TL;DR:
“White nations, being so prosperous and advanced, have the right, nay, the duty, the burden, to subjugate the rest of the world in order to civilise them. Any European nation that are not sufficiently prosperous and advanced are not TRUE Whites.”
It is so painfully obvious that this is nothing but 19th Century propaganda invented to justify Colonialism in the post–theocratic world of the Enlightenment; tailored specifically to the geopolitical situation of the day.
Speaking of which:
>2. The ethnic group has a very significant percentage of fair-headed (25% ca+), fair-eyed (50%ca.+) and fair-skinned people
Looking at the map, I suspect that these thresholds were chosen specifically so France still qualifies as “physically white”. Yet strangely, the Eastern Slavs are counted as merely “largely physically white” despite being more blonde and fair-haired than France, with Belarus indeed being solidly in the second band for both… and it’s not that they would fail at “ >1. The ethnic group is European.”, considering Slavs have been around in East and Eastern Central Europe since at least the end of the Great Migration, centuries before your cut-off date of AD 1000.
And really, those maps do not make Whites look like a clearly distinct race. No, what it looks like to me is that colourful hair and eyes are a mutation that originated in North Germany/Scandinavia, became dominant there from sexual selection and from there diffused to the surrounding areas (notice how clearly Normandy and the Varangian/Rus’ areas can be seen), forming a spectrum.
>3. The ethnic group is culturally western (from a country of mainly christian (preferably protestant, catholic may also apply) background, belonging to Faustian civilization, within the Hajnal line i.e. historically developed and historically contributed a fair amount to European civilization)
[…]imageCulturally and in terms of historical contributions Italians and Greeks are certainly closer to "Whites" than most other Europeans on the map are (and Italy mogs most of the other countries too), but due to their somewhat darker complexion they can not be lumped in with physically different NorthWestern Europeans.
Sample in average IQ too
As I said, “Western Culture” here is nothing but a transparent euphemism for “rich and developed enough to fit my narrative of White Supremacy”.
It may be noted that the term “Faustian civilisation” is an invention of German fascist Oswald Sprengler in his work “The Decline of the West”, which is considered an important precursor of the Nazis (it may be noted that Sprengler critices the Nazis for focussing too much on racialism).
From everything I know, Polish and Czech culture are, language aside, actually very similar to German culture (in particular Eastern and South Eastern regions including Austria) , which only makes sense considering the complicated history of the region. So why are they not culturally white?
Oh, and I notice that you can still be physically white even if you are not culturally, but people who are not physically white can only be “close to” white culture…
And of course, you idiots are far more closely aligned with the authorianism, xenophobia, homophobia and patriarchy that are so prevalent currently in the “physically but not culturally white” parts of Europe than the liberal social democracies of modern Western and northern Europe…
By the way, funny how the demarkation neatly follows contemporary national borders, so apparently, Corsicans are White while Sardinians are not, East Thrace is not European despite being west of the Bosporos, etc.
Finally: What is up with Svalbard uniquely having an unexplained dark green colour?
PS:
<@Peacemonger373> #127843
I would say the Holodomor, or Soviet atrocities in general (remember, according to Nazis, the Bolsheviks were actually all Jews because Marx and Trotsky were ethnic Jews. Especially after the failure of an anti-Slavic pamphlet titled “The Subhuman”, which led to a new narrative of liberating the poor East Europeans from the oppression of Jewish Commmunism.)
