Why is it that only the WHITE thing is gatekept?

[whiteegyptian]

Why is it that only that being ''WHITE'' is gatekept? why do pro-whites, white supremacists have different CRITERIAS for who's white? there are Anglo only whites, the Germanic only whites, the everyone is white except for the MEDITERRANEANS whites, and the everyone is white except for SLAVS AND MEDITERRANEANS whites.

Why is this ''white'' thing so dynamic and unserious? why are these so called ''white brothers'' divided? me personally, I HAVE my own criteria and definition of who's white, which IS: being a former colonial power, having engaged in slavery (especially African slavery), and the most important one of course is IDENTIFYING as white in real life, not just in INTERNET chronically online social circles and only a few people in this DAY still identify as ''white'', or have an ACTUAL ''white identity'' and most of them are diaspora ANYWAY, my point being, Pan-Arabism is more tight and uniform than White Supremacy, like all you need to be a PAN-ARABIST or a PRO-ARAB is just speak the language. that's IT, but why is this WHITE thing so unserious?

HIGH IQ RESPONSES ONLY.

@Ghoulish @FlotPSL @Debetro @psychomandible @kababcel

 

[buddhistking]

The most pathetic egyptian I have ever seen, wallah the ones I see irl in London do NOT kiss white ass like this

 

[sub6manletnozygos]

The most pathetic egyptian I have ever seen, wallah the ones I see irl in London do NOT kiss white ass like this

ive met lebanese, egyptions and syrians (blonde/light brown hair blue eyed guys) that were whiter than me. if he looks like that, then his opinions are consistent with such a phenotype notwithstanding his geography.

 

[whiteegyptian]

ive met lebanese, egyptions and syrians (blonde/light brown hair blue eyed guys) that were whiter than me. if he looks like that, then his opinions are consistent with his phenotype.

The most pathetic egyptian I have ever seen, wallah the ones I see irl in London do NOT kiss white ass like this

You people are so retarded.

 

[sub6manletnozygos]

You people are so retarded.

what do you mean "you people". i am not muslim like that other guy who said "wallah"

also, i didnt read your original post, i was only responding to that guy because my attention span made me focuses on the smaller block of text as i am mentally retarded.

to answer your question, white is a social construct, to a minimal degree, especially when you get to racially intermixed phenotypes like asiatic slavs or meds with high arab admixture. at the same time, there are plenty of slavs and meds that also look far more "white" than "dark" southern germans who have non existent arab/african ancestory, yet have brown eyes, brown hair and dark beards.

 

[Sanguinius]

Because white is top of the food chain, highest status, most desirable etc. so the more exclusive the definition is the more you can gate keep who can be apart of the club. Less in the club means even higher rarity and status for the members. Conversely, if others outside of the club can broaden the definition to include them then they can benefit from the label too

 

[whiteegyptian]

what do you mean "you people". i am not muslim like that other guy.

also, i didnt read your post, i was only responding to that guy because my attention span made me focuses on the smaller block of text.

I'm asking a COMPLETELY serious question, that has NOTHING to do with Egyptians or Arabs or whatever the fuck, and yet you managed to turn this into how white Egyptians are, inferiority complex, or better yet turn this into ABOUT me personally, because your 60 IQ ass cannot answer this question? fuck you all.

 

[sub6manletnozygos]

I'm asking a COMPLETELY serious question, that has NOTHING to do with Egyptians or Arabs or whatever the fuck, and yet you managed to turn this into how white Egyptians are, inferiority complex, or better yet turn this into ABOUT me personally, because your 60 IQ ass cannot answer this question? fuck you all.

i responded to your question above. i disregarded your brainlet rambling and answered the crux of the issue.

 

[whiteegyptian]

Because white is top of the food chain, highest status, most desirable etc. so the more exclusive the definition is the more you can gate keep who can be apart of the club. Less in the club means even higher rarity and status for the members. Conversely, if others outside of the club can broaden the definition to include them then they can benefit from the label too

Great answer, I HAVE another question, why is it when someone from the Global South brings anything up about WHITES or talks about whites or even claims to be white, gets labelled self hating by not whites, but by other Global Southerners?

 

[whiteegyptian]

i responded to your question above. i disregarded your brainlet rambling and answered the crux of the issue.

Thank you for your answer, I APOLOGIZE for calling you retarded EARLIER.

