Margaret Pless / idlediletante / Stan - Official Kiwi Farms Advertiser and Enthusiast Who Has Proudly Eaten Ass. Now Posting Her Tits to Own the Troons!

Absolutely horrifying.
But we have a thread for slapfights on this issue.
As long as I'm accurate in what I state, all should be fine. You're OK with some imperialism, I just hate all of it, the closer it is to me, the more dangerous, you know the mantrađŸ„°
It's more for Marge's benefit who really is ignorant of the wider world outside her upstate liberal bubble.
 
That's just not true.
Americans like you are deeply, deeply confused about ideology and politics. You think that wealth spreading and nationalizing are some extreme left positions, and that the far right is fiscally conservative. You think that people that argue for Freedom and Liberty, like freedom of association and speech are often far right. You think collectivism is far left.
Do I try to tell you what you think or believe? I don't think I do. Caveat: I can't say 100% I never have, because I have made 2500 comments, and no doubt I've made a sweeping characterization somewhere among them. But in general, no, I do not (see, e.g., the comment you replied to).

I try to keep to what people actually say.

Why do I do that? Fairness, and a dislike of strawmen or imagined bogeymen. Also a fair helping of general human respect and an interest in hearing what people have to say.

Also because leaping to weird and rude conclusions that have no basis in reality, nor any reason for them, looks stupid.

This comment is an example. Not sure why you think I don't understand nuance or situational and ideological interplay, nor how you leapt from my comments about very specific people (some of whom I have personal knowledge of, and others only from reputation or a brief review of their voiced opinions (infrequent) and cause-support (more frequent)). I suppose I could have added 40 disclaimers (which I have been known to do) to saying "none" of the specific men I was answering your question about are liberal, but tbh I didn't think it needed to be said that no, I do not inhabit these men's heads. Yet I can make reasonable deductions. And you came with "oh, they're all Jewish/liberals," which is not the case.

I hardly think I am the poster most in need of critique for being short-handed. Half of my comments have footnotes, ffs. And if your definitions of terms bear no relation to the larger discussion's, then it's on you to explain your understanding/usage.

As for left and right/conservative and liberal: I am not some rube who has no awareness of either history or many parts of the world other than the part I currently live in. I might even have spent some serious time on both.

But do you really think it's a radical mental shakeup to consider that nationalization can (and has) come from both a left and right perspective? Or that (lol) freedom and liberty (in both their classical and common senses) can be vaunted by both right- and left-leaning people? Come on, now.

For most people its really about being fair. Even the vast majority of right wingers (save the far right, or like backwoods hicks) just want the system to be merit based instead of affirmative action trash where certain applicants are not held to the same standards of others. It just makes people resentful and doubt the whole system. Controlling for the invisible variable of systematized oppression (or past oppression) isn't helping anyone, and its not going to lead anywhere good.
I support merit (iirc, I said so), and as I noted, I am concerned about some of the same things you allude to. But let us not kid ourselves that it has ever been fully about merit. Incompetent managers and employees existed long before women entered the workforce. And plenty of very, even exceptionally, qualified people have missed out on jobs and opportunities purely because they were not men, or not white, or whatever. I'm not comfortable with quotas or some mental slavery to achieving precise "representation" based on qualities unrelated to aptitude and performance. Of course, I can suggest or say that directly and some will still assume the opposite.

As I said before, I'm sympathetic to the experience of being marginalized or the fear of not getting something at least theoretically worked for. And I appreciate discussion about it. I don't, though, think people raging and pingponging to stupid extremes (or refusing to recognize the irony of absolute shaking rage over being on the wrong end of the stick after so long enjoying the more comfortable end) is helpful, either to themselves or to the general state of things.

The sense of implied superiority and petulant entitlement is wrong. In a merit-based scheme, you don't get to 100% rest on the laurels of your ancestors and genetic compatriots. One wonders whether if those groups with historical power had been more reasonable about how they wielded it there might be a softer ricochet**. Or whether there would be less reason for "concern" about supposedly unqualified people performing jobs if opportunities for growth, improvement, worthy value reinforcement, education, advancement, and wealth-building hadn't been deliberately hoarded. We'll never know, though, because they didn't do that.

**and this ricochet is a lot less brutal than many. But I can appreciate that maybe a slow shift embedded in institutions and ethos is more dangerous than a quick and brutal decapitation, which often tend to have quick reversals.

And ftr, my comments to you and (most) others are musing and discussion, not attacks or polarized fuck-yous.

