I don't understand why so many of you here throw fits over ethnic churches. I'm a Serb born to Serb parents...

Ok, but why is it wrong to speak English AND your native tongue within your own towns?

The concept of white as a unifying thing where everyone from Europe should blanda up is wrong. It's an American thing.

Did you miss my part addressing that?

Nice meme.

Except I never advocated that. You seem to be missing my entire point.

Agreed, the only issue comes when there's a refusal to speak english, but not speaking it at home handicaps your children
Europeans have never had a problem with this, but right now a majority of homes in the largest US cities speak ZERO english at home

What does blanda up mean?
We don't want NWO unity among Europeans, we just want only racial whites in our white nation

What was written into law in 1790 has been changed dramatically. Stop clinging to the past.

Wow ur right, that's why i don't care about baby murder anymore since roe v wade

Then I guess you won't mind if we elected Obama as king for life since it was an amendment that changed term limits. If we're, you know, throwing out amendments.

bruh….
But what is white then? Do you realize that not all whites are the same?
But I already know what are you gonna say

White means european. That's always what it meant
of course not all whites are the same

Are you being deliberately obtuse?
The point is that laws can be good or bad, and considering that every southern state but Tennessee needed MILITARY FORCE to enact the 14th amendment, that one was bad

Countries ought to have racial homogeneity, and babies ought not to be murdered

I don't think this is true. My parents spoke zero English at home and I'd say I turned out fine. I believe most European-Americans made a serious mistake when they discarded their old languages.

I doubt this is true. There might be a lot, but no way it's a majority.

What are the borders of Europe from your point of view? There are plenty of Europeans most Zig Forumssters would shun.

Why mix whites then? What's the point? To get rid of their old world identity and turn them into a new one? Why not retain the old world cultures, languages, and traditions while embracing a new identity at the same time? It seems that most immigrants who settled here just gave up on their history and decided to blend in for convenience. This led to the original Anglo descendants mixing with them and creating the crisis of identity and muh heritage memes we see today.

Are you intending to argue that because dispute among the classification of white exists, the concept of white is flawed?
Here, show me where blue starts and ends

I agree that it's negative to abandon tradition. I'm not advocating it. It's too bad that many americans have no care for their ancestry.

Attached: color spectrum.jpeg (1282x867, 55.7K)

Oh no, I'm not saying it doesn't exist. It's just a topic that has a lot of debate associated with it, and for good reason. The boundaries are hazy.

...

Sure, but their definition of "white" is not the definition of white used today, nor is it the definition used by most people like white nationalists. It is simply an anachronism to project the early Americans as wanting all of what we now consider white people coming through to America. Sage for WN retardation

So, you agree that white people should go back to where their white nation was appointed? What are you doing to make this happen? And, wait, which is the "white nation" again?

That's not what an anachronism is
The burden is on you to find a difference in the public consensus of "white" today and the lawmakers of 1790

The nation is the people. If whites moved in to North America and tried to join indian society, you would have a point. Instead, Indians in the US have entire regions for their quasi self-governance

I know it's hard to break 14 years of public school conditioning, try praying about it
All of Europe are the white nations. Provide for me your alternative reading of Acts 17:26

I feel you, OP. It’s a shame that ethnic communities were broken up by WASP elites in the 20th century. Don’t feel bad about defending your ethnicity’s Christianity. Just remember, everything in moderation. (That’s an American saying if you haven’t heard it.)

m.youtube.com/watch?v=zTrBXSwwsdI

It's laughable and pompous that you think that you are an exception to the general trend that has affected MILLIONS of people. Perhaps your native tongue will be passed on a few generations or more, but it will eventually slip away. You are no exception, get over yourself.

You can look to the America's own history and the Balkans as to why ethnic chauvinism is generally frowned upon in America.

If you and your family wish to preserve Serbian culture, then go back to Serbia, or bring something new to the American consciousness from your own culture, that's been the way.

American immigrants don't need your pity, they knew exactly what they were giving up to leave behind their homeland in search of something that America had to offer, unlike you.

In summary, Americans don't owe you a thing you arrogant, smug, elitist faggot and you making demands on other people appears petty and ungrateful. winnie the pooh off.