 

[sub6manletnozygos]

Thank you for your answer, I APOLOGIZE for calling you retarded EARLIER.

also, i still havent read your original post btw lol. i just made assumption after skimming it. im too tired and im a 30 yo virgin. i dont have the brain power to think anymore.

 

[sub6manletnozygos]

Why is this ''white'' thing so dynamic and unserious?

i made an effort to read your response in full. I think the subjectivity of whiteness is the core of your post.

firstly, this subjectivity comes in part from the independent cultural and linguistic growth of independent european countries that did not cede their cultural, racial and political sovereignty, unlike most of the arab, and wider semetic world, which did in fact submit to arab culture, politics and race, through war and eventual conquest, and therefore became culturally and even racially homogenized, under a more unified conception of pan-arabism. these independent, european states and cultures ensured differing definitions of "whiteness" depending on geography and rule.

secondly, the concept of "whiteness" was not forged from a shared European culture, but as a political tool for implied and explicit racial hierarchy across different cultures and states. Unlike the concrete cultural-linguistic foundations of Pan-Arabism, its boundaries were defined by exclusion, shifting to serve power dynamics. eg Irish, Italians, and jews were excluded from being "white" to justify their exclusion in some societies. Its "unserious" nature stems from this history of being a flexible instrument of power, not a stable cultural identity.

tl;dr more concisely, the sustained political and cultural independence of European nations fostered intense, localized identities (e.g., French, Polish, English), which prevented the formation of a monolithic "white" identity from within. In contrast, the rapid and enduring conquests of the early Arab expansions, which spread a unified language, religion, and legal culture, created a concrete pan-Arab civilizational sphere that transcended older ethnic boundaries.

 

[whiteegyptian]

i made an effort to read your response in full. I think the subjectivity of whiteness is the core of your post.

this subjectivity comes in part from the independent cultural and linguistic growth of independent european countries that did not cede their cultural, racial and political sovereignty, unlike most of the arab, and wider semetic world, which did in fact submit to arab culture, politics and race, through war and eventual conquest, and therefore became culturally and even racially homogenized, under a more unified conception of pan-arabism.

secondly, the concept of "whiteness" was not forged from a shared European culture, but as a political tool for implied and explicit racial hierarchy across different cultures and states. Unlike the concrete cultural-linguistic foundations of Pan-Arabism, its boundaries were defined by exclusion, shifting to serve power dynamics. eg Irish, Italians, and jews were excluded from being "white" to justify their exclusion in some societies. Its "unserious" nature stems from this history of being a flexible instrument of power, not a stable cultural identity.

tl;dr more concisely, the sustained political and cultural independence of European nations fostered intense, localized identities (e.g., French, Polish, English), which prevented the formation of a monolithic "white" identity from within. In contrast, the rapid and enduring conquests of the early Arab expansions, which spread a unified language, religion, and legal culture, created a concrete pan-Arab civilizational sphere that transcended older ethnic boundaries.

So the white race does not EXIST? white people do not EXIST? it's all a political hoax?

 

[Tigermoggerlol]

Why is it that only that being ''WHITE'' is gatekept? why do pro-whites, white supremacists have different CRITERIAS for who's white? there are Anglo only whites, the Germanic only whites, the everyone is white except for the MEDITERRANEANS whites, and the everyone is white except for SLAVS AND MEDITERRANEANS whites.

Why is this ''white'' thing so dynamic and unserious? why are these so called ''white brothers'' divided? me personally, I HAVE my own criteria and definition of who's white, which IS: being a former colonial power, having engaged in slavery (especially African slavery), and the most important one of course is IDENTIFYING as white in real life, not just in INTERNET chronically online social circles and only a few people in this DAY still identify as ''white'', or have an ACTUAL ''white identity'' and most of them are diaspora ANYWAY, my point being, Pan-Arabism is more tight and uniform than White Supremacy, like all you need to be a PAN-ARABIST or a PRO-ARAB is just speak the language. that's IT, but why is this WHITE thing so unserious?

HIGH IQ RESPONSES ONLY.