You don’t need to coddle them. They’re malingering.
đŸ€

Ps I hope you didn’t take that personally, I’m trying to illustrate a point. Not actually trying to plebshame you.
I'm going to take a wild stab and guess you got some heavy breathing responses despite your pointing out what should be clear. [...yep]

Ok, so you concede the points.
On the second, yes, I have fully empathized with individuals' actual, experienced discrimination on the basis on non-merit-related attributes.

On the first, no; I was registering appreciation of the cleverness of pulling in an incel talking point. [And let me over-explain that comment: I am not saying I think you are an incel, that you actually hold those hyperbolic views, or that you were in any way of which I'm aware meaning the comment literally. If you were, then alrighty. Compliment will be (regrettably, if true) retracted if I mistook you for rational or humorously shit posting.]

if current outcomes are any indication, exclusion was never an injustice.
Again, if you mean this unironically, stoopid.

Why? They were already expected to fight for their government, why shouldn't they have a say in that government? Which is completely different than women's equality (without actual equality) reasons for equal voting.
OK, go back to school, son.

It is actually. Failure to register for selective service (the draft) is a felony crime and can result in disenfranchisement if convicted.
Christ almighty. 1) dumb, and 2) take a gander at the direction voting rights for felons has been going the last 25 years.

The states got to set the requirements for voting and could qualify or disqualify as they saw fit.
And now they can't. Do your teachers find you exasperating?

And buy a dictionary.

you Euromutts have genetics mixed like a meatball blend (pork, veal & beef ground together) why shouldn’t all of you just embrace one National identity?
There are apparently discernable distinctions, and til that Romania/ Romanians appear to have been analyzed and diced pretty finely, genetics-wise:
Three theories account for the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people. One, known as the Daco-Roman continuity theory, posits that they are descendants of Romans and Romanized indigenous peoples (Dacians) living in the Roman Province of Dacia, while the other posits that the Romanians are descendants of Romans and Romanized indigenous populations of the former Roman provinces of Illyricum, Moesia, Thracia, and Macedonia, and the ancestors of Romanians later migrated from these Roman provinces south of the Danube into the area which they inhabit today. The third theory also known as the admigration theory, proposed by Dimitrie Onciul (1856–1923), posits that the formation of the Romanian people occurred in the former "Dacia Traiana" province, and in the central regions of the Balkan Peninsula.[160][161][162] However, the Balkan Vlachs' northward migration ensured that these centers remained in close contact for centuries.[160][163] This theory is a compromise between the immigrationist and the continuity theories.[160]

According to a triple analysis – autosomal, mitochondrial and paternal — of available data from large-scale studies, the whole genome SNP data situates Romanians are most closely related to Bulgarians, Macedonians, followed by other European populations, which form a coherent cluster among worldwide populations.[164]Most West Slavs-East Slavs, Hungarians, and Austrians were found to share as many identical by-descent DNA segments with South Slavs as with Romanians, Torbeshi and Gagauzes.[165] According to 2023 archaeogenetic study autosomal qpAdm modelling, the modern-day Romanians are 55.4% of Central-Eastern European early medieval (mostly Slavic) ancestry, 24.6% of Bulgaria-Early Iron Age like ancestry, 11.4% West Anatolia ancestry and 8.6% Croatia-Serbia Roman-Anatolian like ancestry.[166]

The prevailing Y-chromosome in Wallachia(Ploiești, Dolj), Moldavia (Piatra Neamț, Buhuși), Dobruja (Constanța), and northern Republic of Moldova is recorded to be Haplogroup I.[167][168] Subclades I1and I2 can be found in most present-day European populations, with peaks in some Northern European and Southeastern European countries. Haplogroup I occurs at 32% in Romanians.[169] The frequency of I2a1 (I-P37) in the Balkans today is owed to indigenous European tribes, and was present before the Slavic migrations to Southeastern Europe.[165] A similar result was cited in a study investigating the genetic pool of people from Republic of Moldova, concluded about the representative samples taken for comparison from Romanians from the towns of Piatra-Neamț and Buhuși that "the most common Y haplogroup in this population was I-M423 (40.7%). This is the highest frequency of the I-M423 haplogroup reported so far outside of the northwest Balkans. The next most frequent among Romanian males was haplogroup R-M17* (16.7%), followed by R-M405 (7.4%), E-v13 and R-M412* (both 5.6%)."[170] The I-M423 haplogroup is a subclade of I2a, a haplogroup prosperous in the Starcevo culture and its possible offshoot Cucuteni–Trypillia culture (4800-3000 BCE). The high concentration of I2a1b-L621, the main subclade, is attributed to Bronze Age and Early Iron Age migrations (Dacians, Thracians, Illyrians) and the medieval Slavic migrations.[171]