Yes, you are projecting your current view of White back onto the past of America, when they did not have the same definition of White. Anglo-Saxons clearly did not think that Irish were of the same stock as other Whites. This should be common knowledge by now.
Irish were literally called "tiggers turned inside out" and blacks were called "smoked Irish" as well. It was well-known that Irish even referred to themselves as a "race" set apart from other white ethnicities in both Britain and America. Look at books like "Comparative Physiognomy: or, Resemblances Between Men and Animals" to see an example of the different attitude towards Irish, who are identified physiognomically with dogs whereas Anglo-Saxons were identified with Lions. The argument that Irish were only treated differently because they were poor also fails as only 10% of Irish immigrants were laborers, whereas as much as 25% were artisans, according to immigration records.
To be fair, many non-English European racial scientists of the time did see Irish as White, however, they did not see other ethnicities you've said in this thread are White (going off the boundaries of Europe) as being so, such as Finns, Hungarians, and Estonians.
You simply assume that Whites are considered the same thing we are now, which is a ridiculous assumption to make, and you didn't provide any evidence of it. My point in saying all of this is that the boundaries you've defined as White now are not what they have always been. Your definition of White as being all Europeans is false.
Let us look at the original Greek text, or more specifically, the important part:

Attached: Meyers_b11_s0476a.jpg (640x391 487.09 KB, 77.21K)

Good post.

Awful post. Don't try to stuff words into my mouth. You think ethnic conservation is automatic chauvinism, but it's not. There are Amish communities here that speak German and they seem to be doing very well. Trying to say I'm being pompous because I don't want to discard my family history in exchange for convenience is laughable. What does the modern American consciousness offer that would lead me to do such a thing? All I see here is the loss of history in exchange for an economic dream. I'll keep my family intact and participate in the market when necessary, sir. I do wonder why you are very upset. Keep on kvetching I guess.

Which concordance do you use?

literally a "we wuz kangs" tier argument
They were obviously viewed as white since they were allowed to immigrate under a "whites only" policy
Physiognomy is a 19th century pseudoscience and not relevant to US founder's legal definitions of the races

This isn't even an argument, just mere assertion
You have still not provided the alternative view of what should be considered white, or adequately demonstrated that our view is different from the founders'

That was the point of including the text of the 1790 naturalization act (71 years before the civil war)
The meme about comparative value of the races is unironically a jewish D&C tactic against the whites

It sounds like your idea is to use a smaller group than "the white race" as the basis for forming a nation, and that's a fair idea, but the term "ethnicity" is not the right term

Attached: εθνος.png (1108x730, 118.79K)

More like economic nightmare

This is why Eastern Orthodoxy will always requite its converts (are there even any?) to LARP as members of Slavic cultures.

I'm a Pole, but when I go abroad to visit family we attend the Holy Mass in the local language. This is the true universal Church for all men that Christ founded. This is why the Church is exploding in terms membership.

Attached: churchpop.PNG (1715x908, 91.4K)

It looks like you didn't even read your own document. The Naturalization Act of 1790 allowed "free white men" to be naturalized, that is, become citizens, not immigrate.
Do you have a single fact to back that up
You didn't address my proof from racial scientists in the 19th century who identified Hungarians, Finns, Estonians, etc. as nonwhite
Even if we grant everything you say and assume the Founders had the same definition of White as us, which the onus is actually on YOU to prove, because YOUR argument began and simply assumed it without ANY evidence whatsoever, it would not matter for my argument. Again, let's say they were White, they were still not treated the same; what do you think the whole "White ethnic" term was used for? They were certainly seen as white after the Civil War, but they were not afforded the same equality as WASPs.
Let me talk about your point on ethnos
Liddell & Scott Greek-English Lexicon identifies ethnos not with race but with tribes/ethnicities.
Every other Greek-English lexicon and dictionary I've found does not identify it with race, except for one, and that's Strong's lexicon, which says the term can refer to a race. Furthermore, many Greek writers use the term ethnos, including people like Aristotle and Thucydides, but they never use it to refer to a pan-White race but rather a tribe. Ask any Greek historian about the meaning of the word and he can tell you.
I'm not going to bother arguing any more about whignat BS because you simply throw things out as "D&C shilling" without any evidence or citations of your own to back it up. Read the Fathers of the Church and see what they identified ethnos as, they never once refer to it as being race but as being tribes, I would strongly encourage you to take their teaching into account, as it is the ancient tradition of the Church. God bless

What are you even trying to say? Orthodox churches use many different languages depending on where they are. Stop being a zealot and converse in good faith.

Nothing will convince me to join a liberal church filled with sodomite pedo priests.