@Ghoulish @FlotPSL @Debetro @psychomandible @kababcel

Yall wish u were white like me

 

[sub6manletnozygos]

i made an effort to read your response in full. I think the subjectivity of whiteness is the core of your post.

this subjectivity comes in part from the independent cultural and linguistic growth of independent european countries that did not cede their cultural, racial and political sovereignty, unlike most of the arab, and wider semetic world, which did in fact submit to arab culture, politics and race, through war and eventual conquest, and therefore became culturally and even racially homogenized, under a more unified conception of pan-arabism.

secondly, the concept of "whiteness" was not forged from a shared European culture, but as a political tool for implied and explicit racial hierarchy across different cultures and states. Unlike the concrete cultural-linguistic foundations of Pan-Arabism, its boundaries were defined by exclusion, shifting to serve power dynamics. eg Irish, Italians, and jews were excluded from being "white" to justify their exclusion in some societies. Its "unserious" nature stems from this history of being a flexible instrument of power, not a stable cultural identity.

tl;dr more concisely, the sustained political and cultural independence of European nations fostered intense, localized identities (e.g., French, Polish, English), which prevented the formation of a monolithic "white" identity from within. In contrast, the rapid and enduring conquests of the early Arab expansions, which spread a unified language, religion, and legal culture, created a concrete pan-Arab civilizational sphere that transcended older ethnic boundaries.

mind you, its this intra european competition, that allowed europeans to out compete the arab and asiatic world in 1700+ and particularly 1900+ onwards.

 

[ChrisFletcher]

Why is it that only that being ''WHITE'' is gatekept? why do pro-whites, white supremacists have different CRITERIAS for who's white? there are Anglo only whites, the Germanic only whites, the everyone is white except for the MEDITERRANEANS whites, and the everyone is white except for SLAVS AND MEDITERRANEANS whites.

Why is this ''white'' thing so dynamic and unserious? why are these so called ''white brothers'' divided? me personally, I HAVE my own criteria and definition of who's white, which IS: being a former colonial power, having engaged in slavery (especially African slavery), and the most important one of course is IDENTIFYING as white in real life, not just in INTERNET chronically online social circles and only a few people in this DAY still identify as ''white'', or have an ACTUAL ''white identity'' and most of them are diaspora ANYWAY, my point being, Pan-Arabism is more tight and uniform than White Supremacy, like all you need to be a PAN-ARABIST or a PRO-ARAB is just speak the language. that's IT, but why is this WHITE thing so unserious?

HIGH IQ RESPONSES ONLY.

@Ghoulish @FlotPSL @Debetro @psychomandible @kababcel

blame ethnics

 

[psychomandible]

Mainly because Europeans never had to really suffer in the way of being a conquered people and the ones who did, did actually have fairly strong pan national movements (obvious one is pan slavism) . If you notice pan arabism was a response to the colonisation by Europeans, so was pan africanism and other movements. These types of movements and nationalism in general is a reaction to a perceived threat or danger. Europeans never had to deal with a existential crisis like being a conquered continent except for very minor times in history for example the rise of the ottomans and you see that Europeans DID unite against the ottomans but once it was obvious the ottomans were no threat to the whole continent then that unity disappeared. Also another point is that Europeans are incredibly individualistic and independent this has been noted throughout history that the Europeans of the north are the most freedom loving people on the planet, ofc this has died down for whatever reason but it's part of the reason you don't see a "pan european/white" movement really ever. Only time I've seen it being called for was from kalergi (a half Japanese) to combat russia or soviet i forgot which power.

Also by your definition of white how are russians not white ? They had the 3rd largest empire ever, they participated in slavery and they're perceived as white by the vast majority of other whites (before Ukraine conflict) you can tell by the way they're depicted in media as giga white looking similar to nordic people (not saying this is true it's just what I noticed) I also have seen non whites speak of Russian whiteness in the same way as swedes or anglos (as to say they're the super white whites) which is weird as it seems very contradictory to this trend I see where people call slavs snow Latinos or something like that but russians are usually left out of this and usually a balkan thing.

 

[psychomandible]

mind you, its this intra european competition, that allowed europeans to out compete the arab and asiatic world in 1700+ and particularly 1900+ onwards.