Procrustes-transformed PCA plot of genetic variation of European populations. (A) Geographic coordinates of 37 populations. (B) Procrustes-transformed PCA plot of genetic variation. The Procrustes analysis is based on the unprojected latitude-longitude coordinates and PC1-PC2 coordinates of 1378 individuals.[172]
According to a Y-chromosome analysis of 335 sampled Romanians, 15% of them belong to R1a.[173] Haplogroup R1a, is a human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroupwhich is distributed in a large region in Eurasia, extending from Scandinavia and Central Europe to southern Siberia and South Asia.[174][175] Haplogroup R1a among Romanians is entirely from the Eastern European variety Z282 and may be a result of Baltic, Thracian or Slavic descent. 12% of the Romanians belong to Haplogroup R1b, the Alpino-Italic branch of R1b is at 2% a lower frequency recorded than other Balkan peoples.[176]The eastern branches of R1b represent 7%, they prevail in parts of Eastern and Central Europe as a result of Ancient Greek colonisation – in parts of Sicily as well.[176][177] Other studies analyzing the haplogroup frequency among Romanians came to similar results.[168]

Delving into the regional differences of Mitochondrial DNA of Romanians, a 2014 study emphasised the different position of North and South Romanian populations (ie inside and outside of the Carpathian range) in terms of mitochondrial haplotype variability. The population within the Carpathian range was found to have haplogroup H at 59.7% frequency, U at 11.3%, K and HV at 3.23% each, and M, X and A at 1.61% each. The South Romanian population also showed the highest frequency in haplogroup H at 47% (lower than in the sample from the North of Romania), haplogroup U showed a noticeable frequency at 17% (higher than in the sample from North Romania), haplogroups HV and K at 10.61% and 7.58%, respectively, while haplogroups M, X and A were absent. Comparing the results to European and international samples, the study proposes a weak differentiated distribution of mitochondrial haplogroups between inner and outer Carpathian population (rather than North-South boundary) based on higher frequency for the haplogroup J and haplogroup K2a in the Southern Romanian sample - considered as markers of the Neolithic expansion in Europe from the Near East, the absence of K2a and the presence of haplogroup M in Northern Romanian sample - with higher frequency in Western and Southern Asia, and the inclusion of both Romanian populations within the range of the European mitochondrial variability, rather than being closer to the Near Eastern populations. The North Romanian sample was also found to be slightly separated from the other samples included in the study.[178]

A 2017 paper concentrated on the Mitochondrial DNA of Romanians, showed how Romania has been "a major crossroads between Asia and Europe" and thus "experienced continuous migration and invasion episodes"; while stating that previous studies show Romanians "exhibit genetic similarity with other Europeans". The paper also mentions how "signals of Asian maternal lineages were observed in all Romanian historical provinces, indicating gene flow along the migration routes through East Asia and Europe, during different time periods, namely, the Upper Paleolithic period and/or, with a likely greater preponderance, the Middle Ages", at low frequency (2.24%). The study analysed 714 samples, representative to the 41 counties of Romania, and grouped them in 4 categories corresponding to historical Romanian provinces: Wallachia, Moldavia, Transylvania, and Dobruja. The majority was classified within 9 Eurasian mitochondrial haplogroups (H, U, K, T, J, HV, V, W, and X), while also finding sequences that belonged to the most frequent Asian haplogroups (haplogroups A, C, D, I - at 2.24% overall frequency, and M and N) and African haplogroup L (two samples in Wallachia and one in Dobruja). The H, V, and X haplogroups were detected at higher frequencies in Transylvania, while the frequency of U and N was lower, with M being absent, interpreted as an indicator of genetic proximity of Transylvania to Central European populations, in contrast to the other three provinces, which showed resemblance to Balkan populations. The Dobrujan samples showed a larger contribution of genes from Southwestern Asia which the authors attributed to a larger Asian influence historically and/or its smaller sample size compared to that of the other populations included.[179]

[yes, the spoilered is wiki, but there are citations]

I don't know how you can post this when your house is paid for by another person.
(boom)

@AgendaPoster After reading your last several comments, I went down a few rabbit holes on [old] Romanian history, both the crossroads aspect and just generally***. Not deep, but enough to...idk, semi-situate on your expressed perspectives. And without commenting on the political aspects, I appreciate anything that prompts a little bit of investigation/ learning.