Immigration is permanent resettling
Immigrants who couldn't become naturalized were deported
See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bhagat_Singh_Thind
The terms we use now are "immigration and naturalization"

The book you referenced was from 1852

The US had a white only policy, several times restated (1802, 1906), that was only explicitly reversed in 1965 under the lie sold to the public that the new policy would not upset the racial demographics of the US
Do you have a dad who was alive in 1965? compare his idea of "white" with yours

more specified categorization under the umbrella "white", pejorative or not

I'm not advocating for the exclusive use of εθνος to mean the broad racial categories

So, you accept that it's perfectly reasonable for a people to move into a nation and take it over. I'll keep that in mind next time you're whining about the Islamization of Sweden and the UK.

I know I know … you'll next say, "It's ok when white people do it!"

No borders, no nation. There may have been injustices by whites against indians in the many wars between them, but the colonization of America was not a sinful exercise

But wait … you said:

Which is it?

When you said "move into a nation" we were speaking geographically, just like the local church is both the people and the place

Winnie the Pooh you, bud. I'll speak my people's tongue at home and around town all I want.

Attached: 1234567847362.jpg (500x552, 76.49K)

I believe that originally many of the Orthodox who came to America considered their churches missions and were open to spread Orthodoxy, the ethnic club situation is partly to blame for the cold war and America's russophobia, I don't blame your guys communities for being cautious of the outside world, because Americanism has become a satanic force. Orthodoxy still needs to continue to evangelize and step outside their own bubble, which includes speaking the native tongue of the country you now belong too, because even your own homelands were once strangers brought into Christ's fold.

See, my problem is I'm from Texas. By modern standards, that makes me American, but there was a brief time when Texas was a Confederate State and before that it was its own Republic. My family was in Texas before it was a Republic, when it was part of Mexico. So, am I Mexican? But wait! Before it was Mexico, it was owned by Spain since all the way back in the 1530s. Prior to that it was a confederated treaty between the Caddo and Comanche called "Tejas".

So, I don't understand. If I have to "go back", do I have to go back all the way to my ancient ancestors in Denmark? Or do we go more recent and I have to go to Spain or Mexico? This whole "nation" thing is awfully confusing.

It's not so much about where you're born, it's about who you're born to.
The true borders of nations are its people, and if a group of said people go somewhere else and experience a cultural shift, they become a new nation in their own right (e.g., Americans from Anglos, Brazilians from Portuguese, Quebecois from French, etc.).

Truly an incredible amount of faggotry your spewing at op simply because he wants to preserve some of his heritage.

There is very little "American" Identity to go around user. People here try define themselves by their favorite tv show, what top 40 song they like and there state NFL team. Every cultural aspect here is provided by a corporation. Its fake, and a its something to be sold. Very little of it actually springs up from within real communities. But when it does, its usually religious. And your first instinct is to stamp it out out because it offends your Boomer Ideals of what it means to be American.

Guess what, the "melting pot" is a false premise. This entire country is testament to the failure of multiculturalism. Most people want to feel connected to their history and their people. This is why OP triggers you so much. You have no link to your past and you think he should have to endure a similar existence.

Attached: hh35.jpg (900x609, 87.6K)

The problem is that the culture has been manufactured by satanic Hollywood Jews. There's no reason why an organic culture couldn't be established between Christians, german or serb descent. We can either run away into little bubbles or take control of the country we all share, protestantism and catholicism are both dying, Orthodoxy is the foundation we all need

wrong
you absolutely did not have a Dane ancestor in the Texas territory from before the RoT

The area was almost entirely uninhabited, but claimed by spain. Spain allowed the Austin family to lead the old 300, and when they began Mexico declared independence so they were settling Mexican land. White settlement grew, we warred for independence, became a nation with the express intent of joining the US, then joined the US
you also left out France in your timeline

The point is that the land rightfully belongs to the whites who settled it

The indians did NOT govern the area, that treaty was arranged by Texians. The Caddo do have a legitimate claim to land though since they were the only non-nomadic tribe

I agree that the cultural creators are explicitly satanic, and that destroys any real chance of moral consistency that could unite the different racial groups. It really does look like we are going to slowly balkanize though. If the country only consisted of euro-slavs I think peaceful co-existance could be achieved, maybe even some form of real integration. But were way beyond that point now. Too many groups competing for dominance. Mexicans will soon be the racial majority due to birth rates, and all bets are off after that for the future of the country. I dont think I've ever met an Orthodox mexican.

There are still the disenfranchised wasp and catholic American's that do convert to Orthodoxy, it's not in mass, but it's happening especially thanks to Antiochian and OCA parishes. An American Orthodoxy that doesn't compromise is the future of Orthodoxy in this country, and the coming balkanization of America is a greater reason why Orthodox Christians need to stick together whether greek, russian, or anglo

It's obvious I'm not talking about German, French or Irish cultures here, anyway.