Europe out competed the rest of the world in the 1500s

 

[sub6manletnozygos]

So the white race does not EXIST? white people do not EXIST? it's all a political hoax?

yeah its interesting. i think its a matter of degrees.

firstly, more often than not, you can obviously conclude who is and isnt an african or european, based on stereotypes and assumptions. this applies probably ~80% of the time objectively. then 20% of the time you have racially ambiguous/mixed people due different admixture eg dark spanish/italians existing due to arabic caliphates colonizing spain for 700 years or the ottoman empire invading and raping their way through italy all the way up to Vienna, Austria.

there seems to be 3 applications of "whiteness."
firstly, some people argue that this ambiguous conception of "whiteness" is a necessary component to wrestle with, as it ensures a european europe and an asian asia, no matter how subjective it is, as on average, you can determine who is and isnt white. also, as gene testing becomes easier, its now easier to arbitrarily determine who is and isnt white based on admixture percentage.

in comparison, other people, think that this subjectivity means "whiteness" isnt core to european identity but just a cultural and genetic expression. interestingly, with modern science one can now "genetically" determines ones genetic connection to the land through genotypic expression. on average, those with the strongest geographic genetic clustering to a particular locality in europe, will be the "whitest". in that sense, genetic expression and geographic clustering comes first, followed by a whiteness determination.

finally, you have those that think "whiteness" doesnt exist at all or that "whiteness" is not part of european identity at all. this ignores 2 thousand years of history, homogenization, expansion, conquest, defeat and contracture, where europeans at large, created europe, through all their trials and tribulations, africans created africa, indians created india, arabs created arabia and the asians created asia. inb4 raising colonization while ignoring caliphate expansion into spain, berbery slave trade, ottoman expansion into austria, or mongolian expansion into eastern europe.

if germany or japan, were wholly replaced with africans or indians after ww2, would that new hypothetical citizenry have had the necessary cultural, spiritual and genetic belonging to rebuild Germany and Japan so quickly (so that they became super powers <2 decades)? unlikely... therefore, demographics are core to sovereignty of a state.
when those demographics are destroyed irrevocably, the state ceases, and you get a rootless economic zone existing for multinational corporations, instead.
when you consider these 3 applications of "whiteness", you can see its largely objective but also inevitably, minorly subjective.

 

[whiteegyptian]

Mainly because Europeans never had to really suffer in the way of being a conquered people and the ones who did, did actually have fairly strong pan national movements (obvious one is pan slavism) . If you notice pan arabism was a response to the colonisation by Europeans, so was pan africanism and other movements. These types of movements and nationalism in general is a reaction to a perceived threat or danger. Europeans never had to deal with a existential crisis like being a conquered continent except for very minor times in history for example the rise of the ottomans and you see that Europeans DID unite against the ottomans but once it was obvious the ottomans were no threat to the whole continent then that unity disappeared. Also another point is that Europeans are incredibly individualistic and independent this has been noted throughout history that the Europeans of the north are the most freedom loving people on the planet, ofc this has died down for whatever reason but it's part of the reason you don't see a "pan european/white" movement really ever. Only time I've seen it being called for was from kalergi (a half Japanese) to combat russia or soviet i forgot which power.

Also by your definition of white how are russians not white ? They had the 3rd largest empire ever, they participated in slavery and they're perceived as white by the vast majority of other whites (before Ukraine conflict) you can tell by the way they're depicted in media as giga white looking similar to nordic people (not saying this is true it's just what I noticed) I also have seen non whites speak of Russian whiteness in the same way as swedes or anglos (as to say they're the super white whites) which is weird as it seems very contradictory to this trend I see where people call slavs snow Latinos or something like that but russians are usually left out of this and usually a balkan thing.

I just think the WHITE identity is not interconnecting with European identity at all, outside of the INTERNET, almost everyone in real life identifies by their own ethnic group, rather than a whole ass ''WHITE'' identity that covers from Athens (even sometimes Istanbul) to Dublin.

And you asked me about why i dont view russians as white? tbh i dont know why it matters to u guys look that, if u look good u look good, and if u look white u are white, so why do u care about what i say? this is just my own personal thinking, russia did have a large empire sure, but that empire had mostly fellow slavic people who looked more or less similar to russians and similar religion and language, and they participated in serfdom not slavery, i think almost everyone participated in some sort of serfdom but never an actual racialized slavery like the anglo or french one or the american one, and yes russians are sometimes depicted as very white even when its not ''true'' thats because most ''white'' tourists in 3rd world countries or the global south are russian/ukrainian or just slavic, so slavs are automatically depicted as super white contrasting to the locals.

 

[kababcel]

Why is it that only that being ''WHITE'' is gatekept? why do pro-whites, white supremacists have different CRITERIAS for who's white? there are Anglo only whites, the Germanic only whites, the everyone is white except for the MEDITERRANEANS whites, and the everyone is white except for SLAVS AND MEDITERRANEANS whites.