***not so much the micro-genetics, despite having c&p that bit above; just ran into it at the same time as reading that exchange

Still not a rube with no understanding of the wider world. But I did appreciate a reason to go learn a little something I knew less about this morning.
 
Jane marries Mr. Bingley. Jane is a foil for Lizzie, Jane’s sweetness is needed because it’s that which Lizzie’s hasty judgements damage. If Jane was as independent as Lizzie she’d have bagged Bingley herself, but she can’t because her flaw is her being too timid.
Austen was a keen observer of humans, and there’s a great line from Mr. Bennet which reminds me of the farms, ‘For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbors, and laugh at them in our turn?”
Anyway, I’m off topic

Sorry I get my names in girl books mixed up. Whichever one marries Mr Darcy is the Mary Sue. I feel like she's the progenitor of the strong, independent woman who's strength and independence is what attracts the man of modern romcoms. There's IMO a very strong undercurrent of what Jane Austen thinks men ought to find interesting and imagining that the very best (and richest) man would be incredibly interested in someone who is just like her.

Anyway Marge is fat and I would not have sex with her.
 
Do I try to tell you what you think or believe? I don't think I do. Caveat: I can't say 100% I never have, because I have made 2500 comments, and no doubt I've made a sweeping characterization somewhere among them. But in general, no, I do not (see, e.g., the comment you replied to).
It's not about what you think personally as much as it is about American (mis)understanding of ideology. Also, basically 99% of Americans are unable to shake that post-WW2 winner propaganda off. Both right and left in the US see themselves in opposition to collectivism and accuse each other of being racists as if it's the ultimate evil.
This is just beyond sad.
Even in these forums, a lot of my clashes are with people that would be deemed OMG FAR FUCKING RIGHT CALL THE COPS and yet when specific events happened all the "wow I hate niggers so much I R BASED" facade completely collapses into idiotic, low IQ Trump worship, Israel bootlicking, seething about "communism" and "socialism" like it's 1965 and crying about "groomers" "PEDO!" - "NUH UH YOU IS PEDO!". Almost forgot - "FED! Glowie!"
This is the average understanding of ideology in the US.
Not saying you're not better. But that is the majority of your population, lost, confused, seething against things they don't understand, and ALWAYS subservient to some strong man or religious BS.
If Evola or Stalin were alive they would have a heart attack seeing the state of politics in 2024.
@AgendaPoster After reading your last several comments, I went down a few rabbit holes on [old] Romanian history, both the crossroads aspect and just generally***. Not deep, but enough to...idk, semi-situate on your expressed perspectives. And without commenting on the political aspects, I appreciate anything that prompts a little bit of investigation/ learning.
I noticed.
You might find it easier to get why I despise empires and the multiculturalism they represent when you notice how much suffering, how much blood was shed, how many wars fought, how many peasant uprisings, all for the same goal:
A land for a people, as badly understood as it was back then: "we speak Romanian", and removal of foreigners from it.
You can go down these imperial rabbit holes back to Rome and even Ancient Greece. They all passed through here, and the natives of that era reacted as you could expect. They also were, according to legends basically, as you would expect - far less sophisticated than the invaders, shepherds and simple people of the land, with rudimentary tastes and without the cultural clout of Rome or Greece.
And yet, they still died for this land, without exception.
Now, imagine me, their very, very distant offspring, saying that all their sacrifices were in vain, cause liberalism and human rights, and equality, and hey, the dudes from Central Africa?
JUST LIKE US!
 
Last edited:
On the first, no; I was registering appreciation of the cleverness of pulling in an incel talking point. [And let me over-explain that comment: I am not saying I think you are an incel, that you actually hold those hyperbolic views, or that you were in any way of which I'm aware meaning the comment literally. If you were, then alrighty. Compliment will be (regrettably, if true) retracted if I mistook you for rational or humorously shit posting.]
You were the one who said current discrimination is justified because of a handful of men at the top. That is literally ignoring 99% of men because of the 1%. And me pointing out this out makes me an incel? Lmao.

Again, if you mean this unironically, stoopid.
She says this in a world where people educated in pro-equality colleges/universities are taught that a man in a dress is a woman and a bit of rolled arm skin is a penis. Imagine thinking such insane, anti-reality, beliefs have no effects on performance both in universities and the outside world.

OK, go back to school, son.
No refutation I see.

