 BP. This suggested that haplogroup IJ colonists formed the first wave and haplogroup R1 arrived much later.[29]

In short, modern european actually come from West Asia, and they migrate to Europe a long ass time ago before the arabs start colonizing the Middle east i.e. 40000 year ago.

I and J are related and come from the earlier IJ. Therefore Europeans are related to what might be termed 'Semites'. That's how you are wrong. The Arabs were renowned as bandits and named 'Mixed' by the Hebrews/Phoenicians, and considering we know there are 'blacks' nearby it makes sense that they would have mixed with them - creating the darker mixed race people we now know as the Arabs (although yes, they were originally 'just' Semites). The Arabs would then defile all of North Africa and West Asia after 700AD. Turks would come later.

I wrote a blog post on the aryans. It is also my first blog post in this new blog I started - sptrp.home.blog/2018/10/11/who-are-the-aryans/