Why is this ''white'' thing so dynamic and unserious? why are these so called ''white brothers'' divided? me personally, I HAVE my own criteria and definition of who's white, which IS: being a former colonial power, having engaged in slavery (especially African slavery), and the most important one of course is IDENTIFYING as white in real life, not just in INTERNET chronically online social circles and only a few people in this DAY still identify as ''white'', or have an ACTUAL ''white identity'' and most of them are diaspora ANYWAY, my point being, Pan-Arabism is more tight and uniform than White Supremacy, like all you need to be a PAN-ARABIST or a PRO-ARAB is just speak the language. that's IT, but why is this WHITE thing so unserious?

HIGH IQ RESPONSES ONLY.

@Ghoulish @FlotPSL @Debetro @psychomandible @kababcel

In the 1800s US, Irish, Italian, and Jewish immigrants were considered not white.
Over time, these groups were absorbed into whiteness to expand the dominant group politically.
Today, the same arguments get made about Slavs, Mediterraneans, or Middle Easterners in racist circles.

This shows that white isn’t a timeless category and it has always shifted to maintain social hierarchies and protect power.

Whiteness Is About Exclusion, Not Unity

Unlike, say, Arab identity which is built around shared history, language, and culture, whiteness is often defined by who isn’t white.

It’s built to create a racial hierarchy not a cultural family

White supremacists break into factions (Anglo-only, Nordic-only, Euro-only, etc.)
There’s no “shared white culture like there is with Arab culture, Slavic culture, etc.


Colonial empires (British, French, Spanish, etc.) used whiteness to justify:

Slavery, Segregation, Social dominance

ur point about being a former colonial power is true because in many ways, whiteness was invented to justify colonialism and slavery. That’s why even today, whiteness is closely tied to systems of power, not culture or ethnicity.

Whiteness is built on racial hierarchy + exclusion.

That’s why being Arab is more straightforward: speak Arabic and share the cultural history.
Meanwhile, being “white” is more political, flexible, and strategic.


Many people today don’t strongly identify as white because whiteness feels empty without racism — it has no cuisine, no folklore, no shared history besides colonialism and slavery. So it ends up being defended mostly by white supremacists, who try to redefine it to feel special.

That’s why you see gatekeeping whiteness — it's an attempt to recreate a sense of identity and exclusivity where there isn't a natural one

Whiteness isn’t a normal ethnic category.
It was created for political power, not cultural unity.

 

[kababcel]

And this is why my friend white brahs are at the top of the food chain

 

[sub6manletnozygos]

Many people today don’t strongly identify as white because whiteness feels empty without racism — it has no cuisine, no folklore, no shared history besides colonialism and slavery. So it ends up being defended mostly by white supremacists, who try to redefine it to feel special.

that is only when the conception of "whiteness" is not attached to a European country's culture or folkcore, which is incredibly rare, and essentially non-existent apart from cultural marxist revisionists. "whiteness" is at the very least, an implied element of the european expression, historically and even today. even on a biological level, the average european will experience raised cortisol if the see a jet black congolese guy, regardless of if he has a european passport lol. ironically, this biological response is strongest with liberals lol.

https://www.science.org/content/article/discrimination-causes-nearly-instantaneous-spikes-stress-hormones

That’s why you see gatekeeping whiteness — it's an attempt to recreate a sense of identity and exclusivity where there isn't a natural one

Whiteness isn’t a normal ethnic category.
It was created for political power, not cultural unity.

yes that neo marxist position is partially correct, however, there is also ignores the cultural independence argument.

this subjectivity comes in part from the independent cultural and linguistic growth of independent european countries that did not cede their cultural, racial and political sovereignty, unlike most of the arab, and wider semetic world, which did in fact submit to arab culture, politics and race, through war and eventual conquest, and therefore became culturally and even racially homogenized, under a more unified conception of pan-arabism. these independent, european states and cultures ensured differing definitions of "whiteness" depending on geography and rule. "whiteness" is implicitly core to the european conception, but struggles explicitly due to minor subjectivity.

 

[FlotPSL]

balkan thing.

Because ALBANIANS AND GREEKS are in the Balkans and they are brown which is why the snow Latino comes

And also because of the wars making the countries poor compared to north and west Europe

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Why is it that only that being ''WHITE'' is gatekept? why do pro-whites, white supremacists have different CRITERIAS for who's white? there are Anglo only whites, the Germanic only whites, the everyone is white except for the MEDITERRANEANS whites, and the everyone is white except for SLAVS AND MEDITERRANEANS whites.