Christ almighty. 1) dumb, and 2) take a gander at the direction voting rights for felons has been going the last 25 years.
Pointing out the current law is dumb? Ok... Like I don't even know how to respond to that.

As to the second. Current trends say nothing about historical ones. You put forward that voting rights were not dependent on military service, and you have been shown to be wrong.

And now they can't. Do your teachers find you exasperating?
So another example of you conceding the point. Common male voting was awarded on the understanding those men are required by law to fight for their government, not that property requirements violated the constitution.

And buy a dictionary.
For what? It is clear that when the men "made" the decisions about what women would be allowed to do, there were a lot of women standing alongside them, agreeing with them and cheering them on.
 
Last edited:
but it's nice that you recognize me as being of a higher social station than you. That said, I'm spoken for.
You're a cockroach, no better than any other bottom feeder. No one here wants you. As mentioned many times, you are fat and willing to get with any man who needs a quick fix.
 
You could just say that Ireland is supposed to be colonized and its European natives slowly brownified.
I honestly don’t have a position on this. It’s not the kind of thing I’m given to care about either way.
Just say it. It's OK. Even if you don't, people will understand why you refuse to allow them their island in isolation.
?-? If Ireland wanted its isolation why did it join the EU?
BTW they're like 5M, and they can import other Europeans if needed. So they will not die out. And they have enough genetic health.
There are more Irish people living in America today than in Ireland lol
Not sure if that helps or harms your hypothesis that the Irish need conservation in Ireland like some sort of migratory bird.
hatred for natives will be punishable by immediate deportation
Love it when there’s some crime so vague in the penal code that the nation you legally immigrated can bounce you for getting into an argument with a white guy. Does this rule only apply for the foreigners who can’t blend in with the local pops, or in this brave new world can I get deported from Canada for being insufficiently appreciative of the um, “native” Europeans there?
You are deconstructing, cause you cannot ever discuss ethnic nationalism seriously, as it's haram for you and the ideologies you embrace. It's the essence of evil.
No
 I’m trying to understand how this idea is practical outside of say, historical anthropology of Japan and Micronesia.
Ukraine is a bit of a made up country, courtesy of these Soviet politics. Parts of Hungary, Romania etc. were given to it. Ukraine also fought with Russia against Romanian ethnonationalists in Moldova, hence Transnistria.
> you should read more about Ukrainian ethnonationalism
> admits “Ukraine” is a modern constructed ethnicity courtesy of Uncle Stalin

You may want to read on how the Soviets moved millions of people across their large country so they lose their blood&soil belonging.
> blood and soil belonging is unique and special to a given area’s traditional majority ethnicity
 
And me pointing out this out makes me an incel? Lmao.
DUDE. I specifically said you're not, afaik. Damn.

No refutation I see.
Dumb. I already spoonfed you the info. You're out of your depth.

Pointing out the current law is dumb? Ok... Like I don't even know how to respond to that.
That's because you haven't even ventured to find out facts. Clue: The direction is away from permanent revocation of voting rights for felons.

Common male voting was awarded on the understanding those men are required by law to fight for their government, not that property requirements violated the constitution.
180 degrees wrong, as already related.

Come back when you're not an idiot.
 
Bro wut? You must have come from that alternate dimension I was talking about before, the one where I found the Final Solution to the Gender Problem.

I can accept that Null wasn’t actively guntguarding CWC while also believing that the forum’s reaction to learning about Janke was thirsty, swift, and full throttle Kiwi Farms malarkey. I’m also unclear why you thought I needed to add corrections to a 2016 article to account for events that went down years later.
Because that’s what actual journalists do. You aren’t one, but since you love to pretend to be unbiased and intent on finding truth, that would track.

Are you still publicly kissing tranny ass and pretending to give a shit about people using trans slurs and “gender criticals” using KF? Ya know, like you were doing in 2023, long after you posted your first “troon” on KF?

That's a sad way to live. I couldn't imagine raising my children to be as worthless as her. It's no wonder she thinks being a proper parent is "white trash". Should have just thrown her down a storm drain like Romans used to instead letting her grow up to be this.
Real talk. The most insufferable people I have ever met have been those who were born with generational wealth, or rich parents that coddled them endlessly. Not needing to work for what you have/need/want results in people who are unimaginably self entitled, have no sense of responsibility, and struggle with even the most basic tasks such as when it’s their turn to clean the kitchen.
 
Last edited:
Are you still publicly kissing tranny ass and pretending to give a shit about people using trans slurs and “gender criticals” using KF? Ya know, like you were doing in 2023, long after you posted your first “troon” on KF?
She's definitely on the Proud Empowered Adult Human Female train now. Misgendering, slurs etc. Not very progressive at all, and generally quite haram.
But as long as she fights the threat of white supremacy, everything is allowed!
 
She's definitely on the Proud Empowered Adult Human Female train now. Misgendering, slurs etc. Not very progressive at all, and generally quite haram.
But as long as she fights the threat of white supremacy, everything is allowed!
I followed a very similar path so I wouldn’t care if that’s exactly what she was doing, but since peaking I have never once commented on Twitter tranny’s posts or pretended to care about them (not that I ever did before I peaked either, but still).

Using very meanie words and then trying to lick Keffals amhole and denounce the meanie words being used on KF at the same time is bizarre behavior. I guess it’s because she never thought anyone would ever discover her super secret account. I’m just curious if she’s still ass licking (I think so).
 
Interesting, you do have a position on Japan, which is allowed to be an ethnostate. Same for Israel.
Can you explain where your inconsistencies and double standards come from?
It’s the difference between me acknowledging the truth and endorsing it. I can accept that Japan is effectively an ethnostate without endorsing that this is necessarily good for them. Likewise, I can accept that Israel as currently conceived is a Jewish theocracy (and I think it’s more of a theocratic state than an ethnic one; the Jewish diaspora is big and Jews do not neatly slot into just one ethnicity.) And even though I’m not very happy with this state of affairs I see no benefit in pretending it’s any other way.

But rather than trying to redirect me to example countries where you model works, I’d prefer to talk about why you think ethnic identity isn’t culturally constructed. Because it would seem that you don’t feel genetic lineage is needed to make an ethnicity, nor a common language, nor an extensive history of dwelling in a particular location. Your criteria seems to be visual and not much else; you want their outward appearance to be roughly congruous and I’m not seeing many other criteria.

Race is a folk ethnicity. There are too many different ethnicities that could be broadly described as “white” for me to take the idea of a unified white ethnicity seriously. (Whites 100 years ago would have taken real issue with that assertion, too: they did not think Italians, French, Irish, and Americans were all pretty much the same.) you’re trying to divide the world along some highly unscientific lines here.
 
Because that’s what actual journalists do. You aren’t one, but since you love to pretend to be unbiased and intent on finding truth, that would track.

Are you still publicly kissing tranny ass and pretending to give a shit about people using trans slurs and “gender criticals” using KF? Ya know, like you were doing in 2023, long after you posted your first “troon” on KF?
Around the time Keffals was telling Cloudflare to drop you guys I was using this account to heckle the community.
Real talk. The most insufferable people I have ever met have been those who were born with generational wealth, or rich parents that coddled them endlessly. Not needing to work for what you have/need/want results in people who are unimaginably self entitled, have no sense of responsibility, and struggle with even the most basic tasks such as when it’s their turn to clean the kitchen.
> their turn to clean the kitchen
:story: ok pleb
 
It’s the difference between me acknowledging the truth and endorsing it. I can accept that Japan is effectively an ethnostate without endorsing that this is necessarily good for them. Likewise, I can accept that Israel as currently conceived is a Jewish theocracy (and I think it’s more of a theocratic state than an ethnic one; the Jewish diaspora is big and Jews do not neatly slot into just one ethnicity.) And even though I’m not very happy with this state of affairs I see no benefit in pretending it’s any other way.

But rather than trying to redirect me to example countries where you model works, I’d prefer to talk about why you think ethnic identity isn’t culturally constructed. Because it would seem that you don’t feel genetic lineage is needed to make an ethnicity, nor a common language, nor an extensive history of dwelling in a particular location. Your criteria seems to be visual and not much else; you want their outward appearance to be roughly congruous and I’m not seeing many other criteria.

Race is a folk ethnicity. There are too many different ethnicities that could be broadly described as “white” for me to take the idea of a unified white ethnicity seriously. (Whites 100 years ago would have taken real issue with that assertion, too: they did not think Italians, French, Irish, and Americans were all pretty much the same.) you’re trying to divide the world along some highly unscientific lines here.
Holy hell Marge, the amount of dissonance is staggering.
What you prefer to switch the discussion to is quite irrelevant.
We're doing Lord's Work here in this thread, deconstructing the lies of liberalism and its sacred cows. And we do it from the right, for good measure.
Also, we will do our best to make the truth in European countries easy to acknowledge for you. Just like in Japan and Israel.
We will bring true equality and ideological consistency.
 
Back