Why is this ''white'' thing so dynamic and unserious? why are these so called ''white brothers'' divided? me personally, I HAVE my own criteria and definition of who's white, which IS: being a former colonial power, having engaged in slavery (especially African slavery), and the most important one of course is IDENTIFYING as white in real life, not just in INTERNET chronically online social circles and only a few people in this DAY still identify as ''white'', or have an ACTUAL ''white identity'' and most of them are diaspora ANYWAY, my point being, Pan-Arabism is more tight and uniform than White Supremacy, like all you need to be a PAN-ARABIST or a PRO-ARAB is just speak the language. that's IT, but why is this WHITE thing so unserious?

HIGH IQ RESPONSES ONLY.

@Ghoulish @FlotPSL @Debetro @psychomandible @kababcel

Yeah because whiteness is a secret society

Terms and conditions apply.

Being black is available to anybody who says they are black it’s the least gatekept thing

It’s ironic how being white you have to prove it with documentation genetics and be from non Slavic Northern Europe. Meanwhile to be black you need to only just SAY IT no evidence jsut say it and your black

It’s hilarious the dichotomy between the two

 

[FlotPSL]

Yeah because whiteness is a secret society

Terms and conditions apply.

Being black is available to anybody who says they are black it’s the least gatekept thing

It’s ironic how being white you have to prove it with documentation genetics and be from non Slavic Northern Europe. Meanwhile to be black you need to only just SAY IT no evidence jsut say it and your black

It’s hilarious the dichotomy between the two

Ok I'm black

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Ok I'm black

Welcome

 

[whiteegyptian]

Yeah because whiteness is a secret society

Terms and conditions apply.

Being black is available to anybody who says they are black it’s the least gatekept thing

It’s ironic how being white you have to prove it with documentation genetics and be from non Slavic Northern Europe. Meanwhile to be black you need to only just SAY IT no evidence jsut say it and your black

It’s hilarious the dichotomy between the two

tbh i seen some people that try to gatekeep blackness too, but that makes sense anyway, cuz blackness evolved as a double reaction against whiteness. the only thing thats not completely gatekept is the brown label, infact anyone is brown at default.

 

[psychomandible]

I just think the WHITE identity is not interconnecting with European identity at all, outside of the INTERNET, almost everyone in real life identifies by their own ethnic group, rather than a whole ass ''WHITE'' identity that covers from Athens (even sometimes Istanbul) to Dublin.

And you asked me about why i dont view russians as white? tbh i dont know why it matters to u guys look that, if u look good u look good, and if u look white u are white, so why do u care about what i say? this is just my own personal thinking, russia did have a large empire sure, but that empire had mostly fellow slavic people who looked more or less similar to russians and similar religion and language, and they participated in serfdom not slavery, i think almost everyone participated in some sort of serfdom but never an actual racialized slavery like the anglo or french one or the american one, and yes russians are sometimes depicted as very white even when its not ''true'' thats because most ''white'' tourists in 3rd world countries or the global south are russian/ukrainian or just slavic, so slavs are automatically depicted as super white contrasting to the locals.

It might seem like I care about being called white beacuse it's the main thing I talk about on here lately but i asked moreso as a genuine question.

 

[psychomandible]

Because ALBANIANS AND GREEKS are in the Balkans and they are brown which is why the snow Latino comes

And also because of the wars making the countries poor compared to north and west Europe

I also saw them being compared together culturally but I can't say anything about that only is I have found both to be super loud people

 

[Lord Shadow]

doesn't even matter tbh, pure europeans will barely exist in a few decades anyway - the only "pure" races that'll exist will be asians & africans and even those will be on the decline in the end everyone will just end up different shades of brown lol at least in the first world

 

[SkiSquadJPG]

you forgot the only slavs are white as germanics are full of jews white

 

[whiteegyptian]

you forgot the only slavs are white as germanics are full of jews white

i never heard people say only slavs are white, thats only from slavs who got rejected by germanics and try to one up them.

 

[SkiSquadJPG]

i never heard people say only slavs are white, thats only from slavs who got rejected by germanics and try to one up them.

well of course slavs are the only ones saying slavs are only whites. you dont see non-germanics claiming germanics are the only white

 

[InanimatePragmatist]

Véres végzet vár Önre és inkompetens fajtája valamennyi tagjára.